Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 6

< June 5	June 7 >

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 keep. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otenet[edit]

Delete. No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable- just another ISP. Bstone (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 No assertion of notability. This is a straightforward speedy delete. tgies (talk) 23:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Never thought I'd defend them, but OTEnet is not "just another ISP". It is Greece's ONLY ISP. They're also crap, but that's another story. A few small other ISPs (there's about 4 of them) all use OTEnet's network. When you're talking telco in Greece, you say OTE or OTEnet, there's nothing else around, really. Channel ® 00:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Even the quickest web search reveals that they're obviously notable. Lots of press coverage. Pburka (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The only ISP in Greece is most certainly notable, even if the article is crap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article should definitely be kept, since the lead line claims good notability; being the only main ISP in Greece is significant enough. Even though the article might not be in a good state right now, references can be added. A Google News search shows that there are references online that can be used. --Jamie^☆S93 13:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If they are the only ISP in Greece they are notable. The article though should ASSERT this and preferably back-up the assertion with reliable 3rd party sourcing. It also should be rewritten somewhat as at the moment it does look a bit more like an advertisement than an encylopedic article (at least to me). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to C programming language. Edit history preserved for potential to merge this content - but I make no recommendations as to whether it should or should not be merged. While there is no clear consensus to either keep, delete, redirect or merge, there does appear to be a consensus that this information is not well suited to a standalone article and I have selected the best compromise to this end. Shereth 19:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the C programming language[edit]

Scantily referenced POV fork of the article on the C programming language. Relevant policy here is Wikipedia:Criticism#Separate articles devoted to criticism, trivia or reception (history) Vquex (talk) 23:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete delete. The talk page shows it for what it is: a collaborative essay on the subject, rather than an encyclopedia-worthy article. Scantly-sourced and never likely to get much better, just like all the other criticism articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very straightforward violation of the cited guideline. tgies (talk) 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; it's clearly not an encyclopedia article. ~Double AW^[c] 00:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a quality encyclopaedic article. Secondly, it seems to have been nominated for deletion before under another name; only its creator created a new article with a new title here Artene50 (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge: most criticism does not deserve it's own article. Try merging it with C programming language instead. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back in truncated form. There is useful information there. Deletion would be to throw the baby out with the bathwater. --- GWO (talk)
Merge to C programming language. Criticism is notable to an extent. A whole article on it is madness however. --.:Alex :. 11:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C programming language per nom. Criticism is already covered in the C language page, a separate page for it is not necessary. i believe a redirect is better than a delete in this situation so the article's history can be preserved more easily NewYork483 (talk) 16:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Ben1283 (talk) 16:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am going to buck the trend and argue for retaining this article. First, programming languages are not like people, which the quoted guideline focuses on, in the sense that they have a great body of support views and criticism views. They naturally attract criticism, while the support is in a description of the features of the language. Given that both the parent article and this fork are quite large, I suggest it is kept, but some answers to the criticisms added. --Bduke (talk) 00:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the abridged version to C programming language. -- Mark Chovain 13:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to C programming language. CRocka05 (talk) 03:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Salvage sourced and relevant content into C programming language, but I don't see the utility in leaving around a stale redirect... how many people are going to search wikipedia for "Criticism of the C programming language"? Blaxthos ( t / c ) 04:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was intentionally split off (by consensus) from the main article on C because of its size, which is necessary for adequate coverage of the subject (criticisms of C). Having that much criticism in the main C article unbalanced the article by giving excessive emphasis to negative attributes. As Bduke noted, many of the guidelines in Wikipedia:Criticism don't work well when applied to this kind of subject matter. For example, spreading the criticism throughout the article would significantly impair the exposition of what C is. I also note that much of the commentary above is incorrect: it is not a POV fork (in fact its editors have strived to maintain a neutral POV, and it is appropriately referenced in the main C article); sources could be provided if there were serious dispute about the reality of the criticisms (keep in mind that the editors are volunteers whose limited spare time has to be prioritized); the article was not proposed for deletion under another name; the article title is not the appropriate search criterion, and the criticism article is as likely to be found by a keyword search where it is as if it were embedded into the other article. Links are a powerful tool for convenient organization of information. — DAGwyn (talk) 23:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Wikipedia is not paper and there is no limit to how in depth we can cover any topic. In this case there is enough verifiable material to warrant an article. This should to me merged into C. It was split of from C in the first place! This was decided by consensus at Talk:C (programming language)/Archive 7#Reasons_for_not_promoting. I trust the editors of the article to organized this information as they see fit. Jon513 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this is information that really belongs in C programming language, it was split off from that article to keep the size manageable. That's a perfectly legitimate reason for splitting up an article, and re-merging after such a split would just be silly. Klausness (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pantheists[edit]

Another randomly assembled list, lacking references and weakend by questionable inclusions. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition to lack of sourcing the subject is not well defined and the criteria for inclusion are vague. If a figure's pantheism is notable it can be included in an article on that subject. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Convert into a category: the list is very random. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the article on Pantheism is so large (almost needing a Summary Style), this list is a nice compliment to it. Ashame it wasn't named List of Notable Pantheists. Assuming the individual articles for each name on the list support the notion that they were Pantheists, this list in my view, meets WP:Lists guidelines.--Mike Cline (talk) 12:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Mike Cline but organize and alphabetize it NewYork483 (talk) 16:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete many issues including verifiability, reliable sources, and possibly original research. Ben1283 (talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ben1283 & Antiselfpromotion plus taking into account Mike Cline's comments, the first bio of a live person I looked at didn't mention pantheism, thus we could run into WP:BIO problems. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Essentially the world's oldest religion that many prominent figures express beliefs in. The sheer number of edits to the list shows interest in the subject. MiracleMat (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm not convinced that this article shouldn't exist, since we have a list of atheists whose contents are just as open to debate as this one. However, that list avoids becoming Original Research by keeping an extensive set of references (i.e. one per item). If we were to go through and supplement this article with sources we could avoid the whole OR issue and weed out any people that don't belong. Enok^talk 00:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Pantheism is not a religion in and of itself. There are a massive number of pantheistic belief systems, each of which merits its own 'notable members of this religion' list within its own article. This article might be rewritten into a 'list of pantheistic religions', but otherwise this article is going to be nothing more than an agglomeration of the contents of other lists. This would clearly violate WP:listcruft and WP:overlistification. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow on to my comment, if pantheism is considered a religion in and of itself, with a separate identity from the constituent pantheistic religion (hinduism, jainism, etc) then ~~my entire argument is meaningless~~ I would have reservations about this article still as an overly large and potentially unmaintainable umbrella list containing the contents of several other lists. HatlessAtless (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article is well-cited, and the subject is covered in multiple major papers; this is grounds for inclusion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Carmichael (Scientologist)[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable Church executive and occasional spokesperson whose claim to fame per the article is losing it and uttering an obscenity which was picked up by one blog but is not otherwise noted or of note. Fails WP:BIO Justallofthem (talk) 22:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I feel this article was written properly and conforms to Wikipedia standards and is notable enough to keep. NotTerryeo (talk) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) — NotTerryeo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of a major branch of the organization who seems to have attracted both favorable and unfavorable press. Edward321 (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence he has significance beyond an award granted by the church of which he is an executive. The utterance seems to test the very limits of WP:ONEEVENT. --Dhartung | Talk 04:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Person of significance to an organization who has managed to attract attention through his actions. --Laomei (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Laomei (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have not had a chance to expand this article yet but the individual is notable and there is a significant amount of information to be added from tens of secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Also agree with Edward321 (talk · contribs), President of major branch of an organization. Cirt (talk) 13:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim to notability. Award is from own organisation, no non blog coverage for controversy. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable member of notable organisation who has been quoted several times in major press. --Mcr hxc (talk) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Mcr hxc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the Head of a Major Org, together with the various awards he is notable. Quoted often in news stories, together with the recent controversy, he is def notable. Cirt seems to be adding much to the article Arabik (talk) 14:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Arabik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep per Laomei and Arabik. Robertissimo (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Robertissimo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other recent edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With a couple of thousand edits total over several years, it feels odd to have my opinion devalued simply because I've had a busy spring; I have in fact been participating steadily, albeit on a very small scale, since having to scale back at the start of 2008...Robertissimo (talk) 11:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well written, sourced and I think he is notable. Nxsty (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — Nxsty (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC) — That is a pure lie, check my contributions. In fact I haven't done a single edit to any scientology-related page, if you don't count the dianetics talk page. Nxsty (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Long term member in a position of authority within a large and powerful religion. Article needs a bit more info on him perhaps but its certainly not something we should delete! 220.231.61.34 (talk) 16:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 220.231.61.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important regional exec for Scientology, with long term notability. (See refs I've just added to the Talk page to be worked into the article.) AndroidCat (talk) 16:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sighcloser may wish to note.Geni 23:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Head of large Scientology organisation, and is clearly notable.Г^edʃtǁcɭ 01:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - I'll AGF and assume the nominator tried to improve the article before nominating? There is definite notability here, can the article has been cleaned up using VS. DigitalC (talk) 02:12, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Duffbeerforme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.149.157.241 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of this comment, this !vote was the only recorded edit by this IP address. ChaoticReality 00:39, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I am noting that a large number of keep votes are coming from editors that either do not have a lot of edits outside the topic or have not edited Wikipedia much recently but seemed to have returned to cast a keep on this issue. I am not assuming bad faith as they are certainly entitled to their vote but this is indicative of canvassing, likely off-wiki canvassing; please see the note by Geni above. This activity speaks to the limited interest and limited notability of the subject and I think that deletion is the proper course for this article. --Justallofthem (talk) 16:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the {{!vote}} template to the top. On a related note, you tagged a few users who are clearly not {{spa}}'s - please remove the tags for those users. Cirt (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cirt, you have been very hasty in tagging some of the users here as SPAs. It might also be worth the closing admin noting that Justallofthem appears to be quite heavily involved in Scientology related articles with a possible POV towards removing/playing down controversy. ChaoticReality 22:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I specifically removed the SPA wikilink from editors such as Robertissimo that are not SPA. However, that does not change the fact that these editors had few recent edits outside this AfD and combined with the comment by another editor re the enturb.org thread on this article it is important that the closing admin take this into account when determining what might constitute "consensus" in this case. As far as my editing, you might want to take another look at WP:AGF. --Justallofthem (talk) 23:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed. I'm not complaining when it's valid (my first contribution to this discussion was to tag an IP for having no other edits). I did AGF up to a point but it did strike me how hard you appeared to be pushing for this article to be removed. Then again, we all see things differently. Best, ChaoticReality 12:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. Not really pushing hard. just the initial nom and noting that a bunch of dormant editors seem to be coming over here to cast keep. If I was pushing hard I would be debating points with multiple editors. Yes, I am a Scientologist but that is no secret. I don't mind criticism of Scientology, I do have a problem with this project becoming a mirror of ED on the topic and specializing in highlighting anything negative about individual Scientologists. The "I smell pussy" thing is entirely non-notable and partisan but we have it, don't we. Hell, if we are going to have then let's drop the euphemism of "uttered an obscenity" and let's all smell pussy along with Carmichael. That is what the partisans want. We even "have" to include in Carmichael's bio that Jason Beghe said he smelled pussy, too. Off-topic but hey, who cares, this is a Scientologist we are bashing here. --Justallofthem (talk) 22:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise you were a Scientologist (nor do I care) and I do not support discrimination or bashing of anyone based on any factor, including religion. I realise it is very easy recently to bash Scientology (although I'm not sure the RTC is doing itself any favours, but that's another matter) but I disagree that this is becoming a mirror of the ED page, although I do see where you are coming from (Please remember, though, what you said about AGF; these could just be people who feel strongly on the issue). I don't think the incident should be mentioned in the article, as it is trivial but I do believe that Mr Carmichael is notable for other reasons (as are a lot of prominent religious leaders (see Bishops and stuff from the Christian Church)) which is why I've kept an eye on this AFD (and will shortly be adding my "!vote! opinion for a keep. ChaoticReality 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you feel the incident should not be in there then please feel free to remove it. This is the sort of thing I object to. Perhaps Carmichael is barely notable to be in this project (perhaps not) but his insulting an individual anon is hardly notable. Shameful perhaps, but not notable. Guy under stress loses it a bit. Not suitable for an encyclopedia fer Xenu's sake. Only made it in the press at all because of one partisan blogger at one tabloid. Anon admits to stalking his helper Megan in the same video (and elsewhere admits to driving her to tears). Also shameful behavior. Not encyclopedic either. This article only showed up here after the "I smell pussy" incident and then an after-the-fact effort to scrape up notability. That ain't right. --Justallofthem (talk) 00:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The effort to scrape up notability may have been after the fact but I think notability has been established. The same has happened in the past where articles have been CSD A7ed but then notability refs have been provided. I would argue that means the article stays but that's just my opinion. ChaoticReality 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several factors going on here - 1) He is a high-level executive in a very large organization, and has received awards within the organization (Notability ++). 2) He is commonly the spokesperson for the church to the media (Notability ++). 3) He has been the subject of coverage in major news media for his recent controversial actions (Notability ++). ~~4) The coverage of him tends to be about the single controversial event (Notability --)~~. On net, these factors point towards notability. Z00r (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I reject the view his middle manager status, makes him notable. If it did, we'd have to give articles to most regional managers of large coporations, which we don't. An award from his own organization is also pretty insignificant. However, the NY Times wrote a non-trivial article on him, giving truly biographical information about him. He's got coverage for his personal deeds, not just puppetting the party line. --Rob (talk) 20:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough coverage in the sources cited to confer notability even without the "I smell pussy" incident. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sources added by Bilby. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Costello[edit]

Non-notable writer who fails WP:BIO. His single book, out from a micro-press in the Midwest, fails WP:BK. Qworty (talk) 02:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I did some research and I've added a few references. He gets news coverage through his band (a full article in the Chicago Tribune), for his stage show (the Tribune again for the big article, and other mentions here and there), and multiple reviews of his book. Not the most notable person around, by any means, but should meet the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 09:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, with the work done by Bilby, I believe he meets the basic criteria in WP:BIO, "he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:54, 4 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, Shereth 22:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Enough sources found by Bilby to show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cell (2009 film)[edit]

Apparently fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when verification for commencement of shooting can be provided. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article cites mostly blogs and what appear to be fansites, a quick Google search turns up reliable links like this and this. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of notability more than verifiability - see NFF. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that page. It says, Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. And because I have found a couple reliable sources, I believe the article should be kept. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 12:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Having a database entry does not verify that shooting has begun. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it verifies that the movie is to begin shooting, and thus it technically passes NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 16:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong - the guideline explicitly states that it must be verified to have begun shooting. This is because a very substantial percentage of shoots are cancelled or indefinitely postponed during pre-production. The guideline was created with the exact purpose of preventing every film that has ever been in development from having a stubby, unexpandable article. We are not the IMDb, MSN, or any other database, and therefore our needs and standards for inclusion are different. If you have any questions regarding this, I recommend referring the matter to the future films department. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Technically this article does fail WP:NFF, it says "Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles.", the two articles referenced above do not confirm shooting.--Captain-tucker (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They're right. There's no proof that it has actually begun shooting, so it isn't a valid article and it fails WP:NFF. ~Double AW^[c] 00:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no relavent info in the article that is not already included in Cell (novel). Upon the commencement of shooting the article should be re-created. Black ngold29 01:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 2 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, Shereth 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above NewYork483 (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the other comments above. Fails WP:NFF. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Frog King (film)[edit]

Apparently fails WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when verification of the shoot commencing can be provided. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article doesn't cite any sources at all, but from a search on Google, there are reliable sources such as this that exist and prove at least a bit of notability. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd recommend you read NFF - it explicitly fails the standards for film notability. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 2 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, Shereth 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFF. Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Belcoo Experiment[edit]

Appears to fail WP:NFF. No prejudice towards recreation when shooting can be verified to have commenced. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this upcoming horror film as per Girolamo. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 14:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:27, 2 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, Shereth 22:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellas On-Line[edit]

Delete No WP:RS, does not assert WP:N, not notable- just another ISP. Bstone (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you said, it's just an ISPs page, that contains no advertising material. It's purpose is to provide some general info as it's the only Greek iSP not having a wikipedia article. There's not much reference material in English anyway. I'm happy to add some references of Greek website, but few Wikipedia admins will be able to verify. Walnutjk (talk) 22:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article belongs on the Greek wikipedia. As well, just because another similar group has an article does not mean that this one should have one. There are still no WP:RS and this group fails the WP:N threshold. Bstone (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree deleting articles based on their "geographical" content. What about the Otenet article? Should that be moved as well as it belongs to the Greek ISP category? Again, finding reliable resoures in English is not possible as with many wikipedia articles. Walnutjk (talk) 23:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject is notable in Greece then it's notable enough for English Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia about the whole ~~world~~ universe written in English, not an encyclopedia about English-speaking countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no equivalent English-language sources available then Greek ones are fine. Please add any that you have to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete poorly sourced Ben1283 (talk) 16:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've put some English language sources in the article. Plenty more available through Google News. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This page has no advertising material whatsoever. it is an entry describing one of the major fixed telecoms operators in Greece. It will be updated shortly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.103.86 (talk) 11:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is confirmed. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 13:28, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorty (song)[edit]

Song with questionable notability. Ani Mate 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC) Ani Mate 22:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Get Up Kids. The band seems notable enough, but the song doesn't appear to have charted, and was self-released. Corvus cornix_talk 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The song was the band's first release, and is one of the most re-released and well known songs by the band. It's release played a pivotal role in getting them signed to Doghouse Records, and convinced Ed Rose to produce Woodson, their first release. (Information which, in hindsight, should be put into the article. I will add that now.) Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Get Up Kids. Not enough information or sources for its own article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've updated the page with the history of the record, as well as a reference. I'll add more as I find them, but that was the most substantial information I had at my immediate disposal. Also, should a song have to be charted to be notable? Much of the band's notability stems from this release, so that in itself should make it notable. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 23:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep If sources are found to support the article's assertion that this song is responsible for the band being discovered. faithless (^speak) 00:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the first single from a notable band, it was produced by a noteable producer, and it was released on a notable label (Doghouse, and later Vagrant).Natt the Hatt (talk) 06:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, song fails to meet WP:MUSIC. Redirect back to album Four Minute Mile. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album it's on. NN on its own. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:09, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Cruel World[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable performer. Corvus cornix_talk 22:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not only non-notable, but unverifiable. Google hits for the record label are Wikipedia, spam, and a single MySpace page for Beau dentro. Huon (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was already redirected. Shereth 22:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Shop (1903)[edit]

Wiki isn't a repository for short stories, surely? Ged UK (talk) 21:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete; no context. Also, copyright violation. I have never seen that many deletion tags on one page ;) Plrk (talk) 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The matter has been resolved and the article is now a redirect to the author. Could someone please close this? Plrk (talk) 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it a copyvio if the story is from 1903? However, a redirect is fine for now until an article about the story is developed. Corvus cornix_talk 21:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The author didn't die until 1946, and I thought copyright lasted 70 years after the death of the author? Plrk (talk) 21:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought it was from the time of the publication, but I'm not an expert. Corvus cornix_talk 21:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, neither am I, but I would assume that the people at Wikisource kind of are, so it seems you're right. Plrk (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It appears someone has boldly redirected it to H. G. Wells. I was going to recommend a transwiki to Wikisource, but it's already there. AnturiaethwrTalk 21:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 'Delete Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Karp[edit]

Ongoing performance art project. No independent sources, no indication of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I really hate to do this after receiving this on my talk page, but unfortunately I don't think it is notable ebough for inclusion here. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 21:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't delete the Gary Karp entry. I was just talking to a friend of mine (explaining what Gary Karp is all obout) and we tried to look him up on Wiki just to find that he's not there. So, I created an account on Wiki just so I could help create/edit/add info about Gary Karp. I myself (as many of the others) have taken pictures of the Gary Karp photo all around the world and it's fun to give a copy of his picture to someone new (I'm still considered new - as the group of people who originally started it have been doing it for years). Anyways, there is a lot to discuss about Gary Karp before you delete it. Please consider not deleting it for a while - let me prove it to you a little bit with some info/pictures/stories, etc. Take care, AC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ac99wiki (talk • contribs) 09:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Family Guy. Edit history preserved for use in a potential merge of information. Shereth 19:53, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quahog (Family Guy)[edit]

Non-notable fictional subject (per WP:WAF); Consists almost entirely of trivia. References are to the show itself, no secondary sources other than maps that really do not have to do with the fictional city; subject lacks sufficient secondary sources to improve to standards. NewYork483 (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Family Guy. Almost all of the information is trivia and/or original research. Unsourced. Add a small "Setting" section to explain Quahog in the Family Guy page Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, per above. No notability is established. -LtNOWIS (talk) 21:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's as much a page full of trivia as Springfield (The Simpsons) is, and as notable as it. There is a lot of context there that once referenced would be perfectly useful and acceptable. I think deleting it at this point without any attempt at finding those references would be premature, at best. --Schcambo^{aon scéal?} 11:32, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, we're not talking about Springfield. I may change my vote if references are put in the page, but I couldn't find any good references on a google search. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Family Guy. Fails WP:FICT which states "Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources." There are almost no reliable sources in the article. The alticle is also loaded with trivia. Ben1283 (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plot summaries tied together with original research. This is maybe worth a sentence in Family Guy, but not as a stand-alone article. --Phirazo 05:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep and trim mass OR~~. Merge into Family Guy. I've found a few sources and honestly I think this sort of thing is the reason people look up "Family Guy" on wikipedia. When you've got stuff like Springfield Elementary School and Steve Brady, I can't really see this as egregious. It's not up for a FA nomination or anything.--Loodog (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The merits of Springfield Elemetery Schooland Steve Brady are not up for discussion. We're talking about Quahog here. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 14:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS demand that every article with similar counterpart articles be deleted or that consistency should be completely ignored.--Loodog (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment. I would support a merge of this into Family Guy because

This article doesn't have enough good content to warrant an article.
The Family Guy is short enough to take it.

--Loodog (talk) 16:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as spam. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers, Townsend, Thomas[edit]

Contested prod; an anon has stated on the talk page that more work will be done on this article. No vote. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My current opinion is delete as advertising. If more sources come forth showing what makes this law firm notable, then I could be persuaded to change my mind. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as spam. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G11 (blatant advertising) Ben1283 (talk) 16:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as spam per Alexius08. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 verifiability.. Dweller (talk) 14:38, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NicePlayer[edit]

This is another software product which fails both WP:N and WP:SOFTWARE -- I am unable to find any sort of reliable and non-trivial third party publications about it. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable piece of software. Just because there are no third party publications about it does not make it non-notable. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A lack of third-party sources does mean that it isn't "notable" as the word is defined in Wikipedia jargon. EALacey (talk) 10:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Davis, Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt[edit]

Unremarkable self-published novel. Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nonnotable selfpublished book. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable book, non-notable author, print-on-demand publisher. Corvus cornix_talk 22:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at all. ~Double AW^[c] 00:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability established, seemingly non-notable author, doesn't warrant inclusion. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of Door Academy[edit]

Non-notable grade school. ukexpat (talk) 20:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school goes through grade 12 and therefore qualifies as a high school, thus inherently notable by longstanding precedent. I would agree that the article sucks and needs much work, though. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have seen much worse articles. This is a short and simple one/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ItunesFan (talk • contribs) 20:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable cruft taking up space. Proxy User (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going practice is to keep any US school that deals with 9th graders and above. That practice seems logical to me, for reasons DGG explains particularly well in this ongoing discussion of high schools' "inherent notability." Solution is article improvement, not deletion. Townlake (talk) 21:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Based on the school's website, the name of the school is The Out-of-Door Academy. If kept, the page should be moved. Corvus cornix_talk 22:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:JNN and WP:ITSCRUFT not being valid reasons for deletion. Also, Wikipedia:Don't worry about performance. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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/Redirect Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Migrate (Mariah Carey song)[edit]

Not a single, not notable at all, the chart info has already been merged to the article of the album, so this page is useless and a complete waste, should be deleted immediately. User:J.s.a.s.

Speedy Keep I recommend you reread WP:MUSIC's section on the notability of songs. Since it charted on major charts, it warrants its own page. AcroX 19:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect: Why? Well, as per WP:MUSIC:

A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album.

It's charted once due to high digital sales during the release of her album. Yes, it charted. But is it notable enough to warrant its own article? I think not. The information can easily be integarted into E=MC² (Mariah Carey album), which it already has been. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect (EC) Let me know if I'm missing something, but WP:Music only says a song that charts is probably notable. It goes on to say, "A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." This article is not sufficiently detailed, but would make a nice addition to the E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). Dloh cierekim 20:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

per Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD, merge and redirect is more appropriate than "delete" as we lose the page history. see WP:GFDL Cheers, Dloh cierekim 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per AcroX above and per WP:MUSIC. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 21:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album. Scraped the bottom of the Hot 100, which doesn't automatically make it notable. Can easily be merged to the album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album per TPH. Not a speedy keep by any stretch, and appears not to satisfy WP:MUSIC#Songs. This stub is much better off redirected to the album. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to album per Dlohcierekim & TPH. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - doesn't deleting the source of merged info violate the GFDL? In any case, per the main WP:AFD page, redirects don't need to be brought to AFD. 220.208.98.59 (talk) 22:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, deletion destroys the page history. Merge and redirect is actually recommended as a better outcome than deletion per Wikipedia:AFD#How_to_discuss_an_AfD. Since this was brought as a proposal to delete, this is the place to discuss alternatives. cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I cannot see any possibility for this article to grow past a stub. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 04:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album. It is more than foreseeable that this record will be serviced as a single, at some point in the current project, by the record label, perhaps as soon as next (after Bye Bye peaks in airplay). --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. --Jamie^☆S93 13:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galatasaray Island[edit]

Delete. This page describes a non-notable "island" in Turkey that is wholly owned and operated as a private club, which is also non-notable. Cruft taking up space. Proxy User (talk) 19:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Galatasaray is an island, albeit artificial. Furthermore it is a notable landmark of Istanbul, smack in the middle of the Bosporus as it is. ¨¨ victor falk 22:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the article is badly in need of improvement, it is a real geographical location and thus notable. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: cleanup done. Notable enough for its own article. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the article must be improved to say exaclty why the club bought it. It is notable for this reason, and categorically not because of the nonsense idea that all places are notable by default. MickMacNee (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kezzy Kurt[edit]

Completely speculative character. No evidence (on brief Google search) that this is a real character. Fails WP:N, WP:V and is completely WP:CRYSTAL. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ukexpat (talk) 20:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Id this article a "joke" of some kind? Proxy User (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears speculative so WP:OR. Nothing mentioned on the offical website. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we are not a crystal ball. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It certainly looks inherently unencyclopedic. Per nom. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maddie Hay-Barnes[edit]

Non-notable, yet-to-be-born TV character. Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: complete speculation. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 19:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Speculative WP:OR. No mention of this yet-to-be-born character on the official site. Nk.sheridan Talk 21:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: we are not crystal ball. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Ben1283 (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant crystalballery. JuJube (talk) 11:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 clear that the sourcing is inadequate and that their use constitutes a form of original research at best. Shereth 19:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy [edit]

Delete A poorly named, thinly sourced conspiracy theory in which the same two original sources are stretched beyond breaking point. The page is strung-out with peculiar subheadings, carrying statements from people with no direct knowledge of the alleged plot, but whom speculate on it, and/or flatly dismiss it. What is more, this article is well within the scope of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War. Indeed, exactly the same charges are described there, and the latter page is better formatted, well written and immaculately sourced. The same cannot be said of Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy. Nor has there been a concerted effort to correct the many problems with said page, despite expressed concerns on the talk page, and today, with the other page a better example of the same controversy, there seems to be no point. In addition, this page is orphaned [1] whereas the other one is not. [2] ~ smb 10:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [3]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [4]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. This, "Operation Sarindar", is the basis for the whole page. ~ smb 01:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just to back this observation up, I've just checked Factiva, a subscription news service operated by Dow Jones which contains most news media of the last 10-15 years, and there are no mentions there either. Orderinchaos 18:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a well publicized theory, it doesn't have to be true as long as it has been extensively covered by reliable sources, and it has. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a considered answer. Editors are not required to judge whether the conspiracy is true or not. Please read and consider the points raised above in favour of deleting said page. ~ smb 18:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have not done any such thing; it is true it does not matter if its true or not, that is exactly my point; as long as it has reliable sources discussing it, and it does, it should have an article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And my point is that it already has an article. The rest is incoherent. ~ smb 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. POV fork of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War giving undue weight to one particular theory. --Dhartung | Talk 19:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very unusual argument for an AfD. WP:UNDUE problems can only exist within one article. If one thinks this article does not "fairly represent all significant viewpoints" (the definition of UNDUE), this should be fixed by adding missing views.Biophys (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Proxy User (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your reasoning. As this is not a vote, if you don't provide a reason for your opinion, it will probably be discounted. Corvus cornix_talk 22:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with "WDM teories...", per wp:undue victor falk 21:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is simply a sub-article of WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War; not a content fork. Texts in the articles are different if to compare. This is third AfD nomination. Nothing changed since two previous AfD discussions. The article is well sourced. Nomination for deletion is not the way to discuss mergers.Biophys (talk) 22:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not proposing merger, but deletion, because everything of value is already described on the other page. This one is superfluous to requirements, serving no useful purpose. ~ smb 23:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No matter what's in the article, it should be a redirect to preserve the history, the sources are useful ¨¨ victor falk 19:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The sources in WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War are exactly the same. Plus, they are active, whereas the same ones in Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy are dead, and have been for several months. ~ smb 19:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Actually, I created this article to remove the highly controversial story from GRU article. Do you suggest to place it back? I do not think so. It should be kept separately.Biophys (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Conspiracy theory with no reliable sources.DonaldDuck (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it sucks --Alive Would? Sun (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's notable - PietervHuis (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is why Wikipedia has a page that covers this topic. However, Ion Mihai Pacepa's specific claim is not notable (only turning up 5 results in Google News. [5]) Pacepa is the only person who says "Operation Sarindar" existed (0 results in Google News [6]); a second Romanian intelligence defector says he never heard of such a plan. Not that you really care. ~ smb 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notable... anti-Russian propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Then is should be marked as notable "anti-Russian propaganda" and kept.Biophys (talk) 01:47, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

but wiki is not a soapbox for propaganda --TheFEARgod (Ч) 08:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but WP has many articles about propaganda. However, none of the sources identifies the subject of this article as "propaganda". Hence it is not, and your comment is unfounded.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Operation Sarindar" is not notable. Ion Mihai Pacepa is the only person who says "Sarindar" existed. ~ smb 10:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Present version of this article is not entirely about "Operation Sarindar". You said above the subject is notable. Please be consistent.Biophys (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations that Saddam transferred WMD out of Iraq (with or without Russian help) are notable, but Pacepa's individual claim (re "Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not have special emphasis. The page is unwarranted. ~ smb 17:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYN. --Kuban Cossack 16:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable, if not necessarily accurate, theory that has been published in relatively reliable sources (Financial Times, Washington Times, Washington Post). Biruitorul ^Talk 19:59, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post has ever published a word about "Operation Sarindar". Everything else is accurately sourced on this page. Please correct me if I am mistaken. ~ smb 20:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, they have published a lot about this controversy. You are mistaken. This article is not about "Operation Sarindar" but about "Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy" - see the title.Biophys (talk) 23:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are in error (once again). Let me be clear, so there can be no possible misunderstanding. As noted above, allegations that Saddam transported weapons of mass destruction out of Iraq are notable, but Pacepa's uncorroborated claim ("Operation Sarindar") is not notable, and should not be given special emphasis on any page. [7][8] And yet, the first heading on Russia and Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq controversy is given over to describing the operating procedure for "Operation Sarindar", something neither the Financial Times nor the Washington Post nor any other reliable source has ever published a word about. In light of this fact, coupled with WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War, you must concede that this page is redundant. But don't let small things like facts or Wikipedia policy stand in the way of your POV pushing, will you. ~ smb 23:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. It's not in either the Washington Post or Financial Review, but in the Washington Times, a right-wing newspaper owned by people with links to Reverend Sun Myung Moon, on 21 August 2003 and 6 February 2004. The first is written by Ion Pacepa, identified as "the highest-ranking intelligence officer ever to have defected from the former Soviet bloc" and is full of random speculation and assertions. e.g. "Mr Putin likes to take shots at America... Mr Putin's tactics have worked." etc. The second is barely a mention at the end of a generally unrelated article, internally refuted by weapons inspector David Kay in a single line referring only to "that report". Another article is published in three different Wall Street Journal editions (US, Europe, Asia) on 30 September 2003, again relying very heavily on Pacepa. It's noted elsewhere that he is now a paid commentator for National Review, which seems to be another right-wing publication. On 27 March 2008, it got a *very* brief mention, linked to Shaw, in the "Prospect Magazine", buried deep within a 3990 word article. This is all reminding me of some issues we had with Australian blogs and Andrew Bolt and the like. A few self-publishing efforts by someone trying to sell a book that happen to make the media and a couple of lines here and there in other articles do not make anything notable. Orderinchaos 18:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW here's the evidence regarding it not being in the Washington Post. I have verified that Factiva's collection goes to the 1980s. Orderinchaos 18:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

No results. Search Preview

Free Text sarindar
Date All Dates
Source The Washington Post - Print and Online Or Washington Post (Abstracts) Or The Washington Post Or Washington Post.com Or Australian Financial Review (Abstracts) Or Financial Review Smart Investor (Abstracts) Or The Financial Review
Company All Companies
Subject All Subjects
Industry All Industries
Region All Regions
Language English

(8 matches for "pacepa" in Washington Post, but 6 of them are before 1993 and none of the two more recent - 22 Sep 2002 and 28 Aug 2004 - mention this conspiracy.)

I just want to record here that I'm generally surprised at Biophys's effort to censor my contribution of actual evidence to counter the points raised above. I've had a good opinion of him from previous situations, although we disagree on the facts in this case. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Biophys and past consensus. Ostap 02:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no serious evidence exists for any of the contentions made, and not a particularly notable theory - it's strung together here with WP:SYN, and I also agree with with smb's nom, and and Dhartung's WP:UNDUE concerns above. Addressing it purely on a factual basis, several reports from a number of government investigative agencies (including in the US) have suggested the weapons either did not exist/were not developed, which instantly voids the question of who hid them. Orderinchaos 02:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this page is entirely devoted to a non-notable bullshit conspiracy theory. Now, some bullshit conspiracy theories are notable, became a subject of serious research and were covered by scholarly sources, for example The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The subject of this article, however, has not. It is entirely based on rumors and unsubstantiated allegations which does not make the subject notable enough for a separate page per se just because such allegations were published here and there. The latter may warrant a referenced statement in wider topic articles but this being spun off into a separate page creates the classic POV fork. Unfortunately, such and similar AfD's get often bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. So, I don't have much faith in the process. But if anyone is interested, here is my opinion. --Irpen 05:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right Irpen, this AFD is getting bombed, snowballed and voted along the traditional ethnic and "party" lines. What a shame. Ostap 22:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Orderinchaos and Irpen. A classic case of WP:SYN and WP:UNDUE and a few other acronyms that come to mind, but I am too polite to write. Is glad that she will not be penalised for wanting to delete this...ummm...article. Risker (talk) 06:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable conspiracy stuff has no place in an encyclopaedia. --Ghirla^-трёп- 06:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Orderinchaos and Irpen. Artifically created "controversy" through original synthesis. Not-notable, POV fork and thinly-sourced conspiracy theory that deserves no more than the brief mention (less, in fact) that it already has in the WMD theories in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq War article.--Berkunt (talk) 07:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crack-pot conspiracy theory that simply cannot be taken seriously even for a conspiracy theory. Perfect example of how NOT to write an article per WP:SYN. Krawndawg (talk) 08:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete. I see only vague speculations. Someone believes, someone clames, someone thinks, etc. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. I wonder how can one consider not notable a controversy that involves two US Undersecretaries of State (John A. Shaw and Lawrence Di Rita), a former director of Russian Foreign Intelligence Yevgeny Primakov, and referenced to opinions of many notable people, such as Yossef Bodansky, Ion Mihai Pacepa and Thomas McInerney. Deletion of this material would be completely against WP policies.Biophys (talk) 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer What a respected person like Albert Einstein thought about his collegues, football, whatever, seems to be uninteresting for the Encyclopedia. Normal article should present at least one fact. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simple reply. But it would be interesting to learn what Albert Einstein thought about theory of relativity. All these experts (Shaw, Di Rita, Bodansky, Pacepa, and so on) made comments within their area of expertise. We do not cite what they think about theory of relativity or football.Biophys (talk) 21:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To summarize, we have a lot of Russian users who want this page to be deleted because it describes a controversy about Russia. On the other hand, this story was also an embarrassment for the Bush administration. So, some US users do not like it too. But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.Biophys (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"But the articles should not be deleted based on the majority of votes.". Articles are deleted based on a majority of votes, not based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page - Articles listed here are debated for up to five days, after which the deletion process proceeds based on Wikipedia community consensus --Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)--Berkunt (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. "These processes are not decided through a head count" - see WP:DEL.Biophys (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notorious anti-Russia propaganda pusher wants to keep his anti-Russian propaganda and accuses us all of being crybaby nationalists (instead of actually making a real argument against our on-topic comments) then suggests that we shouldn't follow consensus. Seriously?Krawndawg (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see The Plague. I like this essay.Biophys (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Krawndawg, please review WP:CIV. Biophys is a Russian, albeit one who is (quite rightly) disenchanted with that country's current regime and its dismal human rights record. It's not about propaganda, but about exposing, through reliable sources, the criminal conduct of the Kremlin. Biruitorul ^Talk 00:40, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this were about "exposing" criminal conduct, the article would be properly sourced and wouldn't be a giant collection of original synthesis. But it's not and it is, that's what makes it propaganda. As for Biophys ethnicity, what on earth makes you think I care about that? Are you implying that one can't be against the country they were unwillingly born in? Lets keep irrelevant personal details out of this please. Krawndawg (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. All we have is a puff piece written in a right-wing American newspaper by a defector, who now works for another right-wing American newspaper, which makes sweeping assertions. (I would have the same ground of opposition if it were opinion matter in Pravda or the Australian Communist Party's newspaper - which strangely does appear in journal repositories). It's not even remotely in the territory of reliable source, and false claims that it has appeared in reliable sources have been debunked. The whole thing is somewhat reminiscent for me of this controversy. Orderinchaos 02:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at ~15 sources in the article. All of them satisfy WP:Reliability. Once again, this is a notable controversy because it involves two US undersecretaries of State (John A. Shaw and Lawrence Di Rita), a former director of Russian Foreign Intelligence Yevgeny Primakov. Biophys (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaw is the only one of those you listed who pushes this conspiracy theory while the other two do not. No, this is definately not notable, as proven by the non-existant media coverage of it, as Orderinchaos proved, whose research delved deep and still found nothing. As Commander Sloat noted, there is no mainstream news coverage of such "controversy".--Berkunt (talk) 14:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly sourced and thinly evidenced conspiracy theorists quoted out of context to build a synthesis argument, and all this seems to be done to forward a particular political POV that is completely at odds with what the consensus of journalists, government investigators, intelligence agencies, and academics has concluded after extensive investigation. csloat (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to add that I don't think improving the page will help at all here. There is no encyclopedically notable "Russian and WMD in Iraq controversy." There is no mainstream news coverage of any such "controversy." A google search for the title of this article results in ten total hits; nine look like links back to wikipedia and the tenth is something called "Techniques To Make Women Orgasm - H0gr2zcs | Google Groups." I know of no academic article or newspaper article that refers specifically to this phrase at all. csloat (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is "Russia and WMD", not "Russian and WMD". Few exact matches for a title may indicate a long title, not lack of notability for the subject.Biophys (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The search was for "Russia" not "Russian." Please excuse my typo, but I spelled it correctly in the google search. csloat (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zazie (surrealist)[edit]

Non-notable cyberartist. No references beyond artist's site. Article probably created by the subject, or friends. Most definitely edited by personal friends of hers. Strong conflict of interest. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very thin assertations of notability. The fact that she's been in a magazine is the only thing keeping me from tagging this as A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As above, nothing much in the way of notability, and even less in the way of verifiability. Just a hair away from an A7. Note that the article has remained essentially untouched since 2006 or so, not a good sign that any notability is likely to show up anytime soon. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Proxy User (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a discussion, not a vote. Please provide your reasoning, or your voice will be ignored. Thank you.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 13:57, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex Wars (television series)[edit]

Non-notable, even the author says he/she can't find any sources for it. Ged UK (talk) 18:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Sources: My own head." Townlake (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ... gives new meaning to "giving sources". Spell4yr (talk) 18:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at least the author is being honest that there aren't any sources to be found. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources: "my own head" ??? enough said. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but... There was a syndicated game show by this name in the United States in 2001 or so, but since this article itself doesn't meet naming guidelines and is totally false, this one can be deleted. Nate • (chatter) 23:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing really to be said about this. tgies (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for such obvious reasons. What kind of source is that? ~Double AW^[c] 00:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for verifiability issues. I can't find reliable sources off Google. Most keyword search leads to this article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per the Internet Movie Database, there were two series called Sex Wars, one in 1998 and one in 2000. So yes, probably existed, not a lot of info, questionable notability. Eauhomme (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Sources: My own head." HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAHAHAAAAAAA.....sorry Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources, you know the story. Written seemingly by a fan. Non-notable. SNOWBALL Mm 40 (talk | contribs) 16:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, but the head of User:Frogbrains is not a reliable source. albeit the single funniest sourcing ever. "your own head" may work as a source on last.fm, but not here. A sample line: "The females teams prize was a couple of days in a spa and hotel thing and the male team went to Portugal, I think."....a "hotel thing"?, you think they went to Portugal?. Clearly you don't even think you are a reliable source. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Whether a merge is necessary can be agreed on the talk page. PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence Kestenbaum[edit]

Non-notable county official. --Michael White^T·C 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is his unique combination of active politician and webmaster of a notable non-blog website that makes him fall on the "keep" side, to me. (Full disclosure: I know Kestenbaum, and am listed in The Political Graveyard myself.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs)

Comment - correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think any policy states that someone can be considered notable for a combination of two categories if they aren't considered notable for either of those categories alone. He's not notable as a county official and he's not notable as a webmaster. I haven't found any significant coverage in independent sources.--Michael White^T·C 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Not particularly notable, but seems somewhat so, especially considering his creation of The Political Graveyard. Granted, Wikipedia probably ins't the place for an article about a borderline notable person. I don't see what will be lost should this be deleted. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 18:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm the subject of this article. I won't cast a vote on this, but there have been multiple media stories specifically about me during the last 30 years, if anyone cares to look them up. Kestenbaum (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- reply - can you provide us with some cites? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some cites: At the risk of proving the point below about my "BLOATED ego", here are a few pieces I could find, with a couple minutes search, which at least mention or quote me:

Washington Post, July 27, 1998: "How to Take the World Wide Web to Court"
The Nation, August 5, 2002: "Old Guard vs. New in Michigan: John Dingell and Lynn Rivers are Locked in a Battle Caused by Redistricting"
New York Times, February 10, 2003: "Email spam scam is sent in Bush's name"
Detroit Free Press, February 27, 2003: "Webmaster Helps Squash a Cyberscam"
Salon, June 8, 2004: "Invasion of the Spambots"
Detroit Free Press, August 2, 2006: "More consistent but still cool site is goal of Wikipedia meeting"
New York Times, October 1, 2006: "Hitting a self-destruct button"
Michigan Daily, May 14, 2007: "Michigan state rep takes strides for student vote"
Michigan Daily, July 20, 2007: "Michigan House passes bills to aid voters"

Hope this helps. Kestenbaum (talk) 22:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess the question is whether those sources amount to significant coverage. I haven't looked at/found all, but most seem to be quotes or brief mentions. Even the article titled "Webmaster Helps Squash a Cyberscam" seems to be primarily about the website, without what amounts to significant coverage of you, based on the excerpt on your website.--Michael White^T·C 21:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides his BLOATED ego, there is no reason to keep this non-notable "article". 75.172.29.124 (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Political Graveyard, where he may be discussed as founder and given a brief CV. He is well below WP:BIO himself, though. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to The Political Graveyard, otherwise DELETE. Proxy User (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Despite my upmost respect for User:Kestenbaum, a Merge/Redirect to The Political Graveyard would be most reasonable considering the size of both articels. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- obviously, it needs more text and footnotes, as provided above. If anything, he's being too modest about his example cites.
1. This fellow has been active in the Internet since NSFnet days (especially the Risks digest), an often cited elections expert, and a blogger since the early days of blogging (even writing his own code)!
2. Simply Googling (58,000 cites) shows he's been speaker at many events, including Science Fiction conventions, alongside other notables like Eric S. Raymond.
3. Moreover, it's obvious nominators aren't familiar with Michigan elected officials. County Clerk is the "highest" local elected official, in those counties without elected executives. Larger constituencies than all Mayors, most State Senators, or State Representives (and in large counties, Congress-critters.) Certainly more important than District or Circuit Judges. Definitely meets WP:POLITICIAN.
4. As for ego, that's an egregious ad hominem personal attack. I've not seen any evidence supporting that anonymous assertion. It certainly doesn't look like he's the original writer of the biography.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

How long he's been on the internet or blogging or whether he wrote his own blogging code is completely irrelevant unless someone has wrote about how he's an expert in that regard, which I don't think he is. Whether he's an "often cited elections expert" doesn't particularly have any bearing on notability either, unless he meets WP:ACADEMIC or has been significantly covered as an elections expert, more than just being quoted.
Being a speaker at an event is not evidence of notability. There are plenty of speakers who are not notable. That he spoke at Penguicon and alongside Eric S. Raymond doesn't really mean anything, because notability is not inherited.
See my comment below.
Agree completely.

Keep, he's our clerk, and polisci students here need this kind of information. I was shocked that somebody wants to delete this, the notice is huge and annoying at the top of the page. And it seems he's a long-time Wikipedia editor, too. Do you always kill off your own people? What is it with this silly "Deletionist Wikipedians" nonsense!? Or is it just teens like Michael White don't care about the real world?! You'll see what it is like in college soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.72.2.73 (talk) 18:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it's useful to a some people (PoliSci students in Michigan, is that what you're saying?) is not a reason for keeping it. While I have the utmost respect for the subject and his contributions, the question is whether the subject is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedia. I have to agree with William that he has a larger constituency than most state legislators, but WP:POLITICIAN requires first-level subnational office, and as it is I just don't see the significant coverage in independent sources required to establish notability as a "major local political figure" per WP:POLITICIAN's second point.--Michael White^T·C 19:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep

This is one of the worst delete nominations I've seen. Let's review Mr. Kestenbaum's notability:

1.He unequivocally meets criteria under Wiki policy for Notability (academics). Namely, he has "published a significant and well-known academic work." i.e. The Political Graveyard. It is an academic work. Its not a blog. Its credible, researched, and referenced. It is a serious and groundbreaking online resource.

-2800 Wiki articles cite the Political Graveyard as a source. This attests strongly to its use and usefulness to the general public.

-The Political Graveyard gets 20 million visits per year, thereby strongly supporting its widespread use and usefullness

-Google Search reveals over 300,000 hits for the term "political graveyard" the vast majority of which are references to his website.

-Numerous academic institutions, libraries, genealogy sites, and even government sites link to it as a suggested resource off their webpages. This includes Harvard Law Library, The state archives of numerous U.S. states, and the Library of Congress.

-The site has been reviewed or mentioned in many first-tier publications.

2. He meets the criteria of WP:POLITICIAN by virtue of being amongst "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage"

-He is the top elected official in his county. Granted, not every county clerk should be included in Wikipedia. But not many county clerks get 40,000 Google hits.

-He has received significant press coverage. Some of this predates his election to office. Some of it was after. But your local county clerk probably hasn't been a primary source for a New York Times article. Mr. Kestenbaum has.

3. Some of the objections to his wiki article are that its too short. Quit whining, and add some info, there is plenty that can be done to improve it. I'll do so right now. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.98.54 (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - I can't argue with your first point above.--Michael White^T·C 12:58, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per W. A. Simpson. I've also added a cite from the NYT that demonstrates he's considered a go-to expert by national media. Ford MF (talk) 16:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velai[edit]

Fails WP:Notability (films) and WP:V. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. The only reason that I think it should be deleted is due to the inability to provide evidence that the film exists. If it is a real Tamil film, then it has a perfect right to exist. But the filmography for Yuvan Shankar Raja at imdb doesn't show any such film, and I can't find anything to indicate that there is even an actor named Vignesh at imdb. If proof of the film's existence can be presented, I will gladly change my !vote. Corvus cornix_talk 22:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just a directory article at present, which can (and should) be easily recreated if and when sources are discovered demonstrating that it actually exists. Ford MF (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 hoax, a7 no sources that show notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Demurjian[edit]

This alleged NFL player doesn't seem to turn up anywhere of substance in web searches; check the article talk page for some discussion. Some editors have expressed concern that this may be a hoax of some sort, and a discussion here would seem to be the best approach to determine if that's the case. Tony Fox (arf!) 15:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Definitely a hoax. Here is a list of every player to ever play a game for the Lions. Townlake (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Definitely a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Judging by what I read above, this is a hoax -- I can only say that this reference made me believe there might have been a shred of truth to it. I do recommend that we complete the AfD process, though, because that will dispose of this once and for all. Thanks to everyone who took the trouble to research this. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The autobiography on the dude's site says he was a "member of the team," which could I suppose mean he was a trainer or secretary or whatever (but which removes him from the notability requirements of ATHLETE). He sure as heck wasn't a fullback, as the Lions' published record confirms. I know there's no emergency to close this, but leaving this up for five days just seems to dignify the hoax. Townlake (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I'm sorry, I should have been more clear. I have no objection to early closing of this AfD ; I just want to be able to delete the article as a recreation of AfD'd material in the future, that's all, because it's simpler than going through this process again. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice as to whether or not it's a hoax; I don't necessarily agree with all the conclusions above but that doesn't make them wrong, either. Overriding point here is that he just isn't notable. Frank | talk 17:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI reviewed the link that Acct4taste gave, and seeing nothing anywhere to either clarify or corroborate it, I have to say delete here. The reason people are inherently notable for being in the NFL is because there is always some way on confirming it. The google search for his name provides no evidence of this. Unless anything else comes up, this has gotta go. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heisenberg's Scientific Method[edit]

Originally sent to AfD on May 10, but was spiked per G5 due to suspicions that the author was a sock of a user banned for pseudoscience pushing. While the author was cleared of sockpuppetry, this version has the same problems as the previous one--it's an essay, and one laden with OR. Since this was speedied so soon, I don't think this qualifies as a G4, so back to AfD it goes. Blueboy 96 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definitely an essay. ¨victor falk 20:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it stands, it appears mainly to be essayist commentary. WilliamH (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essay, as it is pretty much in breach of WP:OR. I don't think this namespace can be meaningfully redirected to anywhere else. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a personal essay. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal synthesis. I unblocked the creator and tried to point out the synthetic character or guide him to other articles such as the Copenhagen interpretation that has a section on criticisms, Bohr-Einstein debates and Interpretation of quantum mechanics. While there is literature about Heisenbergs approach to physics, this is neither a common term a nor it right approach for an encyclopedia article and all material still exists in user space, if something fits in anywhere else.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Heisenberg was a philosopher of science, including extensive writings on the Scientific method. However, I don't think any of the content of this article can be saved for an article on this topic, and I don't think the title is correct, or that the essay actually reflects Heisenberg's philosophical reflections upon the the scientific method in the research sciences, particularly in physics. It would be wonderful, however, to see Wikipedia have an expanded article on Heisenberg and a separate article on his philosophical musings. I'm surprised with the rather strong physics presence and a good assortment on the history of science on Wikipedia that nothing of the sort exists. --Blechnic (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure original research, "referenced" only to the W. Guglinski's unrefereed, uncited, unreviewed vanity-press book. Also, speaking as a physicist, the article is totally wrong. Quantum mechanics reproduces all of classical mechanics' results in the appropriate limit, and this is abundantly documented in the mainstream literature and pedagogy of the past 100 years as well as many Wikipedia articles; the premise of this article appears to be "Quantum mechanics is different from classical mechanics, therefore it is obviously wrong; let's read between the lines in Heisenberg's biography and show that he was a moron." Feh. Bm gub (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History of Computers and Communications in Newfoundland and Labrador[edit]

Article consists of an ad for a self-published book with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the book's notability is unclear, the topic is notable with abundant coverage by reliable sources, given Newfoundland's historical role as a communications gateway (cable landing points and cable stations, as well as Marconi's work with radio) between North America and Europe, and the complex history of ownership of telecommunications carriers in the province (the post office's telecommunications network in the days of the Dominion of Newfoundland was acquired by Canadian National when Newfoundland entered Confederation, and later became Terra Nova Telecommunications before it was sold to the island's dominant carrier; telephone service in the Avalon Peninsula was provided by Avalon Telephone, an investor-owned company that later became Newfoundland Telephone, then NewTel Enterprises, then Aliant). --Eastmain (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, if we delete out all the book advert stuff, there will be no article left. Any chance you can turn the article into a decent stub? If so, I'll happily withdraw the nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That someone has written a book on the subject is a reason to keep, not to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it's a reason to keep an ad for the book, but I love the rewrite you did to the article. Great work, and I withdraw the nom.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Juice[edit]

Delete per WP:Notability, WP:RS and also original research. Unlike the article says (or the guy that made that up, since there is no citations whatsoever), this is not a single from Eminem's next studio album. It is simply a basic, easily bootleg remix of "Bad Influence", that was recorded for the movie End of Days, where the words bad influence are replaced by black juice. (Just compare this with this).

I've been looking all over for reliable sources, but all I could find on Google are lots of forum and blog hits plus homemade videos on Youtube, AOL etc. Nothing on major music websites like MTV, Rolling Stone...not even the well sourced article on Eminem's fifth studio album mentions this song!! (while it mentions a confirmed track named ""Keys to the City") it clearly is bootleg, and I'd be surprised if this is kept Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 15:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Appears bootleggy/hoaxy. Ford MF (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:23, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid learning environment[edit]

Neologism; no reliable third-party sources. KurtRaschke (talk) 20:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have added a few external links to the article. Also, Google shows many search results. Comments? -- RyRy5 (talk) 21:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC) RMHED (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the external links either don't mention hybrid learning environments, or don't seem to have much to do with the article. An article on hybrid learning environments may be worth having, but one dealing with such environments in the New Zealand context only is too narrow.-gadfium 09:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —gadfium 09:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Ford MF (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 19:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang engineer[edit]

A Google search shows that this term appears to be idiosyncratic, with the only sources being from Wikipedia itself. The article is completely unsourced. I suggest that we Merge any verifiable material (if any) to Boomerang, then Delete. The Anome (talk) 14:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement is simply not true, if one were to just google boomerang engineer, it would be plain to see. User:Pedant (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Merge and delete violates GFDL. So do one or the other, but not both. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article seems to be chiefly concerned with the aerodynamic properties of boomerangs, and as such is redundant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boomerang engineering is chiefly concerned with the aerodynamic properties of boomerangs. I don't think we have Aerodynamic properties of boomerangs do we? User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd a thunk boomerangs were more or less defined by their aerodynamic properties; that's what makes them boomerangs, and not, say, sticks. That said, I do think that Rusty Harding probably was deleted somewhat hastily. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:CORP Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see how WP:CORP applies to this article. User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this totally improbable specialization. Throw it away (and hope it doesn't return). Clarityfiend (talk) 23:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is so improbable about engineering boomerangs? Have you ever flown one and wondered why it didn't come back? If it did come back, do you think that was accidental, or a feature engineered into the device? User:Pedant (talk) 01:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, nobody makes a living as one and no university offers a degree in Boomerang Engineering. By your own admission, it's a nickname for one person, so why do we need an article about it? Should we also have Dr. J. for Julius Erving? Washing machine engineer? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Rusty Harding and Bunny Burwell make a living at it, right off the top of my head. Not all of them approach boomerang engineering in the methodical and scientific way that Rusty Harding does -- but there are at least a few hundred innovative builders whom I would call boomerang engineers. Vanderbilt University had Rusty Harding teach a class on it, and dozens of engineering institutions teach gyroscopics; precession; airfoil cross-section -- and all the other elements of boomerang engineering. It's not as common and widely understood as, say, rocket science, but it is definitely legitimate engineering. Not to debate you, since neither one of us knows enough to discuss it authoritatively, but the information is there, especially if you don't constrain your concept of 'legitimate information' as being just what you see on the front page of a hasty google search. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a spinoff from the Rusty Harding article, Rusty Harding aka Richard Englert is a former aerospace engineer who worked on Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo, as well as designing flight control systems and hydraulics for military and commercial aircraft. He used his engineering experience to design boomerangs with specialised flight characteristics, and to create returning boomerangs in a variety of unlikely-looking shapes. In the boomerang community, he is known as "the boomerang engineer". Without any mention of Rusty Harding/Richard Englert, the article doesn't have much relevance, since as far as I know, nobody else applies advanced aerodynamic principles to boomerangs. And Rusty is apparently not making many boomerangs any more, so maybe we can just say boomerang engineers don't exist, and get rid of the article that inconveniently mentions them. I guess it's just not as important or encyclopedic of a topic as, say, the crufty Bajoran Wormhole; the obscure and useless LED Throwies; a linklist article like Stunt pogo... I vote keep and reinstate the deleted Rusty Harding-related material or move it back to Rusty Harding where it belongs.

See:

[9] (10 thousand google hits for Rusty Harding boomerangs);

[10] ("Rusty Harding, a retired American aerospace engineer and an avid boomerang fan, once mused that there are more variables in the flight of a boomerang than there are in a spaceship's flight to the moon. Some of these variables can be easily understood using scientific principles.");

[11] (Tomahawk boomerang made by boomerang legend Rusty Harding.); [12] ("admiral’s hat A variation on the omega shape, as named and popularised by models by Australian Bunny Read and American Rusty Harding");

[13] ("There should be multiple boomerang-related events occurring simultaneously, so that spectators and competitors alike are ALWAYS occupied with something, whether it be a competition, workshop, craft show, lecture, meeting, story by Rusty Harding... anything boomerang-related. This could be the way to make boomerang tournaments into spectator-friendly events and lead the sport into the 21st century.");

[14] ; [15] ("The highlight of the third and final week of the class will be the session on boomerangs, Burton predicted. This will be taught by veteran aerospace engineer Rusty Harding. Harding worked closely with Werner von Braun on the design and construction of rockets for the U.S. space program, from before the Apollo Program through development of the space shuttle. Harding will talk about his experiences in the space program, show the students his collection of authentic aboriginal boomerangs, and explain the basic aerodynamic design principles involved. Under his tutelage, the students will build their own boomerangs and test-fly them on Curry Field in front of Wilson Hall.") ...

172,000 google hits for boomerang engineer; [16] (aerospace engineers contest: build a returning boomerang);

[17] (Japanese astronaut tests boomerang at ISS, in free fall orbit, a boomerang engineer predicted it would return correctly, 30 years earlier. Takao Doi gives empirical evidence that Rusthy Harding was right).

Theres's a wealth of info just from google, or read the Klutz book on boomerangs, or ask any boomerangianiac or whatever they call themselves these days.

Rusty Harding shouldn't have been deletionisted, and neither should this article. Stubs should be expanded not deleted. User:Pedant (talk) 01:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Given your comments above, I've put Rusty Harding up for the Wikipedia:Deletion review process: see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_June_7. I still believe that Boomerang engineer should be deleted, since it looks like most of the material in the Boomerang engineer article either belongs in the main Boomerang article or in (were it to be restored) the Rusty Harding article, since the only use of the term "boomerang engineer" seems to be to refer to him. -- The Anome (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... that seems at first to be a good idea, but I think we should skip the deletion review, it was deleted twice and I trust my fellow editors to make competent decisions in such matters. Let's just leave it deleted and I will thoroughly rewrite it in such a way that it won't crave deletion. User:Pedant (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question How was an article on Rusty Harding deleted? Or why? Doesn't anyone bother to check whether the subject of an article is notable before deleting? There's no benefit to Wikipedia to delete perfectly notable biographies from the encyclopedia. People can't edit them. They still turn up cached in google searches. It seems like a lose lose situation. --Blechnic (talk) 03:09, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PS They're often called fine woodworkers or craftsmen rather than engineers, in my experience. But I'd grant a fine boomerang maker an engineering degree. There is nothing finer than to throw a beautifully hand-crafted boomerang made by an artist as skilled as Harding. --Blechnic (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:37, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Pianos[edit]

A small business, thirty years old and with ten employees. No other claims to notability. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Closing admin also please note a large number of redirects to this article). DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as blatant advertising. It was tagged as such on the 2nd of June and the article's author/primary contributor removed the tag. The same user also removed the nominator's AfD tag. I've warned user on their talkpage but, if there is an appropriate template someone may wish to employ it. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it's spam. delete. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't know about "blatant" advertising, as the article doesn't employ a lot of peacock terms. However, it is still an advert. TN‑X-Man 17:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not terribly spamalicious, but still advertising. We ain't a billboard. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although not a speedy. Looks like this fails WP:CORP. I'm not seeing any reliable sources that can be used to either a)properly write this article or b) establish sufficient notability. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorta Speedy Delete, since it's not blatant advertising, but it's still pretty much so. ~Double AW^[c] 00:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:CORP. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G11 (blatant advertising) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ben1283 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-administrative closure) --RyRy5 (talk) 23:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cha-La Head-Cha-La[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, unnotable single opening theme. Being a theme song of Dragon Ball Z does not make it notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hironobu Kageyama. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm honestly not sure of the reasoning here, it seems to be notable as a single. JuJube (talk) 15:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It has won no awards and it has not placed highly on music charts. Its a typical, unnotable single. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Except that its been 1) covered by another band and 2) parodied in another work (Lucky Star). Surely that counts for something, no? I would think that that would make it a good bit more notable than the other Dragonball singles up for prod/afd. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:MUSIC says songs "that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable" and Aya Hirano and Animetal are notable performers. Maybe more artists have covered the song...--Nohansen (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Cleanup - Please accept my apologies I should have looked more indepthly at it. The merge above was because that artist is the one mentioned in big colourful letters down the right hand side. Does the article need all the album covers? I'd say it really only needs one album cover but, that is really an issue for the talkpage not here. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:57, 6 June 2008
Keep - I am surprised to be voting as such on this topic but I'm convinced that this song passes WP:MUSIC and should not be dismissed as Dragon Ball Z fancruft. - House of Scandal (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The song has also been covered by Fred Roettcher for the German DBZ dub, and is available on several CDs like here and here. That I still know major portions of the lyrics although I was never really into anime and suck at lyrics also makes me reluctant to claim that this song is non-notable. A few more sources wouldn't hurt the article, but I'd even be fine with the article in its current form if no more sources exist. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, more sources would imply it had some to begin with, which it does not. :P Redoing the song for a dub is not the same as a cover.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a theme song of a notable series even if wasn't also available on CDs would at least be valid as a search term and a redirect, although it seems that in the case an article may indeed be warranted, but I don't see any benefit in an outright deletion here. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject looks notable enough but we should vigorously remove any material which falls under the umbrella of original research. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:MUSIC, but article needs a clean-up. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two pieces of information on the article that will allow this article to pass WP:MUSIC are not cited so that it can be verified, one of which, the Lucky Star parody, seems little ORish to me. Unfortunately, because of this, I can not recommend keeping this article. --Farix (Talk) 16:46, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOR, primary sources (in this case, the show Lucky Star itself) can be used to "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." In other words, describing the contents of a show, and in this case a song they parody, does not constitute a breach of WP:NOR. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment how does this article have more potential than "We Gotta Power"? Due to it being less of a stub? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the theme song of a popular series. eUpH0rIa (talk) 05:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being a theme song is not a reason to keep this article. The song ether needs to pass the general notability criteria, has been ranked on national or significant music charts such as Oricon, has won significant awards or honors, or has been performed independently by several notable artists, bands, or groups. (see WP:MUSIC) --Farix (Talk) 12:07, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:46, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn (artist)[edit]

Apparently unverifiable from independent reliable sources. Article thus seems to fail to meet the WP:BIO criteria: all my attempts to find sources so far have ended up finding mirrors of this Wikipedia article. (Note: While many edits have been made to the article -- mostly vandalism, reverts and minor typographical edits -- its main text appears to be entirely the work of a single anonymous contributor. See this diff: [18]). Delete unless reliable sources can be found to establish notability. The Anome (talk) 11:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not established and article is largely a bunch of weird unverifiable stuff anyhow. tgies (talk) 13:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both the above Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm leaning towards delete, although just want to mention my research. It doesn't look like this is a hoax or anything, I think his "appearances" are legit, its just unclear if he was basically an extra. I wanted to find out his involvement with the extreme gong show. Something hindering my research is that we don't know his "real" name, or birth name. Glenn isn't bringing up anything related to this guy. So, probably a delete, but maybe wait and see if anyone can further clarify who "Glenn" is. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I don't think this looks like a hoax article -- the issue is whether it can be verified using cites to significant coverage from reliable independent sources: see WP:BIO. Some earlier versions of this article contain a birth name, but this does not appear to help finding cites, since Googling this name also leads only to hits from Wikipedia mirrors. -- The Anome (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure by Lenticel ^(talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris P White (musician)[edit]

Non-notable, self-promo. Only source is person's own Myspace profile. Cosmic Latte (talk) 11:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC, WP:RS, WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sexy, Naughty, Bitchy Me[edit]

Contested prod. No notability asserted for either this single or its author. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 10:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sexy, Naughty, Un-notable. Qworty (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the song is called "Sexy Naughty Bitchy" and that title already exists as a redirect to I Believe (album). (And the song blows ass, but that's not relevant at the moment.) JuJube (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hot stuff, but fails MUSIC. Townlake (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't feel very sexy, but rather bitchy and naughty to delete this article ¨¨ victor falk 21:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is already a redirect to this album here as Townlake notes. Artene50 (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Female telenovela villains[edit]

Contested prod. OR essay. tgies (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:OR. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be original research, no reliable sources. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially bottomless list that will always by defintion be POV... although I did enjoy the dramatic flourish at the end of the intro. Townlake (talk) 22:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Save Please do not delete this right now. At least give it a chance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.63.207 (talk) 16:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC) — 84.250.63.207 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Fold content into the articles on the series, or on the character if applicable, then delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment erm, does anyone have any idea what this relates to? I'm baffled. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin soap operas, Casliber. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahaaaa. muy bien Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11, non admin closure. Cenarium (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Planet[edit]

There are many, many organisations operating in this field and this appears to have no specific notability. Requests to expand on its notability have been ignored. The original article appears to have been originally used as link spam Ephebi (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to be an advert with no claims of notability/ reliable sources. TN‑X-Man 17:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no evidence of notability and no sources. macy^talk 18:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete obvious reasons William M. Connolley (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~Double AW^[c] 00:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete i've found next to no references to the organization via Google. The site seems reasonably professional which seems strange in combination with the lack of links. Either the organization is extremely new - or its a scam (afaict). (or i'm bad at googling ;) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can find nothing to support the link to Petra Kelly. The site itself appears to be nearly content free, apart from its shopping cart. I think this is most likely advertising for a new organisation / scam. On that basis, and the votes above, I'm speedying it William M. Connolley (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joel bunce[edit]

No sources, no indication of notability. Has not played in his sport's top league. Was prodded, prod removed by author without improvement. Huon (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:ATHLETE, WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same grounds as stated. The kid's 16, and is playing for a third level team (and I don't even think that counts from the AFL!)--Wehwalt (talk) 12:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable teenager. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable junior athlete. If he is any good he will be drafted and perhaps then independent reliable sources will be available. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:03, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect, edit history preserved for potential use in merging content. Shereth 19:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lumberjack (Northern Arizona University)[edit]

This article has now been twice speedily deleted (A7) as non-notable, and twice restored on the grounds that school newspapers are inherently notable. Unless there is a specific consensus that can be cited, relating not to schools in general but to school newspapers in particular, I can't for the life of me see how this can be considered notable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no secondary sources (and none that I found on a quick search), no indication of notability. Huon (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge/redirect - Student newspapers are inherently the publications of record for their communities - colleges and universities. This is inherently significant and, as such, fails to meet the A7 criteria. That this particular newspaper has never been noted by the nominator is neither here nor there. Nominator has, in fact, expressed no deletion rationale. At worst this is a merge/redirect candidate if more can't be found. I just found two sources and have added them, pointing to the fact that this newspaper has won awards from a national journalism organization, the Society of Professional Journalists. FCYTravis (talk) 09:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete of course it's not inherently notable. It's a student journal about which we have zero information whatsoever, but a bland statement which asserts its existence, full stop. Travis pulled the speedy tag I put on the article 14 months ago, but I was prepared to let him follow up with improvements. Since then, no additional content has been added, still no citations apart from the link to the self-published source. I think it's high time it was tossed out. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, since when was a citation to a major professional journalism organization considered self-published? What kind of tosh is this? FCYTravis (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also happen to strongly object to your apparent abuse of powers as an administrator, for twice restoring and article which was validly speedied. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a non-answer, but despite your impoliteness, I'll answer yours anyway. The speedies were patently invalid. Newspapers of any stripe have never, ever, ever been considered to fall under CSD A7. Read the policy - A7 applies only to articles about web content or articles on people and organizations themselves, not articles on their books, albums, software and so on. A newspaper is not an "organization," it is a publication. FCYTravis (talk) 10:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are getting a little too far away from civility, so let's just focus on the AfD at hand, ok? FCYTravis, Ohconfucius's first comment about a self-published source was made mere minutes after you added the citation to the professional journalism organization. It's quite likely that he had not seen that yet, and was instead referring to the link to the paper's own website. Ohconfucius, it may look like FCYTravis was unilaterally overriding four people (two speedy nominators, two deleting admins), but if he honestly believes that it did not qualify, then that would mean it had to be discussed prior to deletion (or at least prodded rather than speedied) and he was acting entirely in good faith. So let's all stay cool and just say that whether or not it qualified for speedy, that's over and this is an AfD. And whether or not it's notable due to its new sources, figuring that out is what this whole process is about. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry. That was indeed the case. When I saw more than one administrator had deleted it, I assumed the grounds to have been legitimate. And then I see Travis restored it not so long afterwards on both occasions, and once with only a cursory "This is not an A7 at all". When he then got heavy-handedly involved in defending an AfD whilst it was still a bland stub started me thinking it could be a potential conflict of interest or an abuse of power. Insofar as the mention of the awards which was added at about the same time I posted my comments, I think it's pushing the boat out a bit. So far, we have two citations for the awards which exist in so many variants across so many categories, one announcing a third place in best overall student journal in the weekly category, and another, which was a second place - I have some doubts whether these should be referred to as "multiple wins". Maybe "two pats on the back from professional journalists" would have been more appropriate? ;-) Ohconfucius (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS Would support redirect. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I don't see either of you as having been all that uncivil, I was just concerned because some of the word choices made it look like things might be headed in that direction. I've seen personal disputes spiral out of control in the past, so I figured it would be better to comment and end it than to wait to see if it got to that point. I don't know either of you well enough to know if it even would have, so no personal offense is intended, just figured it would be safer to comment sooner rather than later. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - whether A7 applies is a borderline case. If the article is about the publication, then it may not be speedy deleted, but is utterly non-notable, because not "the newspaper" won any awards, but its staff and employees - the organization publishing that newspaper (and notability is not inherited). If the article is about the organization publishing the newspaper, it may be speedied (though the award is a claim to notability in my book, making A7 rather moot in any case). But in any case there's not a single significant coverage in independent sources. Claims of "inherent notability" are always dubious. Huon (talk) 10:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (I'd say Delete (later edit: or Redirect, merging as necessary to preserve all information), but I think that's already implied by my nomination) This isn't a normal newspaper, it's a student newspaper. Any consensus about normal newspapers being automatically notable, if there is such a consensus, can hardly automatically apply to student newspapers. We're not talking about a national, state, or even city newspaper. We're talking about an extracurricular activity done by students. It sounds like this student newspaper is of higher quality and reputation than the one at my school, as it has received awards from a professional journalism organization. This information, added after my nomination and thus not taken into consideration when I or the two speedy deletion nominators made our nominations, does lend at least a bit of credibility to the claim that this newspaper in particular might be notable even if we cannot support the idea that every single student-written paper is automatically notable. These awards, however, appear to be not for journalism in general but for school newspapers in particular. Being prominent within a non-notable area does not grant notability. I, for one, am not convinced that this school newspaper is notable, even with the additional sources that have been added. It would take something more than being recognized among other student newspapers to grant it notability in spite of being a mere student newspaper. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 11:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would student newspapers not be encyclopedic? They are the first draft of history for their communities, which are often larger and more prominent than many "cities." You have provided no substantive reason to treat student newspapers at colleges and universities any different than professional newspapers. There is a large and well-populated Category:Student newspapers for good reason. FCYTravis (talk) 17:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about this; a student newspaper is neither inherently notable nor inherently nonencyclopedic? Given that nearly every professional journalist has worked at a student newspaper, student newspapers get a lot of press. A Google news search for this student paper shows that the local and national news organizations use it as a resource, and talk to its reporters. Each student newspaper should be evaluated on its merits. When I put the speedy tag on this one, it made no claim of notability whatsoever. Now it is three sentences long. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Can you add any sourced info to the article about local and national newspapers using it as a resource, then? That would definitely go a long way toward demonstrating that this school newspaper is notable, as it has influence beyond the contexts of its own school and school newspapers. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm the second person to tag it for speedy deletion. I would have preferred it gone; the info is better off in the NAU article. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fair enough. Since it sounds like you found a source for that info, could you go ahead and add a sentence or two to either article, so it's at least present somewhere regardless of what the final outcome of this AfD is? --Icarus ^(Hi!) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As far as I can see it's already in both places. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - School newspapers are not inherently encyclopedic for the same reason Resurrection Blues gets its own article but Monkey Island:The Play only gets a section within the article of the notable entity it's related to. Why professional sports teams get articles, but only some college sports teams do (Division I does, Division III does not). How could all school newspapers automatically be notable? What if we were talking about a one-page summary of upcoming events that a school called their "newspaper"? Clearly, that would not be notable, and illustrates why school newspapers must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (to determine if they're division I or division III, to use the above sports analogy) rather than automatically considered notable simply because it's a newspaper. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 22:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete, the same information is on the NAU page already. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Northern Arizona University Ben1283 (talk) 17:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, does not have the significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. No prejudice to recreation if such sources arise. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia charity rally[edit]

Noteability not asserted in article. The external links do not offer any substantial information on the event, let alone confirm noteability. The first two are self-promotion, the third a blog written by participants (hosted, but not otherwise supported by The Guardian), and the fourth a short report about two other participants in a regional newspaper. Latebird (talk) 09:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep - very cursory search and I'm finding news hits - have added a Times Online article to external links have also found BBC News one [19] -Hunting dog (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC) [reply]

~~and ITV feature on a particpant's progress [20]-Hunting dog (talk) 09:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Comment: Note that there also is the Mongol Rally, (existed for many years and clearly noteable), so that any news reporting needs careful examination to check which event it's actually about. As it turns out, both of your links are about the "wrong" one. --Latebird (talk) 09:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops, sorry, see what you mean now! Confused by people calling the other one 'Mongolian' and 'charity' etc.. -Hunting dog (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of notability from WP:RS, appears to be part of a WP:COATRACK related to Go help, which is also up for AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I came here after purging the Banger Rally page of spam and advertising for non-existent and start up events. Unlike most of the (profit making) banger rally events that were on that page, a quick look at the website for this one shows it to be a genuine charity affair with maybe 100 teams and a press area that lists external news reports: [21]. The London Naadam with the Mongolians has probably had press coverage too. --Sce1313 (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That link points to a list of publications, comprised of individual team presentations in regional newspapers (appropriatedly labelled "team publicity") and a few press releases. However, I don't see significant coverage of the event itself and its organisers. --Latebird (talk) 08:56, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lack of media coverage. Apart from The Guardian, I only found this trivial mention in The Times. Pity, because it appears to be a good cause. PhilKnight (talk) 13:45, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go help[edit]

Noteablilty not asserted in article. --Latebird (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its a charity, so is not advertising and is for good cause.--Un poisson pour manger a la bouche, s'il vous plait. (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Salvageable, but currently the notablilty is not asserted and the creator has had a week to add content. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC) PS If kept, should be moved to 'Go Help' with 'Go help' as a redirect not vice versa. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Charity or not, this article does not assert notability. There are a number of charities that organize charitable events and there is currently no assertion why this group is any different. TN‑X-Man 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability per WP:ORG from WP:RS. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good cause or bad, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, the article seems promotional, and the subject seems to lack notability. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Routemaster Rampage seems related, could have been listed with this perhaps. Dloh cierekim 22:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out Of Kilter Scandal[edit]

An article with a one-sided point of view that falls just short of attack, containing a number of unsourced statements which violate WP:BLP, and which covers a three-day old news story which hasn't spread beyond New Zealand. Neither the phrase "out of Kilter scandal" nor "Macleangate" appear anywhere searchable other than this article. (I expect they may occur in the members-only web forum in question). Google news has a total of seven hits, being one or two stories in three of NZ's metropolitan daily newspapers, one radio story and one television news story (of three significant news channels which might have covered it). Two of the four references are from the forum itself and are currently returning 404 errors, and the external link requires forum membership. Let's face it, this is a storm in a teacup, and I have a strong suspicion that one or both of the main contributors has a Conflict of Interest. If there is significant/ongoing coverage in six months time, then it might be worth an article, but not now. dramatic (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -dramatic (talk) 08:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable news story, with the only reliable source quoted being an article in The Press, and the other sources being valueless.-gadfium 09:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, serious WP:BLP problems. Huon (talk) 09:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From a historical perspective yes, this story is little more than a storm in a teacup but with regard to the censoring actions of Maclean, and censorship in the New Zealand media in general, this is a highly important cybertext. I have a suspicion that this is only the beginning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.154.232.78 (talk) 00:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, then once a couple of reliable sources (say The Listener and North and South have done in-depth articles analysing that, we can report on it. Until then, any discussion of censorship is Original research rather than verifiable fact and it ain't allowed in this encyclopedia. dramatic (talk) 00:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is understood & in appreciation of your seeming role here as content moderator but are you not merely being overzealous ? The content in this document is factual and confirmed as so. These matters have to be covered in YOUR choice of media too? In what sense are you qualified to make these calls please ? Maybe the music industry and those who are involved should be those best qualified to understand and report upon this matter; surely.

We are definitely open though to discussion and debate / hearing further guidelines for information improvement nonetheless.

My role here is as an ordinary editor complying with Wikipedia's published policies. Wikipedia has no value if the information on it is not trustworthy, and the only way that can happen is by rigid application of the core policies of verifiability, neutrality and no original research. In addition, Wikipedia needs to protect itself from litigation by not allowing material which may be defamatory to be published. Which sources are acceptable is not a personal decision - the requirements are that 1) The source is not publically editable, so someone cannot go and publish or alter information then cite it on wikipedia, 2) Not the opionion of a single person or interest group (e.g. blogs) 3) subject to typical standards of journalistic/editorial integrity or peer review (See WP:RS for more).

The fact that you use the term "we" suggests that the various editors of this article are a group of members of the forum in question, therefore you have a Conflict of Interest and should refrain from editing the article. If the story is notable enough, disinterested people will document it from the appropriate secondary sources. dramatic (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolia rally[edit]

Neologism without sources, used as a pretext to create a list of two items. --Latebird (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The page has already been previously deleted, but judging from the deletion comment (CSD R3) I suspect it was a redirect to Mongol Rally then. --Latebird (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply unencyclopedic and circumlocutory. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, and if it's been deleted once, I'm not sure why it needs to come back Ged UK (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, this article is merely a WP:COATRACK for at least one of the external links provided (based on the other contributions of the primary author of this article); ultimately can be treated as a disambiguation page with no internal links. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuunjigao Bunayaar[edit]

Can't find any confirmation outside of Wikipedia that this person actually exists. Theoretically it may be that the article just uses a weird spelling. To clear this up, the Mongolian spelling of his name would be necessary. --Latebird (talk) 08:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any references either. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mongolia-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've just listed an AFD on Enrico Rocce Verilano, another article by the same author, for the same reasons. --Latebird (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Latebird (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wouldn't be notable anyway. Punkmorten (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Giant Snowman 21:44, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment FIFA player search no result, possibly not played in FIFA international finals. Matthew_hk t c 05:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the slightest shred of evidence indicating this guy actually exists can be presented. Ford MF (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP as redircet to Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy in the Sky[edit]

currently copy vio of [22] for band likely to fail notability criteria. Was previously redirect page for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds, but not sure that is a useful redirect either. Hunting dog (talk) 07:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I've nominated this for speedy as it is a blatant copyright infringement. Check the link above and go to story. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 08:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apalancho[edit]

Dicdef. tgies (talk) 06:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - content not suitable for an encyclopedia - and certainly not an English language one. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we're not a dictionary. No pun intended.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOT and per my common sense. Not encyclopediac..Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 17:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wiktionary is down the hall on the left. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 copyvio (G12) by Richardshusr. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to Bear Down[edit]

Page is full of nonsense, and any useful information on the subject can be found in the article Rectal examination. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 05:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turn your head and delete per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 05:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTGUIDE makes this fairly straightforward. - Vianello (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaa......................WP:BOLLOCKS. Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Someone please contact the author. Sincerely, Hellboy2hell (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: a lot of this looks exactly like the wording, etc., at this, which itself claims to be culled from another source, so this might be a copyright violation. Personally, I'm not in the mood to inspect this further (pun intended), so if someone else could assess the similarity and tag if necessary/deemed similar enough, that'd be great. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G12 copyright violation from [23]. Also per WP:NOTGUIDE Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a guide. Not an article either. Not sufficient encyclopedic content to merit rewrite of copyrighted material. Whatever content could be rephrased into an article would better serve at Rectal examination. Dloh cierekim 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete nonsense. Nothing is verifiable and it's a copyvio. Happyme22 (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If someone else could speedy this. I've already shot my mouth of here. Dloh cierekim 06:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 17:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis Italo de Sá Barreto Feliciano[edit]

A youth footballer and currently without a club (contract expired in May 2008), so he is not notable Matthew_hk t c 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I closed this AfD, which bundled a number of footballer articles (including this one) together with a result of "keep all" less than an hour before this nomination was made. If you disagree with that conclusion, feel free to take it to WP:DRV--if you disagree with WP:ATHLETE, feel free to take it up on the relevant talk pages. --jonny-m t 05:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, on second look, I'm striking my comment above. While I still support a keep here based on the quickness with which this renomination was done, I also recognize that a number of doubts were raised about this particular individual. For the record, I do believe that this nomination was made in good faith--hence my avoidance of the words "speedy keep" both here and above--but given recent demonstrated consensus I would suggest that it be withdrawn for the time being. --jonny-m t 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication of notability and no coverage of the figure in third party, reliable citations. Happyme22 (talk) 06:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless verfiable sources added. Also, DGG put it quite well in the previous AFD. Dloh cierekim 06:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to no assertion of notability. Spell4yr (talk) 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 06:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability. Who did he play for? Has he played on a national team? Without that kinda info, there is no way to judge his notability, and it is the burden of those writing articles to make it clear the subject is notable.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources indicating notability. Jogurney (talk) 15:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to this text (text in Portuguese), he was sent off in a Campeonato Pernambucano match. Campeonato Pernambucano is a professional competition and is Pernambuco state's highest-level football league competition. --Carioca (talk) 23:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Carioca. I'm afraid however that this does not raise him to a sufficiently high level. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 23:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment State League may regard as regional league level, which is not enough. Matthew_hk t c 12:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am aware and I agree that there is no reason to keep the article. I actually found very few reliable sources regarding this player. --Carioca (talk) 18:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Campeonato Pernambucano is sufficient to establish notability. I should hope someone passing judgment on a Brazilian footballer knows a little bit about Brazilian football, but in case you don't... there are two separate league competition levels in Brasil - the Campeonato Brasileirao, which is divided into the three levels Serie A, B, and C (naturally). Serie A is undoubtedly fully professional, but I am unsure of the other two levels. I would imagine Serie C is not fully professional. However, there is a separate state league system, including the Campeonato Pernambucano, the Campeonato Paulista, etc. Each team participates in both leagues, along with whatever cups they might enter (Copa do Brasil, Copa Sudamericana, and Copa Libertadores being the obvious candidates). In short, what I'm claiming is that the Campeonato Pernambucano is a notable competition, because it does not coincide at all (in terms of scheduling or format) with the Campeonato Brasileirao. A team that is relegated from Serie A could easily win the state league championship, like Corinthians for instance (who were recently relegated just a few seasons after having the likes of Tevez and Mascherano lead them to a Serie A championship). So since this guy played for a club that participates in a fully professional league (the Serie A) while playing in an officially sanctioned, non-friendly competition (the Campeonato Pernambucano), that is just as notable as an Arsenal player who plays in the Carling Cup, or a Brondby player who participates in the Royal League. ugen64 (talk) 22:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said before that "I am aware and I agree that there is no reason to keep the article" as per Wikipedia:FOOTYN, in which players are deemed notable only if they have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure, but you are correct, the state championships are a separate league system, so this should be considered enough to establish notability. The problem actually relies more with Wikipedia:FOOTYN, because it completely ignores the peculiarities of Brazilian football, which is very different from European football. All national levels of Brazilian football are fully professional, as well as the state championships, as in Brazil there is a separation between professional and amateur football, amateur clubs did not compete in the same league structure as professional clubs (this can be easily verified checking the Campeonato Carioca, where there is a Campeonato Carioca for professional clubs, and there are separate leagues for amateur clubs. --Carioca (talk) 23:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD G3, obvious vandalism/nonsense/boredteenjunk. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Orava[edit]

Article fails to establish notability, and also contains contradicting information which makes me doubt it's truthfulness, particularly without any findable references. I previously nominated for speedy deletion, but the article's creator removed the tag. Delete per WP:NOTE Nazgul533 ^talk ^contribs 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is full of nonsense and is obviously a hoax. The article claims the person died in 1900, and yet he was a video editor. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 04:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eidolon (manga)[edit]

Non-notable anime comic. Main source is self-published. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable graphic novel. And sorry, weeaboos, unless you are Japanese, your comic strip is a "graphic novel" at best. JuJube (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The off-hand personal attack is irrelevant and rude. It only serves to make your argument empty and worthless. SashaNein (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. tgies (talk) 06:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I prod'd this a while a go with WP:V and WP:N concerns; since then two references have appeared, but they cite web pages that don't seem to actually mention Eidolon anywhere. Marasmusine (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not assert notability. It seems unlikely that reputable sources are available to corroborate any of the information in the article, or to provide any evidence of notability. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apparently unreleased, certainly neither notable or verifiable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreleased comic with no indication of notability. (Not a manga, nor an anime comic whatever that is.) Edward321 (talk) 01:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Idea4Idea[edit]

A model for promoting positive change. Feels like a neologism and an advert. Is it notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - Look well sourced at first glance. But a closer look tells me that this is original research. Seems to be a promotion about a website Idea4Idea.com. A Google search returns only 72 hits, so not notable either.—Chris! _ct 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Super-Strong Delete Hellboy2hell (talk) 05:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Idea4idea is a uniquely designed model for Deleting. JuJube (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no substance to the article, no explanation as to how the subject is notable. I found nothing on Google scholar. While absolute Google hit count is not a reliable metric for notability, I find no hint of reliable or verifiable sourcing. I do find a listing on Wiktionary, blogs, ads, and This. Dloh cierekim 06:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this weird essay on a non-notable protologism. tgies (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:N My google search on the title of the subject reveals only 22 hits here Artene50 (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Importance of Being Russell[edit]

Does not appear to meet the film notability requirements, and maybe possibly be created by editors with a conflict of interest; primary editor has no other substantial edits. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Simply an advert. Completely uncritical in tone and no obvious sign that it meets the WP:NF standards. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as advertising unless a complete and total rewrite can address the problem. Ford MF (talk) 17:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:59, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Primordial Tradition[edit]

A school of religious philosophy. Seems like a neologism and that the article written by Gwendolynt is just an advert for a journal edited by Gwendolyn Toynton. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt there is a significant element of COI and the article is in serious need of clean up, but [24], [25] and more suggest the article's subject goes beyond that of a minor magazine and is salvageable. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestions Ben, I will tidy the article up. I have found the instructions on how to cite articles and the listed requirements for pages here rather vague and have having some trouble adding citations to the document. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gwendolynt (talk • contribs) 03:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Refernce to myself that was attributing to the neologism problem has been removed - the rest of the article will be rewritten shortly Gwendolynt (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)GwendolynT Gwendolynt[reply]
Keep. At first it appeared a backdoor advertisement for a non-notable magazine, but even the laziest of Googling demonstrates the broad notability of this term and concept. Even if the article is in horrendous shape now. A good article could clearly evolve from this. Ford MF (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 13:52, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There are insufficient sources to prove notability. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minor technology in Sonic the Hedgehog[edit]

Fails WP:N and is simply an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is also seriously incomplete, and even if it were, it still would not pass the general notability guideline Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm hesitant to vote delete on this, as I can see potential for such an article to have verification. How? By out-of-worlders commenting and comparing between the Sonic world and our world. If someone would like to check on that, I would personally appreciate it. --Izno (talk) 05:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No future for this. WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information etc. tgies (talk) 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What else needs to be said.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What else? Your reason. This is a discussion. Punkmorten (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it is not completed then it's up to someone to fix that, and also more refs need to be added to the article.Fairfieldfencer FFF 10:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Such an article can never cover the topic in a way appropriate for Wikipedia, such as Izno. I suggest a section in a "setting" or "universe" article, if sources exist, which I doubt. Nothing to be merged. User:Krator (t c) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable. Notability can only be shown by using reliable sources that are independent of the subject (see WP:GNG). There are no such sources that treat the minor technology of Sonic the Hedgehog this way. Minor might just be a synonym for non notable. Article also fails the specific notability guideline (based on the general notability guideline) in WP:VGSCOPE that generally prohibits lists of items. No one has any references that show why we should make an exception for this list of non-notable items. Randomran (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At the risk of parroting what's already been said, this will never pass WP:N (or WP:FICT, WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:VGSCOPE etc, take your pick). Izno's proposal sounds rather essay-ish, although again (lack of) viability comes down to the (non-)existance of sources. Bridies (talk) 17:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant to be essay-ish. The way we establish real world N is by using RS to back up claims made in the real world, and such articles as this — "technology" — could possibly be found to have sources in the real world comparing the technology of the real and fantasy worlds. Which is also why it was a comment, rather than a keep. :) --Izno (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I'm not sure anyone has gone hunting for sources to establish real world notability, I'll pile it on. Unfortunate; I think articles such as this in particular might be usable... Is there any information in it worth pulling to the main series article, Sonic people? --Izno (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discriminate and notable article verifiable through reliable sources that passes all fiction related guidelines, which totally lack consensus and so it's hard for anything to "fail" them. Consisent per First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia of video games, fictional technology, etc. Even in a worst case scenario we would redirect without deleting as such locations exist, but I see no benefit in an outright deletion here. Also keep per Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state and Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Plenty of editor efforts to improve and reader interest, i.e. a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:41, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Zero assertion of notability through reliable real world sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is notable as confirmed by reliable real world sources and therefore there is no reason to delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Can you prove it? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 12:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just look at any published video game magazine or game guide the covers or references this subject. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:34, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Uh, this is mostly from the comics, other than the "prison egg", which in itself isn't notable for an article. And as far as I know, there's nothing with notable material about a comic series, at least not these individual devices. WP:PLOT violations all around. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 22:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which appears to lack consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is only applicable in an AfD once the policy itself is changed, and no earlier. --Izno (talk) 04:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We can always Wikipedia:Ignore all rules as removing this article would diminish Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If we ignored all rules in every AfD you participate in, we wouldn't get anywhere. ;) --Izno (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not in those where I argue to delete, but in those where I argue to keep we would actually expand our comprehensive compendium of general and specialized encyclopedias and almanacs rather than do what is essentially electronic book burning. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor fictional things in fictional universe is...well...this has no hope of becoming an article. There's nobody writing reliable third-party sources on these wildly disparate items individually, and the net is cast so widely in this article that there's no hope of having sources on them collectively. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 16:57, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We can use publications on Sonic to eventually better reference the article. Think of it as a work in progress. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You keep saying that. You keep not providing examples. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:15, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Use these. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Observation and synthesis of article subjects isn't what we do here. There's nobody writing reliable third-party sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Are we sure that as notable a franchise like this hasn't had an article in EGM or some similar publication on technology? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As EGM is not in the practice of covering the Sonic the Hedgehog comic, no. Demanding negative proofs just make you look silly, BTW. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        A half dozen editors in AfD deciding to delete an article in a mere five days that others in the discussion think should be kept and that others not in the discussion worked on or come here to read is silly. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:39, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Troll through the archives of WP:SONIC, WP:SEGA, and WP:VG. You'll find that this AFD isn't a spur-of-the-moment hammer being dropped on some unsuspecting article; it's the result of the identification of a systemic problem with the way the Sonic the Hedgehog fictional universe (and indeed, fictional universes in general) is handled. You keep talking about "publications on Sonic" and "electronic book burning" but I'm reasonably sure you've taken on this crusade without any critical analysis of what you're crusading about. You just can't write an article that isn't original research without some sources which are not themselves the subject to work with. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd like to see far greater proactive efforts made getting those who worked on the article in question involved in the discussion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 owing to no consensus but later leaning somewhat towards keep. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Anderson (Mayor, Kinney, MN)[edit]

Mayor of a small town which once seceded in protest of lack of government services. Though interesting, it's still only one event. Google shows very little other than this article. A previous prod was contested. Plvekamp (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Plvekamp (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This crosses the notability line to me on the second bullet point in WP:POLITICIAN. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 05:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep mayors are inherently notable. She was born in 1915, so Google hits are not going to be plentiful. Lack of Google hits does not support lack of notability, verifiable sources may not be online for someone born that long ago. The place to look would be in the local newspaper morgue. Actually, the article is sourced via paper, with articles in papers from Duluth and Minneapolis. So, maybe the morgues of not so local papers. The article is in serious need of rewriting, though. Dloh cierekim 06:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand rationale and thanks to those with keep arguments below. Thaks to those who added sources and cleaned the thing up. Dloh cierekim 20:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing indicating anything more than WP:LOCAL significance for this mayor of a town of 199. Additionally, the article seems suspiciously like WP:SPAM for the book about her. The article about the town covers the secession in sufficient detail. --Dhartung | Talk 07:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Pity the creator did not use the book to give us more substantial info instead of that fluff. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 07:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notion that mayors are inherently notable is patently untrue. The town in question, Kinney, has a population of a few hundreds. Subject was not mayor at the time of secession. Punkmorten (talk) 08:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mayors are not inherently notable, and there are no reliable sources about this one. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It actually took me a while to come to this conclusion - the article does seem to have sources, and while they largely are unavailable online their existence seems to check out. She was indeed the mayor of Kinney during the 'secession' and played a role in it, thus the existence of some news articles mentioning her. However, the one single event that might have made her notable gets only lip service in this article - the rest is all fluff that does appear to be an attempt to promote a book. In any case, as Dhartung has pointed out, the secession (and her involvement in it) is well covered in the article about the town and beyond that there's nothing left for this article. Arkyan 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Kinney, Minnesota. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep' according to WP:LOACLFAME, local notability is, to some degree, noatbility. Ben1283 (talk) 17:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is already well cited and I added some more sources that I hope will more clearly demonstrate her notability. She also apparently gets a shout-out in the New Times of Russia, among other iron-curtain sources, but Google Books only has snippet views for that issue, and I can't read her mention. (Apparently in the 1970s, Russians were really interested in Americans who wanted to secede from the union. Who knew?) Ditto for the minutes of her testimony before the United States Senate Finance Subcommittee on International Trade and Global Competitiveness. Ford MF (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be significant enough coverage in reliable sources to establish notability per WP:BIO and WP:LOCAL is only an essay. Have removed the section that seemed to be promoting a book. Davewild (talk) 18:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree that small town mayors aren't usually notable. However, the subject proposed a declaration of independence in order to receive foreign aid, a strategy that was modestly successful. Accordingly, keep, because of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 18:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, noting a lack of reliable, independent sources to support this topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of One Piece locations[edit]

Fails WP:FICT, WP:PLOT, WP:OR, and WP:V. Failed PROD. Prod removed with "get consensus first, please." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft, better suited to the Wikia. Doceirias (talk) 04:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This should be transwikied if possible. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real-world notability established. Huon (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and transwiki. ~Double AW^[c] 00:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and immediate closure of AFD; This entire debacle is just a steaming pile of Deletionism, in which I can find no actual reason for deletion beyond the hyper-anal view of improper article structure. The article is sourced with non-cited primary sources (the source material itself, which counts as a primary source within the rules as far as I can tell). And in addition, one of the policies is improperly used in the first place, and one of them isn't even a guideline, and last time I checked, there is no rule against violating something that is not a rule. [[Justyn (talk) 00:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

Note: Justyn was canvassed to come help "save some OP" pages.[26]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell does how I came to the page have to do with my point? Yes, Angel told me about this because she and I have worked together on One Piece related pages before, and I believe that it is because she and I have worked on these pages before that she gave me that notice.

And I also noticed that rather than even give the least bit of an effort to refute my arguement, you used an ad hominem attack against me, my reason for posting, and manner of arrival upon this page. [[Justyn (talk) 01:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)]][reply]

How you came to it does matter, when you were asked to some argue for its keeping. We do have rules against canvassing to try and sway an AfD. To refute your arguments, there are no grounds for speedy keep with four deletes already logged. Your rather ludicrous demand that the AfD be closed because you don't like "deletionists" is just that, ludicrous, and not a valid argument at all. You have not, in fact, given any evidence or real arguments refuting the AfD reasons nor supporting deletes. You made a false claim of Plot being "improperly used" and a false claim that its being AfDed for having bad structure. And if you want to be "hyper-anal" and try to claim WP:FICT is not a guideline, just go up the line and note it also fails WP:N. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:46, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First. I stated that WP:OR and WP:V are invalid here; the page uses the source material, which you yourself said is fine to use.

Second, I did not say that the page should not be deleted because of deletionism. I said that the page should not be deleted, and that there is deletionism involved (splitting hairs, but still). I should have worded this better.

Third, WP:FICT is not a guideline, it is a proposed guideline; while WP:N is a policy, and I never claimed any less.

Fourth, Angel told me about something that I would get involved in if I had just stumbled upon it. Justyn (talk) 03:28, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate being misquoted. The entire conversation notes that plot summaries (as in the plot section of a series article) and episode/chapters summaries are not OR and do not need to be sourced. Character lists, and things like this do need to be sourced, either to the primary or to third-party sources. WP:V is not invalid here. It clearly states if there is NO third-party coverage (from reliable sources, of course, not a fansite) of a topic, it should not have an article. WP:OR in that the list includes fan guesses and rumors "filling in the blanks" of what is not stated in the series and interpreting events in teh series to reach conclusions. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I guess I misread what you were talking about. And to be honest, I really dislike all the speculations myself. Justyn (talk) 04:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a unified list and a reasonable way of presenting the material, assuming the basic work is important, which I cannot judge. DGG (talk) 03:12, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid way of collecting this information. Ford MF (talk) 16:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Collectonian - no third party coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:00, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks reliable sources and the information cannot be verified, thus the content could be original research and fail WP:NPOV. This leads me to believe that the subject is not notable and is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:30, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nominator withdrawal. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Varèse Sarabande[edit]

At best, a weak claim to satisfying WP:CORP (several passing mentions, very few concrete sources), blatantly promotional, and completely unreferenced. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 02:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Easily fits the "heard of it well before reading a Wikipedia article on it" test. In fact, this label figures fairly prominently in my CD collection, seeing as they released the soundtracks for The 13th Warrior, all of the Xena: Warrior Princess soundtrack albums, Phantasm, and many more. Amazon.com confirms, and returns 2,830 hits on the string "Varèse Sarabande". This would appear to be a notable record label, and as such needs improvement (and perhaps stubbing) but not deletion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - very notable label that's been around for years. This looks like a case of WP:OSTRICH to me. 23skidoo (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll believe you, and withdraw the nomination, but I'm fairly sure actual evidence (secondary reliable sources) should be provided first to provide someone else as ignorant as I am about the subject won't renominate based on the fact that no evidence for notability was provided last time. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Easily the most-notable soundtrack and film score label of all, with a long history and tons of notable releases. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sigh - could you please read my message above instead of piling on? Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 19:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:59, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exemption (band)[edit]

Rather than A7 this a 2nd time I'm running it through here to see what other editors think: Fails WP:Notability (bands) Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentGuess what you forgot to do in this AfD? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ta! Gwen Gale (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MUSIC. Has someone emailed Nick Lee at the address supplied in the article to tell him it's about to be deleted???? Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Small time. Unsigned. Utter bandspam. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertation of notability per WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete An article on a 2001 music band with no clear assertion of notability after 7 years. Artene50 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 blatant advertising promoting an investment scheme. Also an unreferenced, unwikified, promotional essay with how-to like elements. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero loss trading[edit]

This article is not very encyclopedic, more an opinion piece on an investment strategy. Mblumber (talk) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a copyvio, definitely a personal essay. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced snake-oil and testament to how some people will believe anything if it involves a computer. WillOakland (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G11- Spam. If it were a copyvio, it probably would have been picked up by CorenSearchBot. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no place for how-to guides, especially poor ones. TN‑X-Man 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm not sure it qualifies as spam, since it doesn't advocate a specific product or service. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply It's written like an advert, and therefore qualifies as spam. It appears that the only purpose of the article is to promote or advertise this method of trading. Either way, it doesn't matter, as it's encyclopaedic and poorly sourced, so it should be deleted. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 03:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11 - looks like an ads to me —Chris! _ct 04:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially a how-to essay (at least, it tries to be...), contravening WP:NOR. No prejudice to speedy delete: G11 as indicated above due to sneaky promotional tone of article. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 SpongeBob SquarePants. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bikini Bottom[edit]

Non-notable fictional subject (per WP:WAF); consists entirely of trivia and original research. All references are to the show itself; subject lacks sufficient secondary sources to improve to standards. Crazy Legs KC 02:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Spongebob Squarepants. Does not need an article unto itself, but some of the content may be useful in the aformentioned article. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spongebob Squarepants. All trivia and original research and fancruft under the sea, not enough out-of-universe info for its own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Spongebob Squarepants. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SpongeBob SquarePants per nom. Spell4yr (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Much of the info in the article is covered in the "Setting" section of the merge target. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} (R-OH) 16:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per what everybody else said. ~Double AW^[c] 00:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge according to what Mizu onna sango15 said. Hellboy2hell (talk) 12:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - not notable on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 00:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Hurst[edit]

Self-created promotional resume for local performer. Severe conflict of interest. One or two articles in your hometown's local paper doesn't make you notable. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:COI, WP:RS, WP:V & WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete WP:COI and WP:N, should have been speeded. MrMarkTaylor ^{(What's that?)} 03:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no WP:RS indicating notability per WP:BIO, just a few mentions in some local/minor reviews of the shows he's been in, no substantial content about the individual himself. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per kinu Don't believe this asserts notability. Appearing on Michael Barrymore's My Kind of Music does not seem enough, and I see no verification for this in any event. References seem to show him to be a local entertainer, but not one that meets WP:BIO. Unable to locate anything on Google that helps. Dloh cierekim 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, I can't think of much to add which hasn't been said already. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 21:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - renaming to List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims has addressed the WP:NPOV concerns. nancy ^(talk) 11:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of worst mass murderers and spree killers[edit]

Listcruft, mostly duplicative of List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims. We also have List of events named massacres. So we have detailed coverage of this topic already. John Nagle (talk) 01:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the nom's provided articles. Also "worst" is too vague. I can't find sources that describes a Top 20 list and Top 25 list for the mass killings and disgruntled employees part in Google Books, Google and Google Scholar so it is safe to assume that this is Original research--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the concept of such a list serves a useful article navigation purpose but List of serial killers by number of victims is more comprehensive and avoids the subjectivity of "worst" (from whose point of view? The victims?). The disgruntled employees categorization is also a little subjective - it assumes that the murders of work colleagures directly arose from disgruntlement with work. Euryalus (talk) 04:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the significant expansion of the article has addressed what I perceived as the subjective element of the article and the reformatting has enhanced its usefulness as a navigation tool. The difference between this and the serial killers list has been also explained - I think it's original research to allocate such definitive motives to serial killers versus mass murderers, but the differentiation by time (mass murders within short time frame, serial killings over longer period) seems a reasonable divider. For these reasons I've stricken my earlier comments. Euryalus (talk) 01:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Intractably POV and OR. Of the (arguably) thousands of ~ over the centuries, who is responsible for categorizing and choosing the "worst" of the bunch? FBI? Interpol? The History Channel? --T-dot ( ^Talk/contribs ) 15:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)TC)[reply]
Delete. It's very redundant, and original research. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:38, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria are different. I see zero duplication with List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims and very little with List of massacres How can it be said to be duplicative? Has no one above actually compared the articles? Which ones do you find to duplicate? DGG (talk) 08:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG, although I would replace the somewhat subjective word 'worst' in the title. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, certainly--and the sections of the article should be considered for further explanation and sourcing and even a possible split--there is a good deal of editing to be done. It's a fairly messy article as it stands. DGG (talk) 03:11, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A word from the author:

First: This list is no duplicate of the List_of_serial_killers_by_number_of_victims, they are not even overlapping. Mass Murderer and Serial Killer are by no means the same. Overlaps with the List of events named massacres are also very rare.

Second: This list is a work in progress. Nothing is finalized, yet. So if you are complaining about the sloppy title, it will certainly be changed. And the tag "disgruntled" was only chosen, because this is very commonly used in the media to describe people killing their co-workers. If I knew beforehand that articles can become subjects to deletion way before they are finished, I would've chosen my words more carefully from the beginning.

Third: There are extensive lists of mass murderers in the Mass Murder and School shooting articles, which I find very distractive and annoying. The main intention of this list was, to externalize those within these articles; at least before everything grew out of proportions.

Fourth: This is no Original research, which Wikipedia describes as following:
This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position.
None of the above applys to this list. (Lord Gøn (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Just to help me (and others) vote, could someone explain the difference between the following three articles:

List of mass murderers and spree killers by number of victims (this one)

List of serial killers by number of victims

Most prolific murderers by number of victims Enok^talk 00:24, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first list is about mass murderers and spree killers, which means people who kill a lot of others in a rather short period of time (minutes, hours, days), be it at one or several locations. The second is about serial killers, which are people who also kill a lot of people, but with a lot of time between the murders (weeks, months or years). The motivations of mass murderers and serial killers are completely different. While the common mass murderer and spree killer has accumulated a lot of hatered towards the world and seeks mostly revenge, the typical serial killer derives sexual pleasure from torturing and killing or simply likes to dominate and subdue his victims. The third one mixes them both, is overall quite pointless and should be merged with whatever it fits. (Lord Gøn (talk) 00:59, 10 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Article is in severe need of renaming ("worst"? wth?) but constitutes a set of information distinct from the massacres and serial killers ones. Ford MF (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KeepClearly notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upholstery Frame[edit]

Non Notable article, no citations Work permit (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there are citations now. --Blechnic (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problems such as needing cleanup, reliable sources, copyediting and verifiability can be dealt with. I will tag the article accordingly. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find a way to repair it before I tagged it for deletion, but I couldn't find a way without a total rewrite. I'll add it's been in this state for two years--Work permit (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, why can't the article be rewritten? --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And until someone does so, shouldn't it be deleted?--Work permit (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To suggest that is saying that all articles tagged with {{cleanup-rewrite}} need to be deleted until someone recreates it. The template was created in the first place to attract the attention of other editors in order to rewrite articles needing a substantial rewrite. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with the tag, and of course others. I apologize for not being clear in what I mean to say. I can find nothing in the article that indicates it is WP:Note. Nor did I find any WP:RS in a quick search that hints that the subject matter is noteworthy. Perhaps it should be merged into Upholstery. I'll note that Upholstery has no WP:Citations either, but I have not nominated it for WP:AFD--Work permit (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Agreed: Merge with Upholstery. Thanks, --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep/Merge~~ - seems to be plenty of possible references to expand from [27]. Article could use work but seems a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia.-Hunting dog (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only see a list of books that use the term Upholsetery frame. Is there something you've read in one of those books which leads you to think there is a notable article here? Sorry for asking what may be a dumb question, I can't read the books themselves from the link you provided. FYI, I've read through 32 articles in Proquest and didn't see anything to build on.--Work permit (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I'd support a merge with Upholstery if that makes it easier to find consensus. The reason I didn't initially propose it is that Upholstery already has a section, Upholstery#Frames. That section has most if not all the useful information in this article.--Work permit (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to support merge/redirect based on current content (and realise a lot of current unref'd/duplicated content would be removed in process). Just didn't want to have it implied we shouldn't have an article on this at all if others do have access to sources to expand beyond the sub-section. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable enough and the possibility of writing a full article is there. This AfD is being used to force a clean-up of this article by someone, anyone, but the nominator. I disagree with this. I might even work on this article, some, but I'm doing any more gun point improvements for people who nominate perfectly notable subjects for deletion because they're not sourced or need clean-up. No citations gets a tag, not a deletion, and it isn't "non notable," so the nomination is bogus. --Blechnic (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yawn There are citations now, and the nominators assertion it's "non-notable" isn't backed up by anything. Because there's nothing to back it up. --Blechnic (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quest for Love (song)[edit]

Only one source; song didn't chart and is notable for being on a soundtrack. Fails WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:50, 1 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing special about this track, which did not even chart. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSD A7 by User:VanTucky. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ascension (Band)[edit]

Fails WP:BAND. Only external link is to Myspace. Yechiel (Shalom) 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability per WP:MUSIC established, no WP:RS, just a Myspace link. No evidence that the album or its label even exist, so ultimately violates WP:V. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could find no sources when I searched in Google News archives, and when I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless independent reliable sources are forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Yet another Myspace band with no sign or meaningful assertion of notability- off with yer head! (Tagged A7 and G11) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bullshit. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bgmpn5K3FYY&NR=1 I wanted to see who this band was and Wikipedia deletes their entry due to "lack of significance?" Most of the music in growing vein of power metal is obscure, but hardly insignificant to a great number of people. Not everyone can be popular. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.93.115 (talk) 07:05, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete, fails WP:BIO, noting that while a movie may be notable, one of its actors may not be. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helga Sven[edit]

Subject does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. No reliable sources to verify notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 06:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The link from the article to this page via the AFD template seems to be corrupt as it shows this page to be empty. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That happens sometimes, I'm not sure exactly why though. The redlink still leads to this discussion, so I don't think it's a huge problem. It just takes you directly to the edit window instead. --Bongwarrior (talk) 23:05, 5 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, --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:PORNBIO. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep searching for reliable refs for pornographic actors is a massive chore, since Googling their names brings up a aircraft-carrier sized mountain of spam and porn links. But she appears to be a significant actress in the mature genre. Ford MF (talk) 16:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, performing in two banned movies (tho they weren't banned because of her) should on its own confer sufficient notability. Ford MF (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the criteria for inclusion at the relevant notability guideline, and lacks reliable sources to which the information could be verified, thus the content could be original research and fail WP:NPOV. Seraphim♥Whipp 17:23, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3 vandalism/prank/hoax wrapped in nonsense dicdef. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wigout[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bit Lordy (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, quickly. Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:DICTIONARY. Besides that, the whole page is WP:OR. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Von Doom[edit]

An autobiography. Notability has been questioned in February. There are at least some claims towards notability, so I thought it might warrant a wider discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability not established; these claims clearly need sources. JJL (talk) 01:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN, WP:MUSIC, WP:RS & WP:V. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited, nor passed on by osmosis. Does not meet WP:N. TN‑X-Man 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, even though he got coffee for Lynch and Scorsese, even if he's related to Victor von Doom. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:COI WP:V WP:N. MrMarkTaylor ^{(What's that?)} 03:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was SPEEDY DELETE as non-controversial housekeeping (see note from Xymmax below. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Jackson/FAQ[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Michael Jackson/FAQ

Not an actual article or suitable for the encyclopedia namespace. Longhair\^talk 04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tones of controversial articles has FAQ's this is absurd. The article needs it. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incredibly unencyclopaedic. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its a FAQ, Frequently asked questions. Obama has one seen here — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 04:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Obama FAQ is located in the Talk namespace. I'd be happy to move this one there also. -- Longhair\^talk 04:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Userpace or Talk namespace as with Obama's FAQ. Spell4yr (talk) 05:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- COMMENT - Here, for some reason its repeated on the mainspace and talkspace. Ill be happy to blank the mainspace version. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 05:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not an encyclopedia article. Maxa megalon 2000 06:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Talk space. (Or, oh well, delete unless needed for GFDL purposes.) This isn't a FAQ about Jackson, it's a FAQ about the Jackson article. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ben MacDui ^Talk/Walk 08:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Duh. This is an encyclopedia. --Efe (talk) 10:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move Per Dhartung. Its not a FAQ about the artist; its the article. Better move to Talk:Michael Jackson/FAQ. --Efe (talk) 10:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to talk space as an article FAQ, for which there apparently exists some precedence. tgies (talk) 10:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G6/G8 and so tagged. This has been mentioned, but to be absolutely clear, this FAQ is simply the text of the FAQ that currently appears on the Michael Jackson article's talk page. It clearly is in main space by accident, and should be deleted. The identical FAQ template is now, and will remain, on Talk:Michael Jackson. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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