Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 5

< July 4	July 6 >

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. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:14, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GSnap[edit]

Freeware knockoff software package which fails the relevant notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage by third party pubs. JBsupreme (talk) 23:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources cited; seems like just a way to get some word about a product. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Fails WP:RS & WP:N but there are a lot of ghits. My major concern is that the article doesn't assert or explain notability. Faradayplank (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not establish notability. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. And now the lecture. Of those opining for deletion, Aresef, Xiong, Echosmoke, and Terraxos were canvassed for their opinions by the nominator, before he got his account, see contributions. In addition to those, IP (as Againstreason)also canvassed Animate (who said "I'm Switzerland" on his talkpage and abstained from debate), IP canvassed Vkokilov and Stellis both of whom did not respond anywhere, Jossi who !voted merge/redirect below, and Richardveryard who !voted Weak Keep below. I consider the canvassing to be with the intention of swaying the !vote, even though the "talkpage messages" left by the IP were written as "since you participated on the talkpage of TomKat...". However, IP (AgainstReason) was selective, and did not leave the same message for those talkpage participants that showed interest in the article staying on Wikipedia. (most notably, Hmwith). I can find no evidence that canvassing occured with those that have opined to keep the article. Therefore, the !votes of those that were canvassed are in effect severely downgraded in weight and counted as "one opinion" (most didn't cite policy anyway, merely said WP:IDONTLIKEIT). The result of this debate is keep, with a trout to IP/AgainstReason to please let the community find consensus without disruption. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TomKat[edit]

Pointless article which has no reason to exist outside a Tom Cruise or Katie Holmes article Againstreason (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Sourced very well, but not terribly focused. It's a commonly used term, but if trimmed it might not be much more than a dicdef. Note also that this AfD is the user's first edit. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was slightly torn on this one. I'm a big fan of bowing to precedent, and I know Brangelina and Bennifer both redirect to Supercouple#Celebrity. However, giving an article to a particular supercouple isn't unheard of: Posh and Becks have their own entry which survived a trip to afd. When I read the TomKat article, it's well written, well sourced, interesting and encyclopedic. I think there's enough for its own entry. While I don't think every celebrity couple should get their own article, I think this is among the few that should. Vickser (talk) 00:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the term 'TomKat' is known in hundreds of millions of households, and is more commonly used than many of the terms that have their own articles in wikipedia. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of millions of households?? Really?? --RichardVeryard (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as much as I wish I could in good conscience vote delete, this is unfortunately a well-documented neologism for this... ugh. Supercouple. Now let us never speak of it again. JuJube (talk) 04:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree it is a well written article and appears to be well sourced, I also agree that there seems to be no reason at all why this article should exist when it could quite easily be placed within the articles for both Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes. I think we are setting a dangerous precedent to allow possibly thousands of these articles to spring up every time a so called supercouple emerges. Previous similar articles on "Brangelina" and "Bennifer" have been merged and deleted, and I think this one should follow the same route. Paul75 (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no "dangerous precedent" set by keeping this article. Not every celebrity supercouple is as notable as TomKat, Brangelina and Posh and Becks. Suggesting that Wikipedia will have thousands of these articles is ridiculous, especially considering Wikipedia's often grudge against popular culture articles. I mean, the Posh and Becks article went through two deletion debates and survived both times. Just imagine if that article was of a typical celebrity couple. The Brangelina article was only deleted, then redirected, because it wasn't much of an article. And the Bennifer article didn't have enough sources, didn't prove its notability and wasn't as taken care of as this article is. This article exists within good reason, seeing as it keeps from duplicating the same exact information in both of these individuals' articles and compliments those articles. It can also be expanded on, of course, and formatted to be even more encyclopedic than it already is.

Note: I must also pont out that Againstreason loves to "pick on" articles that I have significantly improved, despite those articles being ten times better because of me, and he first showed up as an antagonizing IP...one instance being at the Bianca Montgomery article. The fact that he has now nominated this article for deletion, his first day as an official Wikipedia editor, as well as set out to nitpick the Supercouple article, leaves me in no doubt that this nomination is not a good-faith one. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Flyer22 believes that anyone who dares critcises "her" articles are out to get her. Please keep this neutral and don't bring personal paranoia into this debate. 81.141.163.150 (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Not true, IP. I work very well with others. It is no coincidence that you've gone after all these articles I work on. AfD is also about pointing out a nominator's suspicious behavior, if there is any. And I did that. Flyer22 (talk) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not convinced that this couple in particular needs a separate article about their relationship, when all the information here is already covered perfectly well in the existing Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes articles. It also arguably violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms - if 'TomKat' isn't a neologism, what is? With no offence meant to anyone who has spent time working on it, I can see utterly no need for this article. Terraxos (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But that's the thing. Most of this stuff is not covered in their individual articles. If you notice, those articles have been formatted to accommodate this one. I was not even the one who did that. Other editors, who obviously saw/see no problem this article, did.

As for neologism, Wikipedia does not say that neologisms should never be on Wikipedia; it rather says that they should typically be avoided, but may sometimes be allowed in notable cases or where the neologism has become well-known. Well, TomKat is such as case as that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not being a close student of celebrity culture, I wasn't aware of the term "TomKat" until I happened upon this article (when following a link from a humorous website), and I agree it may be regarded as a neologism. However, as a student of Gregory Bateson, I can't see a problem in having an article dedicated to a relationship as well as articles dedicated to the individuals, if the relationship is interesting to the kind of people who find that kind of thing interesting. I note that the TomKat article is a lot longer than the Posh and Becks article, which suggests there may be a reasonable body of notable and verifiable information about the relationship. I note that there are several couples in the Category:Celebrity duos who have long since split up, but the relationship remains of historical interest, for example Ike & Tina Turner or Sonny & Cher. Meanwhile, I note that there is an article devoted to Crosby, Stills & Nash (and Young) and also an article devoted to Crosby & Nash. And I note that there is also an article Portrait of a Marriage on the relationship between Harold Nicolson and Vita Sackville-West. --RichardVeryard (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Pointless. Merge this drivel into the individuals' pages. WP doesn't need an article legitimizing tabloid fodder.--Aresef (talk) 01:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's drivel, then moving it somewhere else doesn't solve the problem. --RichardVeryard (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is nothing in that kind of article that can't be (and usually isn't) covered in the respective person's articles. Therefore it basically just copies the content. It also tends to be a collection of newsmessages, usually of limited verifiability, value and..er..persistence. I would also prefer no-supercouple-article to every-couple-gets-its-article. Where and how should we set a limit to notability? --Echosmoke (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this argument also apply to War of the Waleses, which is an article on a royal supercouple, based largely on contemporary media sources? --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seriously, this is encyclopedic? At the very least it should be merged into Cruise and Holmes' articles (and probably already is), but it doesn't need to be kept as its own article. -FateSmiled&DestinyLaughed (talk) 13:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. No, it is not merged into their individual articles. Also, calling this article drivel and therefore it should be deleted completely disregards other editors' judgments above who clearly see it as being above drivel. And, Echosmoke, where should we set a notability standard? That is sort of a silly question to ask, considering that most celebrity couples are not supercouples and do not have a notable combined name. A lot of celebrity couples may have a combined name, but those names are not nearly as well-known as TomKat. And those couples aren't nearly as publicized. This article can be about the term and, as it already does, include information about TomKat that their individual articles do not include. Really, what's so unencyclopedic about this article (besides its name)? If it truly was, would there be as many Keep "votes" as there are, with several editors saying that this article is indeed encyclopedic and worth keeping? I think not. It is nowhere close to being written like a tabloid.

Note 2. I am also taking this time to point out that Againstreason has seemingly participated in WP:CANVASS in order to get this article deleted. He did this as IP 81.141.163.150. None of the editors he contacted have been involved with the TomKat article for quite a while. And why did he contact these editors? Because he knew/knows/figured they would/will cast a delete "vote" and give him what he wants -- this article deleted. He even contacted editor AniMate, an editor who has never been involved in the TomKat article, because he knows that AniMate and I have had disputes in the past with each other...and he figured AniMate is my enemy, that therefore AniMate would cast a delete "vote". Surprising him, I'm sure, AniMate declined to participate in this deletion debate. Flyer22 (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Tom Cruise. No reason why any new material cannot be included in Cruise's bio. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Yes, Jossi, one of the editors Againstreason knew would "vote" to basically delete this article. Hmm, I wonder why he didn't contact Hmwith, an editor who worked on this article with me and was the first to expand/improve it. Is it because he knows Hmwith is currently away from Wikipedia, and has been for some days? I doubt it.

- Jossi, you brought this up before on the TomKat talk page, that it should be merged into Tom Cruise's article. But, like editor Hmwith and I stated then, why Tom Cruise's article? What about the Katie Holmes article? What, this stuff should go into one article but not the other? Be duplicated in both articles? I see absolutely no good in merging or deleting this article. Especially, since there are books that note this couple; all of them are not necessarily about this couple, but enough of them feature this couple that this article can include significant information that neither of their individual articles include...and can be even more encyclopedic. Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This has all the editorial value of an advertisement for a blow-up doll's pimp. Justify its inclusion and you can justify anything. "Look, Ma, that fat pimple on my butt made two supermarket tabloids and a filler on Fox Nooz. Now it's notable enough for Wikipedia!"

Here is a list of trivial, nonsense, or idiot topics which might somehow justify an encyclopedic article, any one of which might be a suitable home for any actual content salvaged from this rubbish bin:

TomKat does not even have a subject. Cruise is a person (loosely speaking); Holmes is a person. I grant that even their brat is a person. The infatuation of the drooling masses with famous people is a subject; cynical manipulation by PR agents is a subject; yellow journalism is a subject. But this article merely panders to the fiction that if we shout hard enough, we can create a two-headed beast and elevate it to independent stardom. That is not merely bullshit; it is bullshit contrived to serve a low commercial purpose.

Who is behind this article? I don't doubt that Cruise's PR firm and any number of reality-starved media outlets and the SeaOrg itself would be happy to pay editors to support this glurge. What I find revolting is that you're doing it for free. You should at least have the sense to get paid in cash.

Delete, murder, whack with an axe, burn and strew the ashes. Or keep it, if you like, so I can continue to amuse my friends by pointing them to the bellwether of Wikipedia's corruption, decline, and self-parody. — Xiong 熊 talk * 23:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Completely disgree, Xiong. We had this discussion last time, along with your apparent detest for anything celebrity. And, again, I see you brought the insults for Cruise and Holmes. Yeah, your "vote" for deletion is completely unbiased (sarcasm). You only showed up here because Againstreason summoned you. Obviously, he cannot get an artice deleted without canvassing. He saw that this article was about to be kept and panicked. Really, I find that humorous, as well as most celebrity/pop culture hate. Flyer22 (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, oh, it is not fiction that "if we shout hard enough, we can create a two-headed beast and elevate it to independent stardom". That happens all the time. Your inability to accept that is no one's problem but your own. This article being deleted will not phase me one bit (after all, I'm not the one who created it or first expanded it; all I did was make it better than it originally was), though I'm sure Againstreason will feel that he's won some epic battle against mean ole Flyer. Oh well. I have it saved anyway, just in case the term TomKat becomes significantly notable by itself. The deletion of this article will free me up for other stuff. But while you guys are at it, why not go ahead and try and delete the Posh and Becks article? I'd love to grab some popcorn and see pop culture haters justify nominating that for a third time and striving to finally rid the great Wikipedia of such "trash". LOL. As if A Shot at Love II with Tila Tequila, and others dating show articles similar to it, are the most encyclopedic. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 01:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article is useful to informations seekers (my wife used it to prove that it's not only an aircraft). Xiong, if any of your allegations have substance, by all means include them in the article, it would certainly make it more interesting. Paul75, I fail to see the "danger" from new "super couple" articles; it's not like we'll run out of disk space. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Petrino[edit]

Aside from the nav template being much larger than the article, assistant coaches are not normally considered notable by Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and no other claims of notability are given aside from being the brother of the head coach. Also, there are no sources cited in the article.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion - my edit was to give the page a category. Parkerdr (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His mere existence and position on a football team's staff are not notable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:22, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He was an assistant coach for the Atlanta Falcons, a professional team, I think that means he is notable. He also has held several college assistant coaching jobs such as offensive coordinator, among other positions, at the University of Louisville. Now this article does need some work. It needs some references and added material. Also I think that template needs to be gone because it doesn't link to this article. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 02:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question can you show me a reference where the NFL project has come to a consensus that assistant NFL coaches are generally considered notable? I know at college football we came to the consensus that assistant college football coaches are normally not notable... has he won any national awards? I'd like to keep the article but I'm just not quite getting the pull for it... was he notable as a player? Did he go on to the NFL? Win a college player award? Gimmie a reason, I wanna vote keep!--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can see where you're going. I can't find anything on a project that says he would be notable. In WP:ATHLETE, it used to state that anybody who played or coach in a fully professional league, was notable. But that has since been removed because of no consensus about the topic in the talk page. Now, I did find a couple other things that possibly could help with his notability. Here is says that he was a finalist for a major Assitant Coaching Award, the Broyles Award. I know only a finalist, but it does count for something. And if you do a google search on him, you can find plenty of reliable sources about him. [1] That's all that I can find right now. I'm kind of like you Paul, I want to keep this article but I can't quite find things of why it should be kept. And to answer your question, Patrino did played quarterback for Carroll College, a school in the NAIA, not notable there. I'll try and find some more information and put it here. If you could do the same that would be great! Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 23:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Close-Wait? (nominator) Finalist for the Boryles Award is close. I think that's enough to buy some more time before deletion--at least for discussion. Just a quarterback in NAIA doesn't cut it really, unless they went to national rankings in NAIA or managed to get some play time in one of the NAIA bowls (The school has, I think, transferred to NCAA Div II since then, which is common).--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I thought maybe I'd find relevance from his playing career...but he played NAIA Division II...which isn't going to meet any standard of notability. Assistant coaches are generally only notable if they are on par with Norm Chow --Smashville^BONK! 23:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yeah, Chow won the Broyles Award and that's a big deal... curious, where did Petrino play Div II ball?--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Carroll College (Montana) --Smashville^BONK! 18:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's likely to become notable in the future, but right now, he falls on just the other side of the notability line. JKBrooks85 (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Base worldtour 2007 - 2009[edit]

The article consists only of a promotional paragraph lifted from the Ace of Base website, and a list of tour dates. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but needs to be completely rewrittenAgainstreason (talk) 23:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:OUTCOMES#Music mentions that "Shows and tours of bands should be listed in the band article, not in a separate article." There's nothing particularly notable about the tour (at least as presented in the article or demonstrated by my cursory research) that would make me want to break the standard rules. The tour should be mentioned in Ace of Base, it doesn't need its own article. Vickser (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless the tour becomes independently notable for some reason. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is somewhat significant as the band's first tour after a 3-4 year hiatus, and also their first lineup change; however the article could easily be included as a subsection in the main Ace of Base article. smnc (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etana (musician)[edit]

Notability in regard to WP:MUSIC appears to be less than marginal; the lack of independent references does not help. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes WP:MUSIC#C9, [2]. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concur with Gibb. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. C9 requires a "major" music competition, and the ref provided by Gibb refers to a local awards show (in fact, it says it will change the face of the local entertainment scene. If someone can provide a reference that the award is "major", i'm willing to change my vote. - Philippe 19:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
:I guess it is all a matter of perspective. This appears to be a major competition on Jamaica, but not necessarily internationally. Given that it is a major one in a country, I'm inclined to keep it. Counterpoint? — BQZip01 — ^talk 21:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC by a mile. JeanLatore (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep even outside of the EME, the fact that her album's #12 on the billboard reggae charts[3] right now makes it an easy keep. Vickser (talk) 01:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. No references to prove any of the assertions made in the article. The claims may meet WP:MUSIC, but the article itself fails WP:BLP. BradV 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep per User:Vickser, although article is in desperate need of a rewrite (and some sources!). BradV 01:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR speedy delete as a GFDL violation. Blueboy 96 00:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indrit Sulaj[edit]

This article appears to be an attempt to sneak a spammy link into the encyclopedia. The text is copied from the article on Fier, except for the external link halfway down the page. The external link is for a web design company in Cleveland, Ohio. The site belongs to one Indrit Sulaj. - Eureka Lott 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Test page, nonsense, vandalism, take your pic. C&P of Fier with a new external link thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its just an external link, relevant info is already here. Also, delete the image, unless someone can proove that the city does exist. I thought it was legit until I pressed Fier. If we can find sources that say that the two are related, however, redirect to Fier. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Utter lack of reliable, independent third-party sources and minimal claim of notability. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Playdo AB[edit]

Non notable website/online chat. No third party references. Has been nominated for speedy several times and the main recent contributor keeps removing the template. Mfield (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although I did some brush-up on this article [4] [5] [6] I have no idea whether it's notable. --Cyfal (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as attack page. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles nivens boogie[edit]

Delete as non-notable dance with no sources. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 22:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not for dances made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aardvark (font)[edit]

Not notable in any way. Seems to be something made in five minutes as a possible advertisment; I'm sure that's not the case, but it looks that way. I don't see any need for this on an encyclopedia. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Google search shows some websites that prove it is a real font. However, its not any major font like Times New Roman or anything else that might show up on Microsoft Word, ect. so I'll say delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tavix (talk • contribs)
Delete reluctantly. It is from Font Bureau (no article?!, ah, A7'd in 2007), a major typesetting house, but there is very little in the way of sources about the font and even fewer that are independent (e.g. one offhand mention in a capsule of Pichotta's career). --Dhartung | Talk 03:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Where is the notability for this font? Artene50 (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources provide notability for this font. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I actually nominated this one for Speedy Delete when it first appeared online. Well, here I go again... Ecoleetage (talk) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 overwhelming consensus, before this gets to DW crazed. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special[edit]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has been moved to The Next Doctor. So Why 13:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It exists, but there is no source information apart from a 15 second trailer. Sceptre ^(talk) 21:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should stay because we all know its going to happen. Goku1st ^(talk) 23:03, 5 July 2008 (GMT)

Yeah, just like we know the year 2347 is going to happen. Srsly, how do we know it's going to happen? Have you been looking into your WP:CRYSTAL ball? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What on Earth is your problem? Anyway, production has already been completed. It's been scheduled. It already exists. It simply hasn't been broadcast yet. --Aderack (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If for some reason it didn't happen ,that very fact would fact it notable ,eg The Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special was never broadcast due to .....' Gnevin (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think, as with other articles which had few information (like future Bond movies), it has always been common policy to allow temporary articles with few information so they can be linked to, expanded once information arises and allow people to easily gather the information already available. In this case, we have a couple of major points already, even if the only source is a 15-seconds trailer: We know the main character (the Doctor), we have two notable guest stars, we know a approximate air date and a major plot point. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only source is a trailer that not a lot of people have seen. Those of us who haven't seen the trailer can't find a thing about this film. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Film? Are you familiar with this subject matter, Hammer? Tphi (talk) 05:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently not, or he'd realise that between 8 and 10 million Britons saw the trailer at the end of the last episode of Doctor Who. (Ratings pending, based on preliminary estimates.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not need to be available to everyone. It can be verified easily by asking a UK based editor to view the trailer. WP:CRYSTAL is not the case as this is indeed confirmed. WP:V does not say that the source has to be easily accessible by everyone, else old books for example couldn't be used as sources. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal ball says it should be deleted and recreate when it is aired. -- SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Articles for episodes and movies yet to air are perfectly acceptable. WP:CRYSTAL just says that unsourced and unconfirmed things should not be added - this is neither. -- SoWhy ^Talk 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - To quote WP:CRYSTAL "Scheduled or expected future events should be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."... production has been completed on this episode as evidenced by the sources... therefore it is almost certain to take place. Why do people always quote CRYSTAL without having actually read it.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL says that it's okay to have future events providing there is significant coverage by secondary sources. Elections are a good example. A trailer is not a sufficiently reliable/verifiable/source, and in the absence of further coverage, I suggest this is recreated nearer the time. Fails WP:CRYSTAL for that reason. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many sources have been added since you wrote this. How does it look now?--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you can have an article called "Bond 22" for a year, then I see no harm in this. Also, its confirmed that the episode will happen! I mean, come on! It's already been filmed and was advertised at the end of the series 4 finale... All Grown Up! Defender 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um.. I don't do this much so I'm not sure if I am editing correctly, however there is an article about this episode at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-561218/David-Morrissey-star-Doctor-Who-Christmas-special-featuring-deadly-Cybermen.html so there is a second source on this episode's existence. -- KaitlynRoss (talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, since thats a strong source, I've added it to the article. Nice work finding it! All Grown Up! Defender 23:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This falls in the "virtual certain to occur" category for me. In addition, the trailer is not the only source of information. The Daily Mail, Hello Magazine, Liverpool Echo. Such sources don't give much information, but the idea that there will be a Christmas episode and some of who is involved seems beyond reproach. -- Dragons flight (talk) 23:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We know that is going to happen as we've got reliable sources from trailers and articles on the internet. Also what would be wrong with preparing an article? -- OpinionPerson (talk) 23:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The "Bond 22"/Quantum of Solace article might have been created long before the film's release, but there must surely have been adequate sources of information to justify its presence on Wikipedia, albeit unnamed and with some details yet to be confirmed. As a feature-length motion picture, it is bound to have a lot more coverage. What we're dealing with right here, right now is a single episode of a TV series, currently without a solid, known title, whose article contains barely any information (furthermore, most of what is there at the moment is either repetitive or unsourced speculation). It also seems dubious to rely on a source such as the tabloid Daily Mail, which is normally not be trusted too faithfully. Yes, we know that there will be a Christmas special, and that it will feature the Cybermen, but does this article really have to be made so soon? I say wait for future news from reliable sources (BBC, DWM etc.) before acting too rashly. -- SuperMarioMan (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the episode has been filmed and will air so if we delete it now we’re just going to have to recreate it later. Information is slowly beginning to emerge and we need somewhere to put this information as it does. Also it’s useful to have a place for other articles to link to for this. -- Mutt (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least provisionally. The trailer is as reliable a source as we can have that the episode will air, the Crystal Ball rule clearly allows articles about things that will happen within the forseeable future, and we know some things about it: not many, perhaps, but enough to enough to make the article worthwhile. The article can always be replaced when we know more. -- And Introducing... A Leg (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the episode is known to exist and has been advertised (via the trailer), and has received coverage in an additional source as described above. -- DavidK93 (talk) 00:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Episode is known to exist, article is not a perma-stub. I'm sure you can find two independent sources for it. In a case like this where it's something we will obviously have an article on and there is no doubt that it is going to happen we may as well keep the article and let it develop. -- Phil Sandifer (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Though the title (or lack thereof) bothers me, it is quite verifiable. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:CRYSTAL. As with other Doctor Who episodes, this would be considered notable (Dragons Flight has provided secondary coverage in addition). The only question is whether the show will take place. Just as presumably we'll see the 2016 elections, I think that we'll also end up seeing this in Christmas 2008. -- Fraud ^{talk to me} 03:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:NFF through production status being substantially complete. -- Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - multiple verifiable sources, main production is complete and post-production is under way. Some feature films will get a smaller audience than this special can expect; we will have eyes on this article. -- Radagast (talk) 04:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doesn't even remotely meet the guidelines for speedy deletion. There has been a trailer and there is information available through other sources. The title isn't available yet, but there needs to be an article on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leilaht (talk • contribs) 04:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Filming is complete, the airing is certain, and the material is verifiable. When the special's title is revealed, this page will be moved to it; eventually, it will be as developed as the pages on past Doctor Who Christmas specials. — Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, certainly notable, already has plenty of discussion in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources. -- Cirt (talk) 07:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Virtually certain not only to occur, but also be covered in an increasing number of reliable sources. In addition, the subject is "... of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." (WP:CRYSTAL) -- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 07:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for most of the reasons already cited. That this AfD exists at all is ridiculous. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, reason being that its going to be created anyway so there is no point fussing. And can I add im pretty certain the xmas episode name is return of the cybermen. --Sotonfc4life (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep, episode has been filmed and obviously exists. Jonesy702 (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, Keep! As has been stated above, this episode has already been filmed and will be shown at Christmas. The very suggestion of deletion is insane.Blaine Coughlan (talk) 11:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The villain, air time, guest stars and the Doctor are confirmed... how many people may have seen the trailer, or that Ten Pound Hammer hasn't seen it, is irrelevant, it is verifiable and was seen on the BBC by millions. The article contains other printed sources, and interest in the episode will be high. Certainly not in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL which does not apply here, there is no speculative information therein. --Canley (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 9.4 million people watched Journey's End, so 9.4 million people know about this Christmas episode. Not notable enough? Seriphyn (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Will only get better as more information comes outGnevin (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep even thou the name is not given for this episode, it is confirmed via a trailer that there is a special and 4 specials will happen between 2008 - 2009 on the bbc website [[Ucebaggie (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Delete Fails WP:FUTURE and WP:NOTABILITY. Seriously people, I see so many "keeps per WP:CRYSTAL" it is insane. The article contains no information partaining to the epiosde itself, is filled with non-information that the name has not been revealed yet, and lacks any sort of reliable sources; most information is coming from tabloids. The information that is available only relates to the production, which is best suited in List of Doctor Who serials. There is just too little information and notability to sustain a seperate article for now. "It exists" is not reason enough to have an article. Article creation should be suspended until we at least have a title, and we have enough sourceble information. — Edokter • Talk • 13:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It discusses a few names of people who star in it plus it says who the villianis are and what time of year the episode will generally air. It's a stub... it will be expanded as more information becomes available... according to Wikipedia:Stub the articele "should contain enough information for other editors to expand upon it". There is definetly enough info here for somebody to expand upon it once that information becomes available. WP:FUTURE goes to the same place as WP:CRYSTAL so I don't get your distinction between the two. As for Notability, this page is just as notable as any other Dr. Who episode page on wikipedia.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is only notable if there are published sources. Right now, there are very, very few, and the article is attracting only speculation and original research. — Edokter • Talk • 22:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article has confirmed information (Cybermen, what actors, release date) and if it attracts too much speculation and OR it can be semi-protected until the episode airs.-- aBSuRDiST -^T ☺ ^C- 23:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You say there are very few sources. One respectable published source is enough.--Dr who1975 (talk) 03:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The relevant guideline is WP:NFF. Satisfies that guideline, for me. Principal photography has clearly commenced, obviously notable subject, enough reliably sourced material to have some meaningful content in the article. AndyJones (talk) 13:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too little info at the moment. U-Mos (talk) 14:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And a comfortable keep at that - although I do agree it should be fleshed out as soon as possible. I imagine there'll be a few more details released in the next week or so. Starfighter Pilot (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although there's a not a lot of info at the moment, there should be more announcements before too long. True, we could delete it until then, but is it really worth deleting it just to reopen it after such little time? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proonography (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep More to come very soon. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While this article is on a fictional subject, and is in the future, the sources that have been added, specifically this one and this one convince me that this article should be kept. I note the previous delete votes, but also note that further sources have been added since then, which are independent of the trailer. Steve Crossin (contact) 17:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 19:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Would WP:SNOW apply yet? — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are now five references, including (some of?) the guest stars and location. Edgepedia (talk) 21:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep To quote WP:CRYSTAL "Scheduled or expected future events should be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."... production has been completed on this episode as evidenced by the sources... therefore it is almost certain to take place. Why do people always quote CRYSTAL without having actually read it. It is also acuratly marked as a stub and will be further expanded when more info becomes available. Otherwise... all stubs should be deleted due to small content... this idea that an artilce can't exist simply because a title hasn't been released is really getting ridiculous.--Dr who1975 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as Sceptre has earned my support in WP:WHO matters. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I added another source for those who distrust the Daily Mail. Alastairward (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i see no problem keeping this artical for now, last year the bbc website released a good deal of information for us to create the voyage of the damned article, although the cybermen of wikipedia will probably still find this article unworthy and will delete it!--Lerdthenerd (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is asserted through the millions of viewers who saw the trailer. Crystal does not apply as all info is sourced. --Cameron * 08:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Confirmed production, completed and promoted by the BBC and multiple non-trivial sources. Will be renamed once the BBC announces the title. No WP:CRYSTAL issue at all. This is no different than us having an article called Bond 22 for a year before the title Quantum of Solace was announced because it is a confirmed production for an undeniably major entertainment franchise. if this is deleted then Star Trek (film) would have to be deleted as well. Definitely looks like a WP:SNOW scenario to me right now. 23skidoo (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Jamez[edit]

Artist has released no material and no sources are provided except his own myspace profile. Appears to be a vanity page that fails WP:MUSIC. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both the artist and their EP for failing WP:MUSIC entirely. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. non-notable subject. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per all. tomasz. 14:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 unanimity of responses. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best of the Best Championship Karate (video game)[edit]

This article was created several months ago, and absolutely nothing has been added. In addition, I feel that this is not notable enough of an article, nor was I able to find anything to suggest notability. MuZemike (talk) 21:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 21:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article does need work but notability is not an issue. This was a commercial multi-platform release. -Rushyo (talk) 22:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only for this one reason - the user assumes that notability does not exist and, in addition to this, never once discusses the matter of notability or apparently makes any effort to create a group effort with the editors of the article, who just might know where to find the sources. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - according to WP:TOYS (which it should be noted is just a proposal at the moment), any licensed console game that has been published and widely released is likely to be notable. I dare say any game released on the NES would qualify. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - short, but no reason not to assume notability --T-rex 20:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: professional athletes are notable per WP:ATHLETE, no delete !votes to the contrary. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 03:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew "Danger" Davies[edit]

This man, while a professional darts player, is not a notable one, with little on him. He is not notable in the world of professional darts and does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. Scapler (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question tagged for AfD 8 minutes into creation. I'm going with "weak keep and tag for improvement" as I'm not an expert on darts and don't know what the highest level of the sport is. If he has played at the highest level (ranked 159 in the world? or in the country?) than he meets WP:ATHLETE. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as he is a full professional and has competed in the PDC, Desert Classic and the UK Open, he easily satisifies the notability criterion set in WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 17:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Murphy[edit]

Not notable, associated company aplus.net deleted due to lack of notability, been deleted twice before, recreated on very thin DRV process involving just ~~three~~ four people, one of which seems to have been Gabriel Murphy's sockpuppet (i.e. a Wikipedia:Autobiography). Article is not linked into the rest of the wikipedia, nor was the aplus.net article. Appears to be purely advertising for aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Article has seen very little traffic (see the traffic logs [7]), which supports vanity status, and complete lack of true encyclopedic notability.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point out where the "purely advertising" portion of the article lies? Nearly all claims in the article are sourced. Please support your claim that this article constitutes "purely advertising"? You also claim the article has seen little traffic, but you use a traffic graph from February of this year, versus something more recent. The same program you link to show 352 views of the article in June. That aside, since when was the number of views in any way relevant to the status of an article?

That was probably you editing the article together. I used the traffic from February because that was the highest I could see it go. Feel free to point out any higher points here if you want. I honestly didn't look around too much. So June was a bit higher? That's still a very low hit rate. Most good articles get that per day, or per hour.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you make a very bold claim that the article was "recreated on very thin DRV process involving just three people, one of which seems to have been Gabriel Murphy's sockpuppet". You are correct that there were three people involved in the voting, those three users are lifebaka, Davewild and SmokeyJoe. Since you believe you are so righteous, please do tell the community which one of these three users is a sockpuppet account. My guess is you will not respond, as you know what you said is a pure lie used to prejudice the opinion of others by suggesting the deletion review process was “thin” (it lasted 5 full days) and one of the three aforementioned accounts is a sockpuppet, meaning the voting was not fair. Go ahead, name the sockpuppet for everyone- you know none of these accounts are sockpuppet. LakeBoater (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I miscounted, there were 4. The sockpuppet is you, and yes, you were involved. It was still a very quiet review; there was no evidence that anybody looked into anything in any real depth.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The associated aplus.net deletion reviews are here:

All of which resulted in deletes; and this is the main claim for notability of this individual.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your suggestion that aplus.net is the "main claim for notability" is grossly inaccurate based on a simple reading of the article and is just another example of you trying to prejudice the opinion of others as you clearly have an axe to grind with this article. The aplus.net section of the "Gabriel Murphy" article makes up around 1/8th of the entire content of the article.LakeBoater (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment holds no water. The only 'significant' thing mentioned in the introduction of the article is being the CEO of aplus.net. Given that aplus.net has been ruled to not be notable in the wikipedia, the article's subject has clearly failed to achieve notability. I also find that the other things mentioned in the article are less notable.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall the article has been deleted more times than it has been AFD'd; the sockpuppets tend to recreate even with an outstanding AFD. Most recently on 21 June 2008, with an AFD still applying; the article had to be fixed as a redirect to Aplus.net. When aplus.net was deleted, the redirect got deleted at that time. The sockpuppets recreated the article, and required more administrator action to deal with this. Given the multiple underhand attacks, I recommend Delete and Salt.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 00:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article was restored by a recent DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28. The nominator has a history of attacking this article, including incorrectly adding a speedy tag to it after it was restored by DRV (which resulted in the second deletion, which was immediately reverted by the deleting admin when her attention was drawn to the DRV). DuncanHill (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I have attacked this article, and with good reason. This person lacks notability, as does the company he has CEOd. There's also been what can best been described as repeated attacks on the neutrality of the wikipedia by this individual and his sockpuppets. (See aplus.net deletion reviews).- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wolfkeeper, are you saying that I (LakeBoater) have "repeated attacks on the neutrality of the wikipedia"? You say, "by this individual", who are you talking about? Me, somewhone else, who? LakeBoater (talk) 03:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, notability is borderline at most, there does seem to be WP:COI and in truth, the article is too long, noting several non-notable business activities and given the sourced coverage on this person, topic falls somewhat short of WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the repeated recreation of this and aplus.net I recommend delete and salt. The sockpuppets will simply recreate it otherwise. If he really does do something notable, then the notable thing will be notable in and of itself, and that would support overturning. Otherwise, salt.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Gwen Gale, the notability here is indeed borderline at best. JBsupreme (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Come on - three nominations and five deletions? Article is most certainly written from someone's who's WP:COI, if not by Murphy himself. His signature marks the source as "Own work by uploader" - it stands to reason that Murphy was the uploader. Either way, I don't think that notability has been reached here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SALT the Aplus.Net article. I did not realize it had been deleted three times before. JBsupreme (talk) 01:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done (both Aplus.Net and Aplus.net). Gwen Gale (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe Wolfkeeper has a personal vendetta here, just as DuncanHill pointed out. Wolfkeeper fails to mention in his information the very relevant fact that a DRV Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28 for this article, which concluded a mere 2 days ago, was to keep. He does suggest that one of the three votes was a sock account (I assume he is saying this account, LakeBoater, is a sock account?) but convienently does not name which one of the three accounts. Wolfkeeper then makes the claim that this (Aplus.net) is the main claim for notability of this individual is simply inaccurate. A simple review of the article will show this to be factually inaccurate as aplus constitutes only about 1/8th of the content of the article. Moreover, Wolfkeeper claims that my account is somehow a WP:Sock and that the aplus.net article was created by me as well, which a simple review of my contributions will show this to be false as well. As for the suggestion that this account has "few if any other edits", again, a simple review of my contributions will show this is grossly inaccurate (really, look at my contributions over the past 3-4 days prior to this AdF). It is one thing to have an opinion, it is another to try to influence others with factually inaccurate information. Wolfkeeper could have voiced his opinion in the AfD discussion, but he did not, and the vote was to move the article to the mainspace. Several Wiki admins assisted in cleaning up the userfied article.

Finally, Wolfkeeper suggests that "this article has been deleted multiple times", but fails to point out that the latest version of this article was re-written and is substantially different (2x as many sources, cleaned-up with assistance from admins, etc.). I encourage everyone with an opinion here to review the article in its current form. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did carefully review the current version of the article and think the cited sources show this topic fails WP:BIO at this time. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for the feedback Gwen Gale, can you help me understand whic part of WP:BIO this article fails to meet? Thanks for your help. LakeBoater (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources show that while you seem to have had a more or less successful career in business so far, you have not received a notable award or honor and have not made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in your field. The sources themselves are thin, either passing references or of interest to limited markets. Hence your notability is borderline and my take is, it falls on the side of not-notable in Wikipedia terms for now. Most successful executives can come up with a few dozen references to themselves in trade magazines and local news outlets. All the best to you, Gwen Gale (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gwen Gale. I am not "Gabriel Murphy" as you are referring to me as "you" and by doing so implying such. Please review my contributions and you will see my interests/contributions in Wikipedia go far beyond this article. Having said this, Gabriel Murphy won the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year award, which is a very highly regarded award given by Ernst & Young every year. His company also won the Small Business of the Year award by the Kansas City Chamber of Commerce. He was also named one of the 40 business leaders under 40 by a KC magazine and one of the 50 technology leaders in Kansas City by The Kansas City Star. I would think one or all of these awards would qualify as "notable", and all of these awards are mentioned in the article and referenced by independent sources. I also disagree that the sources are thin. At least 5 of these sources are profiles or biographies on Gabriel Murphy by some publication (see reference #1, #3, #5, #23, #29 and #35), all of which mention Murphy in the title of the article and most all of which is information dealing exclusively with Murphy. You mentioned trade magazines, well reference #1 is a profile on Murphy by a trade magazine. Other examples:

Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24

Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM

Reference #5: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2002/04/08/focus1.html?t=printable

Reference #35: http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/06/25/daily31.html?t=printable

Reference #38: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137330

Sure, not all of these references are about Gabriel Murphy (obviously) as I have included references where I can find them on Google that support various information in the article. Please review this information and reconsider your position. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 02:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the list of lakeboater's edits are here: [8]. While there is some percentage of edits on other article delete reviews, the great majority seem to be about trying to get the Gabriel Murphy article created, recreated, adding extra redirects, or prevent it being deleted, starting from the earliest edits. For whatever reason, lakeboater seems very keen on this guy; and this is consistent with there being a conflict of interest or autobiographical issue.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One notable thing is the 6 hours spent on (depending on your timezone) Sunday 22 June by lakeboater editing this article. That seems to be a remarkably large chunk of time for somebody who claims not to be Gabriel Murphy, and, as has been noted by someone elsewhere in this AFD, has also uploaded an image of Gabriel Murphy's signature, and marked it as 'own work'.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Gabriel Murphy" was one of my first articles/contribs to Wikipedia. Guilty of that. Since then, I have contributions to about 40+ other articles. As for spending 6 hours on "editing this article", I was actually creating it when it was userfied by an administrator per the DR (I would encourage you to read the DR on this article). Perhaps that admin is a sockpuppet as well? Is your issue now not about notability but an attempt to show WP:COI? If so, can you kindly point out the part of the article that is vanity/advertising and/or non-neutral? I am guessing you cannot because most everything in the article is sourced. As for the image, yes, it came from one of the referenced articles from the KCBJ via the web and I did not select the proper option- guity of that too (I will correct it tomorrow). I am trying to work in good faith here- let's turn this into a productive conversation. Tell me exactly what you have an issue with so I can address it. LakeBoater (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeboater, the pith is, I think you've made your keen and highly personal interest in this article quite clear. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It goes without saying I am interested in this article- I created it. Having said that, did you review my response with information on the various awards and the 5+ articles that are bios/profiles on Murphy? Just trying to help you make an informed decision. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards aren't encyclopedic/notable. I've already said what I had to say about the coverage. This is all borderline, a fit CV but falls on the shy side of WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Understood Gwen Gale, then I would suggest you edit the Ernst & Young Wikipedia article then as the major irony here is that the Wikipedia article for Ernst & Young discusses the Entrepreneur of the Year award program, which you claim is not notable. You have to love the irony here :) Here is the link to the Wikipedia article discussing the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year program for your convienence. Let me know if you now take a different position on the notability of this award. LakeBoater (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:WAX. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources as per WP:BIO which as I argued in the deletion review is available here. References 1 and 3 alone provide this significant coverage without even considering the other sources. While the Business Career section certainly need trimming this is not a deletion issue. Davewild (talk) 07:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - firstly, disappointed that such a recent debate has been brought so quickly to the forum for re-debate, not just once but thrice: surely a month would be a good gap between debates over a few days? However, I think the debate here rests on what is notability. Looking at WP:BIO and the references used in the current version, I think he doesn't presently make the required criteria - close, but not quite. WP:BIO asks for both significant secondary sources, and significant and notable contribution - if the criteria were defined in Murphy's case as "Kansas" than yes, he would pass WP:BIO. But it doesn't, and I read the required level of sources as national or at least outside of state, as opposed to just/mainly state. I also think the current version is wholly over written and has too much coverage of (in three years times) wholly insignificant details - the property piece being a great example: tends to suggest addition of details to make sure the article is kept, over the creation of an encyclopaedic entry. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too am very disappointed that this keeps cropping up. But much the same article simply keeps getting recreated, by the same person, alternating between aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Essentially, this guy has asked the same question 6 times, and 4 times out of 5 the wikipedia has told him it's not significant enough to be here; this is the six, and it's not looking good. We need to make it clear that he needs to stop asking now as it simply wastes our collective time. Under normal circumstances, this would be a week delete or reluctant delete, but due to the circumstances, I'm asking that you change your vote to salt if you don't want this to be back again next month. - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 12:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trident13. I am going to ask that you reconsider your vote on the basis that national or outside of the state is not a requirement to meet notability as Davewild points out. Even if this is your opinion (which no doubt you are entitled to), the article does have sources which are national coverage in nature. An example is Reference #1, which is the Web Hosting Industry Review Magazine, which is a national publication. I would content that Cornell University is national versus local in nature as well and is used twice as a source in the article. Additionally, many of these sources are outside the state of Kansas (as you suggest above would be needed), as The Kansas City Business Journal and The Kansas City Star is bi-state for Missouri and Kansas. Thanks for your consideration.

On a personal note, I too am disappointed that this debate has cropped up a mere 24 hours after the Deletion Review consensus was to keep. I followed the proper protocol via working on the article from scratch in a userfied space with the assistance of several administrators. The new article is substantially different from the previous. However, Wolfkeeper does not want you to know this, so instead he simply has resorted to making up lies (there I said it) about this article and my intent/motive/COI/behavior/etc. Wolfkeeper said, "much the same article simply keeps getting recreated, by the same person, alternating between aplus.net and Gabriel Murphy. Essentially, this guy has asked the same question 6 times, and 4 times out of 5 Wikipedia has told him it's not significant enough to be here". Bold statements, but factually inaccurate and Wolfkeeper knows it. A review of the prior version of the article will debunk his/her claim. Wolfkeeper is not really interested in trying to work together to resolve whatever issues he has with the article (see above where I ask him yesterday what specific issues he has and rely my interest in working together in good faith, to which I did not receive a response). Wolfkeeper instead wants you to believe that this question (should the "Gabriel Murphy" article be kept) question 6 times- totally untrue. He tries to tie this article in with aplus.net even though he opened this AfD on "Gabriel Murphy". This article has been voted to keep once, delete once, and this is the third nomination. I followed the proper protocols via Deletion Review for this article. I am trying to work with everyone who is objective and not prejudiced by the inaccurate statements repeatedly made by Wolfkeeper, even though it does appear his method of attack is proving effective for him with several votes. LakeBoater (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was taken to Deletion Review where it was allowed to be recreated due to the new sources which are in this article as compared to the article which was deleted at the last AFD. Lakeboater quite appropiately took the userspace version to DRV to see if it could be restored, salting would have made no difference to this.

Secondly WP:BIO says "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The sources in the article show this, in particular this source here and this one. This establishes notability based on wikipedias guidelines rather than on a subjective look at his importance.

I would also note that if Lakeboater does have a conflict of interest then the relevant policy WP:COI specifically says that "Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article". Davewild (talk) 13:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that WP:BIO is a guideline, not policy. Coverage in a trade magazine and a local business journal don't confer encyclopedic notability (Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations notes a strong difference between news sources). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said that it was a guideline above and am not sure on what basis they do not establish notability as they are reliable sources according to my reading of WP:RS? I have yet to see any evidence that they are not independent of the subject and the coverage is very significant. Davewild (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Gale lets be fair- surely if you read the article you know that coverage of this individual is more than, "a trade magazine and a local business journal". I would bet a count of the different sources would show at least a dozen. We can all have varying opinions, but let's make sure our facts are accurate. Let me know if you want me to count the number of sources so everyone is aware of the actual number of different sources. LakeBoater (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those two were put forth, more or less, as the least trivial. Meanwhile Davewild and I can disagree on this one, it's ok. I've said at least twice I think this is borderline. I understand why it's been bouncing back and forth through AfDs like this. As for WP:COI, it could be helpful to quote the opening: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor... COI edits are strongly discouraged. When they cause disruption to the encyclopedia in the opinion of an uninvolved administrator, they may lead to accounts being blocked and embarrassment for the individuals and groups who were being promoted. Putting this to the steadfast duck test, it quacks like disruption to me. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am new to Wikipedia so please bear with me. I tend to agree with Davewild's analysis as I too am also not sure on what basis the articles (especially #1 and #3 alone) do not establish notability as they are reliable sources according to WP:RS. I also agree that no one has yet to show any evidence that they are not independent of the subject. Can anyone voting to delete please help me out here? Otherwise, I am inclined to vote to keep the article. 70.13.195.8 (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Delete the hell out of this and TP Murph's house per any and all reasons already given above. - House of Scandal (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The first two references (http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 & http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage) are independent secondary sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. This article clearly meets Wikipedia:notability. Internet traffic is definitely irrelevant to our article inclusion criteria. Can the nominator please be reminded that “vanity” is a needlessly insulting term, frequently constitutes newbie biting, and we have agreed to avoid its use, and in any case, it is not a deletion criterion. If necessary, advise contributors to read WP:COI. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What newcomer? It looks to me that they've been spamming aplus.net into the wikipedia since back in 2006 (that's what the first delete review ruled). As to notability of this magazine I'd never heard of it. I googled whirmagazine and found it with some (unusually for me) minor difficulty. I don't know how people normally try to decide how prestigious a publication is in cases like this, but it doesn't seem to have a very high google ranking for example (4). It's not exactly the New York Times. The page rank of the second one is zero (presumably because it's too new to have a page rank). Quite frankly, a home page I keep elsewhere on the web has had a higher google rank than either of those, and I make no claim of notability at all.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 01:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn't need to be a newcomer, just don't say "vanity". Allegations of spamming are serious, but we have to stick with this subject. Sources need not themselves be notable. They need to be reliable and independent. Did the subject pay for the article? If you can demonstrate lack of independence, that invalidates the source for purposes of demonstrating notability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations makes a strong distinction in noting that sourcing from news publications is "welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." WP:Common sense leads us to think that notability (in Wikipedia's terms) is much more likely to be conferred by a feature article in the New York Times than in a struggling trade magazine for ISPs or a local business journal. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations, true as it is, supports a deletion argument here. The notability of the subject is in question here, and to demonstrate notability, independent reliable secondary sources suffice. There is no requirement for major newspapers to establish notability, indeed, the seeking out of obscure sources is to be commended. Also note our first pillar. Wikipedia:RS#News_organizations is about the content, especially contentious content, and is not particularly applicable to interpretations of WP:N. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the question of reliability though, we have no real way to know that this tiny publication is reliable. We know very little about the fact checking, independence or anything else of this publication, it could be run by the guy's brother in law or something.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are several references in the article that appear to demonstrate notability, and they don't seem to have reliability problems. The things that they report don't seem to be in dispute. Suggestions like the publications "could be run by the guy's brother in law or something" need substantiation before you even raise them, as per WP:AGF. Agreed, there are advertising and WP:COI issues here (I note that User:LakeBoater was the copyright owner of the subjects portrait [9]). I also note that the subject and his company have a history of being the subject of dubious contributions by non-experienced wikipedians. However, these are not reasons for deletion. The subject or his company has possibly done a successful job of a behind the scenes publicity campaign, but, the bottom line is that there are multiple independent secondary sources, meaning that the subject satisfied WP:N, meaning that there is no need to meet alternative criteria found in WP:BIO. If you don't like the sources, you need evidence that they are non-independent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming that all publications are reliable unless proven otherwise. Is that a policy? That wouldn't work, it's too easy to create or manipulate the smaller publications. It seems to me that you have to assume that they aren't without any evidence. For other reliable sources that the wikipedia relies on, that's fairly easily done, to get good evidence, but for such a small trade paper? It's pretty much impossible. So the main claim for notability, this publication does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:RS for the global resource that is the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree strongly. Although most any publication can be swayed into giving someone publicity (with money or something else), smaller, more local or struggling publications can often be swayed much more cheaply and easily. So, someone with the means to plant a feature story in the London Times is much more likely to be already notable than someone else who has gotten a feature into a local business paper. Although Wikipedia policy has no requirements along these lines, I think it's helpful to use common sense here. Is this topic truly notable? The only disagreement I see among us is whether this topic is barely notable or not at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looking at the first two references (there are several other sources as well):

(1) http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 Feature article. The Web Hosting Industry Review. Digital Magazine Edition! Also available in a print edition. They have a declared CEO and editorial team (http://www.thewhir.com/about/team.cfm) and their names don’t readily cross-reference with Gabriel Murphy

(2) http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage Gabriel “Gabe” Murphy clearly has some strong links with Cornell University See also http://eclips.cornell.edu/search?querytext=murphy&id=id&tab=TabSpeakersPage

I don’t get any sense that these sources are below the threshold for sources suitable for demonstrating notability. The subject meets WP:N. Therefore keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about SPAs I've already noted the deep worries stirred up by the conflict of interest which is clearly behind this article. User:LakeBoater, who created this latest version of the article, shows a very limited contribution history which has to do only with this topic (and is more than likely the subject himself or otherwise someone closely and personally linked with him). WP:SPA reminds us: The community's main concern is that edits by single-purpose accounts often have not aligned with Wikipedia's neutrality or advocacy standards... Users who continue to work within a narrow range of articles may find it difficult to build credibility in community discussions. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment about SPAs. Attempts at vote stacking, accompanied by poor arguments based on a poor understanding of Wikipedia, are actually quite transparent, and in the end these people damage their credibility and do more to harm their cause than help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on etiquette PLease can editors refrain from inserting their comments into the middle of other editors' comments, e.g like this [10] as it makes it hard for other editors to know who said what and when. Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is clearly notable per Davewild's analysis (ref 1 and 3 alone) and the article stood up on a deletion review recently. Even if there are conflict of interest concerns, it is not reason alone to delete and this article seems pretty well referenced anyway (meaning most of the claims / statements in the article are taken from the referenced articles), which would certainly mitigate a conflict of interest and neutrality issue as no one has suggested these sources are not independent. 70.13.183.36 (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: The only edits by this anonymous IP are in this article, and I have indeed suggested that as a real possibility.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~Strong delete This is mostly a resume. Much of the text is WP:COATRACK. For instance, each subheading for the companies list begin with the person, but quickly diverge into company information. There is some sense of notability, but this article in the current state isn't it. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do you think all of the articles "quickly diverge into company information"? I ask that you reconsider your position/vote per the following references:

Reference #1: http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 <-- A bio on the subject, which does mention his various companies

Reference #2: http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage <-- purely about the subject with no mention of his companies

Reference #3: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-10520700_ITM <-- A bio on the subject

Reference #37: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EIN/is_2001_July_2/ai_76137329 <-- an article on the subject winning the E&Y Entrepreneur of the Year award.

My understanding of a coatrack is an article that, "ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject". I read the WP:COATRACK page carefully and cannot see how this article would qualify as WP:COATRACK. You say that, "each subheading for the companies list begin with the person, but quickly diverge into company information"? So the thoery is that the intent of the article is to promote these various companies and not provide information about the subject? I think it is important to understand that the subject is highly involved with these companies, either as founder or some other high role (CEO). So I do not think this article would be considered a WP:COATRACK. The most support for this is the articles where independent sources verify the subject and its relatedness with the various companies. Thanks. LakeBoater (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well:

The company grew into an $8 million a year revenue producer in less than five years. It recorded 16 consecitive quarters of profitability. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.
In May, CommuniTech.Net was selected from nearly 1,700 nominations as the Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce's “Small Business of the Year” and Mr. K award winner. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.
If CommuniTech.Net had not been sold in 2002, it would have recorded the fastest revenue growth of any company in Kansas City from 1998 - 2001 per Ingram's Magazine Corporate Report 100. Don't care. This is an article about the person not the company.

I can add more, if you wish. I would recommend a review articles of the likes of people like Bill Gates or Steve Jobs, and compare it to this article, and figure out what the differences are. Yngvarr (t) (c) 20:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment'. I get it and thank you much for the feedback- it is nice to work with people who have a geniune interest in trying to help improve articles. I now understand your point. I will make futher edits. Thanks agian. LakeBoater (talk) 20:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article clearly meets WP:BIO and is well referenced. “Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources” per WP:BIO. The first two references (http://whirmagazine.texterity.com/whirmagazine/200710/?pg=24 & http://eclips.cornell.edu/entrepreneur.do?id=29&clipID=7296&tab=TabCasesPage) are independent secondary sources providing substantial coverage of the subject. Enough said. Henrynw (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: above account is not a new account, but has a vast majority of edits articles on webmail, including Fusemail, which is one of the companies that Gabriel Murphy invested in. It seems likely that this is Gabriel Murphy also. Note also the 2 different editing anonymous IPs in quick succession; this appears to be evidence of deliberate obfuscation going on, and supports the likelyhood of another sockpuppet.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 19:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, part of this comment was written by 64.126.14.3, which is a ~~extensive~~ contributor to both Gabriel Murphy as well as Fusemail. It's another sock, almost completely for sure. (It geolocates to "KANSAS-OVERLAND PARK" with ISP 'ABACUS AMERICA INC' which is one of Gabriel Murphy's companies)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 20:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: As pointed out above by DuncanHill and others, Wolfkeeper has a history of attacking this article (which he admits to) and spreading inaccurate statements to attempt to prejudice the views of others. While I do not know what accounts, if any, the subject has on Wikipedia, Wolfkeeper wants you to believe that most people voting in favor of keeping the article are some how associated with the subject or the subject himself. A review of Wolfkeeper's talk page show he has been accused of at lease one edit war recently. A review of the entire dialogue in this AfD will show I asked Wolfkeeper to point out what he had issues with in the article. He did not answer as his interest is not in improving the article (if it does indeed need improvement in his view) but instead to have the article deleted and salted at all costs. Nevermind the article stood up on a Deletion Review on June 28 (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 28) by a vote of 3-0.

This isn't about me, and I wasn't anyway, but my all-too extensive record on the wikipedia shows only one block, for a very short time two years ago.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Murphy seems to have strangely forgotten about the delete review on June 2[11] where the recreation was turned down. How many times do we have to put up with this sockpuppet recreating deleted material?- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another interesting observation for the closing administrator is that most all of the votes to delete were from users who hardly ever vote on any other AfD except this one (and anything related to the subject) versus most users who voted to keep (Davewild, SmokeyJoe, myself, who spend a majority of their time on either AdF or deletion review. Finally, HouseofScandal's "vote" to Strong Delete (the only one) and "TP Murph's house" with no explination as to why it would be a Strong Delete is obviously not made in good faith. The comment regarding TPing someones house probably voilates WP:CIV as well. LakeBoater (talk) 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing on other AFDs is by no means a requirement, but I certainly have done so. But this is irrelevant anyway, the only issue for this review is to generate consensus on what should be done with this article. The true fact is that my comments are out in the open, lakeboater has been caught astroturfing yet again, and he's done it in most of the reviews of this and the aplus.net article.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 21:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to recommend that these kind of discussions be held in abeyance, and focus on the matter at hand, which is the suitability for inclusion. These side snipes add nothing to the conversation, and I'm personally tempted to paste them into the talk page of this AFD. I stumbled into the AFD by sheer chance, and have my own personal opinion of this, but my opinion is irrelevant beyond the issue. Yngvarr (t) (c) 21:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will comply with your request and not respond further to any side snipes. Thanks Yngvarr for the suggestion. LakeBoater (talk) 13:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is definitely marginal and it's an orphan. I'd expect an article on a notable person to be linked to from at least one other article. That lack is certainly evidence against notability. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete orphaned article that appears to be resume (Wikipedia is not a resume service). As often remarked in these AfD discussions, articles are usually orphaned for a reason. B.Wind (talk) 04:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello Caerwine and B.Wind. I was unaware that linking from other articles to the article in question was a criteria for notability. I have reviewed notability carefully and could not find any mention of such. What notability does say is "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable." Regardless, the reason this article is not linked is simply becuase this article is brand new as it was just put into the mainspace after deletion review on June 28- just 12 days ago. I would think it would be reasonable to assume that it would take time (more than 12 days) for editors to link to individuals whose entries are new to Wikipedia. I also tend to believe that editors are reluctant to link to articles that are nominated for deletion, in which case this article had less than 24 hours in the mainspace before it was AdF tagged. Thanks! LakeBoater (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The number of articles linking to an article has nothing to do with notability, just as the amount of page views to an article have nothing to do with notability. Troyc (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

Keep. I have voted on this discussion in previous AdFs as I know of this individual. I believe this article clearly meets the notability standard with the various references, which are significant and reliable (no one has questioned this) and they are independent of the subject (no one has questioned this either). Troyc (talk) 16:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin above editor has essentially only contributed in this review, presumably YASP.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 17:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have questioned whether the sources are independent, the primary reference is a very small, local publication, and we have no way of checking their reliability. Unless they can be shown to be reliable sources, they are not reliable for the purposes of the wikipedia.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I assume by "the primary reference is a very small, local publication, and we have no way of checking their reliability", you are referring to the Kansas City Business Journal? As you are obviously not aware, The Kansas City Business Journal is a publication of the American City Business Journals and "is the largest publisher of metropolitan business newsweeklies in the United States, with 41 papers across the country reaching more than 500,000 subscribers each week", according to their website. Here is their website: http://www.acbj.com/about-us/overview.html. The website for The Kansas City Business Journal is here: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/. Here is information about The Kansas City Business Journal paper: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/aboutus/about_the_paper.html. Here is a link to their editorial staff showing 12 editors on their staff: http://kansascity.bizjournals.com/kansascity/aboutus/edit_services.html. It would behoove you to review this information since you are assuming this is a "very small local publication and you have no way of checking their reliability". I think this clearly demonstrates that they are more than a reliable source of news information. LakeBoater (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sister article aplus.net didn't have any links to it either. And while being an orphan isn't in-and-of-itself a reason for delete, it does raise the chances that it's non-notable. And I can't really see how this would ever be linked, most of the ways to do that would involve adding it to a list of some kind; list of business men, list of entrepreneurs. Such lists are generally frowned upon in the wikipedia and tend to get deleted. Basically, the wikipedia isn't a whos-who or a business index or anything, and that's why these kinds of articles are almost inherently non notable, unless the individual has to have done something else very notable, but there's nothing here like that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 16:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All you are doing is trying to change the definintion of notability, which is already defined by Wikipeida, so that your definition changes that standard so that you can make an argument that this article should not be included. Now your argument is that the article would never be linked in Wikipedia and therefore it is not notable. Per Wikipedia, notability is defined as "if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable". Not how many other articles link to it, or ever will link to it, or how many page views the article gets. Non-linked articles are no where mentioned on the notability page, as it is wholly irrelevant. LakeBoater (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cairney[edit]

Article seems to have been created within minutes of the election to the Scottish Football League of Annan Athletic F.C., of wich Cairney is the manager. However the Scottish Third Division is not a fully professional league (the players are part-timers, also holding down day jobs), Annan is not a professional club, and none of the other clubs he played for or managed appear to have played at a fully professional level either...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Made 28 appearances in the old Scottish Premier Division in the 1980-1981 and 1981-1982 seasons, according to Playerhistory. Mattythewhite (talk) 21:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Neil Brown's site would confirm the above. Played for Airdrie in the Scottish Prem in 80/81 and 81/82, and First Division in 82/3. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here is an article of him reminiscing about playing for Airdrie against Rangers in 1981. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be plenty of national media articles about him, and years of professional play. Nfitz (talk) 07:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that'll teach me not to double check what division Airdrie were in in 1981. I move to withdraw this AfD -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Metapedia (Wiki)[edit]

Yet another minor wiki. Has been up for three weeks, but there doesn't seem to be any prospect of it ever expanding beyond this sub-stub and the author seems to admit on the talkpage that it's unsourceable. Wikipedia is not a directory of every website on the planet and I see no reason why we need a listing for this one. (A certain J Wales has also raised concerns about the lack of sources.) – ırıdescent 21:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no reliable sources. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Google search turned up this and nothing else that looks like a reliable source in the first couple of hundred results. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom... It seems to me that it would never be much more than a perma-stub about a non-notable wiki... Adolphus79 (talk) 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A wiki like metapedia will definitely attract media attention in the near future, if it gets deleted it will just have to be remade quite soon, neo-nazis always attract attention. 124.184.19.95 (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our business to guess at what will attract media attention: if it does so in the future we can recreate the article in a minute or so. Olaf Davis | Talk 09:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - See here. Fleetflame 01:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We previously deleted an article about this same web site at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metapedia. However, it may be the case that additional sources have emerged since then (the item from The Register is an example). If this article is kept, it should be moved to Metapedia because the current title doesn't disambiguate anything. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD-A7. Fleetflame 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per absolutely no notability. Enigma ^message 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable hate site, plus the fact that the article has been previously deleted under a different name. Now, I could understand Wikipedia having an article on a website such as Stormfront, because despite the fact that it is equally odious, it is certainly notable, and has been mentioned in other media. But this one is simply too small and unknown, and we don't need to be giving such people any free promotion. --Eastlaw (talk) 05:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable site. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a completely non-notable hate site. Zredsox (talk) 20:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. So the articles by The Register (a major publication) and the Southern Poverty Law Center (a very prominent racism watch organization) don't grant notability? It doesn't have huge amounts of notability, but the sources would grant other subjects some would find less distasteful enough notability to survive an AfD. It is verified, has notability and is written neutrally. I see no justification for deletion. seresin ( ¡? ) 20:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These are marginal RS's which IMO merely confirms non-notability. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely, as an unverifiable article of a non-notable disparaging website, we should get rid of it. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 10:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable today. Unfortunately, that may change over time and this article may be back. The two sources seem (borderline) reasonable but...they are the only two to be found, which does not confer notability. Frank | talk 12:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kli Micheaux-Tachibana[edit]

non-notable. All google lised site has copy text of wikipedia. [12]. Steroce123 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 21:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:26, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable. Noted in Several Japanese Magazines, Music Videos, Google Searches, Youtube Videos, Newspaper Articles & Japanese Television Shows. [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] []. 24.193.44.76 (talk) 6:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Strong delete It looks like self-promption. Most of the material is c&p from his myspace page Oda Mari (talk) 15:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Article/Consider Revisions/Sources Notable Sources are very notable and varifiable via several News Articles & Magazines found throughout Japan. Recently featured on FujiTV as a new artist. 24.193.44.76 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article Needs some clean-up & Updated information/Consider Revisions Article Needs some Condensing/Clean-Up. Also, Needs to be updated with label info and other info. Infobox also needs updating. 24.193.44.76 (talk) 3:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Delete Nothing personal, but he appears to be non-notable. Can't find any Japanese source on him. (Too bad he does look very handsome.) -- Taku (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:TakuyaMurata --T-rex 20:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Wikipedia is not a resume service. The IMDB lists three nondescript credits in single TV episodes as an unnamed "rock musician" (essentially a glorified extra). Cannot meet WP:MUSIC as release of first single has yet to happen. YouTube links cannot be used as citations as they could be a violation of the GDFL; fan sites are not reliable sources. Modeling and performing in music videos in themselves do not satisfy WP:BIO without independent coverage by reliable sources (for example, being a model on the cover of GQ means nothing for WP:BIO; an article from another source discussing the modeling for the cover of GQ would most likely be). B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, enough sources have been found to persuade people the article is notable. Urge people to add them to the article appropriately. Davewild (talk) 11:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Emporium, Leicestershire[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable nightclub, despite the claims in the article. I can't find any sources to support the assertions, and none have been added to the article in over a year. Contested prod. BradV 20:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aside from the claims of being a tourist destination (in Coalville!), the statements in the article are verifiable. The venue has received some coverage ([39], [40],[41]), and there are lots of reviews and other coverage out there of events at The Emporium. It's certainly an important dance music venue. Whether such a venue would be likely to generate coverage specifically about the venue rather than events held at it is doubtful. --Michig (talk) 21:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be plenty of secondary sources confirming the major acts stated in the article as having appeared at the club, such as Tiesto for example. This to me confirms notability. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources mentioned by Michig provide enough coverage about the club itself for me. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Five point scale[edit]

Article is not supported by reliable sources, and attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. I have checked Pubmed and Google Scholar. The topic, whatever it is, is certainly not notable within the context of High functioning autism, which is what the article's text currently claims. Eubulides (talk) 20:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable, no reliable sources, not even worth a merge. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have actually heard of this before, in an excerpt from a book which appeared in Uta Frith's book Autism and Asperger Syndrome. But that doesn't mean it's used regularly, and even if it is, calling it *the* five point scale as if there are no others and dedicating the article to it is a little bit silly and so that is why I am voting Delete. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search suggests it is a book or DVD. That's it. Artene50 (talk) 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, but defer to any opinion by Eubulides (talk · contribs). JFW | T@lk 07:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable in this context, and a misuse of a the term (compared to a Likert scaled for example). Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Because it's not notable, not because Ljvo wants it deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization[edit]

The LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Organization no longer wants mention on this website

The LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Organization no Longer wishes to be referenced or have any mention on this website.Ljvo (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE Our Organization IS Spelled with a Capital F. and IS Hyphenated.
It is on our State Charter as such.Ljvo (talk) 12:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A small local group of veterans, apparently a good group but definitely no notability. Only sources are to a local paper, likely reliable but definitely not enough to confer notability. Nyttend (talk) 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the creator actually moved the deletion discussion to a new title; if I have messed up matters in moving it back, please forgive me; I'm not used to people moving deletion discussions! Nyttend (talk) 12:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The creator left the following message, both on his talk page and on mine:
""The LaFayette Jackson-Veterans Organization is incorporated in the State of Ohio as the "LaFayette-Jackson Veterans Organization" signed by the Ohio Secretary of State. LaFayette, Ohio has changed dramatically because of the items cited in this article. The suggestion that article should be removed because there are no noteworthy resources validated our existence is alarming. LaFayette, Ohio is a very small village of only about 300 people. Our veterans organization has about 25 members, with 7 to 8 very active. Considering the size of the village, that is is a large percentage. The veterans organization is a very integral part of this village. In order to have a complete profile of the village of LaFayette, Ohio, The activities and history of the LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization and the LaFayette Jackson Historical Society must be recorded here. Wikipedia Editors have also challenged the spelling of LaFayette based on research which does not include the official records of the village. (Yes Properly Spelled with a capital "F") They are also challenging and denying that the village nickname is Patriot City USA, again based on arbitrary reasons without checking into the villages records. It is time for wikipedia to examine LaFayette, Ohio Village documents before making these statements based on research that does not include official village documents. I challenge you to contact the village council at 225 E Sugar Lafayette, OH 45854 (419) 649-8801 to get the information you need to verify what I have been saying here is true before you delete this page. Ljvo (talk) 03:03, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought it proper to copy it here, since it's obviously meant to oppose deletion. There's also a note posted on the article itself. Finally: see this diff, in which the creator says, "Yes we are a SMALL organization, I am the founder." Nyttend (talk) 03:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG and WP:LOCAL. It isn't that we don't believe it's true. It's that we don't believe a small town organization, no matter how noble its cause, is really important enough for inclusion in a worldwide encyclopedia. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I suppose that a small village of only 300 people is not either?

Unjustified Deleting Of Images and Page

Small Organizations have large Impacts that are indeed worthy of a world wide audience.

Many times I search for little known things and if the public cannot put information in a site such as this, a lot of very noteworthy things would never be found out by researchers, travelers etc. etc.

The LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Organization was originally formed under the Auspices of the LaFayette-Jackson Historical Society technically as a committee. It has since incorporated under the State of Ohio as a separate Non Profit Organization and is in the process of apply for 501(c)19 Status- Veterans Organizations.

Our State Certificate signed by Jennifer Brunner- Ohio Secretary of State is # 758359 Document No 200804602160 Dated the 8th Day of February 2008 AD

As I sated above. because the two organizations have had such a significant impact on this small village that YOU are including it is more than justifiable to keep it on wiki.

Note that you have an external link posted on the LaFayette, Ohio page to a web site that is not being used. "LaFayetteoh.com" yet you want to delete a very active page.

You cannot give a complete profile of LaFayette, Ohio and exclude the information about these two organizations

I submit this is a revengeful act because of what I posted on the LaFayette, Ohio page that you continue to spell improperly based on your own assertions that you can't find proof that I am right. This issue never came up until I tried to correct your spelling. I have provided you with contact information to verify the information I posted so if you want to continue this argument you will have to call the Village Mayor ( Ron Moots) at the number I gave you.Ljvo (talk) 12:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have refactored the above slightly: section breaks can sometimes create problems in pages with are transcluded, as this one is. I haven't altered the substance of the comments made. (No !vote from me at this time) AndyJones (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have moved the following section from the article to here. I haven't checked the edit history yet, but it is clearly intended as an argument in this debate, not as part of the article:

The suggestion to delete this page by the challenger for the reason given is ludicrous.

""LaFayette, Ohio has changed dramatically because of the items cited in this article. The suggestion that article should be removed because there are no noteworthy resources validated our existence is alarming. LaFayette, Ohio is a very small village of only about 300 people. Our veterans organization has about 25 members, with 7 to 8 very active. Considering the size of the village, that is is a large percentage. The veterans organization is a very integral part of this village. In order to have a complete profile of the village of LaFayette, Ohio, The activities and history of the LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization and the LaFayette Jackson Historical Society must be recorded here. Wikipedia Editors have also challenged the spelling of LaFayette based on research which does not include the official records of the village. (Yes Properly Spelled with a capital "F") They are also challenging and denying that the village nickname is Patriot City USA, again based on arbitrary reasons without checking into the villages records. It is time for wikipedia to examine LaFayette, Ohio Village documents before making these statements based on research that does not include official village documents. I challenge you to contact the village council at 225 E Sugar Lafayette, OH <removed phone number> to get the information you need to verify what I have been saying here is true before you delete this page.

...and on checking, the argument was added by User:Ljvo, here. AndyJones (talk) 14:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Our guidline on notability for non-commercial organisations can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Non-commercial organizations. If you would like to argue that the article should be kept, you should address that guideline and explain why, in your view, the organisation meets it. AndyJones (talk) 14:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I feel very sorry for User:Ljvo, who must have found this process extremely frustrating. Many of our new users must find this: the website more-or-less encourages new users to be bold and create articles on matters which are important to them, and then frequently plunges them into debates/disputes with more experienced users on a complex mass of content issues they were completely unprepared for and had no reason to expect. Anyway, getting to my vote, the subject of the article seems to fail WP:N. Also, the author of the article has twice blanked the page, which in contexts like this one I've always thought of as the inexperienced user's equivalent to placing a {db-auth} tag, particlularly in light of comments like: "The LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Organization no Longer wishes to be referenced or have any mention on this website." AndyJones (talk) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tried my best to be easy on Ljvo throughout this process (you can see in the comments that he is firm that the village is LaFayette, despite research that I list on the village's talk page), and I hope I've not done ill. I've thought the same thing about the blanking; it's just that I'm not about to speedy it myself after bringing up the AFD in the first place :-) Nyttend (talk) 11:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author's right to blank no longer applies this late in the process, but group is clearly non-notable, the COI was obvious, and the editor's name was unacceptable (and has been userblocked). --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to village article. WP:LOCAL does imply that topics of local interest should be included in the place article and should only be split off if it would make the article too long or too unfocused. The village article is clearly in need of content and this would be a good addition. Outright deletion is not necessary here. --Polaron | Talk 15:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the following was added to my talk page, but seems to pertain to this discussion:

Edits By Original Writers of LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Org. are to Be Left alone

The LaFayette~Jackson Veterans Organization is no longer interested in being represented on wikipedia. It is Our CONTENT and OUR DECISION you have already nominated the page for deletion anyway. we have decided it is not in our best interest to continue to have a presence on wikipedia that can be edited by other people. We have since declared all content Copyrighted by our organization is not in the public domain. Ljvo (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Please leave our page alone or completely remove it. It Is our decision to have no content on wikipedia at this time and no amount of debate by others who have no knowledge of our organization has the information required to put information on the site. Ljvo (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediea DO NOT RESTORE CONTENT DELETED BY ORIGINAL AUTHORS FROM THE VETERANS ORGANIZATION! Ljvo (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and I've no particular comment, except to say that this isn't "your" (L~J.V.O.'s) content, unless it was copyrighted before you posted it here under GFDL. AndyJones (talk) 17:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Combat engineering. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Engineer combat group[edit]

Unreferenced orphan stub article that as been tagged as dubious for over a year now. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Combat engineering... from what I read that would be the most logical action... - Adolphus79 (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Once one gets rid of the dubious material, what is there left to merge? As an orphan article, I see no need to simply turn it into a redirect, which would be the effect of a merge of the current article. Caerwine Caer’s whines 03:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. None of the material is dubious. Engineer combat groups were active until at least the 1980s, though they were usually titled just 'Engineer Groups' by that time. If you want a reference to Engineer groups, use David Isby & Charles Kamps Jr, Armies of NATO's Central Front, Jane's, 1985, but for the WW 2 version I'd need to do checking around. In my view, merging all the material to the Combat engineering article would be wisest. Regards Buckshot06(prof) 09:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply I'm not saying that there is/was no such a thing as an engineer combat group. However, other that the dubious and unreferenced piece of information that John C. H. Lee was responsible for the establishment of engineer combat groups in World War II, there's not anything to salvage of the current article. That's not to say a good article or even a good stub article couldn't be be written, but in its current state, this ain't it. Caerwine Caer’s whines 05:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - appears distinct from Combat Engineering. 413 google book hits, many of which seem to show that it was not only a designation on many units but a distinct and notable unit type. From "Battle Bridges: Combat River Crossings : World War II (2004) by John B. Wong" an Engineering combat group is a type of Engineering group with a specific mission. It appears to be an organizational unit often of approximately regimental size (at least in the Battle of the Bulge). good scholarly articles on the subject - Peripitus (Talk) 03:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)... Change to Redirect to Combat engineering based on the dubiousness of the information. Someone can revert a write a proper article in the future - Peripitus (Talk) 07:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a worthwhile subject of an encyclopedic article, but since there was only a seven word change in the 16 months between being tagged as "dubious" and being tagged for AfD (and the change happened just before the latter tagging). It is unreferenced, and (omitting the contested material) virtually void of useful information. Redirect to Combat engineering until someone has the time to develop an article more substantial (and with more citations) than the current one. B.Wind (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 strong consensus, and per article improvements since nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr Praline[edit]

Delete - fails Wikipedia articles are not plot summaries. There are no reliable sources that are substantively about this character, as opposed to simply mentioning him, so it fails notability guidelines as well. The notability of Monty Python does not mean that every character that ever appeared in an episode of Monty Python is also notable. Otto4711 (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is possibly the most notable character on Monty Python. BradV 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be no problem finding reliable sources that are substantially about the character, as required by WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 20:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no problem finding sources - in fact I put three of the many available into the article when I removed the prod tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you added are not substantively about the character. They are short passages in longer books that merely describe the plots of the sketches in which the character appears. Your first source is literally two sentences out of a 249 page book that merely mentions the character's name. Your second source is a plot description. Your third source is one paragraph from a 291 page book and again only describes the character's actions in a sketch. None of these constitute reliable sources attesting to the notability of the character. Please read WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:RS and WP:N. Otto4711 (talk) 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep We're seriously talking about deleting Mr. PRALINE now? Man, these AfDs get more and more time- and content-draining... Dekkappai (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mr Praline is one of the iconic images of 20th-century comedy, created by one of the most influential comedy groups of the 20th century. Notability is not in doubt. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there should be no problem in finding sources that are substantively about the character, and not just recountings of the plot of the character's appearances. Just asserting notability doesn't make it so in the absence of sources. Just repeating it time and time again doesn't make it true. Otto4711 (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. For all the reasons previously given. DDStretch (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding? Close and get this over with, someone please. --Blechnic (talk) 00:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More people can quote Mr. Praline than can quote anything George W. Bush ever said. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 00:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ability of people to quote the character does not establish the notability of the character. Reliable sources do. Otto4711 (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, and I don't mind you bringing that up a 4th time, but it's not my job to do everything there is to be done on Wikipedia. I'm saying that if the decision is made to delete, I will be shocked and saddened, and when I have time, I'll go hunt up some references. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 22:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the job of those wanting the article kept to provide reliable sources that demonstrate notability. Otto4711 (talk) 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant info with Dead Parrot. Not notable enough for own article. Epbr123 (talk) 08:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to point out a canvassing issue. Epbr123 (talk) 08:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A merge would not be appropriate, as Mr Praline was one of the very few recurring characters in Monty Python (which alone would make him notable IMO), and appeared in other sketches as well as the Dead Parrot. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of quite a few other recurring characters, and his other appearances weren't notable so they won't need to be mentioned in detail in the Dead Parrot article. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If a merger were under consideration, it would have been better to propose a merger of the Dead Parrot article into Mr Praline (with the Dead Parrot article becoming a redirection page linking directly to a section in Mr Praline that covers his appearance and role in Dead Parrot.) However, if this were a serious contender, Dead Parrot ought ideally to have been in the AfD in a more prominent position, and, even if it were, I'm not sure that the arguments in favour of doing any merger this way round would be compelling. DDStretch (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Dead Parrot sketch is more notable than Mr Praline, so a merger the other way would be inappropriate. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the exchanges here demonstrate that a merge either way would be wrong - Dead Parrot is notable beyond Mr Praline, and vice versa, so both articles should be kept as different perspectives on their roles in Monty Python. I find it difficult to believe that people are considering deleting this article when this is a character who is still well known after nearly forty years. How many of the characters in current TV shows whose articles are routinely kept at AfD will still be remembered after that time? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps those that, unlike Mr Praline, have reliable sources that are substantively about the characters rather than simply summarizing the plots of the sketches in which the character appears. Seriously, for all of this gnashing of teeth and rending of garments about what a loss to Wikipedia deleting this article would be, what is said in the article that isn't said better in Dead Parrot and Fish Licence? What is in this article other than plot summaries of the character's appearances, which if you looked at this AFD without the cloud of Python fanboy haze, you'd realize is a flat-out violation of Wikipedia policy? I love Mr Praline too, but just because we love Mr Praline doesn't mean the character is notable enough for his own article. Otto4711 (talk) 22:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly sourced, notability easily asserted, keep. —Giggy 03:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are not strong. They are textbook examples of "trivial coverage" as explained in footnote 1 of WP:N: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker. "Tough love child of Kennedy", The Guardian, 1992-01-06. ) is plainly trivial. Whether or not notability is asserted is not the standard for keeping. Notability must be demonstrated by non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources. Otto4711 (talk) 12:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 need for this one to go on any longer, per WP:SNOW Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic rock[edit]

No citations, just original research. Someone has taken an adjective and stuck it in front of a defined music genre to try and create something that doesn't exist. Melodic rock is just plain old Rock music. (see WP:NFT)
Would also add List of melodic rock bands to the AfD nom. Libs (talk) 19:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-existant. Seeing as most of the bands named in the article belong to either the hard rock or arena rock genres, a possible redirect to any of those would be plausible. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 22:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced OR an, quite possibly, WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I will take care of this article. It is a valid genre of music that is becoming increasingly popular. Weatherman90 (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is my favorite genre. Nothing in the arts should ever be deleted. Shootemupwiki (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.42.105 (talk) [reply]

Note The link to this article is posted on a Melodicrock messageboard with instructions to come here and post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeAee (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin - Transparently suspicious keep. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 02:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--Not enough sources or citations. All someone's opinion. The sources are too one sided and their reliability is questionable. You have a section "MelodicRock in the United States" with all of the info from outside the United States.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeAee (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. It's just rock. The list of melodic rock bands can be re-directed to one of the more valid rock lists. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It describes a type a music. AOR is too broad so MR should exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StonecoldMR (talk • contribs) 03:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - New account again. Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I put a ""not a ballot" template somewhere? Seeing as people are supposedly are being told to vote here via a message board. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 15:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Pure fancruft: WP:NFT Scarian ^{Call me Pat!} 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (withdrawn by nominator) - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions in the Gospel of John[edit]

Per WP:NOT#INFO. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not encyclopedic. The definition given by the article for an "omission" is apparently if it's in Matthew, Mark or Luke, it has been "omitted" from John. "Omitted" implies that the writers of the Gospel of John were either negligent, or deliberately planned to leave out something. But semantics aside, what's the point of the article? This strikes me as "original synthesis", drawing one's own conclusions from the Bible. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article is absolutely terrible and needs a lot of work, this is actually a notable topic and has received plenty of study over the years. (See Synoptic problem for more information). The article should be moved to a less ambiguous title, perhaps Comparison of the Gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels, and needs to be sourced to get rid of any OR or POV, but the topic is notable and most of the information in it is verifiable. BradV 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with Synoptic problem. I think having this as a separate article make finding it more difficult. I think there is already a "similarities" section. A "differences" might fit in very well in that article. LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gospel of John into a section on "controversies" or "additional material" or "questionable exclustions"--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Gospel of John. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep absolutely. The points are all valid and important. Perhaps the Title could be changed to "Differences between the Gospel of John and the Synoptics." Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to withdraw this nomination and work on merging the article. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cape Verdean Brazilian[edit]

This article is old, from October 2007, but it was brought to my attention when someone put it in Template:Demographics of Brazil. This is again another near empty article with almost no information. This article has no importance. Lehoiberri (talk) 19:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Another non-notable community in Brazil. Cape Verdean Brazilian is also Portuguese Brazilian? Zero Kitsune (talk) 21:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - virtually no content. This is essentially a dicdef. B.Wind (talk) 04:41, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Immigration to Brazil, which I see has been suggested for one or two other articles regarding ethnic groups in Brazil. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 15:32, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non notable religious leader with no reliable sources. I looked at the first debate from 2004 and it offered no proof of notability or reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Unlike Shri Pawahari Balkrishn Yatiji, all sourceable and potentially true claims of humans aged 135 are notable. Also had two notable followers. 209.243.55.22 (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't see him on this list, Oldest people and could not find a reliable source to confirm the age of 135. Any reliable sources to confirm this would help this article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, he had two disciples on Wikipedia with no sources. They were both nominated for deletion and were deleted as non notables. So, he does not have two notable disciples per Wikipedia's standards on notability. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note The first debate is listed at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep: his two desciples shouldn't have been deleted either. Yoga In Daily life is a renown yoga center all over Europe and was founded by Maheshwaranda. Please review these articles as they should be on wikipedia at the very least. Thanks Abhishek Purohit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.19.102.57 (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you for your first edit to wikipedia. If you would like to help this article, I would suggest adding reliable sources to the article that would show this person to be notable. At present there is no proof of notability nor any clear claim to notability. Also, there is a complete lack of reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After nominating this article over a week ago, and it has become clear that this religious leader's page and his disciples pages were a Wikipedia:Walled garden. The articles only linked to one another. After they were reviewed it was determined that they were not notable just as Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji. This article deserves a Strong Delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No verifiable references to indicate notability, the claimed biography can't be found though Book Sources. Sandstein 20:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - major verifiability problem here, certainly no evidence within reliable sources. Claim of living 136 years was not mentioned in any issue of Guinness Book of World Records, probably the definitive source for extreme human longevity since its inception, for example. B.Wind (talk) 04:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Papercutz[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about a non-notable band; cites no secondary sources as to why it is notable. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A grand total of two Google hits referring to this band--its official site, and its Myspace page. Next. Blueboy 96 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum And based on the contrib history, the author is an SPA. Blueboy 96 00:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "A grand total of two Google hits referring to this band" This is not true! my article references came from google search.

However there is also a graphic novel publisher called Papercutz that takes most of google initial pages results when searching for this name. Just use "papercutzed" (a verb used by the group used to name it's fans) as google search and see the results... --Mike trust (talk) 13:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity (magazine)[edit]

Tagged with notability concerns since September 2007. The article also has a possible merge tag to Celebrity Centre - but not sure if that is a good idea for 2 reasons - 1) At present this article is completely unsourced so there is nothing really useful to merge, and 2) Unlikely anyone will even be looking for the search term "Celebrity (magazine)", so not sure if even a redirect is necessary at this point in time. Cirt (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: In some database archival searches I was able to find some brief mentions of the publication in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources, albeit no real significant discussion of the magazine itself whatsoever, moreso in relation to brief snippets of quotes from interviews of prominent Scientologist celebrities and the like. Cirt (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability does not seem to have been established. Page can always be made a redirect later, if sufficient cause is found. John Carter (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snow delete. Blueboy 96 14:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMGLOL![edit]

I can find no sources that suggest this term denotes any sort of "social subset". Ptcamn (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It would save a lot of time and effort if JeanLatore (talk · contribs) would simply nominate their own articles for AfD immediately after creation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
or just stop creating them... - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jean hasn't been quick to pick up on that fact, and I'm wondering if he ever will. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Textbook original research, no sourcing (with little reliable scope to do so), no notability, little relevance to internet cultue in any view. Rudget (logs) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can find no evidence to persuade me that this is not just made-up nancy ^(talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - a couple kids using common internet memes, and making a group because of it, is nowhere near notable... I mean, would I be able to make an article called BONFIRE! about my group of friends that come over here on the weekends to get drunk around a bonfire? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: This neologism is just a cut-and-shunt of two existing phrases and it makes no sense as the descriptive name of social grouping. Of course, just because it doesn't make sense doesn't mean it isn't so but the total lack of any references is not encouraging. Googling it shows that Urban Dictionary has it (without the exclamation mark) as a expression meaning "extra funny" but not as a social group. There are also some people using it as user names on social networking sites (again without the exclamation mark) but nothing at all to indicate that it might be a social group. Finally it is the name of somebody's blog. So, stuck half way between hoax and non notable neologism, it seems that it has no hope. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OMG DEL (Delete) useless variant of lol made by combining OMG and LOL. These things may be notable on their own, but not as a phrase. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete plz. Like, my bff Jean, seriously. Unless you can find something specific to that phrase that asserts its notability independently of Lol and Omg, then it needs to go. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per OR and the fact that it is not notable. tabor-^{drop me a line} 01:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence provided, none likely to be found. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DEL, WP:NFT, srsly. --Dhartung | Talk 03:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Non-notable nonsense OR. Enigma ^message 03:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear original research, fails WP:NEO. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:OR. Possibly time to throw out some WP:SNOWballs, too. JPG-GR (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Del nn JJ (t) 6ish 7/6/8

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

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

The result was merge to The Color Changin' Click. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Ro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This artist fails WP:MUSIC and while his brother may be a notable musician, that notability is not inherited. JBsupreme (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if this is in the wrong place I've never done this before...but um I'm not sure who you think Yung Ro is but he is no one's brother??? He's a rap artist that is currently signed to Chamillitary/Universal Records and has 2 mixtapes and an album coming up with Chamillitary that were supposed to be released this year(dates still pending though =/). I've been a bit busy to really put alot into this page, but if you let me know what I need to do to get this page "up to par" please let me know and I'll do it :) Ghandi1019 (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some references might help the article to be kept! Take a look at Wikipedia:Your first article#Gathering references. References to independent sources such as newspaper and magazine articles are important not just for notability but also to assure that the contents of the article are verifiable. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge for now to The Color Changin' Click, which will preserve the content in history in case his individual notability develops. I'm not sure whose brother the nom thinks he is; is he being confused with Rasaq? --Groggy Dice T | C 15:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No substantial policy-based arguments for deletion were advanced. Given the level of sourcing present in the article, a blanket assertion of "OR" is not enough. I've not even read the various lengthy rants. This closure does not rule out a merger of this article with another, should consensus determine this to be appropriate. Sandstein 17:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956[edit]

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No scholar ever talked about a Palestinian exodus between 1949 and 1956. It is true that Arab Israelis were expelled during this period and some villages at Israel's borders leveled but this was not a massive emigration ~~or a period of war~~ (as Exodus means).
In the current state, it is a WP:OR
Ceedjee (talk) 18:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete per nominator. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment just for the record, I do not mind if the content of the article is kept, just that the article itself is a WP:POVFORK. If the creator of the article wants to keep the info, I will not oppose merging it with 1948 Palestinian exodus and renaming the article to Palestinian exodus. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That would not be possible. There was the 1967 Palestinian exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but Avi Shlaim, Ilan Pappe, Tom Segev all talk of the expulsions and making of Palestinian refugees in 1948 and continuing up to 1956. And as you removed the referenced work from 1948 Palestinian exodus it seems that the continuation article was called for. The other alternate is to correct the tittle in the 1948 Palestinian Exodus article and incorporate the properly secondary referenced work. Exodus doe not imply war or you end up with the absurdity of having to re-tittle the Jewish Exodus from Egypt.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No.

You just give the name of 3 New historians. You don't even talk about Benny Morris.

Avi Shlaim didn't study the exodus, the expulsion of the Palestinian problem.

Ilan Pappé published on the Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. But he doesn't refer to the events between 1949 and 1956 as an exodus (mass emigration ?)

Tom Segev only published on 1949 in a book I gave the reference to you. And he doens't talk about any exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I happen to have a copy of Tom Segev 1949 in my hand, you gave nothing. Please stop claiming something that you have not done....I have over 50 books on the shelf in front of my computer on the subject at present, (the amount of books is something my wife complains about) Ilan Pappé calls it Ethnic cleansing and in the epilogue continues up to 2006, are you suggesting that the article should be re-titled the "ethnic cleansing of Israel 1949-1956"? I think that is putting it a bit strong, don't you? Shlaim, Segev and Pappé all give facts about the events referenced. Huthchison as you know was a UN observer and chairman of the Jordan Israel Mixed Armistice commission, the UN archives are very reliable for a neutral source. No historian stops at the end of 1948 for referring to the exodus or ethnic cleansing. Tom Segev is primarily concerned with events within Israel which is useful for expanding the internally Displaced section, Ilan Pappe gives details of the forced labour and expulsion at the end of the period of confinement. Avi Shlain and Tom Segev are good for internal political event and Shlaimis good for external political events. I really am not interested in Benny Morris, so maybe you could add something from Benny to augment the article?...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No bad to have so many books : [42]

*At what page Tom Segev, the First Israeli talk about the exodus ?

*At what page of which book, Avi Shlaim talk about an exodus for the events between 1949 and 1956 ?

*At what page does Benny Morris, the main scholar on this period, talk about an palestinian exodus for the years 1949-1956 ?

*Do you deny Ilan Pappé calls ethnic cleansing the period of 1948 and not something else ?

Ceedjee (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ilan Pappé calls it Ethnic cleansing from 1948 to present; he doesn't stop at 1948. Are you going to change the title to the article 1948 Palestinian exodus article in light of that? Even Morris in "Birth revisited" goes to 1950. Benny is not the main scholar for the period....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1948 Palestinian exodus is an article that have existed on wp:en for more than 5 years and that talks about the exodus that occured during the 1948 Palestine War.

There have been nuemrous studies published by scholars in peer-reviewed books and articles about that.

In that article, there is no problem to go up to 1950 given expulsions and move population that occured up to 1950 were consequences of that war or linked with that.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only there was no major fighting and the war lasted until 1973, when the first peace treaty was signed with Egypt...Benny is the scholar that talks of Exodus and Benny takes it up to 1950. Avi Shlaim refers to it as "Displacement and Dispossession" and takes it from 1948 to 1956, Ilan Pappe calls it "Ethnic Cleansing" and takes it from 1947 to 1953, Ghada Karmi calls it "Exodus" and takes it from 1948 to present. One thing is noticeable they all do not refer to only 1948....Question when are you going to ask for deletion of 1948 Palestinian exodus as the title is OR?Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley. You will not succeed in making believe to anybody who followed my contributions that I am a disruptive editor.

You refer to Ghada Karmi. Well : here is the first article you can find in her biblography on wikipedia :

*"The 1948 Exodus: A Family Story" in Journal of Palestine Studies 23, no. 2 (Win. 1994): 31-40.

Who is making wp:or ?

It is not because you cherry pick quotes from different sources that the global work is not a wp:or. And in fact, to be precise, it is a WP:SYNTH.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How do book refs constitute original research? §hep • ¡Talk to me! 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per WP:SYNTH. As explained and widely admitted eg here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). Ceedjee (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Google Exodus must mean having a holiday as they are the majority of hits when googling "Exodus" the bible chapter "exodus" taking 4th place. with house moving taking up the rear....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You right. Exodus doesn't refer to war period. But to massive population displacement. But there is no secondary source that ever talked about an exodus for the period 1949-1953. This is WP:SYNTH. Ceedjee (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

exodus noun (exoduses) 1 a mass departure of people. 2 (Exodus) the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, probably in the 13c BC. ETYMOLOGY: 17c; Anglo-Saxon in sense 2: Latin, from Greek exodos, from ex out + hodos way.[43]

Not one mention of war in Chambers definition of Exodus....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 18:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to have been an actual historical event...a well referenced article to boot Dreamspy (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What references ? It is not because you pick up quotes from different books that this is not wp:OR. Please check carefully the article. Ceedjee (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep well referenced, well written article about a significant historical event. nancy ^(talk) 19:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What event ? What is the exodus that would have occured between 1949 and 1956 in Israel ? Whose scholar studied it ? Even Benny Morris doesn't talk about this...

And why do you dare to write strong for a topic you don't know ??? Ceedjee (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoah there buddy. Cool your jets. That's making assumptions. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who makes assumptions ? Please, provide me 1 wp:rs 2nd source that talk about a Palestinian exodus that would have occured between 1949 and 1956... :-) Ceedjee (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the reviews I've seen try ISBN:0585259496. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is this book : Israel's Border Wars 1949-1956 (book). It doesn't talk about a Palestian exodus... Ceedjee (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee problem revisited" doesn't even speak about Exodus in the maintext, It talks of expulsions, refugees, exiting, leaving, Abandonment, transfer, only in the index is there any mention of exodus first wave, second wave, third wave, forth wave and then clearing the borders: expulsions and population transfers November 1948-1950. will you look at that Benny even puts up to 1950 as part of the mass "Refugee" period. Not quite what you have for the title of the 1948 Palestinian Exodus even Benny includes up to 1950....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 21:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are bad faith :

The title 1948 Palestinian exodus has been chosen long ago. And I already told you why in giving you the wp:rs secondary source (widely used in the article) : The Palestinian Exodus in 1948 of Steven Glazer published in Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 9, No. 4 (Summer, 1980), pp. 96-118. Why do you forget this if not bad faith ?
We were talking about Borders Wars and an alleged exodus that would have occured between 1949 and 1956 ! Where is the wp:rs secondary source that talk about this ? All you wrote is a wp:or : no scholar ever talked about a Palestinian exodus between 1949 and 1956. Else, please, give the name, the book and the reference If the book you have just found is good, please, give the page in this book where they talk about a palestinian exodus for the period 1949-1956 ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I wasn't privy to any discussions about the original title.
2. The title is inaccurate and not a true reflection of reality. from whatever source you got it from
3. The UNRWA was still trying to figure out the numbers in 1951 because the goal posts kept moving.
4. The events from 1949 to 1956 were a continuation of the exodus of 1948. Same sides same methods, same results...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainly per Nancy; well-documented event with significant scope to be expanded even more, actual historical event notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. Rudget (logs) 19:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but move to a more appropriate title than "Exodus" (especially the capital "E" part). The article is verifiably sourced, and the subject is certainly a notable event. S. Dean Jameson 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI had originally written the article within the 1948 Palestinian exodus article but one editor removed it. This is what has caused the fork. Personally I believe the material should be within the original article and not separate...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Material about expulsions that occured between 1949 and 1956 could hardly be in the article 1948 Palestinian exodus... Please, let me remind you that you reverted this : [44] Ceedjee (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Another article using the fork method of this user. As he says himself, whenever his material gets deleted from an article, he dumps it into another one. Ashley is a disruptive editor reported over and over in the last month. Wikipedia is not a garbage dump for his POV--Gilabrand (talk) 19:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee the article is not all about expulsions, there were some who left due to economic forces, there were some who left by persuasion, there was some who left because of Jordanian double dealing there were also some expulsions...the "title" reflects the myriad reasons...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - This is not the issue. What wp:rs secondary source talk about a palestinian exodus (mass emigration) that would have occured between 1948 and 1956 in Israel ? Ceedjee (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Palestinian Exodus: 1948-1998 (Hardcover) by Ghada Karmi (Editor), Eugene Cotran (Editor) # Publisher: Ithaca Press (28 Jan 1999) # Language English # ISBN-10: 086372244X # ISBN-13: 978-0863722448....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have this book. But I assume he talks about the 750,000 PAlestinians of the 1948 Palestinian exodus and the 350,000 of the 1967 Palestinian exodus to which several expulsions, emigration or flee should be added. But there is nothing such as a palestinian exodus that would have occured between 1949 and 1956. Ceedjee (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes. Indeed : amazon review : This book analyses this connection and reviews the Palestinian exodus from 1948, through 1967, right up to the present time with the continuing expulsion of Palestinians from Jerusalem. It explores the themes of compensation for Palestinians, the right of return of the refugees to Israel and the feasibility of return". Ceedjee (talk) 20:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, Ghada Karmi and Eugene Cotran seem to disagree with you.... from 1948 through to 1967 and right up to the present. not of 1948 and 1967. The Palestinian Exodus 1948-1998 documents how, through five decades, the Palestinian population has been exposed to expulsions and other forms of pressure .Jstor ....Which historian gives a fixed date to the end of the Exodus??....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No Ashley. They do not disagree with me. Expulsions and other kind of pressures are not an exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are correct other pressures are not an exodus; they are however the root causes of an exodus. And Karmi does refer to 5 decades..He doesn't skip a decade..The Christian exodus from Bethlehem is still ongoing....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you mean you are making this pov-pushing because you are disappointed by the expulsions of Palestinians that still occurs today ? WP is not a second battleground for that ISraeli-Palestinian conflict. WP is not a tribune for PAlestinians or Israelians ! Ceedjee (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'm not familiar with many of the sources being used for this page, but they look reliable, and I know Segev is reliable. The nom's challenge "no scholar..." is quite adequately answered, and unless the article is written by Segev and the other people, it's not original research. Article passes every verifiability and notability standard that I know of. Nyttend (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, Tom Segev is a wp:rs source. I wrote this FA based mainly on one of his book : fr:émeutes de 1920 en Palestine mandataire. But here, it is not used and the word exodus doesn't appear in his book 1949. The First Israelis... Ceedjee (talk) 08:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word exodus wasn't included in the Talmud; it is however in the Bible. Morris does use the word Exodus for events outside of 1948 yet you still maintain the parent article is correctly entitled. Even when Morris goes to 1950 with his book? You have a strange attitude to historical events.Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Who talked about Talmud and Bible ? This is straw man argument.
    - You wrote here above he was not using the word exodus. Now you write he uses this.
    - 750,000 Palestinians fled or were expeled during the 1948 Palestine War. This is a well-document and widely studied exodus ! There are articles by scholar written with that word (see here above - Glazer). And Morris (in the Birth revisited) studies the WAR period.
    - No scholar ever refered to the expulsions of Palestinians between 1949 and 1956 as an exodus (mass expulsion).
    - It is just a pov you want to move forward (a wp:or for wikipedia) because you are moved by what Palestinians live. WP is not a political tribune.
    - Ceedjee (talk) 09:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talmud/Bible. The words used now are not always the words used at the time of an incident and it was also showing that exodus was not attached to war.
How many does it take to be an exodus?
Morris' book Birth goes up to and includes 1950. Well outside the main periods of fighting.... Ilan Pappe gives 1953 as the last bayonet point expulsion although the UN archives give an example in 1956 under cover of the Suez crisis....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Karmi does.
No, I'm pretty much a cold hearted bugger....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A well-attested and documented process. For instance, historian Nur Masalha deals with this in depth in his book A Land Without People: Israel, Transfer and the Palestinians 1949-96 (Faber and Faber, London 1997, ISBN 0-571-191000 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum-20. The second sub-chapter in the book is titled 'Less Arabs':Expulsions in the 1950s. It starts "After 1948, Israeli use of force continued in an attempt to induce some of the remaining Arabs to leave the country. Wholesale expulsions of Arabs, many with Israeli citizenship, across the border continued well into the late 1950s" (p7), and the first fifty pages of the book discuss and document this thoroughly. RolandR (talk) 10:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Seems to me like the debate revolves mostly around the title. "Exodus" might indeed be extreme enough to constitute OR, if no consensus among historians about using this term exists. Perhaps it should be moved to "Expropriation of Palestinian lands" or something similar. -- Nudve (talk) 10:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ceedjee, asked me for an opinion. I have not had the time (Formula 1, and Federer on Centre Court have tempted me away from my duty to look as closely as I would like at this), but I agree with RolandR: there are a sufficient number of cases underlining a policy of continued expulsion over the period 1949-1956, not to speak of modern times) to warrant an articles along these lines. But I concur with Nudve's point. The problem is the word Exodus, which links these individual actions of expulsion, displacement over time to two events of massive displacement at two specific points in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (1948/1967). The article's content (which requires considerable refinement) shoudl be retained, but the title should be altered to avoid suspicions of infractions of WP:OR. Perhaps eventual a more ambitious title. 'Systematic expulsion and deportations' Nishidani (talk) 12:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Transfer of Arab Israelis between 1949 and 1956 ? "Transfer" gathering : expulsion (for any reason) + expropriation of lands (and move) + legal buying of lands (and move) + volunteer departure ... Ceedjee (talk) 11:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I've been 'transferred' out of a country with a gun (actually three) at my back, and dislike the word. I was expelled, not transferred. One calls a spade a spade. Exodus, in any case, is simply the wrong word as well.Nishidani (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As ceedjee likes Benny...Split the bits up to 1950 and put them in the Palestinian Exodus (this would make the 1948 date irrelevant) and retitle to Israeli Border Wars (plenty of room for spin off articles, there's already a couple Qibya, Beit jala to name two and loads of expansion work to get on with)....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment' for the benefit of Ceedjee, Ashley and maybe others: Ghada Karmi is a woman. She has written extensively about the Palestinian refugee experience. RolandR (talk) 19:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the title is problematic and the content needs work, but there's nothing terribly problematic, and it documents real historical events using solid references. No prejudice against merging this to the 1948 Palestinian exodus article though. Come to think of it, we don't really have an article on the Israeli military rule of its Arab population from 1949-66, do we? Maybe a general article about that needs to be written, and we can merge this and other content in. Anyway I don't see a real reason to delete it (or why Ceedjee gets so upset / insulting about these things.) <eleland/talkedits> 20:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Too easy Eleland. Don't you think two guys are upset and insulting ? Why didn't you try to find what lead to this... Material could be merged in the 1948 Palestinian exodus article, indeed. But not to argue a modification of the title. Ceedjee (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - From where you initially removed it 1948 Palestinian exodus:

"Revision as of 19:17, 3 July 2008 (edit) Ceedjee (Talk | contribs) (this... has... nothing... to... do... with... the... 1948... Palestinian... exodus... CREATE A NEW ARTICLE AFTER FOUNDING A WP:RS 2ND SOURCE !!!)", funny how your argument changes after you notice that there were loads of secondary sources in the article and that your argument has been shown to be ridiculous.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a historical event, and arguments for deletions here seem quite disingenuous. Niczar ⏎ 20:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have moved the article to a more standardized name (per the other, similar articles), which does not affect this AfD in the least. If the result is "delete", it will still be deleted, of course. S. Dean Jameson 21:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment. I would like to carry into attention all arguments about WP:SYNTH given here : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allegations of apartheid (fifth nomination). And I still point out there is not wp:rs sdecondary source that ever talked about a 1949-1956 Palestinian exodus. Ceedjee (talk) 07:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from:- The Palestinian Exodus: 1948-1998 (Hardcover) by Ghada Karmi (Editor), Eugene Cotran (Editor) # Publisher: Ithaca Press (28 Jan 1999) # Language English # ISBN-10: 086372244X # ISBN-13: 978-0863722448......Take your POV else where ceedjee...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 08:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't this book. You don't know why she globalized the 1948-88 period.

As you know yourself :

in 1948-49 : 700-750,000 palestinian refugees (flight and expulsion)
in 1950-66 : 20,000 palestinian refugees + 15,000 beduin (expulsion - transfer)
in 1967 : 350,000 palestinian refugee
between 1967-88 : regular expulsion of Palestinians.

Whatever the "crime", a flow of 700,000 on 1 year or of 300,000 on 1 week, is an exodus (and numerous historian call this an exodus).

No scholar (and Karmi first is not and second certainly doens't claim so) ever called the 1949-56 period an exodus.

All this should be merged or rename. And if merged in 1948 Palestinian exodus, the article title should not be changed. Because this exodus refers to the one of the 1948 war. And I have given the sources to you (the most nice one being an article of... Ghada Karmi herself, published in the Journal of Palestine studies).

Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How disingenuous are you going to get Ceedjee; Morris has 30,000 to 40,000 for the years 1949 (post truce) to 1950 not for the years you give. See Benny Birth p 536.

1 1947-1949 (to the truce):700,000-750,000
2 1949(post truce)-1950 30,000-40,000 (Benny Birth p 536.)
3 1950 to 1956........Unknown
4 1956-1967....unknown
5 1967 350,000
6 1967-1988 regular expulsion of Palestinians.
7 1988 to present regular emigration.....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 15:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghada Karmi in her personal exodus of 5 (Mum, Dad, brother, sister and herself) in July 1948 so 5 now meets your criteria for an exodus. and then of course as her judgement is now valid when she says "Exodus 1948 to 1998". or again is that only allowed if it agrees with your version and disallowed if it disagrees with you?..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghada Karmi refers to the process as "Vanishing the Palestinians" and puts the brackets of 1948 to present....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to Ceedjee's smear tactics[edit]

I would kindly ask you to be WP:CIVIL. I am not responsible of the fact you have just been blocked. I remind you that user:Gilabrand asked me to come and try to discuss with you because I could be somewhere in between you and her. I want to underline that I have the same kind of discussion with user:Amoruso and had before numerous ones with user:Zeq

Ceedjee (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What has that got to do with the article I don't know:-

But here is the Israeli POV that Ceedjee has defended. The Cherry picking, OR and just inaccuracies on Beit Jala raid.

....................................................

Washington, on the other hand, went ahead with formal representations to Tel Aviv, the American consul in Jerusalem called the raid ‘open, organized and provocative brutality’. The State Department told Israel that, while the US understood its difficulties stemming from infiltration, the ‘military incursions by Israel into Jordan or other neighbouring states (for the) purpose (of) shooting people or destroying property appeared to dept as extremely grave violations Armistice Agreement which c(ould) not be justified under any circumstances.’ Dean Acheson spoke of ‘brutal . .terror tactics’ US Ambassador Tel Aviv Monnett Davis initially said IDF got upper hand over avowed policy of government, since the ‘dominant military clique’ held a cynical view of moderates’ efforts to make peace. Benny Morris, Border Wars p. 218-219

Yet according to the article everything was hunky dory in international reactions???

Benny says attack 3 blew up 2 article says blew up 3

From the article:-

On January 6, 1952, three houses in Beit Jala were rigged with explosives and blown up.

What does benny actually say:-

An IDF platoon attacked three of Beit Jala’s outlying houses with light weapons and grenades, and then blew up two of the houses while their occupants were still inside. Benny Morris, Border Wars p.215

...Benny agrees with Hutchison's description...article agrees with no one

from the article:-

presumed to be revenge for the rape and murder of a Jewish girl by infiltrators from Beit Jala.

Presumed by who??????

By the US:-

‘Western diplomats were not convinced that the Feistinger rape-murder was the work of infiltrators. In Apr.1953 the US consul-general in Jerusalem wrote: ’It was never shown that the act was not committed by her Israeli boy-friend’Benny Morris, Border Wars n 16 p.215

By the UN:-

Major Loreaux expressed the opinion that the Israeli police would have a better chance of finding the killer than the Arabs would.

looks like the presumption is OR POV...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 23:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

20Bello[edit]

Local D.C. rapper who fails WP:MUSIC and has not received multiple non-trivial coverage by third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One article in the Washington City Paper isn't enough for me. His CDs are from a non notable lable, and I can't find anything he's charted. Vickser (talk) 01:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 21:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn McGee[edit]

There are some WP:BLP1E issues surrounding this article, not to mention a huge conflict of interest as far as what type of editing is being done, and lastly I don't feel that this person is particularly notable. My suggestion is to delete and WP:SALT from further creation. JBsupreme (talk) 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entry was in place LONG before the scandal surrounding the move from AMBI, which McGee is better known for creating than for leaving. The entry has been edited many times moreover to remove accomplishments of McGee, which include being among the better known academics in the U.S. If you do not feel this person is notable, please compare to other bioethicists in that list and score against them before your dramatic remedy. I cannot suggest "Keep" because I have COI but it is pretty obvious that this academic serves on more commissions, editorial boards, and has been in more national and international media than most any academic, let alone of his age, and is widely recognized as a leader in bioethics, itself the fastest growing academic field. The mere fact that he invented and edits the #1 journal in all of health services research, ethics, philosophy and history & philosohy of science, The American Journal of Bioethics, would do it. That he also runs bioethics.net and was in Wikipedia long before he left AMBI - which it would be wise not to prejudge (2 weeks beforehand he was named one of the top 10 most influential people in the NY State Capital by the Chamber of Commerce) - isn't inconsequential. Not sure what your metric is for keeping people but check out the others on the bioethicists list.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 (talk • contribs) 04:35, 6 July 2008 — 74.76.183.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep the list of publications alone denotes notability Dreamspy (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but self-publications do not denote notability at all. Please review Wikipedia:Notability for details. JBsupreme (talk) 23:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What self-publications? Among those noted as bioethicists please compare the publications by McGee G (me - in interest of full disclosure) with others identified as bioethicists and identify more than five people with more peer-reviewed publications including books published by major presses including one that was a NYT Bestseller. Are there ANY self-publications?
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks likely to pass WP:PROF, but I think the media attention surrounding his departure from Albany Medical (and the irony of an ethics expert being caught up in possible ethical issues, as reported on in the second Scientific American article) lead to a pass of WP:BIO as well. Care should be taken regarding our policy on biographies of living persons but as long as anything we state can be sourced to reliable publishers (e.g. SciAm) we should be ok on that front. I don't think WP:BIO1E applies because the articles about him are not just about his dismissal, but also about his life through the several years leading up to the dismissal and about the legal aftermath of the situation: BIO1E is for when we really only have one thing to say about a person (he was fired -- so what), but I think there is more here than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this barely passes WP:Academics, but the media attention surrounding his departure of Albany makes that he passes WP:BIO. As to the publications, according to the Web of Science they have been cited less than 200 times (h-index of 8), which is less than stellar. There are some more citations if non-journal publications are taken into account and Web of Science may, in fact, be less appropriate for ethicists. Still, even Google Scholar, which casts a wider net, lists not that many citations (one with 63, one with 40, the rest less). What might tip the balance is the fact that he's the founding editor of the American Journal of Bioethics, which according to the Journal Citation Reports has an Impact factor of 3.9, which is more than twice the IF of number two in the category "HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE". (Strangely, there's an enormous amount of self-citations for 2007, but that does not enter into the above figures. Another strange thing with the journal: the Francis and Taylor website lists a pretty distinguished Editorial Board here[45], but the journal's own site lists no board at all and says that the "2008-2009 editorial board will be finalized shortly"[46]). Whatever the verdict on the academic part, though, WP:BIO carries the day. --Crusio (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What is typical in Web of Science for bioethicists' typical (h-index)? Would this be a low number relative to the other key bioethicists —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.183.8 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to present some citation data on well-known bioethicists to show that this is more than "less than stellar". The same data for Arthur Caplan, for instance, are about 1500 citations total, h-index of 20. Of course he's older than you are and would therefore be expected to have somewhat better citation rates. --Crusio (talk) 16:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would Arthur Caplan be the metric then? I think that would exclude ever other bioethics scholar in the English language, wouldn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.232.210.74 (talk) 02:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite obviously *not* what Crusio was suggesting... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you are right. I was being serious in making a point about the difficulty, as someone who has essentially been forced to respond to aggressively retaliatory edits of this page that resulted in essentially the deletion of scholarly matters that (were there to be a McGee page) one would hope could not just be imposed as though the magazine articles by one person erase my career. I am clearly conflicted (COI) though on that matter. As to T&F editorial board, the editorial board changes every two years, and the majority remain the same. The citations to the journal itself within the same year are the ISI JCI immediacy index, which is not all that important (it results in the journal being ranked on that index above journals like Science and Cell) - though this matter is under debate; editors of the largest most prominent science journals argue that citations within the same journal in the same year, if they are not ridiculously cooked, are a metric of the journal's quality. IMPACT FACTOR is the key issue - and it does not include citations in 2007 to 2007 articles. So 2007 citations to AJOB would not matter nor is it claimed as a strength of the journal; Impact Factor is what matters and is not in question. ISI JCI also studies the percentage of citations to articles in any journal (cited anywhere) that are cites to old articles as opposed to citations to new research; AJOB is heavily cited for its contemporary articles, for whatever that is worth, though that number does have some meaning and is positive of course, given that if the majority of citations to a journal are to older articles, this further cuts impact factor of current (recent) articles. These metrics may not matter and are of course subject to controversy but are nonetheless the only metric available to medical school deans and tenure committees, who regularly use ISI JCI impact factor as a barometer hence the many, many reviews of AJOB in places like Times Literary Supplement and in fact in the Chronicle of Higher Education two weeks ago in which AJOB was described as the leading journal in the field and something of an "unheard of" growth factor for a journal. Again, COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.189.118.3 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep passes WP:BIO, agree with David Eppstein that this is not a BIO1E. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should be kept, but there are errors in it now. For example he didn't write for the Albany paper in 1995-1997, rather I believe it was 2005-2007. Also the section that used to detail that he was on the front page of papers for was for his resignation from advanced cell technology due to their cloning of an endangered species (gaur) without letting the ethics advisory board which he sat on know. This was a very big deal at the time. Prior to the SCIAM article, there was a great deal of useful knowledge about Dr. McGee on here, that no longer is listed.k

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Penngirl03 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC) — Penngirl03 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Change
1. Include latest SciAm article http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=bioethics-institute-picks
2. Mr. McGee's statement about himself, "McGee retains the position of John A. Balint M.D. Endowed Chair Emeritus" is wrong. He was fired, he has not retired in good standing, and does not retain such position.
3. McGee says that "McGee served on the New York State Department of Health Newborn Screening committee and in its group on ethics and newborn screening [1], and as Chief of the Office of Bioethics of the Wadsworth Center, under its director Dr. Lawrence Sturman", but the New York State Department of Health states that he has never worked for them.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Membrillita (talk • contribs) — Membrillita (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There's nothing stopping you from making those changes yourself, as long as you're careful regarding conflicts of interest, inappropriate use of multiple accounts, and our policy on biographies of living persons. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete, G3 by MZMcBride. Blueboy 96 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio sanchez salamanca[edit]

Search for "Emilio sanchez salamanca" on Yahoo and Google--2 hits, both from Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 17:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 DJ in his early teens? Smells hoaxy to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete blatant hoax...nothing can be verified Dreamspy (talk) 19:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all per WP:SNOW. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Lascody[edit]

Players do not sufficiently satisfy WP:ATHLETE in that they have not played for a fully professional league, noting that soccer is a professional sport. In addition, players do not sufficiently satisfy the notability criteria as outlined by WP:FOOTY in that they do not play for a professional team, have played in a competitive fixture, or have senior international caps/Olympics caps. GauchoDude (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the aforementioned reasons:

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GauchoDude (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, some of them seem to play for professional teams (in the MLS), but haven't had any apps, so maybe delete, but be able to recreate if they to play this season. — chan dler — 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - Most of them do, however they have not played in a professional game, thus are non-notable. GauchoDude (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for Kevin Reiman, plenty of non-trivial coverage in reliable second party sources to satisfy WP:BIO, also has a pro club listed which I think would satisfy athlete, but BIO alone is enough. MrPrada (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all, they're all on MLS teams. We would not delete an AAA baseball player who was just called up to the major league team and is waiting to appear. If there is non trivial coverage from reliable second party sources, that satisfies WP:BIO, and that is all you need. Obviously there is a strong case to keep all on that basisi, and its of note that several of these players actually have MLS appearances, furthering the question aso why they are here at AFD and not stubs for improvement. MrPrada (talk) 00:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of these are notable. One is the keeper for the US Olympic Team heading to China. Another is frequently named as a substitute for MLS first team games. Most can be found on the current MLS roster. Some had high draft positions. One previously survived an AFD (shouldn't that be noted in this AFD?). One had a Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column. As previously noted, bundling players like this doesn't meet the guidlines for bundling in WP:AFD ("If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately."). Nfitz (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Then recreate his article when he appears in a match in China. And recreate the others when they appear in first team matches. Just because they get named to the bench does not make them notable. You have to actually play in a game, not just be named to the people who sit around waiting to get in to one. Your thinking is a clear violation of WP:FUTURE. 68.6.116.109 (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specious. If they were olympic benchers, they're not notable enough for inclusion, and if the team wins a bronze medal, they suddenly are? Heh. MrPrada (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - In my opinion, anyone good enough to be named to an Olympic soccer team, reserve or not, is among the 25 best players in his/her country. That's notable, period, even if they never play a minute. Powers ^T 13:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep All I checked was the first player listed (Doug Lascody) and found he currently plays for the Kansas City Wizards. Since this is a top-tier major league professional team, the accusation that it is "not a professional team" is absurd. Good enough for me, why bother checking the other nominations if the first one should never have been listed by the nominator's own statement?--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All A quick check of Michael Kraus on the MLS Kansas City Wizards website says "Led reserves with 4 assists and scored 2 goals in 12 Reserve Division games (10 starts)." So, as a recent major-league draftee from a notable college soccer program Creighton University, he has quickly become a leader of the reserve squad in his first season... not exactly the type of accomplishment we need to wipe off the face of Wikipedia... With the points that others' research have pointed out, I say Keep! - BierHerr | Bier holen gehen 17:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Dominic Cervi was just up for an AfD less than a month ago. I think it's in poor form to renom so quickly, but even more so considering the nominator didn't link to the previous discussion. matt91486 (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will do the nominator's job for him. Here is the past discussion on Cervi. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominic Cervi. matt91486 (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Soccer isn't the most notable sport and these guys aren't the most notable soccer players, but that is a matter of my opinion. Keep because they are notable to soccer fans. Dincher (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - what sport would be more notable than football? — chan dler — 00:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- more notable than "football" (soccer) in the United States (where the Kansas City Wizards play)? American football, baseball, basketball, golf, tennis, NASCAR, boxing, ... for starters...

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CSD#G11, copyright infringement (entire lede text was same as start of project wiki, which had no obvious GFDL or other copyleft statements visible). —David Eppstein (talk) 05:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DrProject[edit]

Are there links or references outside of their own website? Otherwise this isn't much more than marketing. Addionne (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many references do you want? Here is a quick Google search:

http://it.toolbox.com/blogs/bsd-guru/drproject-and-blindside-20538
http://www.linux.com/feature/119072
http://pyre.third-bit.com/blog/archives/1633.html
http://season.openusability.org/index.php/projects/2008/drproject

Google returns over 6K hits total, all of which (on the first few pages) seem to refer to the project in question.

I hadn't included any of these links because I just started the article. I haven't had time yet to read through all that stuff yet. I thought I'd have some time to work on the article, but it got the deletion notice minutes after I started working on it.

As a side note, we're about to go live with a new software development website for my company using the DrProject software. We are currently using Trac, but DrProject has more of the features we need. This is actual software, used by real people like me. --Ansible (talk) 04:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that this fails WP:NOT. Davewild (talk) 21:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships[edit]

This page is just not needed. We already have List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment, and this page is just a copy of that. -- iMatthew _T.C. 14:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The page being nominated for deletion also includes former championships, which are not included in List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment-Yes, but the titles are already listed at World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders--SRX^--^Latino Heat 15:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Redirect Gotcha—thanks for the reply. Since this article has been created more than once, I believe it should be turned into a redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders so that we don't have to keep going through this. After all, it certainly isn't out of the question that people might type in this article's title when looking for the information. GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an article with this same information. This is just pure listcruft.^{--UnquestionableTruth--} 22:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Redirect. Eklipse (talk) 09:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GCF.SRX^--^Latino Heat 00:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above comments. Nikki311 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually, I feel that List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment is the one that is redundant (with the list of current champions in the WWE article). — Gwalla | Talk 20:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per Gwalla. Inactive titles should be included. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, there's already a page for this . Spike7000 (talk) 08:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think there may be some confusion here. I proposed a redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders, as it lists WWF/WWE titles, including inactive titles. I am not proposing a redirect to List of current champions in World Wrestling Entertainment. GaryColemanFan (talk) 01:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to World Wrestling Entertainment#Current title holders. There's no need to double up on information contained elsewhere, and the redirect will enable the reader to access whatever they might need, including inactive titles. Salvador Barley (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thorpe Business Park[edit]

Contested prod. Article about a non-notable business park (notability is not established through external links to verifiable, third-party sources), which tends to read more like an advert than an encylopaedia article. _Talk Islander 14:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertisement. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim, Merge, and Redirect to Colton, Leeds. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like marketing collateral. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparent sales pitch for Leeds development. In addition, there is nothing here that makes this business park noteworthy (nothing to separate it from other UK business parks). B.Wind (talk) 04:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was IAR speedy delete with a sprinkling of salt. Author blocked as a promotion-only account. Blueboy 96 17:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AndeZoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/AndeZoo (2nd nomination)

The article is just advertising without relevant content. There is no reference as to the product's notability. Most of the article (the Toy Biographies section) has been taken straight from the manufacturing company's website (see "andezoo's llama pets" at http://www.andezoo.com/. The article was created by a single-purpose account (User:Andezoo) and has already been deleted before for these same reasons, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andezoo. Victor12 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google web search turns up no substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources; absolutely nothing via News, Books, and Scholar. Fails WP:N. I'm off to delete the copyvio from the article, which won't leave much there. Deor (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:10, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boogie Rock[edit]

Article lacking focused content and nary a citation to be found. Completely made up of original research. Despite Time-Life Music releasing a disc of "boogie rock", no actual genre exists for this article to support. Libs (talk) 14:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will change when sources magically appear. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work}
- Note: Shapiros10 switched his support to keep, see below. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- per no original reseach. --Cameron * 15:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep after seeing the revisions -- Wonderful work! --Cameron * 12:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:NFT --T-rex 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For Christ's sake mate, give us a chance, I've only just created the page a couple of hours ago! Come back in a couple of days when I've done some more work on it please. 80.7.228.223 (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs, just original research --Vhoscythe^chatter 18:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my vote, below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhoscythe (talk • contribs)
Delete just original research no indication that this can be improved either. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the reasons are obvious. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep; see below. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Black ngold29 22:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Change, see below. Black ngold29 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have done some more work on this, so I would appreciate further feedback please. BoogieRock (talk) 09:45, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent improvements. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nice work. You've earned it. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article would still benefit from further refs and expansion, but I no longer oppose. Black ngold29 21:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and propose to develop the article further, assuming it survies AfD. Thanks. BoogieRock (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards ~~Delete~~ a comment (see below). I saw this earlier and waited for references and article improvement. I question the 4 citations given. The debate over All Music Guide being used as a genre reference has been going on for almost a year in a number of Wiki-music-related projects with the consensus always grasping at "do not use it". Looking at the other 3, the web-archive article from MSN appears to be authored by a "nobody" as no Google searches for music journalists by that name show up. Is it some sort of amateur entry? If someone could point out some authenticity on the article author that would help. MP3.com doesn't really meet WP:RS and to top it off the text is just taken/mirrored from musicmatch.com which itself is not an rs either. That leaves the Rhapsody.com link which is no different then mp3.com, musicmatch.com etc... not reliable sources to try and base a fragile "maybe" music genre on. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 22:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The above editor changed his/her support to keep [47]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think the given sources are not acceptable? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't have the distrust of AMG that other editors do. But if consensus is avoid then, for genre debates, I don't refer to it. I requested clarity for the MSN entry. The other 2 (one being a mirror site) don't list where their information is taken from. They aren't pro music publications. Rhapsody is an online sales site and it seems to just recycle bits from All Music Guide for its content. For mp3.com, on the same page boogie rock shows up, it lists arena rock as a musical style??? Arena rock is a term that describes a "hard rock" era. It isn't an individual musical style at all. Google searches to try and tie Boogie rock to a source with some reputation/validity point to more of these online music sales pages which basically say its just hard rock. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting post, thanks. I think whether Arena Rock is a genre is a matter of opinion, I would tend to think of it as a term of abuse! Seriously though, do you believe Southern Rock is a genre? Clearly there is more to the rock etymology than just hard and soft rock. Boogie rock is a distinctive genre that a lot of bands identify themselves with. They know what this means and so do their fans. The phrase "Boogie Rock" throws up 348,000 hits on Google so clearly this isn't something I've just dreamt up. I understand that you don't like the sources and that's your perogative. The MSN aticle is credited to Andrew Liotta - I belive he is this gentleman: http://www.billieburkeestate.com/story.html. BoogieRock (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he is a music journalist? The self-bio seems to describe an indie performer. I did find the term "boogie rock" used once in the "Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll". In its full use it describes the "boogie rock" style played by southern rock band .38 Special. That is the only time the term is used in the entire book. In "The Essential Rock Discography" by Martin Strong and John Peel the term "boogie rock" is not used anywhere in the book. I am still looking for a valid ref. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what his qualifications for writing about boogie rock are, clearly MSN Music saw fit to commission him to write for them. Earlier on your talk page you said "If it were up to me all Rock music related articles would simply have Rock in their genre fields", I respect that but given your opinion, I'm not sure there is any further reference I could produce that would make you want to see Boogie Rock as an article on Wikipedia.BoogieRock (talk) 00:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found many mentions of boogie rock in the All Music Guide to Popular Music. Clearly they see it as an actual term but its that whole "avoid AMG" thing. I do question the weakness of the citations but will strike my leaning towards delete and just make this conversation a comment. My concerns about the poor references prevent me from saying keep. Of the references given only All Music Guide stands as an rs. If just a few more could be found to support AMG then I would state a clear Keep. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added further references to link the bands sited to the boogie rock genre.BoogieRock (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a recent message left on my talk page, I'm still leaning towards keep since most of the sources cited run afoul of our reliable sources policy. I will keep an open mind though and continue to monitor the changes made to this article. JBsupreme (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Okay, if it's sourced then it deserves a "Keep" --Vhoscythe^chatter-sign 10:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is it Wikipedia has never had this topic before??? A++++++++ LOL Rolf Mayo (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to sheet music. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Digital sheet music[edit]

I have some severe doubts as to whether this can be written in a way that's separate from Sheet music itself, and doesn't use original research to explain why this is so revolutionary. On the other hand, consumer-level Word Processing was a big step up from typing... weak delete, convince me otherwise. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Created by single-purpose advertising account. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Sheet Music. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuetral I'm not sure either. This article has always had major issues, but I do think as a /concpet/ it's worthwhile (just like word processing is a notable concept); it should, however, be rewritten to much a bit more neutral, yes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep could be cleaned up. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure if the concept is notable or not; at any rate, the article would have to be rewritten from scratch: not only is it unencyclopedic in style (reads like an editorial) and completely unsourced, but also there is almost no actual information relevant to the topic. Most of the article consists of trivial statements and/or statements that are true for digital files in general, and not specific to digital sheet music. --Keelburg (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and perhaps clean up. It is an interesting and widely used way to distribute music - why not to have an article? Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 15:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite or merge and redirect to Sheet music. Concept sounds slightly notable to me, but the article I'm not so sure about. Basic facts and reliable stuff should be kept, either on Digital sheet music or Sheet music. Rdbrewster ♪♫♪ 15:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and clean up. It's notable enough. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 15:25, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept is notable on its own --T-rex 20:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Topey Angad[edit]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTE; article is a non-notable biography. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ• ^Speak! 14:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreed; subject is an elected politician at the lowest level of Filipino government. Policy requires significant coverage for local politicians, and there is no evidence of it here. Powers ^T 14:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would've voted keep if he is a barangay captain since it seems that all barangays are inherently notable by default. But this one is a kagawad so he wouldn't cut it even by the inclusionists' standards. --Howard the Duck 14:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure some people in Barangay San Antonio, Quezon City may know him, but it does not merit a Wikipedia article. At most, only a few thousand may know him from election time, and even less in the regular course of his duties. He should be an exemplary official, or he should be in a verifiable source, before he merits an article. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I might as well nominate the neighborhood tambay because he's notable to his drinking buddies :P Seriously speaking...notability is very, very limited. --- Tito Pao (talk) 00:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I probably would vote for keep if he had been in significant media exposure, but that is not the case. Starczamora (talk) 15:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a nice advertisement.. Well, this is nonsensical in terms of encyclopedic content. I agree this fall short under WP:NOTE; and of course, wiki is not WP:SOAP. --Axxand SPEAK ACT 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Internets[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Preivous AfD resulted in no consensus.) Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Furthermore, a quick look at the sources reveals that they are almost entirely primary sources. Only one, as far as I can tell, is a secondary source. This article is built upon a house of original research and synthesis, not the reliable sources we require, and is out of scope at any rate. The most this neologism merits is a brief mention in the Internet article. Powers ^T 13:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is precisely the kind of information one could hope to find in Wikipedia but not in traditional information sources. The concept exists and is interesting to some people, so the article makes Wikipedia a better place for information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a dictionary, not encyclopedia-like, not notable enough even for a dictionary definition. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. NPR felt it was important enough to do a story on; lots of gnews hits, quite a number of which are about this usage. It had enough legs that Jon Stewart is still using this phrase to mock Bush, years later.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Those Google News hits, those that aren't false positives at least, are largely about Bush's use of the word, not about the word itself -- not about its development, or about its continuing cultural impact. And the mere fact that a word has currency in the media is not indicative of notability. Powers ^T 23:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds like we're looking at the same glass and can't decide if it's half full or empty. I'm not sure how a neologism can have notability unless it's through discussion of its use, a lasting impact, and either currency in the media or scholarly works. Unfortunately, WP:NEO doesn't give us clear guidance.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It seems clear enough to me: "... articles on neologisms frequently attempt to track the emergence and use of the term as observed in communities of interest or on the internet—without attributing these claims to reliable secondary sources. If the article is not verifiable (see Reliable sources for neologisms, below) then it constitutes analysis, synthesis and original research and consequently cannot be accepted by Wikipedia. This is true even though there may be many examples of the term in use." As I noted, only one of the multitude of references in this article is actually useful for WP:V purposes and "track the emergence and use of the term" appears to me to be an apt description of the entire content of this article. Powers ^T 13:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bushism or Internet; I do not see how this is any more significant than "misunderestimate" or "war is a dangerous place". --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 00:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would welcome articles on "misunderestimate" and "war is a dangerous place" if they were as content-rich and well-sourced as "internets". Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In terms of use and notability, I think this is more akin to Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy than those examples. --DaveJB (talk) 12:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not based on the current article and sources. Powers ^T 13:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more sources, but this is an important term in that it has been taken up as a popular jocular phrase and specifically relates to criticism of the administration's competence and/or policies. (I would personally prefer the actual article be at The Internets, but that's not critical.) --Dhartung | Talk 04:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on The Internets (currently links to the article under debate), kind regards Ryttaren (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well referenced and has notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are two claims above that the article is well referenced. Only one of the references in the article is a secondary source. The rest are examples of use, not sources that are about the word. How is that good sourcing? Powers ^T 13:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and well-known term. Bankbryan (talk) 00:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not at issue. Could you please address the actual argument I made for deletion? Powers ^T 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The phrase has legs. I needed the answer for where it was first used. Wikipedia answered my question. People who wish to remove it are probably politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.62.147 (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Such information is the domain of a dictionary. Under policy, dictionary information belongs in Wiktionary. Powers ^T 13:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you're AfDing this on the basis of WP:NAD when about two-thirds of the text in the article is devoted to the effects and reaction to the term? To me this is almost a textbook example of what Wikipedia articles on neologisms should be like, and while your apparent campaign for better compliance with WP:NAD is a worthy goal, you seem to be picking some pretty odd articles to wave it at. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only if you reverse the actual cause and effect. I only AfD articles I think are fairly clear-cut, so since these are failing so spectacularly, the policy must not be clear (due to confusion on my part, apparently). Powers ^T 01:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If this was just some short-lived internet fad I might agree, but it's an instance where a world leader (however unintentionally) introduced a new phrase that quickly became part of pop culture and remains so to this day. Frankly, I don't think a Wiktionary article would do it justice. Maybe needs a few more secondary sources, but otherwise I don't see any reason why it can't be kept. --DaveJB (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya Nasrallah[edit]

stub, lacks notability Eli + 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources; a quick Google search reveals Yalla Ya Nasrallah to be much more common. Powers ^T 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Yallah Ya Nasrallah as the articles seem to be about the same song. B.Wind (talk) 04:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you reread the articles, the two songs are exactly opposite each other in message.--Finalnight (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have - can you show me the text in both these articles indicating "opposite messages"? I see no such indication. Perhaps one or both should be added... but if the songs are indeed related, then I stand by my original decision/suggestion. B.Wind (talk) 06:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One song is "designed to be a tribute to Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah", the other "include[s] an array of insults directed toward Hezbollah (particularly Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah)". I am not sure how much more opposite it can get.--Finalnight (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, at the risk (?) of being overturned on appeal. Most keeps are a take on ILIKEIT or the "Pokemon argument" (citing other articles like teh), whereas the delete reasons (particularly those of Colonel Warden) seem to be more grounded in policy. The most well-reasoned arguments appear to be in favor of deletion and, since this is not a vote, the article is deleted. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned at DRV here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This article is entirely about an unusual mispronunciation of a common word, and pronunciation is explicitly the domain of Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. This just isn't an encyclopedic topic. According to the talk page, the article has already been transwikied, so all we have to do is delete it. Powers ^T 13:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You're right, this should be on Wikitionary. --Vhoscythe^chatter 14:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, ~~but trim "Lexical notes" section~~: This contains more than dictionary definitions ~~(although its dictionary-like aspects could be dialed back a bit)~~. Commentary by Steven Pinker (not to mention sourced uses by three American presidents) certainly qualifies it as something. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On second thought, the "Lexical notes" section is actually quite good. The whole article is well-written, really, and even the lexical notes section, which cites dictionaties, does not provide any "definitions" that, even on their own, would conflict with WP:NOT. Rather, it provides...well, lexical notes. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the lexical notes don't bother me and the commentary is why it is in wikipedia. Protonk (talk) 14:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article contains more than dictionary definitions. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This mispronunciation (which is relatively common) has been covered in multiple reliable secondary sources (largely thanks to George W. Bush's use of the term). It thus meets the criteria for notability and deserves to be kept as an article. --Hnsampat (talk) 16:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because I say "nucular" too. No, seriously, this is much more than a dicdef. It's fairly well sourced and it describes the cultural stigmas associated with this "pronounce-iation" (yes, I really do say it that way). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wait, what? What cultural stigmas? I don't see that in the article. I see first, an explanation that the spelling represents the incorrect pronunciation, then that dictionaries have started to address it. Then we quote those dictionaries, then we state simply that some U.S. Presidents have used this pronunciation (so what?), then we show Pinker's analysis of the origin of the pronunciation, and then we say (basically) "Simpsons did it." There's nothing in there about any cultural stigma. In fact, there's nothing encyclopedic in there. It's entirely about a word -- and not even that, but a single pronunciation of a word -- and information about words goes in Wiktionary. Only if a word has profound cultural impact can a real encyclopedic entry be written about it, and there's no evidence of that in this article. Powers ^T 17:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: I'm not sure about cultural stigmas here, but I don't see why "profound cultural impact" needs to be demonstrated, either. What I see is a mispronunciation that has found homes in popular culture, political discourse, and academia. That is WP:N enough, I believe, to warrant expansion as a WP:ATD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The article is about a word. WP:DICDEF makes clear that articles about words generally belong in a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. We have exceptions for articles about words with very strong sourcing and relevancy -- words like fuck and singular they. This one isn't even a different word from nuclear, it's just a different pronunciation, so I don't see any reason to include it. Powers ^T 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment We could easily better document the idea that some believe this to be a Southern, redneck, or otherwise uneducated pronunciation, especially since it's a more technical term than ath-a-lete. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete the "this is how I say it too" !votes are little more than WP:ILIKEIT It's a dicdef with refs. Wiktionary has entries that are detailed and contain references as well, this doesn't need to be here. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 18:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is an article, not a dicdef. Quite ok written too. Punkmorten (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from it being dictionary material, it also seems to be a WP:COATRACK for a WP:SOAP, WP:ATTACK upon President Bush which contravenes WP:BLP. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't see how it qualifies as any of these things to point out that the guy mispronounces a word. There's plenty of other sourced material (e.g., criticism by other politicians) that is considerably more harsh, yet perfectly acceptable under WP:BLP. Besides, the article also points out that two other presidents (including Bill Clinton) have made the same mispronunciation. Art thou trying to make a WP:POINT? Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To be sure, the pronunciation was common enough before the FIRST President Bush. --Dhartung | Talk 04:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George W. Bush is mentioned exactly once on this page, which is in a sentence that says that Bush, Dwight D. Eisenhower, and Bill Clinton all said "nucular". How on earth can you justify calling this an anti-Bush attack page? --Hnsampat (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article started as being all about George and this history is still obvious despite the layers of dictionary material which have been added since. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The information is sourced and reliable. Thus it is not a WP:BLP, regardless of how negatively it may reflect on anyone. And if WP:NPOV is still an issue, then remember: 1) Pointing out that someone mispronounces a word is hardly libelous. (Although if anyone accuses me of calling such an observation libelous, then I'm takin' ya to court. Kidding, kidding.) 2) W., I believe, has even admitted to and parodied his own inability to speak. And WP:COAT is an absurdly huge stretch. Plenty of people have mispronounced the word before. And even if Dubya were the first (in which case the article would say so directly, rendering WP:COAT completely irrelevant), so what? When you're president, people notice the stuff you say and do. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is a notable enuff pronunciation to be, arhh, notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So, it's notable because it's notable? That strikes me as circular reasoning, and doesn't address my reason for nomination at any rate. Powers ^T 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I just do not feel this is "Wikipedia class" material. Whatever that means. I am up to changing my mind if someone shows me the error of my ways. mboverload@ 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Something is generally worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia if it is deemed "notable" per WP:N. To be "notable" per WP:N, a topic has to have received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. We see several such source being cited in this article. There have been newspaper and magazine articles on this rather common mispronunciation of "nuclear", in large part thanks to the fact that George W. Bush says "nucular." Hence, the article seems to be "Wikipedia class" material. --Hnsampat (talk) 06:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I just can't stomach that we have a whole article because some people can't pronouce a word correctly. With that thinking we should have a page for each one of these [48]. Just because a president can't pronouce something doesn't make that thing noteable. That's my thinking anway - feel free to hack and slash =D. --mboverload @ 06:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Except notability is not the criterion I propose for deletion, so saying "It's notable" doesn't even begin to address the reason I nominated it for deletion. Not every inclusion/deletion debate is predicated on notability -- there are other aspects that must be considered. One of them is whether the article is within the project scope, which is explicitly defined as being about concepts rather than about words. Powers ^T 13:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think it's encyclopedic. It's in a class of articles about words that go beyond the DICDEF and have some cultural significance that I believe they warrant being here, barring changes to the approach at Wiktionary. Excellent sources (and more and better are available). --Dhartung | Talk 04:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect the mispronunciation predates Bush by a good number of decades. JuJube (talk) 06:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect this is just a mispronunciation, nothing more. JBsupreme (talk) 08:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That it is an article about a mispronunciation makes it neither a dicdef nor something that belongs in Wiktionary (except in very excerpted form). This is an encyclopedia article about this notable mispronunciation, and a pretty good one, too.--Father Goose (talk) 08:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Before commenting here, please be sure to read the article in question. This is not just about one president's mispronunciation; it is about three presidents' mispronunciations. And not just about that, either. It is about a linguistic phenomenon of interest to none less than Steven Pinker, among others. Read the "Motivation" section of Nucular in particular. This well-written section both establishes notability and transcends mere dictionary-defining by far. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not at issue here, despite some apparent confusion on the parts of some commentators. And it is no surprise that an expert in language would be interested in the origins of this pronunciation; that "someone famous studied it" is not necessarily indicative of encyclopedic value. To me, Pinker's analysis is little more than etymology; etymology is part of any comprehensive dictionary entry; ergo, this content belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. Where is that chain of logic flawed, in your view? Powers ^T 19:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "someone famous studied it" is pretty much the definition of notability. There are hundreds of articles in the math section that are "little more than mathematics" but they have been studied in secondary sources. We report on that. As for the nature of the discussion, we may transwiki the content to wiktionary (without the references to presidents and simpsons) and retained.Protonk (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I realize that's the definition of notability. I said "someone famous studied it" is not indicative of encyclopedic value. Why do people keep bringing up notability? We don't and shouldn't have articles on everything that's notable, nor has anyone ever disputed that this pronunciation is notable. The question at hand is whether it's within the scope of this project. Powers ^T 20:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We keep bringing up notability because it is a bedrock guideline dictating the inclusion of articles. Unless something violates WP:NOT, WP:NPOV or WP:V, it can stay. That stops us from having ILIKEIT/IDONTLIKEIT debates over different types of articles. Protonk (talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article blatantly violates WP:NOT because it is about a word, not about a topic. Please see WP:DICT#The differences between encyclopedia and dictionary articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a dictionary - "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." If you really want to get this article deleted, try to mount a persuasive argument as to why it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia instead of just WP:BASHing or even misrepresenting policy, or misrepresenting the article itself.--Father Goose (talk) 09:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citing old school as a good example of an encyclopedic topic is misrepresentation. It is a poor article which might have trouble surviving AFD itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Exactly. Truthiness is an excellent comparison. One could even make the case that words such as these are more suitable for an encyclopedia than for a dictionary, because they're not "words" in any traditional sense, but they are cultural entities that have received reliably documented attention from both academic and lay observers. In other words, they're notable. Keep. End of story. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truthiness is indeed a good example because that topic goes beyond the mere word into a deeper discussion of the political, humorous and philosophical aspects of the usage which are distinctive and of some substance. This is not the case with nucular which merely documents a pronunciation which has no such deeper aspects. This is the essential point here - whether we have a proper topic or mere discussion of word usage. The latter belongs in Wiktionary which already has a succinct entry for this which does a better job of explaining the matter by linking to our article Epenthesis which explains the linguistic shift in a general way, giving nucular as an example. The nucular article is therefore both redundant and inappropriate. The policy page WP:DICT goes to some length to explain all this and this article clearly fails this policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given my experiences trying to have articles that clearly violate WP:DICT deleted, I'm beginning to think that policy may not be enforceable anymore, given public sentiment against it. Powers ^T 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my experience too (see Dude - another article which is all about a word and its pronunciation). I suggested deprecating the policy but others insist that we should keep it. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Epenthesis is merely descriptive; it doesn't explain the reason people say "nucular" or anything else. And plenty of epenthesis (e.g., "thunor --> thunder," perhaps) has not aroused much, if any, academic debate. "Nucular" has. Without the "Motivation" section of Nucular, I would question the article's significance. But with that section, any such doubt is obviated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedrock guideline or not, no one has disputed the notability of the topic. The deletion is entirely predicated on WP:NOT, which you specifically mention as possible grounds for deletion. It's very frustrating to have people arguing with me over something I've already conceded. Powers ^T 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOT doesn't seem to apply here anyway. How many "dictionary definitions" cite linguists, a psychologist, U.S. presidents, and even Homer Simpson? Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know the exact answer, but plenty of dictionaries contain the results of linguistic research as well as popular usage examples. Certainly the OED does. Powers ^T 17:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Part of the trouble is that editors seem to think that dictionary entries are short. This is not at at all the case with a comprehensive dictionary like the OED. The OED has two entries for this word. The first, older meaning is the botanical one. It also has a detailed entry which corresponds to this article. This fully demonstrates that this article is just like a dictionary entry and so doesn't belong here. I can't do the formatting properly - the timeline or phonetics - but here's the meat. Note the reference to usage guides - they are another thing that Wikipedia is not. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nucular, adj.²

Brit. /njukjl/, U.S. /n(j)ukjlr/ [Alteration of NUCLEAR adj., representing a colloquial pronunciation (widely criticized by usage guides: see note s.v. NUCLEAR adj.). There is no evidence of influence from the earlier word NUCULAR adj.1]

= NUCLEAR adj. (in various senses).

1943 Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 70 460 They..begin the reversion process which results in a 4n restitution nucleus... A nucular membrane begins to form around the whole group or around smaller groups or isolated chromosomes. 1958 Science 25 July 195/1 (heading) Proceedings of the Rehovoth Conference on Nucular Structure. 1983 Freezniks Unite! in net.politics (Usenet newsgroup) 8 Apr., Her speech, which I did not hear, centered mainly around nuclear (nucular, to her) disarmament. 1985 Financial Times (Nexis) 2 Dec. I. 18 The CEGB spent £4m staging a full-scale crash of a nucular fuel transport flask at 100 mph. 2003 OT: Nucular! in rec.crafts.textiles.needlework (Usenet newsgroup) 11 July, It's not just George Bushsome very knowledgeable American professor/Scientist on TV just now, talking about the cold war, just spoke about the ‘Nucular threat!’

Keep per Dhartung. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Runs head-first into the policy for WP:DICT (which is still in effect). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Certainly it's a notable pronunciation and the article is interesting, but that's not the issue. Word origins, lexical notes, and usage is exactly what you would expect a good dictionary entry to contain, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It's been transwikied to Wiktionary, where it belongs, so nothing would even be lost. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to Keep The current state of the Wiktionary article [49] demonstrates that it hasn't really been "transwikied" at all, by the way. I suggest that the nominator might want to revise that in the nomination. Additionally, on further review this article does appear to contain more than Wiktionary entries generally do, and that extra information is, for the most part, sourced and encyclopedic, making the article "more than a dictionary definition". I can see the nominator's point about enforcing WP:DICDEF, but I don't think this is the right article to make that point on. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is still in the holding area and hasn't been integrated into the main dictionary: wikt:Transwiki:Nucular. Also, the issue is not whether the article contains more than wiktionary, but whether that additional content is encyclopedic. WP:DICT is very clear that we have articles on eight-armed mollusks, not on the word octopus. Powers ^T 13:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough on the transwiki, I wasn't aware that was how it was being handled. But it really looks to me like this is more than a dictionary definition, in that a fair proportion of the article seems to be devoted to its usage and history, rather than simply it's meaning and etymology. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 13:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage and history are dictionary material too. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Usage as in grammar and meaning, yes. Usage in culture and media? I'd say that's more encyclopedia than dictionary. History as in etymology and origins? Yes, dictionary. History, again, as in usage in the media and culture over time? I would again say that's perfectly valid encyclopedia material. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 15:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary is official policy. I am baffled by all the keep votes here, especially in light of the recent Cleveland steamer closure no more than a week ago. JBsupreme (talk) 07:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We know that WP:NAD is official policy. We also know that WP:NOT is official policy. That is why User:Father Goose quoted from the latter: "In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic topic, such as old school, Macedonia (terminology), or truthiness." And here is the statement that immediately precedes that in WP:NOT: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." So, let's say that Nucular did contain nothing more than a dictionary definition. Then, our first goal would be to see if we can expand it by using reliable, independent sources that provide more information than a dictionary would provide. Such sources might demonstrate the use of the word by significant public figures. Well, okay, the mere fact that so-and-so used a word might qualify as a "lexical note" appropriate for a dictionary; it might even be of etymological interest, in the event that so-and-so actually coined the word. So then we try to see if the lexical notes can be complemented by additional information--like, say, an academic debate (especially an interdisciplinary one!) about the word. And that is exactly what we have in the "Motivation" section of this article. Also note this sentence from the article: "Merriam-Webster receive enough questions about their inclusion of this pronunciation in the dictionary that it is one of two pronunciations which receive particular mention in their FAQ (along with "February")." This is not part of any dictionary definition; it is a fact about a dictionary, and if WP:NAD or WP:NOT precluded such facts, then the article "Dictionary" could not exist. But let us say, for the sake of argument, that the article is borderline dictionary material, borderline encyclopedic. The scale is tipped in favour of inclusion by 1) WP:N, which everyone admits that the word "nucular" meets; and 2) the preference that WP:ATD be applied to articles with any sort of promise. And as for promise, take note of the fact that Geoffrey Nunberg has written a book about the term, "nucular"! (Come to think of it, I could have made my entire case here just by pointing that out. I'm willing to bet that no one has written anything of comparable worth about "Cleveland steamer.") Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful. He wrote one chapter about the term. That's a significant difference when we're using it to illustrate the amount of text that could be written on a topic. Powers ^T 13:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should certainly have articles upon linguistic features such as metathesis and epenthesis and these are the proper places to include such material, which they already do. But why do we need articles on each specific example such as cumf-ter-bull (comfortable)? This arguably notable too (sources) but not a suitable free-standing topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please take my comments as a whole. No one is claiming that any example of metathesis deserves an article simply because someone has mentioned it in a book. My point is that "nucular" has dominated lexical discussions to a point that, say, "comf-ter-BULL" has not. Ironically, this source that you provided (via Google) just confirms what I've been saying all along: "Noo-kyuh-lur was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents," it says. (!!!!) Thanks! We should add that to the article. This sort of expansion is the sort of thing that WP:NOT and WP:ATD have in mind. I had been planning to say that these policies are inclusionistic enough (note that I, personally, am generally inclined toward deletionism), and that the topic seems notable enough, that deletion would simply be premature. Given this citation, though, deletion would seem absurd. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, because I'm generally inclined toward inclusionism. =) Powers ^T 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established by sources. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

notability is not the issue. All words which appear in dictionaries are notable. The policy which this article is failing is WP:DICTIONARY. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As has been stated several times before in this discussion, if an article appears to be a dictionary definition (which this one might not be, anyway), then Wikipedia policy encourages deletion only if it can't be expanded beyond that. It is clear, from sources like this one and this one, that A) there are plenty of directions in which the article can be expanded, and B) even if "all words which appear in dictionaries are notable," this "word" is considerably more notable than other words because--I quote yet again--"[Nucular] was the crime against English mentioned by the greatest number of respondents" in a newspaper-conducted poll. This should be a talk page discussion, not an AfD debate. And we should be talking about which of several potential ways would be best to improve the article--not about whether or not all of these ways should be dismissed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I continue to think a discussion on the merits of this article is warranted. In my opinion, an interpretation as inclusive as yours would be the cause of significant overlap with Wiktionary's mission and goals, which will be damaging to both projects. Powers ^T 19:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, my interpretation is no more inclusive than WP:ATD. I'd say I've provided ample evidence that ATD applies to Nucular, and have yet to see anyone try to refute that claim explicitly. And of course there will be overlap between a dictionary and an encyclopedia. A dictionary will contain select, lexical elements about select concepts, some of which might also be encyclopedic; and it may add some technical (e.g., phonetic, syntactic, etymological) information that would be overkill in an encyclopedia. In other words, some overlap, some non-overlap. The entire Nucular article, even in its current form, would be far too long for Wiktionary. (Take a look at how concise the entry is for such a common word as "dog"!) Again, my point is simple: enough thorough, thoughtful, and independent sources exist for this to be expanded per WP:ATD, or at least to be removed from WP:AFD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely idiotic. Should Wikipedia have articles for "taht" and "teh"? 142.157.67.26 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No Not necessarily. Nice slippery slope. You seem to be implying that Nucular is not notable. There is already a large consensus here that it is notable. The debate concerns whether it is notable in both a dictionary sense and an encyclopedic sense. My view is that, in light of sources provided as well as WP:ATD, it is. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then again...teh. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Blimey! Yet another attempted case for deletion, which ultimately leads me to more evidence in favour of retention. Teh and Owned are excellent examples of what Wiktionary cannot tell us about some unusual words. Interestingly, both of those articles have survived AfD's! Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think this article is a little underdone (despite originating in 2003), but is potentially a much better article than it is currently. For example, I think this single word, more than any other, is a case study not just on evolution of the language as others have pointed out, but more poignant issues: the shortcomings of the American educational system and an indicator of the intellectual calibre of American presidents. Sometimes a word is not just a word. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. While I like to poke fun of bush as much as 70% of the next guys, you can't really blame "american" education for presidents educated in the 1960's and matriculated from private colleges (hell, reagan was even older). Also, I've heard captains of nuclear submarines say "nucular". Not saying that makes it right but lets be real about the message we take away from it. Protonk (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. csloat (talk) 01:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vevmo[edit]

Some kind of media website. The only thing approaching a mainstream reference in this article is a blog entry on the USA Today website, which refers to "a Vevmo discussion board participant named Katiedid". All the other references seem to be blogs, too, only even more obscure. Jenny 13:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Website notable, especially because of its celebrity members. Well know within The Real World genre/community. Used in a variety of Wikipedia articles as a source because of its reputation for accuracy.^[1]^[2]^[3] User:Zredsox 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be citing Wikipedia articles as sources. --Jenny 13:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, just pointing out that Wikipedia also uses Vevmo as a source because of its significance in that particular genre.Zredsox (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That error will be remedied shortly. --Jenny 13:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Excuse me? This is why many new users to wikipedia don't stay very long. I kindly pointed out something as part of this particular discussion and was offered a heady slight in return.Zredsox (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Jenny just meant that the fact that Wikipedia uses this message board as a source in some articles is actually in contravention of policy, and thus shouldn't be used as evidence of the board's notability. Powers ^T 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It may not fully lend credence to the boards notability, but is still a valid source in context of those articles: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic - which Vevmo.com is within the community. Also, Vevmo is used as a point of fact (rather then just a source) being they broke the cast of The Real World: Hollywood 4 months before it was announced along with other major plot points that were later confirmed by MTV verbatim (which is significant in its own right.) It goes to verifiability, and a history of factual reporting.Zredsox (talk) 14:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, the policy is "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (See WP:SPS; the boldface is copied from the policy page) You have left out the italicized part. Even if Vevmo is an "established expert", can you cite where Vevmo's work has been "published by reliable third-party publications"? --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sorry, I didn't mean to be rude, but we have a policy on this. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. --Jenny 14:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Where are the third-party sources that actually discuss "Vevmo", it's founding, its purpose, its current readership, its larger cultural context, and its ongoing cultural relevance? As far as I can tell, the listed sources are either first-party or nothing more than passing references to the web site. That doesn't satisfy WP:V or WP:RS. Powers ^T 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe this isn't the place for this discussion, but I'd say maybe 5-10 sites in the Internet forum category meet the criterion you have proposed. Zredsox (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be, but it's not really relevant to this article. Please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Powers ^T 14:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is in that the criteria stated goes beyond what is common sense policy to keep an article. You can't say, "This is the criteria - Only applicable to this article." You either have to set a standard and abide by it, or change the standard to meet the reality - which is that there are hundreds of forums in that category and the majority are less notable then Vevmo. No matter. I believe the site is of significance. I'll leave it at that. BTW: I kindly ask that readers of this discussion not go off and vandalize all the articles that I noted here until a verdict has been reached here. Thanks.Zredsox (talk) 14:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - How does it go beyond "common sense"? Those are basic components of a comprehensive encyclopedia article, and there are no secondary sources that even begin to address them. Obviously, an article doesn't need all of that information to be kept, but simply citing examples of use is not sufficient to determine notability under our guidelines; we need actual articles written about the web site that include at least some of the information I mentioned above. Powers ^T 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I agree that the article needs to be improved. Maybe it should be templated as such to garner more applicable sourcing, rather than just deleted. This article was not a candidate for speedy deletion, and I don't see the need to rush when a concerted effort is being made to enhance the content of the article in question.Zredsox (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: 64.89.250.90 (talk · contribs) appears to be Zredsox (talk · contribs) logged out; there is a discussion between me and the IP user at Talk:Real World/Road Rules Challenge and a discussion between me and Zredsox at Talk:Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16) where Zredsox refers to the "discussion we were having on the Real World/Road Rules Challenge Talk Page" (emphasis mine). --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 03:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note It would seem Latish redone is wikistalking me at this point because of personal reasons (is there anything I can do?) Everywhere I go, he/she shows up. BTW: I have a cookie issue with Wikipedia and FF3. I have signed the post in question.Zredsox (talk) 04:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. See WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am making it clear to the administrators ever since I disagreed with you about an article, you have been following me and that your commentary is clearly a Conflict of Interest because it is your goal to make a point.Zredsox (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - There is no conflict of interest as I am clearly not affiliated with Vevmo, Real World/Road Rules Challenge, or the subject of any article that I have edited. I am not here to make a point, simply to improve the articles that I work on so that they adhere to Wikipedia policy. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have "Declared an interest" in making sure Vevmo is not used as a source in another article, which by default means you have a Conflict.Zredsox (talk) 17:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Where have I "Declared an interest" in making sure that Vevmo is not cited as a source? All I have done is to make sure the article meets verifiability policy. A web forum like Vevmo is clearly not an acceptable source according to the policy. Therefore there is no conflict of interest here. The page "Wikipedia:Conflict of interest" states "Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." I have not forgone advancing the aims of Wikipedia, so I am clearly not in a conflict of interest. Note that even if you consider what I'm doing to be a "conflict of interest" (and it is not, you just need to read and understand that page), WP:V is a core content policy of Wikipedia along with WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and therefore with regard to article content those three policies take precedence over all others. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You can post in circles on this all day, but I know that you are here because this is my article and you have a vested interest in seeing it deleted. The one thing I have learned on Wikipedia in my short time spent on the site as an editor is that if you ruffle the feathers of another editor, they will stop at nothing to make sure your articles are all deleted or substantially changed. In the end I know I am going to "lose" this conversation, as it is impossible to argue (even correctly) when you are up against more experienced users on Wikipedia that basically toss the book at your article. This is a well documented fact. Unlike in the court of law where a defense attorney would be provided, that luxury is not afforded here and the establishment always takes the day with zeal. New editors trying hard to make quality articles are obviously not welcome here. While people should be helping me to make the article better and finding more reliable sources, instead they are using everything within their grasp to defeat the article, almost like it is a contest. Maybe its deletion can be remembered as a victory of some sorts. I am not sure. No matter, We know were you stand. We know where Jenny stands. We know were I stand. Lets just move to the sentencing phase....Zredsox (talk) 18:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You are posting in circles. Established Wikipedia contributors have simply asked the other contributors that would like to keep this article to improve it so that it meets the verifiability policy. No reliable sources for an article about X = no article about X. It's that simple. If you can't understand my explanations of Wikipedia content policy then you need to seek help from other Wikipedia contributors; violations of WP:V, WP:NOR, etc. are not acceptable despite your apparent lack of understanding of the policies. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This type of aggressive, privileged, inhospitable response is exactly what I was referring to.Zredsox (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Advising Wikipedia contributors on the core content policies of Wikipedia articles is not "aggressive, privileged, inhospitable". Also, please refrain from making personal attacks at other contributors. See WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please refrain from accusing people of making personal attacks. See WP:NPA.Zredsox (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        In case you didn't know, "aggressive, privileged, inhospitable" is a comment directed at me rather than my contributions. That clearly constitutes a personal attack according to WP:NPA. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It was not meant as a personal attack, but rather a clear account of the tenor of your responses thus far as you chase me around Wikipedia and comment on absolutely everything that I say from talk, to discussion, to AFD to article pages. Zredsox (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        An opinion cannot possibly be a "clear account". Please stick to objective discussion substantiated by actual arguments on these discussion pages. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop stalking me. Please.Zredsox (talk) 23:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What I have been doing is not considered stalking according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 00:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Take it to your talk pages, gents; this isn't the place to hash out prior conflicts. You've both made your view well known; it's up to the closing admin to decide the merits. Powers ^T 19:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am done.Zredsox (talk) 20:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It sure doesn't look like you are, given the number of above comments posted after this one. Please stop; this is not the place for a two-person argument. Powers ^T 13:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We use vevmo to keep track of our clients on reality shows that are taping when those clients are out of contact with us. Vevmo's sources have thus far proven to be spot-on. We are aware that much of the sourcing comes directly from the production companies who see that site as a independent method of reaching potential future viewers (alternative advertising). What I find amusingly odd and almost laughable is that the argument for deletion here is largely one that would have sunk Wikipedia in its infancy. We are talking about contemporary American youth culture here. It is one, like Wipipedia, which thrives on being current and cutting-edge -- just like vevmo is doing. Dave Garner, Managing Director, Vision 1 Media Group. Ddgarner(talk)15:19, 5 July 2008 — Ddgarner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "would have sunk Wikipedia". Do you mean sunk the encyclopedia itself? If so, it's irrelevant because the issue is the criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia, not for the existence of the web site. If you mean sunk the article about Wikipedia, then yes, when the site first began it was clearly not notable, prima facie. You'll note that the site was launched in January 2001 but the article on Wikipedia didn't exist until December 2001, and that our inclusion criteria were likewise in their infancies. Powers ^T 15:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sinking or not Sinking, I think that it can be extrapolated from the comment that Vevmo is notable from the perspective of a media consulting group^[4] in the industry. Another key point to notability (much like Television without Pity) is the celebrity members^[5]^[6] who frequent and add expertly devised content. Sometimes it is not who is saying what about a site, but rather who is saying what on a site - that makes it noteworthy.Zredsox (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I admit that I don't know for certain if it satisfies criteria for notability in terms of third-party sources that discuss it, but as the editor and administrator who is pretty much writing and maintaining the quality of the Real World-related articles in order to keep out unsourced POV cruft and vandalism, including the last season, the current season, and the upcoming season, I would point out that while I at first challenged this site, as I did not know if it was reliable, I have found that it indeed is. I relied on this page for info on the cast for The Real World: Hollywood, which included names, headshots and occupations, before mtv.com had posted any info on that cast, and almost everything about the entire cast turned out to be correct, right down to the identity of the two cast members who left the series close to the end of it, and the two new ones that replaced them. To be fair, the hometowns of six of the nine cast members is different from the ones now given by mtv.com. I don't know if this helps, but thought I'd point it out. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a note on the hometowns: Vevmo lists where cast members were living previous to their time on the show. MTV lists where they are from "originally" although that definition is somewhat subjective being that is not saying where they were born, but rather where they spent a given amount of time while a certain age.Zredsox (talk) 18:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- MTV is a reliable source on this program. Vevmo, whatever it might be, is not. It's just this website, as far as I can tell. --Jenny 03:12, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think what you might be missing here is that MTV did not "spoil" its own cast or plot points so it could not be used as a source to that effect. It was Vevmo that did that (accurately) and that is what was stated in the article. BMP takes extreme steps to guard the secrecy of its flagship series' storyline and when it is reported accurately previous to air, no matter the messenger, it is noteworthy. In the case of The Real World: Hollywood that source was Vevmo.Zredsox (talk) 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can't verify the Vevmo information. Statements that specific information is accurate don't help us to determine whether it is a reliable source. The identity of the messenger does matter. That is our policy. --Jenny 04:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "We can't verify the Vevmo information." - clearly that is the opinion you personally hold. I thought we were talking about notability anyways? My previous statement was to that affect. In any event, it doesn't seem to be good policy to rush to delete an article, especially when there are contributers in the process of working to make the article better. I am not fully apprised of all Wikipedia policies, but from what I have read it would seem the general rule of thumb is not to delete until all other options are exhausted (including requesting more sources.) Being the article is barely a day old, I don't think we have reached that point yet. Zredsox (talk) 04:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually "We can't verify the Vevmo information" is a testable statement which could be refuted by describing which reliable source we could use to verify the information. Please do so. --Jenny 06:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you feel that we can not currently verify, then should we not tag the page with the verify template? Is that not the reason for such a template? The article is hot off the press and this statement in the deletion policy: "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed" does not seem to have been strenuously met. I am very confused as to the need for immediacy. There is nothing in the article that would even border on malicious, intent or otherwise. I can personally say as the article creator that I will continue to improve the article in the coming weeks, including finding more reliable sources. I can already see in the history others jumping in and making copyedits in an attempt to enhance the article. Rome was not build in a day.Zredsox (talk) 12:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Copyedits do not address the lack of reliable sources. --Latish redone (formerly All in) (talk) 17:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nobody said that did. However, I was illustrating that some people are trying to make the article better. I am confused as to the almost fanatical need to rush this through to deletion when the article is clearly new and being worked on. That is all I was saying.Zredsox (talk) 17:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes[edit]

^ "Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16)"; wikipedia.com
^ "Real World/Road Rules Challenge"; wikipedia.com
^ "The Real World: Hollywood"; wikipedia.com
^ "Vision 1 Media"; vision1mediagroup.com
^ "So who made the Brooklyn (Real World 21) Cast?"; Vevmo.com.com; June 30, 2008
^ "Real World Hollywood: Ep. 12 - Mexi-Loco"; Vevmo.com.com; June 5th, 2008

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources about the website. Passing mentions don't add up to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 20:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete As written, article does not assert importance over any other of the countless entertainment websites. A mention in USAToday taken from a blog does not suffice as significant enough coverage to pass WP:WEB. GlassCobra 22:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dare Devil"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Dare Devil"

Recreation of now protected page Dare Devil (Gossip Girl). StaticGull Talk 11:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. If it's substantially the same as the previously deleted article then it can be speedily deleted under WP:SPEEDY criterion G4. Nasica (talk) 12:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: if anyone wants to have a look at it, the previous AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dare_Devil_(Gossip_Girl). Nasica (talk) 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the minimal discussion at the last AfD I would argue against a G4 --T-rex 15:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G4 TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 17:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete same as previously deleted article Dreamspy (talk) 19:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gossip Girl (TV series), or better yet, spin off an episode list and merge all the episode articles into that. The originally deleted (and salted) article should become a redirect to the episode list, and this one, because of the bad title, can stay or go.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure to establish notability; the episode list is fine per WP:EPISODE. –thedemonhog talk • edits 21:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Gossip Girl episodes Wolfer68 (talk) 10:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 21:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter Family picking[edit]

Short article which merely duplicates what is already at Carter Family#Legacy. Author contested a redirect to that article. Delete and redirect. Ros0709 (talk) 10:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The Carter Family article is nowhere close to being large enough for splitting. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now the article is really just a definition of the expression. The information could be given in an article on guitar playing, as well as in the Carter Family article. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article is sourced and contains information which is not currently in Carter Family. Hyacinth (talk) 18:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What part of the deletion policy is it proposed this be deleted under? Hyacinth (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hasty redirect and AFD. This article is apparently about the guitar performance technique and is accordingly categorised as such. The Carter Family article is about the family group and hence should not be found under the guitar performance technique category. Since the AFD nomination, the article has been improved and now includes five references, three of which are to published books. That is pretty impressive for a stub article. --Bardin (talk) 04:37, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bardin's comment. It's not a Carter Family page, it's a guitar playing technique. Wikipedia already has several articles similar to this that are sourced and maintained by the WikiProject Guitarists. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep and clean up. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Blanco[edit]

A scientist CV without any notability Xabier Cid (talk) 09:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More reasons to delete

This is an orphan page
Data are not updated
There are no notable contributions of this scientist.
The article was created by an user who only created this article: possible Conflict of interest. --Xabier Cid (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The notability guideline for scientists is WP:ACADEMIC, but he doesn't seem to qualify under any of its criteria. Google indicates that he has various journal publications and such, as any academic would, but there's no material that I can find to indicate that he's a significant expert in the field or that he's made important advances in biology. Nasica (talk) 11:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the fact this article was created by a single-purpose account is not by itself a reason to consider deletion or even suspect a conflict of interest, it remains that this man's research seems highly specialized and of no immediate interest to everyday life. No notability is otherwise asserted. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete probable vanity article Dreamspy (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reasons: the other main editor of the article was User:Kcops7, who has edited only two entries: Francisco J. Blanco and Beta hairpin, where he/she added only information concerning Francisco J Blanco. --Xabier Cid (talk) 20:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is indeed a genuine scientist as this article--with his picture--shows. But its a very specialised field. Anyway, I've added this source to the article. Artene50 (talk) 04:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Web of Science lists more than 150 publications, cited thousands of times (3794, to be exact). h-index of 33. One article on that hairpin stuff was cited 269 times alone. (Note: there may be more than one "Blanco FJ". If I limit the search to the 35 structural biology papers, I still get 2262 citations and an h-index of 25). Structural biology is NOT "of no immediate interest to everyday life", even though I agree that it is highly specialized (but then, which field of science is not...). Structural biology is currently one of the hottest fields in biology and findings in this field have huge implications for health care (such as development of new cancer drugs, to mention just one thing). Article does not contain any exaggerated claims or peacock terms, nor is it very detailed and therefore probably not created by the subject himself. I see no indication at all of COI or of this being a vanity article. Article should be expanded and provided with more sources. I'll add the citation data as a strat. --Crusio (talk) 17:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. I also did the WoS and Medline searches; the latter one is more comprehensive and shows 62 articles, with a number of them with citation hits in the hundreds each. Similarly, see GoogleScholar[50], with top hits of 394, 264, 215, 124, etc. Satisfies WP:PROF. I would have liked, however, to find an current website for this person or at least some indication of where they are now, since the affiliation given in the WP article seems to be out of date. Nsk92 (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Francisco Blanco García working for El Complejo Hospitalario Universitario "Juan Canalejo" in La Coruña, Spain according to an org chart here, and several papers by FJ Blanco associated with that institution here. "Francisco J. Blanco Garcia" gets a reasonable number of ghits. I'm guessing they're the same as the subject of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be, but I am getting an uncomfortable feeling that there may be more than one person here with similar names. I thought that F J Blanco who is the subject of this article works in cancer research. The first article in the link you provided is about some clynical study in arthritis research. Does not sound that close to me, but it is possible that it is the same person... Nsk92 (talk) 01:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't sure about the arthritis stuff either, so I excluded it when I concentrated on the structural biology work. Those results make him pass WP:PROF, I feel, especially since he's still relatively young and because they are kind of like a lower bound of these citation data. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point Dume Freedom Fighters[edit]

Article lacking in any references/sources, possible hoax. Unsuitable for wikipedia in its current form. Oscarthecat (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G1 - I would normally frown upon AfD's on articles with construction tags, but this article is screaming hoax. Absolutely no google hits for "Point Dume Freedom Fighters" (with or without the s) outside of the Wikipedia page. The contents of the article are ridiculous, "PDFF members have been known to use a various number of weapons. The most common items known to be used by the PDFF are eggs, toilet paper, fireworks, gunpowder, gasoline, and the most common and most effective, the potato cannon. The potato cannon has been used in a number of incidents as it is used to inflict damage physically as some potato cannons can go as fast as breaking the sound barrier". This is just nonsense and waste of everyone's time. Rasadam (talk) 09:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As this is not that obvious a hoax, it is not eligible for speedy, but its only sources are from a blog that speaks of a completely different group, which is merely mentioned in the article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly someone's idea of a joke Dreamspy (talk) 19:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rasadam. Also no gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dukes of Haggard[edit]

Non-notable indy film, seemingly no distribution to speak of, no reliable sources, and only 54 unique Google hits, fouled by an eponymous San Diego-area bluegrass group. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Ravenswing 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The film makes no notability claims, and doesn't appear to stand up to notability criteria of WP:NOTFILM. Most of the films' web presence is on Youtube, which doesn't even appear to have any significant views. Not that this is a criteria for notability, but it does seem consistent with all the other issues. My vote is a deletion. Rasadam (talk) 08:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Non-notable" is being rather kind to it--this barely escapes an A7 by the skin of its teeth to my mind.Blueboy 96 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete who cares? Dreamspy (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Sissoko[edit]

A youth player and only "famous" by his brother Matthew_hk t c 08:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has not made an appearance in a professional league, only in the academy at West Brom. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE. Rasadam (talk) 09:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notabilty is not inherited or conferred through being related to someone notable Dreamspy (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone confirm he never played for Troyes AC? If that would make a difference. — chandler — 15:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can't confirm either way, but the fact that it's under the Youth Clubs section, and he is currently in the West Brom academy (and this was 3 years prior), I'm assuming this is for their youth team, which isn't professional. -- R45 ^talk! 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note he's not listed under Category:Troyes AC players (linked from the Troyes article) - my first impression is that this suggests he hasn't played a first team match for Troyes. Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 08:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE. Will change !vote if proof emerges that he has played for Troyes. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Jimbo^[online] 16:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sloan Bella[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sloan Bella has been removed, please contact an administrator if you need the content

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, band with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherazada[edit]

Non-notable garage band with a single unpublished album. Only 90 G-hits, mostly from blogs, Myspace and the like. [51] No reliable sources, fails WP:V and WP:BAND. RGTraynor 07:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Macdaniel affair[edit]

Extremely obscure (at best) incident. Only two hits on Google UK, and the citation in the article in fact refers to a footnote in a translated report. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Actual details such as time, year or details are not forthcoming nor evident in the cited footnote. RGTraynor 07:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't see the issue passing the notability test, it just can't be reliably sourced. It seems an old case, the source listed (PDF of a paper/book) just has the incident cites with a reference to an english law historical volume. The fact that this cite mentions the persons were stoned to death by a mob suggest this might be quite old. The lack of mentioning on the web suggests it wasn't notable enough. I can't see getting anymore information at this point, especially to warrant its own article. My vote is a deletion. Rasadam (talk) 08:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 5 seconds worth of Google books searching: [52], [53]. Everyme (was Dorftrottel) (talk) 10:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Everyme's references, and consider whether there is a better title.DGG (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two previous have summed it up well. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This incident helped lead to some fundamental changes in criminal justice. However, should we move it to Stephen MacDaniel? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually prefer the current title ~~(maybe adjust capitalisation to MacDaniel affair)~~, since the sources and thus notable lemma is about the affair, not MacDaniel himself. Everyme 18:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and keep the title, which is historically accurate. This is a basic turning point in the history of criminal justice (at least in the West). --Dhartung | Talk 04:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article currently fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ebo (band)[edit]

I declined a speedy on this article as notability is asserted (TV appearance, Battle of the Bands etc) enough to pass A7 however it is not enough to pass WP:MUSIC hence this AfD. nancy ^(talk) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC) nancy ^(talk) 06:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. They apparently won a battle of the bands competition, but they're not usually regarded as major awards. Can't find any evidence of releases beyond one EP, or significant coverage of the band. A bit early in their career to be included in an encyclopedia.--Michig (talk) 13:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. They didn't actually win the "battle of the bands"-style comp. They made it into the final 8. But didn't progress further. As you note however, even if they DID win it I'm not sure that fact would support WP:MUSIC on its own. Guliolopez (talk) 23:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. They appeared on national Television in Ireland twice, and have also been played on national radio stations. According to Article 12 of the criteria for Musicians on the WP:MUSIC, notability is significant as they were indeed the subject of a half-hour broadcast by a national TV station. See Deis Roc --User:Danmancan (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2008 (GMT)

I think it would need a half-hour broadcast solely devoted to Ebo to pass WP:MUSIC. Just appearing in the programme a couple of times may not be enough. While TG4 is a national station, it's a very small one, only getting about a 3% audience share in Ireland. If their appearances generated significant coverage in newspapers, etc., that may be enough to tip this towards keeping, but I couldn't find any such coverage.--Michig (talk) 14:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for a non-english band, I'm finding a good amount of mentiions --T-rex 15:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share them with us? nancy ^(talk) 16:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Not to be confused with the American band of the same name who released a couple of albums.--Michig (talk) 16:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. The sources provided are from a single primary source (the website of the "Battle of the Bands" competition Ebo performed in). There are no independent secondary sources offered - which WP:MUSIC would seem to require. Also: no charted hits, no significant touring, no label, no albums, no independently notable members, no awards, no radio play, etc. Certainly none that are referenced in the article. Guliolopez (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirected to appeal to ridicule, but no relevant info to merge. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 06:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argument from derision[edit]

Zero sources, zero G-hits, zero evidence that this is a fallacy known by this name. Fails WP:V, WP:N. Granted, this might be a WP:HEY result, but I don't hold out high hopes. Ravenswing 06:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Appeal to ridicule. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and possibly Merge to Appeal to ridicule. The example given may be regarded as POV-pushing by some people. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced and idiotic. WillOakland (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The article's author left this note on the article's talk page: Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:20, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi - I created the article. While I can cogently argue why it is certainly not "idiotic" (although I do appreciate the irony there), it is in fact unsourced and, given the existence of the appeal to ridicule page (I was unaware), superfluous. I vote it be merged/redirected with the appeal to ridicule page as has been suggested. I would, however, like to preserve my example concerning the Flying Spaghetti Monster. This particular argument (FSM) was constantly invoked during debates in my undergraduate courses (not so much in graduate) -- I suppose owing to its trendy popularity -- and makes more advanced, mature agnostics/atheists like myself seem childish and unprofessional. I understand that it has been lionized principally through Internet culture and I find it outrageous that more have not recognized the argument's fallaciousness. So - by all means - merge the article, but if you can preserve the example, even if it is edited.Teddyvamp (talk) 06:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)teddyvamp[reply]
  - Comment Any mention of the Flying Spaghetti Monster being an example of appeal to ridicule should go into the article Flying Spaghetti Monster. Your stated rationale here makes your article a partial coatrack. No one needs or wants a religious debate in an article that is not about religion at all. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nephrology Times[edit]

A new startup magazine. Only 21 unique G-hits, none of them reliable, no particular proof of notability. Moreover, in looking over the hits, almost all have the same language as this article, suggesting that this is a press release being copied to site after site. Fails WP:N, WP:V. RGTraynor 06:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The article also has poor referencing, most aren't third party sources. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 21:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of robots from WALL-E[edit]

MERGE Not everyone will realize the play on letters and words in the movie, or guess all of them. Also a window to the detail the writers gave to making the movie.--Flightsoffancy (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listcruft - a non-notable list of robots in a film. No sources at all, has to be original research, can't be verified unless we all go down to the local cinema. Contested prod (removed without explanation). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 05:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, indiscriminate list, no notability outside the film itself. JIP | Talk 07:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Wall-E. WP:NOR/WP:V mauler90 (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per !votes above. I could name more problems but not naming all would be cherry-picking. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an encyclopedia article. Should be posted elsewhere and linked to article on the movie. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is just an excuse for an article --Vhoscythe^chatter 14:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful with the article on the film; no need for a separate list article. To reply to a comment by the nominator, citing a film as a source is perfectly acceptable and going down to a theatre to verify is no different than citing a print source that requires one to go down to a library or archives. That doesn't necessarily excuse this list from being OR, but I had to reply to that. If this is effectively a list of characters, however, then that's easily verified, but it belongs in the movie article, not as a standalone, although if WALL-E becomes a long-term franchise like Star Wars, the question could be revisited at a later date. 23skidoo (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Fair enough, and merge might be suitable if this does emerge into a franchise — which wouldn't surprise me one bit. Additionally, if it does emerge, we can always resurrect this article through deletion review if a stand-alone article is merited at that time. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - per User:Mauler90 --T-rex 15:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable non-article Dreamspy (talk) 19:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#INFO - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 20:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wall-E - This information is already in the article. iced kola^(Mmm...) 21:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof: Wall-E#Cast. Just tag the section with {{Unreferencedsection}}. iced kola^(Mmm...) 21:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Nominator comments that this "can't be verified unless we all go down to the local cinema." Saw the movie, enjoyed it, but the film didn't come with footnotes. There was a glimpse of what WALL-E stood for, I forget now. Other than WALL-E and EVE, I don't think that the other robots were named in the movie. Maybe this is drawn from a toy catalog. Mandsford (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wall-e#List_of_Robots.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without redirect; this is knee-jerk fancruft, being indiscriminate plot detail. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just delete it don't bother w/ the redirect. Protonk (talk) 05:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Black ngold29 06:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where's my pitchfork?, I mean Delete. Completely unnecessary. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any useful information into the Wall-E article (though let's be honest; there's not much in here, I think the entries on Wall-E, EVE, M-O, AUTO, and Burn-E are about it) and delete the rest. Albino Bebop (talk) 09:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I'd created the list as a portion of the character section before those were expanded. With BURN-E coming (and presumably sequels as they're already working on Cars 2 and Disney is notorious for sequelizing everything) there may be reappearances of some of these characters. There are merchandising and other appearances by these characters already. Pejorative.majeure (talk) 03:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline and due to crystal ball problems. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Up[edit]

Fails from A to Z WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. I wish I could tag this for speedy, but I'm not sure which option to use on Twinkle. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 05:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:CRYSTAL - The song hasn't even been released as a single. "Swing Your Rag" is more likely to be a single because T.I. has the song on his myspace. SE KinG (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SE King --Numyht (talk) 11:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:19, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just to point out that you did it right, as songs aren't speediable. tomasz. 14:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamaican Brazilian[edit]

Yet another Brazilian ethnicity article with no significant content. The only source refers to the one person who is cited in this article as an example of a Jamaican Brazilian. But that person is a model who was born in Jamaica of partially Brazilian descent -- she's not a Jamaican Brazilian as defined by this article. This article is supposed to be about people in Brazil of Jamaican descent, not the other way around. I could find no sources about Jamaican-descended people as an ethnicity in Brazil. Consequently, I recommend a delete. Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all the reasons given in all the other X Brazilian debates. These are getting ridiculous. Vickser (talk) 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above (Vickser). All the recent XXX Brazillians should have been speedily deleted. It's OR and not encyclopedic. Rasadam (talk) 08:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom Astrotrain (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only person uses as an example is actually a "Brazilian Jamaican" as opposed to "Jamaican Brazilian" Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Factual errors can be corrected. No need for an AfD. --Cup22-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid stub. The article needs improving, not deletion. --Unknown789-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 11:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect It need either improvements or redirect it to a certain page regarding or related to foreigners in Brazil. Troy86 - 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I bevelie there are some jamaicans living in Brazil. You can find a jamaican in almost every country. check Jamaican diaspora. brazil is much like the United States, a melting pot of people from all over the world. Blackable2323 - 11:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone doubts Jamaicans live in Brazil. But the article is WP:OR that tries to make the subject notable. Have there been any published works talking about the history of Jamaicans in Brazil, or some significant historical impact they've had on Jamaican or Brazillian culture? The article makes no such claim to this, and neither has anyone suggested this. Rasadam (talk) 07:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with all the other X Brazilian articles as OR. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 09:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and getting tired of it how many of these do we need to endure? Argued, consensus reached, and closed. The "cross-cultural reference of the day" bit is getting very tiresome and is distruptive to Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never read about a significant immigration to Brazil by Jamaicans. According to that article, the total population is not known. Its funny how that article list Karin Taylor, but if you look at Taylor's article, it doesn't mention Brazil. It just mentions Jamaica (her birthplace) and the United States (were her career began and currently lives). Lehoiberri (talk) 21:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, due to verfiability and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 19:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Ough[edit]

Previous contested prod. Apparently non-notable music performer/producer, no verifiable and reliable sources could be located online to support this article. Given the username of the primary editor, this may be autobiographical. Risker (talk) 04:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no relevant sources with a search of Google News archives, nor anything in a search of a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless sources are forthcoming by the end of this deletion discussion. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nn. Fails WP:N. Should have been CSD rather than waste time here.--Sting Buzz Me... 05:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I considered CSD, but there are claims of notability, they simply aren't borne out by research. Risker (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable. Not that search engines are the be-all and end-all, but could find absolutely nothing on this subject. •Florrie•leave a note• 05:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I attempted to prod this some time ago, but User:Matthewough removed the tag without comment. I said then that he didn't appear notable enough due to a lack of third-party coverage, and a second look that I've done just now hasn't convinced me otherwise. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete unsourced and unreferenced Dreamspy (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Five Years 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 04:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility[edit]

WP:V - no sources. It's a list of unsourced material and there's no way to verify the info. John Nagle (talk) 04:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it can't be sourced. JIP | Talk 07:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Vote retracted because the article now has sources. JIP | Talk 04:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there isn't any sources then it has got to go. --Vhoscythe^chatter 14:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll take back my vote because sources were found.
Delete - will never be secondary sources for this --T-rex 15:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a relatively simple search turned up verification with a primary source, but also reliable secondary sources (such as "Logitech Announces Compatibility for Several Racing Wheels & Gran Turismo HD" and "Logitech Unveils Official Wheel of Gran Turismo for PLAYSTATION 3" among others) that discuss the compatability in some detail. I have begun revising the article accordingly. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Press releases are not secondary sources, even if slightly rewritten --T-rex 18:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews of the device that also touch upon compatibility, however, are secondary sources. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per above. -Rushyo (talk) 01:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles' findings; however, needs cleanup. MuZemike (talk) 03:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, verifiability and notability are now established, but rework it beyond the current list format. Everyking (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sourced. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Bateson[edit]

Fails notability criteria as he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at the highest possible level. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blackburn Rovers F.C. is an English Premier League football club. --Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct, however he has never played for Blackburn Rovers, he has only played for Blackburn Rovers Reserves and Blackburn Rovers Youth Team, neither of which confer any form of notability whatsoever -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No senior team appearances, and winning some "skill skool" competition isn't enough for notability on other grounds. Vickser (talk) 06:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as has not competed in a fully professional league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wiki project football says a first team appearance is required for notability. No prejudice to recreation when he gets his first game. nancy ^(talk) 07:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just to note, WP:FOOTY guidelines are not policy (and can't be a reason to delete) and are not even universally accepted, but WP:ATHLETE is. He fails WP:ATHLETE anyway so moot point, just for future reference. Rasadam (talk) 08:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of the status of WP:FOOTY but did you realise that WP:ATHLETE is not a policy either - it is a guideline. nancy ^(talk) 08:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hmm, I was told otherwise before. I see "This page is a WikiProject essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how they interpret notability within their area of expertise. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are free to, but not obliged to follow it during XfD's." at the top of WP:FOOTY and I see the standard official looking Notability guideline header under WP:ATHLETE Rasadam (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't particularly agree with the rules, but he fails them. If we want to be consistent (not OTHERCRAP, just consistent), he fails to pass WP:ATHLETE despite having a professional contract. Rasadam (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who? Clearly NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 08:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Flynn[edit]

Fails notability criteria as he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at the highest possible level. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Blackburn Rovers F.C. is an English Premier League football club. --Eastmain (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to his club profile [54], he's made 7 appearances for Ballymena United F.C.. Ballymena play in the IFA Premiership, the highest level of football in Northern Ireland. Unless I'm missing something here, that would make him a pass for WP:Athlete. Vickser (talk) 06:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to Delete with a big thank you to Number 57 for finding the article that solidified the league as semi-pro. Vickser (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ATHLETE says "competed in a fully professional league" or "competed at the highest level in amateur sports". Football isn't an amateur sport, so the second alternative doesn't apply. Perhaps someone could clarify whether last season's Irish Premier League was fully pro or not? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gosh, it hadn't even occured to me that the highest level of football in northern ireland might not be fully pro. Let me see what I can find. Vickser (talk) 07:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - This version [55] of the IFA Premiership page suggests the league was semi-professional. The current version of the page doesn't state this. I have tried searching but I can't conclusively determine whether the league is professional or not. When in doubt, I suggest we keep the article until we can confirm the league is not professional. If someone can confirm the league is not, I will change to delete. Rasadam (talk) 08:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Confirmation that the league is not fully professional in this Irish News article - it is described as "the local semi-professional league". пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete changing to Delete as per link above, fails notability as per WP:ATHLETE Rasadam (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE as hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Number 57's newspaper article is consistent with the version of the Irish Premier League article referred to by Rasadam, which describes the IPL as played in by Mr Flynn before the 2008 reorganisation/renaming. In which case, he does fail WP:ATHLETE by not having played in a fully-pro league. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 11:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:ATHLETE as he's played for a Northern Irish Tier 1 League. We've dealt with AFDs trying to delete players in similiar leagues before, and they've passed as it meets the intent of the guideline, so I don't know why we would do any different here. Nfitz (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain how he passes WP:ATHLETE? He hasn't played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - We need to be careful to follow the spirit of a guideline. WP:ATHLETE confers notablity on Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league. But how fully is fully? And how do we apply this to every sport. In the absence of community-accepted detailed criteria for each sport, we need to be careful how to apply this. If we were to apply the letter of the guideline rigidly, we'd wipe out many, many articles (such as most of those listed in Category:Canadian lacrosse players - for while they are fully professional teams and a league, most NLL players have alternate sources of income. So we have to follow the spirit. In this case he is professional player has played in the highest level of a national league in his country of origin, and is now signed for a team in the English Premier League. Common sense dictates that under these circumstances the spirit of WP:ATHLETE has been met. Nfitz (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I don't understand this "spirit" thing. He doesn't meet the criteria. The fact that he has played in the top division in Northern Ireland is irrelevant, as it is not a fully professional league - what next, articles on players who have played in the top division in San Marino or Andorra? пﮟოьεԻ 57 17:49, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Read WP:SPIRIT and point 2 of Wikipedia:Wikilawyering. Spirit is a well-defined concept in Wikipedia. As for Andorra - when my Canadian newspaper and TV start providing the standings and summaries of Andorran football games, then I might think that the players in that league might be sometimes notable. Until that time, I think that common sense dictates that they are not. Nfitz (talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks substantial coverage in reliable sources to support a claim to notability per WP:NOBJ as well as failing WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Keeper | 76 | what's in a name? 17:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Majer[edit]

The article on the artist was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lil Majer), but it and all the albums and singles have been recreated. (Lil Majer has been tagged for speedy deletion as recreation of deleted material, but the albums and songs are under consideration here.) Also included in this nomination:

Baby Girl (All I Want)
M.A.J.E.R.
What I Do And How I Do
The M.A.J.E.R. Effect
The M.A.J.E.R. Effect II
Hat Lean (via PROD) BradV 03:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete of Lil Majer (G4), Delete of others. Obviously Lil Majer needs to be speedied under G4. If the artist didn't survive the AFD, it is highly unlikely anything produced by the artist is notable enough for Wikipedia either. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the articles, including Little Majer, were part of the previous AfD, so G4 doesn't apply. BradV 03:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Lil Majer was, and was recreated. It is unclear if Lil Majer is part of this AFD or not. (I originally got 'Little' and 'Lil' confused -- not surprisingly. I fixed the above.) -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:40, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Majer, which is the article about the artist, was an easy G4, and is not part of the AfD. Since there is no speedy category for songs or albums, all the other articles had to go this route. BradV 03:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to reword your AFD then. The majority of your text is talking about the recreation of Lil Majer, rather than the articles you are actually putting up for AFD. You also imply strongly that all these articles were ALSO recreated after an AFD as well (you don't clarify that some of these were AFD and others weren't). Additionally, given the similiarity of "Little Majer" vs. "Lil Majer", we have a very confusing and ambiguous AFD here. Please fix your text. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:50, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The following claim appears in Little Majer: "It peaked at #25 in both the WeGotNext and VRA charts and hit #56 on the S.R.C. This also makes his first ground-breaking track since his 2004 street single "M.A.J.E.R." I do not recognize these charts, but if the charts are notable and the claims can be confirmed, then notability has been established. I note that the http://www.wegotnext.net/ site is displaying a "technical difficulties", so perhaps WeGotNext isn't notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All fail WP:Notability (music): no major label, no placement on any notable (or even verifiable) chart. Searches for VRA chart and VRA music chart on Google turn up nothing related to an actual music chart as far down as I cared to look (20 sites or so). --Closeapple (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - no evidence of notability provided. Terraxos (talk) 00:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hat Lean has been deleted through {{prod}}. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 6 Ghits for "Little Majer," two from Wikipedia, one from Myspace, and three from incidental combinations of Little and Majer. The artist himself only gets about 120. That's peanuts for a currently active musician. This is self-promotion. --Groggy Dice T | C 16:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article is substantially different than at the outset of the AfD. There is some support for a merge here, and that may well be worth pursuing. Given John Z's last comment, it appears that further sources may exist worth citing. — Scientizzle 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logic as a Positive Science[edit]

Contested prod, removed by author. Pure WP:OR essay. Cites no sources; fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, it fails OR and verifiability. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-5-2008 • 03:42:06 03:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR concerns. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR Essay (wait, so personal essays are now under WP:NOT#OR? And no one told me?) and a use of Wikipedia as one's personal webspace. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to switch my vote to Neutral to see what happens with de-essayfying (Not a word? It is now) of the article to be about the book. Only time will tell. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 14:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOR mauler90 (talk) 07:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep How are these relevant to whether we should have an article on the book? The above comments sound like they are addressed to an essay by this editor by this name, not an article on della Volpe's book. Which I might have read a long time ago, btw, know I've read his student Coletti, and the article looks like a reasonable and improvable, citable summary to me. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. What it needs is citation, and for him to understand Wikipedia policy, not deletion of an improvable article. He's said he'll try to bring it up to snuff. Give the poor bastard a chance.John Z (talk) 12:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you're actually right. I noticed the article was filled with WP:OR, but didn't consider it could be fixed what WP:DEMOLISH and all. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 12:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you made my day - and it's been a very, very long one - with that comment. Thank you very much, a pleasant one to go off to sleep with. Sincerely, Cheers,John Z (talk) 13:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertain, probably weak delete If we de-essayify this, then we have to accept that the notability question will be about the book. The article (unless it is about the concept, but the book from the bio page points to this article) should then reflect published materials about Volpe's book. If we want it to be about the subject in general, then we might be able to take the article in the direction the author seems interested in taking it. Protonk (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article in question, I have moved my original text to the discussion page, and have left a bare-bones summary on the main page. The notability of the book itself is that it was one of the major works of Della Volpe, so if the author is considered to by sufficiently notable to merit an article in Wikipedia, then one of his major works would seem to merit an article too. As John Z points out, Coletti was a student of Della Volpe, and as things turned, Colletti was much better known in the anglophone world than his teacher, but the fact that Colletti was much better known in the US and UK than his teacher doesn't mean that his teacher and work should not be regarded as sufficiently notable to merit articles in Wikipedia. JimFarm (talk) 17:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My advice would be to find scholarly reviews of this book (or responses in the 'letters' section or later articles in response). The book itself is not inherently notable even if the author is notable. but honestly only one or two reviews of it in a peer review publication should be enough to assert notability. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the author. What's needed for notability of an academic book are several substantial reviews. Almost all academic books get listed in book review sections somewhere, and then show up in google Scholar. It's necessary to actually see that they have something substantial to say--not necessarily positive, of course. My own feeling is to be very conservative about separate listings for academic books. DGG (talk) 04:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In light of the state of both articles at the moment, merging and redirecting would not be a bad idea, but there certainly are enough secondary sources to support an article, so splitting off could be done in the future. It is one of Della Volpe's two major works. It was translated into English 12 years after the author's death in 1968, and French a little earlier, so there was real interest in it. It was expanded and published under the slightly different title Logica Come Scienza Storica in 1969. 40 google book hits under the English title, 267 under original Italian title, and 92 under the posthumous title. From the titles alone, Introduzione alla logica del Novecento: Galvano Della Volpe By Francesco G. Graceffa, Studi dedicati a Galvano Della Volpe By Carlo Violi and An Introduction to the Thought of Galvano Della Volpe By John Fraser (seems to have at least a chapter on the book) should be ample sources, restricting to books only.John Z (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that it has been cleaned up. Jll (talk) 16:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nothing sourced to merge. Sandstein 21:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Möbius timeline[edit]

Disputed prod: procedural listing. Neutral SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - original prodder. My reason was "Fails WP:NOTE, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:N. Primarily OR with only a few vague sources." The PROD was removed by the usual IP who deprods most of the anime/manga prods for no reason. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Plot-only list with no hope for change (WP:NOT#PLOT), no reliable sources (WP:RS) mixed with some original research (WP:OR), the manga ran for just 12 issues and this article give WP:UNDUE weight, ... – sgeureka ^t•c 07:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: That 12 is the number of compilation volumes of the individually serialized chapters (I don't have a figure on how many of those there are, but it was serialzed monthly for 8 years). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well it certainly doesn't fail notability; Silent Mobius was more than just a manga, there were two full-length movies. The main article has plenty of room for improvement, and perhaps the timeline could be made into a chart and placed there. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or trim and Merge. The series doesn't fail notability, but there's no reason for the plot to be spunout into its own article. Doceirias (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any reliable sources that indicate that the timeline of the series is of itself notable, though there are unreliable ones, nor any that discuss it in detail. However, condensed down, this would make a valuable contribution to the story description of the Silent Möbius article, which is mighty thin indeed, especially for a series that passes WP:BK by several meters. So, selectively merge back into the main article. —Quasirandom (talk) 16:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree, SM's main article is in poor shape, with its plot really only covering Mobius Klein and the first few episodes. I'm not sure, however, that parts of this could be merged in well to flesh that out more. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of that (trimmed) into the manga/series/movie article 70.51.9.198 (talk) 04:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:OR. No coverage by reliable, independent sources to pass WP:NOTE. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all, CSD G12 copyvio and/or A7, no meaningful assertions of importance. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Badar Munir[edit]

I am nominating this article and all the other Pollywood articles below for deletion. All of them are made by User:Pollywood, so obvious WP:COI is present. None of them are, in my opinion, notable enough for an article. Most of them are written in a biased fashion. For example, in Asif Khan (who I nominated below), it goes "Indeed, Asif Ali Khan is a great Pukhtun artist -- whether it was his Pashto, Urdu or a Punjabi movie, and regardless whether he played a hero or villain, Asif Ali Khan never disappointed his fans. His performance was always just superb." I noticed a lot of these popping up on the COI logs so I thought I should bring them over here and let a consensus be reached as to whether or not they should be kept.

I am nominating the following articles as well for the reasons stated above.

Keep. Obviously a major film star in the Pashto films industry. I see no evidence of COI: Pollywood is not a company but a shorthand term for an industry, much like Bollywood, and there is no evidence that User:Pollywood is acting as a publicist for a Pashto film studio. NPOV issues are best resolved by editing, not by deletion. --Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm aware that the term Pollywood in itself isn't a company, but he's mentioned "Pollywood Films" a number of times. Maybe I misinterpreted poor grammar (which is likely) and if so, then I retract my claim of COI, but I still say that they aren't notable. Did you check out any of the other articles listed? Saeed Munir, for example, only starred in one film five years ago.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all seven articles. Badar Munir is a copyvio of http://www.opf.org.pk/almanac/A/actorsf.htm and has been tagged as G12. Zre Mey Ta Oray Dey is non-notable because a Google search for this film returns only results from Wikipedia, leading me to believe that this is a hoax. Even if it isn't, this film fails the notability guidelines for films and should be deleted as there hasn't been any major coverage of this film. Tariq Shah is non-notable. The creator of the article says that he "did not have the kind of success enjoyed by his peers such as Badar Munir, Asif Khan or Niamat Sarhadi". The article then goes on to say that he is a very successful father who raised successful kids. That's great, but this doesn't show me why he is notable. As seen in Shah's IMDb profile, none of his films have been hits. A Google News search for him returns no results. Shahid Khan is non-notable as I could find no reliable sources for him. His IMDb profile doesn't look impressive. He doesn't star in any of the three movies he is credited for. Dilbar Munir and Saeed Munir‎ are both non-notable because they have not fared much better in the film business as their father, Badar Munir. A Google News search for both of these two actors also turn up negative. Asif Khan is non-notable because his IMDb profile shows that he has only acted in one film. He played a minor character, Dr. Ramalama, in that film. Khan and the other actors fail the notability guidelines for actors. In fact, Khan's article appears to be a major copyvio of the "about this video" link in a YouTube video about him. (I haven't tagged the article as a copyvio as I don't know the copyright for YouTube videos.) User:Pollywood, the creator of these seven articles, seems to be a movie buff who has copied and pasted information from different sources about the actors in some of the most recent movies he/she has watched but not realized that they are copyright violations. Cunard (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NeoSENS[edit]

This article consists entirely of original research (WP:SYN). --Phenylalanine (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I looked over this article very carefully, including the references cited. I agree with Phenylalanine that this is textbook synthesis. None of the citations are about the concept of "neoSENS". In fact, I can find no reliable reference to this at all. The author of the article (User:Prometheus1) is, according to the copyright notice on the image and article's text, the inventor of the phrase/concept of "neoSENS". In the article's talk page, the author of the article claims this all came from a thread on the Immortality Institute's online forum, which is not a reliable source at ALL. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 03:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. This article is sourced from publications in the online forum Immortality Institute in a discussion that started in 2005, spanned over 2 years and included the participation of the SENS author, Aubrey de Grey. It is of historical import and presents a significant scientific counterpoint. prometheus1 (talk) 15:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online forums do not represent a reliable source. Also, it appears that Dr. de Grey chimed in to tell you your theory was bunk. Now, please explain to us how your theory, which has never been published in an academic paper, has never been peer reviewed, and hasn't been accepted by anyone in the scientific community, is not original research? -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 00:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact of the matter is that the ideas presented were extant in the scientific literature already. Consequently it is not original research. The references are at the bottom of the page. Moreover, de Grey said in that forum, "You may well be right about the motivation to transform discoveries into interventions, and that is why I pay attention to ongoing discoveries. In the absence of said discoveries, however, I focus on other interventions -- ones that can already be (a) designed and (b) predicted to have a fair chance of being beneficial, either on their own or jointly with other SENS components." That was his opinion, and the crux of the discussion was whether SENS was focused on the right type of science. Where are you coming from with the term "bunk"? That is as telling as it is rude. Care to explain yourself? Or should we get somebody impartial here? prometheus1 (talk) 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm as impartial as they come. I probably shouldn't have mentioned my interpretation of the tone of Dr. de Grey's responses, as his opinion (positive or negative) is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I apologize for the noise. I'll admit up front that I don't know anything about this subject matter and don't have an opinion one way or another about its veracity. I also, honestly, don't care. However, I do know Wikipedia's policies. What you are referring to -- using pre-existing research to come up with a new idea (NeoSENS) -- is called synthesis. This is not allowed on Wikipedia. Unless you can quote a reliable source that specifically uses the term "NeoSENS" and describes precisely what this article relates, then this is original research. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source is the forum. What do you mean by reliable? Are you questioning whether the discussions took place or not? prometheus1 (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What we mean by reliable sources, no original research, and synthesis was linked to above. Please read the pages on reliable sources, self-published sources, no original research, and synthesis. I've said all I can on this, really. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 13:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - per nom --T-rex 20:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 into Timetable. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rota (schedule)[edit]

Likely non-notable; I was not able to find any sources, and article has not been eferenced and gives no claim to notability Samuel Tan 02:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of verification, lack of notability as a subject and being suspiciously OR. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a short definition into timetable. This is British slang for rotation barely known in the US but there is nothing particularly special about it. One could consider shift work as a target but i think that's too specific. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into timetable as essentially the same thing. As an aside rotation is likely to be the source of the term rota but it's hardly slang - it has it's own standalone entry in a British English dictionary that does not mention rotation and the term is in everyday use by most people including buisnesses and the like. Dpmuk (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Further to my comment above, yes timetable and rota are eseentially the same thing but it should be noted that Rota only normally applies to people (i.e. not to trains, flights etc). Dpmuk (talk) 00:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per User:Dhartung --T-rex 20:13, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep or merge into timetable - I've added information on liturgical rotas. I'm afraid that this may be barely known amongst young people today, but is quite common in Protestant churches. You could also userfy to User:Bearian's space for further work at User:Bearian/Rota (schedule). Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is what I've just done. :-) Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JIP | Talk 07:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lightyear Vs. Evil Macaroni[edit]

No notability at all Mfield (talk) 02:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A total absence of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this and the page Evil macaroni. Lightyear (band) are apparently notable, but that doesn't make this notable. Fails WP:MUSIC and is possible advertising Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 05:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Matthews (writer)[edit]

British author with no references to prove notability. A Google search turns up this, which doesn't even look to be the same person. Username of original creator is Jmatt11, suggesting a possible conflict of interest as well. BradV 02:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet another non-notable autobiography on Wikipedia.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This [56] is the author, not the link per the nominator. I looked up the notability claim of one of his books, Past Imperfect being a bestseller and on a Times list. I found nothing to verify this. The book does in fact exist, on both Amazon [57] and Amazon UK [58] though neither stock it. In the media, I can find little on the author. He does appear in one Google news result [59] (First result), but a paid result so can't tell the contents. As such, none of books seem to pass WP:BK and as an author he certainly doesn't appear to meet notability requirements, hence I vote a strong delete. Rasadam (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The claim that Past Perfect was in a Times top-ten list seems accurate[60]. He's also published by HarperCollins and Penguin, i.e. not a vanity press. According to the cover art, Past Imperfect was a bestseller, but I cant find proof of that. Amazon also quotes from a Times review which I'm having trouble finding. Pburka (talk) 16:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any mention of the book in that list. Secondly, this doesn't appear as an official Times top 10 list, but rather an op-ed with the author's favourite books in the genre. Rasadam (talk) 07:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if books can be referenced Dreamspy (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Times of London link by Pburka has almost no content. Doesn't prove this person's notability. Artene50 (talk) 04:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to find any reliable sources about the author. The most prominent book does not appear to have any significant reviews that I could find. And the claim for being on a top 10 list is really an opinion piece in the Times online. -- Whpq (talk) 19:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and nomination withdrawn. (Non-admin closure) Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kačulice[edit]

The subject seems non-notable because I could not find any reliable sources in English, and the subject's only "claim to fame" seems like a very minor incident. Samuel Tan 02:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Places "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size"; place exists [61]. JJL (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All towns are notable. I added some information that appears in the French Wikipedia. References for the alleged scandal would be helpful. --Eastmain (talk) 04:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm the nominator; thanks for the info that towns are notable. --Samuel Tan 04:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i

Non-notable Gitmo detainee BradV 01:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: I think there may be a case for each detainee to be considered individually notable as there is official reference material (albeit redacted to the point of incomprehensibility) concerning each individual detainee. Guantanamo Bay is one of the most important and controversial detention facilities in the World. Every person in it is claimed to be a significant terrorist threat. That seems like the US Government making a claim of individual notability for each detainee and I think that makes them notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:01, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, this isn't even one of the "questionable" Detainee articles in my mind. I see strong Verifiability in its many references, and I see third-party media mentions establishing Notability. We have an article on David Milgaard, why wouldn't we have one on al-Subaii? Both were accused of capital crimes and held in prison, and were ultimately found to be innocent. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 02:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not sure comparing to David Milgaard is fair. He's highly notable simply because of the massive amount of media coverage he has received over the last 40 years, I get 366 hits for "David Milgaard" at cbc.ca compared to 0 for "Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i" . Most Canadians are well aware of who he is. But that doesn't reduce the case of Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i. Are there media articles discussing the case of Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i? Nfitz (talk) 02:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article seems biased against the United States' approach to dealing with the Guantanamo Bay 'detainees'. However, this individual seems very notable. We have people on Wikipedia who have been convicted of far less than what this man is accused of, who have received far less media attention, far less political attention, etc. - Richard Cavell (talk) 04:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep — Either the vacuousness of the nomination or the strength of the article would be enough to decide to Keep. Put them together, and it's a Strong Keep, maybe even a Snowball Keep. A nominator who couldn't be bothered to make their case beyond making an unsupported assertion shouldn't expect the rest of the community to give the nomination any more weight than they did. The article, however, could stand to be re-formed into a more impartial version of itself. --SSBohio 18:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What specifically do you find notable about this guy? How is the article not a complete violation of WP:BLP1E? Specifically this part: "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." BradV 19:15, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some previous AfDs for articles similar to this one:

Perhaps you will read them and reconsider (or at least rephrase) your !vote. BradV 19:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Whitman is only notable for one event, Ziad Jarrah is only notable for one event - people consistently misread BLP1E to try and delete valid articles. Its wording is meant to prevent there being articles about "the guy whose truck ran over Paris Hilton's dog" or "the woman who killed her husband in Illinois last week". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:33, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For both of those articles there are reliable sources that cover more than just that event. As an example, both of them have an "Early life" section. Can we do that for Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i? BradV 19:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I see it, detention is Guantanamo is not a single event. It is a long process and part of a larger story that encompasses what the detainee may or may not of done to justify their detention, the manner of their detention and the legal and quasi-legal processes that leads to their release or ongoing detention. After release there is the question of where they are sent to and what happens to them. We are happy to have articles for many hundreds of sportspeople and minor politicians. I think that articles for the detainees would be justifiable if the sources exist to substantiate them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't present any reliable sources, a basic prerequisite for any article. The US Government is neither reliable nor secondary as required by WP:RS. Assuming that reliable sources will be found, which would validate even having this discussion, he is unnotable per WP:BLP1E. He hasn't received any media coverage before he was detained and there's no reason to assume that he'll receive coverage in his life outside of being detained. wp:blp1e was intended for just this case, where a simple unnotable person (among 700 others) is a pawn in an important issue. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting point. On the one hand the US government is the organisation holding the detainees and almost all of the information we have about them is sourced through the US government. However it is widely accepted that government agencies are RS. If they were not then vast numbers of articles would be left effectively unsourced. How can we resolve this? In my view it is a mistake to regard a government as a single source of information. A government consists of many agencies and releases many types of information and propaganda. A distinction has to be drawn between hard, reliable information like court transcripts, official statistics and budgets all the way through spun information to the often self serving and unreliable statements that politicians make. Although heavily redacted, I think the sources here fall on the reliable end of this continuum and are RS enough to use. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the US Government can be used as a reliable source, but no way for this. They can be trusted to say that there are 254 inhabitants in so-and-so village, because they don't really have a strong incentive to lie. In this case, they are the party charging Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i with the crimes, so there's no way they can be relied on. Assuming arguendo that they are reliable, they aren't secondary, which is another prerequisite. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been thinking about this and I think that we are both right on this in different ways. Surely we can treat solid factual information from the US government saying that "[person] was detained on [date]" or "[person] was brought before a tribunal on [date] and the result was [whatever]" as RS and make a distinction between that sort of information and "[person] is a dangerous terrorist because of [a list of disputed and/or uncorroborated allegations]", which is clearly not RS. It seems to me that the US government has many agencies speaking with multiple voices, some of which can be considered as reliable secondary sources even when talking about the government's own actions. I do understand why this makes people uncomfortable, and I agree that we need to be very cautious, but I think this is acceptable in principle. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of what you said, and that exactly is the reason for my !vote. The heart of the article, and this person's claim to notability, are his criminal acts. Without the criminal acts we have nothing. So we have an article here about a living person that is being accused of heinous acts and the source that we are using for these "facts" are unreliable. Anybody who has been following the news lately, knows that the US government, in regard to Guantanomo Bay, had no trustworthiness. What we have here is an attack article on an unnotbale person all based on an untrustworthy source. A blatant violation of WP:BIO, WP:BLP, and WP:BLP1E. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 13:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my (limited) experience with the families and legal representatives of Guantanamo detainees, I have never heard anything negative about the detainee's "right to privacy", rather they seem insistent on getting the detainee's story "out there", including what he has been charged with. A system can appear rigged, but that does not mean that an article should not exist about people it accuses, if Gaddafi, Musharaf or Putin had alleged that al-Subai'i had been an assassin sent to kill them - as unlikely as their story would be, we would still have an article on him. If the United States claims he is "the worst of the worst" terrorists, then it may or may not be true - but the article should exist and fairly delineate any known facts about him. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 15:09, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy is incorrect. If a person is accused by a Prime Minister of being an assassin out to kill him, it is guaranteed that multiple reliable sources will report on that person. However, one person that is part of an 800-person of so-called bad terrorists is not guaranteed to have received substantial coverage in reliable sources. In addition, a Prime Minister-assassin has long-term notability as not to be violative of WP:BLP1E. However, every person in a 800-person group does not have long-term notability beyond a WP:BLP1E. As for your personal knowledge of certain detainees that do want a Wikipedia article, unfortunately, that cannot be taken into consideration. This afd has precedential value to articles about other detainees. Admittedly, some of the detainees might want a Wikipedia article about them to get the "word out there", but there are some that just want to do their time and then go quietly home. They are not interested in having their so-called terrorist activities memorialized permanently in an encyclopedia. They were not notable prior to the accusations, they aren't notable now, and they won't be notable after the issue is settled. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moneyfacts.co.uk[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I am nominating this article in order that a consensus can be reached as to whether this article should stay. The website may not be notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article may also represent self promotion and be written by someone with a conflict of interest.

It was created (under a different title) on 10 April 2007, then nominated for speedy deletion within 8 minutes. It was speedily deleted by Qwghlm the same day.
Three days later it was recreated and then nominated for speedy deletion within 1 minute. It was speedily deleted by Anetode the same day.
It was recreated more than a year later and speedily deleted by NawlinWiki.
It was recreated under its present title and nominated for speedy deletion, which was declined by DGG.
It was nominated at AfD. The AfD was closed (by me) as 'Delete', but that decision was overturned at this deletion review. Several participants suggested that the article ought to be relisted.

As an admin whose decision has been overturned, I will not advocate either 'keep' or 'delete' in this debate. However, if the article is kept, we may wish to change the article name to Moneyfacts. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ keep: I have heard of it and it is a major player in the UK financial information and price comparison fields, although possibly less so than it used to be. Its data is used by major media sources like the Observer. The article needs rewriting and renaming to reflect that fact that more people see Moneyfacts' data in newspapers and other sources than directly on their own web page. The web page does not deserve an article in itself but the organisation scrapes through as notable. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, ~~per nom~~ ukexpat (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I don't bother people who say "per nom" but in this case the nominator specifically disclaimed any "keep" or "delete" position. Protonk (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, OK - non-notable, no significant coverage other than press releases etc as per your comments below. – ukexpat (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Notability is not an issue, as per a casual Google search: [62]. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked that whole list. Each one of those is a reference to moneyfacts. Not one (please double check me, it is late) that I read was more than a brief reference to a spokesperson or a report. Many of them were press releases. To me, it seems like this is an earned media case. Press organizations need quotes and moneyfacts likes to give them. Protonk (talk) 04:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The major financial media is repeatedly seeking this organisation out for commentary on news stories. In my book, that is a confirmation of notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. No one has written a story about them. How are we to assert notability without some original research? I know this sounds stupid, but it is the point of this encyclopedia. Whatever content is here should only be here if someone has written about it first. Protonk (talk) 14:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Here is a google book rundown. I can't check each book, but plenty of them look like the news references did, small references. That is checking for "moneyfacts.co.uk". A less restrictive term like "moneyfacts" returns this. That list is considerably longer but as I suspected, much more unfocused. This web search of the full term shows most of the top hits are from moneyfacts itself. That usually isn't a good sign. It isn't always a BAD sign. Wikipedia results fill the first page for that term. We may read too much or too little into google searches, but I'm not sure that we may read anything conclusive from these particular searches. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Moneyfacts based on its regular mention in reliable media as a source of financial information. I do agree with the nominator (well non-nominating nominator..) that it is advertising and in dire need of a rewrite with reliable sourcing, but this is no reason to delete a seemingly notable website. I suggest dropping of the .co.uk extension to be more encyclopedic. Rasadam (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- notable website Astrotrain (talk) 12:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a major service--probably change title. I do not regard being a top hit on google as a negative indication of anything, except that they have arranged their SEO to get their own sites higher on the list, which suits their PR purposes, but of course does not help us. Checking the GBooks results, the first few show them in a list, and the later ones include several that specifically state its importance. The chaffey book in particular is a major work, and uses it as a resource. As for GNews, since as Protonk says, the news media are continually searching for quotes, the place they turn to for them is Moneyfacts.DGG (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Show me an article that says that "the place news organizations in England turn to for financial facts is moneyfacts.co.uk" and I'll !vote keep. Protonk (talk) 17:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm still on the fence with this article, but I don't think I'm being clear about the Gnews or the Gbooks references (~~I haven't read each of the books, so some may have significant coverage~~). If we assume that the news references found in google offer significant coverage, from what source will this encyclopedia article be built? As for the google hit thing, my point was that with a very specific search term "moneyfacts.co.uk", if the weight of sub-pages on moneyfacts is higher than any web reference to it, there may not be all that significant coverage of it on the web. We may assume without too much of a stretch (I agree with it, at least) as DCG does, that this ranking may be in part due to Search Engine Optimization. But Here is the 4th page of searches (the wikipedia page for moneyfacts was on the second page, I believe) we are still looking at only press releases, news references (the same ones as in gnews) and financial blog postings (outside of moneyfacts sites). And now I've read the online available books from that list. They are all short references (e.g. inline links or in a helplist). None were more than 2 sentences and none mentioned moneyfacts aside from a suggestion on where to find financial info. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage by reliable sources.--Boffob (talk) 17:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not satisfy WP:WEB's condition 1: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." - only a single mention in the Guardian as far as I can see, and it appears to be a puff piece copy&paste of a press released rather than a detailed treatment or critique. Does not appear to satisfy criteria 2 or 3 either. Note I was the admin who speedily deleted a different version but I believe I followed procedure correctly then and am basing my judgement on agreed standards this time as well. Qwghlm (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it hands out yearly awards to mortgage and other credit businesses. The awards get reported on, and are called "prestigious", "coveted", etc. 153 Google news hits just for the awards. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the list of Google News hits on the awards contains a lot of press releases and non-RS stuff I see that the Guardian is included and that has persuaded me to switch from "weak keep" to "keep". When the article is rewritten the awards should be included in it. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update:: I have just rewritten the article more or less completely. Please can the people advocating deletion have another look and let me know what you think. The plan would be that the article would be moved to Moneyfacts. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the recent re-write by Daniel Rigal and sorry for the confusion by the recent move, failed to notice AfD tag. The website may not be notable as a website in strict WP:WEB terms but the company is notable. The article belongs at Moneyfacts with a re-direct from the current home. We don't hold Amazon/Amazon.com and Google/Google.com to different standards. The company has received the coverage and the only reason it appears to have been moved here was from the repeated deletion at the main article. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 16:08, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak ~~Delete~~ Keep (If I've accidentally !voted above let me know or just strike it out). I'm looking at the current revision at this time 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC). The only independent source that covers moneyfacts in a non-trivial fashion is the guardian's blog. While I know that a blog run by a news organization is likely to have editorial control, I get the impression that the mention provides only limited notability. It is, however, miles beyond the rest of the news mentions and book mentions. Either way, it is pretty borderline. Protonk (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a blog. It is a column in the paper. This is what its article history says: "This article appeared in the Observer on Sunday September 24 2000 on p8 of the Cash section.". --DanielRigal (talk) 20:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OIC. Protonk (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I added this BBC source to the article: Attack on money 'best buy' tables. And this Telegraph source Moneysupermarket paid rival £3.9m. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, on a lighter note, the CEO is named Paul Pester, and the spokesman is Andrew Hagger. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changed to weak keep above. the article has at least one RS suggesting notability. should be renamed after the AfD, tho. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move article to Moneyfacts. Article has significant coverage in reliable sources thus establishing notability. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the term fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Game (video game)[edit]

Prod removed by author. Non-notable gaming term inadequately supported by references. One reference seems to be a blog (not RS) and the other is a general gaming site which does not include the phrase "mind game" on its front page (which is what is linked). In a gaming context "mind game" seems to mean the same as in most other contexts and so it is not necessary to have a separate article on mind games in computer games. DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable concept as separate from regular "mind games" at all. This article just seems like so much ego stroking to me. JuJube (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline original research, article is written like a game guide. JIP | Talk 07:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Complete agreement with the above. How does this differ from any other mind game, and how would it be anything other than a dicdef if it was? RGTraynor 07:28, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree with the above statement. It is the same as any other mind game. mauler90 (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry to repeat this, but I have to agree too. --Vhoscythe^chatter 14:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom NN Dreamspy (talk) 19:51, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — This is no different than any old mind game played on your friend. MuZemike (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 20:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Wrankmore[edit]

Ice Hockey player who does not meet WP:ATHLETE. Ice Hockey is not a fully professional sport in Australia. He has not represented Australia in an international tournament. There are no reliable, independent sources provided for this article. This is a disputed PROD, reasons have been supplied on the article's talk page. Mattinbgn\^talk 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The sport is certainly not a "fully professional" league as prescribed by WP:ATHLETE. Perhaps merge into Central Coast Rhinos. (Steven Adams (hockey) perhaps should be added to this discussion.) Moondyne 01:52, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE as per nom and Moondyne. The description of the 07 city/country match could be moved to a separate ice hockey city/country article if one exists or the AIHL article if not. (Assuming that ice hockey city/country is run under the auspices of the AIHL, that is.) Other than that the stuff about his position and how long he's been in the team belongs in the team article. Nasica (talk) 05:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm inclined to think that playing in a representative game like City/Country is an indicator of notability, but the notability criterion doesn't have anything to say about this. Thoughts? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:37, 5 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete: The notability criteria states that only "fully professional" athletes qualify. RGTraynor 08:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article says it all: "semi-professional ice hockey player".. Punkmorten (talk) 21:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ATHELETE. Five Years 12:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ATHLETE also says the highest level of amateur sport. And in Australia the AIHL is the highest level of amateur hockey. The Ice Hockey projects more strict guidelines would also include this player under the criteria of "Played one or more games in an amateur league considered, through lack of a professional league, the highest level of competition extant".-Djsasso (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, the highest level of amateur ice hockey is the national team. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's been argued before (though I don't really agree) that the National team is not the highest level of amateur sport because professionals can play in the Olympics and World Championships now. -Djsasso (talk) 14:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Having written the criterion in question, my intent, as I gave in the examples, was to highlight periods in major hockey powers before professional leagues were allowed, such as 19th century Canada and the pre-1990 Soviet Union. The "top national league" criterion also assumed that the nation in question was a legitimate hockey power, and the examples I gave were leagues from Sweden, the Czech Republic and Russia. Neither was intended (for example) to immediately qualify for articles any players in a putative Nigerian hockey league. RGTraynor 00:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:HOCKEY requirements. This is the top ice hockey league in Australia, and he plays in it. – Nurmsook! (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He is an amateur players in an amateur sport. The only exception I would make for the general non-notability of Australian ice hockey players would be those who have represented the national team in an olympic or world championship qualifying tournament. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 06:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Djasso. He plays in Australia's top league. Grsz ^talk 14:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE The amateur clause guideline applies only to sports that don't a professional league anywhere. The fact that Australia doesn't have a professional hockey league is no concern here. If he was good enough and he could achieve notability by playing professionally outside of Australia. ccwaters (talk) 14:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and salt. Shereth 20:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedash[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Article about a nonnotable technique used in the Super Smash Bros. series. It is mostly gameguide material and does not belong on Wikipedia. It previously failed two other AfDs and was deleted both times, as you can see to the side. Artichoker^[talk] 00:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same content as last time? If so speedy delete it as recreation of deleted material. If it is different content then delete it as it is unreferenced and encyclopaedic. We have got better things to do on Wikipedia than have three damn AfD on one stupid subject so I suggest salting it to avoid any more wasted time. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The last two AfDs were over two years ago, before the release of Super Smash Bros. Brawl, so there would be new material which is why it shouldn't be speedily deleted. Regardless though, I agree that it should be deleted the regular way with a possible salt. Artichoker^[talk] 00:59, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt Non-notable gamecruft, no reliable sources to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, plus the article is patently false. The term "wavedashing" originated with Tekken, not Smash Bros. and was so named because in that game the technique involved dashing, then canceling the dash with a crouch and dashing again. JuJube (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete and Salt: per above. RGTraynor 07:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Super Smash Bros. (series). MuZemike (talk) 03:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above Lumaga (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wavedelete and wavesalt This is one of those articles that gets recreated rather frequently. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC) Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#GUIDE and WP:GAMETRIVIA. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. The muramasa (talk) 15:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G3 Hoax. Deleted by MBisanz, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:21, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untouchable (Ghetto Rida Album)[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC it even states that it had low sales. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:06, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a hoax...see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ghetto_Rida#Ghetto_Rida LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Certainly not notable; probably a hoax. Ros0709 (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — _Maggot^Syn 13:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration of Calton Hill[edit]

Advert for minor Scottish political party, minor non notable event by former politicans in Edinburgh Astrotrain (talk) 12:43, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - declaration may have been partially an SSP front, but received notable support and Astrotrain's claims are decidedly POV.--MacRusgail (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is poorly referenced but there are no end of possible sources as a Google search suggests. The SSP may be a minor party, but the artists involved lent weight to the proceedings. Not sure what the problem is, except that the nominator may not support the sentiments expressed. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- At least 50% of the article is padding (eg decribing how many times the Queen has opened Parliament, talking about the hill itself). It was a minor event held by minor non notable people who no longer hold political office. It could be merged to Republicanism in the UK or maybe Tommy Sheridan. Astrotrain (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - it lists Edwin Morgan, Iain Banks, Alasdair Gray, Irvine Welsh & Peter Mullan as supporters. These are all extremely notable people in contemporary Scottish culture, and all have articles on here. --MacRusgail (talk) 22:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC) if you coud be clear[reply]
  - Comment I don't dispute the article needs clean-up, but I wonder, my dear Astrotrain, if you could be clear as to whether you would like to collaborate on improving the article, are proposing a merger, or sticking with the delete idea. I'd be happy to assist with the first. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 15:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think it should be deleted. The fact that the minor rally was held could be mentioned in any of the Republican articles, or perhaps those Republican MSPs who attended. Astrotrain (talk) 19:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. No consensus to delete as the subject easily passes notability per WP:BIO. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Gilmore[edit]

Fails WP:BIO, minor criminal with no notable coverage from independent sources Astrotrain (talk) 12:48, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Gilmore was an important political figure on the Republican left in Ireland in the 1920s and 1930s. I therefore oppose deletion. The fact that this article is a stub is no reason to delete it. --Mia-etol (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No sources? - There's an obit, there are cites to 10 pages of J. Bowyer Bell's book. These are reliable and independent sources, with real coverage.John Z (talk) 22:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm puzzled by the nom, because this article seems well sourced. Also lots of gnews hits.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO. Meets WP:VER. Intro could do with expanding, but otherwise seems an OK stub. Guliolopez (talk) 23:22, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Reasonably well sourced (although, for God's sake, WHY do people insist on one-sentence leads?!), seems to easily meet WP:BIO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think there's anyone out there shortening leads, at least not a significant number. It's just that most articles aren't long enough for one that's much longer than a sentence. In fact it's more common for an article to start with no lead at all. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability demonstrated by sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notability is established, with notable coverage from independent sources. --Domer48 (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:BIO Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_1-1] "Real World/Road Rules Challenge (season 16)"; wikipedia.com

[wikipedia_2-2] "Real World/Road Rules Challenge"; wikipedia.com

[wikipedia_3-3] "The Real World: Hollywood"; wikipedia.com

[vision_1-4] "Vision 1 Media"; vision1mediagroup.com

[Vevmo-5] "So who made the Brooklyn (Real World 21) Cast?"; Vevmo.com.com; June 30, 2008

[Vevmo_2-6] "Real World Hollywood: Ep. 12 - Mexi-Loco"; Vevmo.com.com; June 5th, 2008

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

GSnap[edit]

TomKat[edit]

Paul Petrino[edit]

Ace of Base worldtour 2007 - 2009[edit]

Etana (musician)[edit]

Indrit Sulaj[edit]

Playdo AB[edit]

Charles nivens boogie[edit]

Aardvark (font)[edit]

Doctor Who 2008 Christmas special[edit]

Jesse Jamez[edit]

Best of the Best Championship Karate (video game)[edit]

Andrew "Danger" Davies[edit]

Gabriel Murphy[edit]

Harry Cairney[edit]

Metapedia (Wiki)[edit]

Kli Micheaux-Tachibana[edit]

The Emporium, Leicestershire[edit]

Five point scale[edit]

LaFayette Jackson Veterans Organization[edit]

Engineer combat group[edit]

Mr Praline[edit]

Melodic rock[edit]

Omissions in the Gospel of John[edit]

Cape Verdean Brazilian[edit]

Sri Deep Narayan Mahaprabhuji[edit]

Papercutz[edit]

Celebrity (magazine)[edit]

OMGLOL![edit]

Yung Ro[edit]

Palestinian Exodus 1949 to 1956[edit]

In answer to Ceedjee's smear tactics[edit]

20Bello[edit]

Glenn McGee[edit]

Emilio sanchez salamanca[edit]

Doug Lascody[edit]

DrProject[edit]

Further reading on Latin American Literature[edit]

List of World Wrestling Entertainment championships[edit]

Thorpe Business Park[edit]

AndeZoo[edit]

Boogie Rock[edit]

Digital sheet music[edit]

Topey Angad[edit]

Internets[edit]

Ya Nasrallah[edit]

Nucular[edit]

Vevmo[edit]

Notes[edit]

"Dare Devil"[edit]

Carter Family picking[edit]

Francisco J. Blanco[edit]

Point Dume Freedom Fighters[edit]

Dukes of Haggard[edit]

Ibrahim Sissoko[edit]

Sloan Bella[edit]

Sherazada[edit]

Macdaniel affair[edit]

Ebo (band)[edit]

Argument from derision[edit]

Nephrology Times[edit]

List of robots from WALL-E[edit]

What Up[edit]

Jamaican Brazilian[edit]

Matthew Ough[edit]

Logitech Racing Wheels compatibility[edit]

Jonathan Bateson[edit]

Jonathan Flynn[edit]

Little Majer[edit]

Logic as a Positive Science[edit]

Silent Möbius timeline[edit]

Badar Munir[edit]

NeoSENS[edit]

Rota (schedule)[edit]

Lightyear Vs. Evil Macaroni[edit]

John Matthews (writer)[edit]

Kačulice[edit]

Muhammad Jayid Hadi Al-Subai'i[edit]

Moneyfacts.co.uk[edit]

Mind Game (video game)[edit]