Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 10 April 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xbox 3[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Xbox 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A pretty clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable third-party sources present. On the other side Contribs|@ 23:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per what WP:CSD? The DominatorTalkEdits 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per CSD G4 as a repost of an orginally deleted page. No reliable sources that exactly explains what Xbox 3 is going to be like or a definite time that its going to come out. The sources indicated are barely rumours. Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 07:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should change your vote to "delete" as I don't believe G4 applies here, while I don't have access to the deleted article, I don't think it was identical to this one. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This isn't 2006 anymore, and a quick google search has brought up a number of references which I am adding to the article. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 00:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't think the references you've provided can be considered "reliable." In the third reference (titled "First talk of Xbox 3 emerges") the first two words are "Rumors claim..." and that's all this is right now, a rumor. It's still too early. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All info is in the article is based on rumors and speculation (even the sources say that they are based on rumors); also violates WP:CRYSTAL, highly unlikely anything substantive will be added for another few years anyway. -- Comandante {Talk} 00:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody above gave a valid WP:CSD and neither have you. The DominatorTalkEdits 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's bound to get recreated sooner or later and it does no harm keeping it here and adding more as available information warrants. And about the present state of the article I suspect more has been said about the third Xbox than that, we don't have a deadline and the article can be expanded. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely speculative - every single source listed is simply reporting on rumors - even the name is a placeholder. An article on this topic will probably be warranted eventually, but it'll have nothing in common with this one, and will probably have a different name anyways. There is no deadline; we can (and should!) wait to write articles on upcoming topics until adequate sources are available. Zetawoof(ζ) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect To a new section in Microsoft Game Studios as a possible project. MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC) What was I thinking! Delete per WP:CRYSTAL MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious crystalballery. Claims that this does no harm are unfounded since it's both a terrible argument and untrue as placing rumors on Wikipedia as if they were fact negates the whole idea of this being an encyclopedia. JuJube (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook example of WP:CRYSTAL. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are just no sources. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notable the minute its semi-announced, but not quite yet. Redirect back to Xbox2 sequel or whatever in that article is the best home for it. Lawrence § t/e 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable, no sources - WP:CRYSTAL Harland1 (t/c) 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, nom withdrawn (see note) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California)[edit]

Incarnation Catholic Church and School (Glendale, California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD, local Catholic Church that apparently fails WP:ORG, no assertion of notability beyond a local scope, no independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: This is a new article about a Catholic church in the San Fernando Valley, Los Angeles County, California. The church has been in existence for 80 years and has thousands of families in the parish. How can this possibly be a proper subject for deletion? It falls within the scope of two established Wikipedia projects, one on the Catholic Church and the other on schools. It also fits within at least four Wikipedia categories: [Category:Roman Catholic churches in California], [Category:Elementary schools in California], [Category:Roman Catholic elementary schools in the United States], [Category:Churches in Los Angeles, California]. The fact that an editor has to spend time defending a legitimate article against unsubstantiated proposals for deletion is a significant deterrent to good editors. Certainly, the article needs work, and that will happen with time. The proposal to delete was made within minutes after its creation. This is really discouraging. Cbl62 (talk) 23:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cb162 and WP:LOCAL attractions like this belong on Wikipedia as they are encyclopedic in my opinion. There would be local sources on this I'm sure. Wikipedia is a community encyclopedia. Entries like this should be encouraged not deleted. It's also well put together with nice images etc.--Sting au Buzz Me... 23:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simply being around for awhile is not (in it of itself) an assertion of notability. Likewise, being under the scope of a WikiProject is also not an assertion of notability. The bigger issue, however, is that the article cites no independent non-trivial sources demonstrating significant coverage, nor does it explain why the Church is notable beyond giving a history. I'm not attempting to deter the author from contributing content, its just that there should be a demonstrated notability beyond the scope of the local community for an organization to be included. It is for the same reason that many local fraternities are deleted. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, I could write an article about the church where my father is pastor: it is over 130 years old. It would fit under Wikiprojects Calvinism, Christianity, Ohio, and probably other things. It would fit into categories for Logan County, Ohio; churches in Ohio; 1877 establishments; and likely others. And remember: simply having a big number of families doesn't make it notable either. Nyttend (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, WP:LOCAL is an essay, one contributor's opinion. Its not a policy or guideline and shouldn't be quoted as such. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Individual churches cannot be notable simply for being average churches, and elementary schools are not notable simply as elementary schools. They have to demonstrate that they are especially important, and the citation of sources is important. This article cites no sources to demonstrate why either the church or the school is notable. Nyttend (talk) 00:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is not objectionable nor unpolished, in fact its actually very well written. As we said above, the article does not assert notability or provide non-trivial, independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of the other articles you listed above, one likely qualifies for Speedy deletion, and I prodded or took several of the others to AfD. However, some of them do actually assert notability and therefore are probably not subject to deletion. Please read WP:N and WP:ORG for a more thorough explanation. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pictures only are good. Text is blah. Needs to state number of parishioners. That is basic. Unless there is an insignificant number of parishioners I see no need to delete this. It is part of the essential fabric of the diocese, though it manages not to even give that! LA archdiocese maybe? One of the worst articles I have ever seen on a catholic church. But it should be kept with a lot of header templates about improvement of references, quality, etc. Not even categorized by diocese. No infobox. Cripes! All parishes are important just by existing. So are all high schools. Elementary schools are tough to justify and maintain. But I'm helping with a few. In another context, we have articles on roads. I hate to justify the importance of Highway 123 in Upper Saskatchewan over say, Route 66 or Interstate 5. Nevertheless, that part of the world can hardly get along without that (fictional) highway. It ie essential to the fabric of their existence. And so are schools. So are churches which IMO need noticeable buildings for an article. It would be alarming to have 50 articles representing tiny church communities meeting in peoples homes dominating an otherwise small area. Student7 (talk) 01:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it is a brand new article. Recanted some of my criticism. Give it a chance. Already scandal in there. You love scandal, right? A keeper. Student7 (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing a rural highway to a church for purposes of inclusion is not a valid argument. Roads are not actually covered under an inclusion criteria (although one is currently in a proposal stage, see WP:SCL), but for the most part, precedent so far has been that most highways that are above local or county in scope and link two or more major locales, or local roads that have some other significance are notable. Similarally, Schools are also being considered for a formal inclusion guideline, which states that Schools without verifiable, non-trivial sources or certain other criteria are redirected to the school district or city, town, or county. On the other hand, churches are covered under an inclusion guideline for organizations, which says that

"Individual chapters of national and international organizations are usually not notable enough to warrant a separate article unless sufficient notability is established through reliable sources. However, chapter information may be included in list articles as long as only verifiable information is included."

This includes individual churches of a diocese. If the church is notable within the scope of that diocese, a mention can be included there, but typically a separate article is not warranted. There are exceptions, for example if the church building itself is on a historical register, or if the individual church has received non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Otherwise, its just a local church. I'm not arguing against the fact that local churches are important to their communities, but normally they should be mentioned in the article about that town or diocese. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Basically this is boiling down to an I like it argument, which is not grounds for inclusion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: As far as notability and verifiable sources, I searched the Los Angeles Times archives and came up with over 400 articles discussing Incarnation Church. I have added content and citations to several articles reporting on important events in the history of the parish. This parish has been at the center of not only the Glendale community, but also important social events, including the Raul Aguirre murder that almost resulted in an ethnic riot, the attempted rape of a 71-year-old parishoner in the sanctuary drawing widespread media attention, and molestation charges brought against the parish's associate pastor who fled to Sri Lanka and remains a fugitive. This is a highly notable church. Cbl62 (talk) 02:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is asserted by the cited history. The L.A. Times is an independent source, so I'm not understanding the entire rationale. the_undertow talk 02:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Coverage, twice, in reliable sources (LA Times) is enough. Contrary to Nyttend, notability is demonstrated beyond just being a church. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - precedent is pretty clear that individual congregations, no matter how old (and 80 years isn't old at all) or how many congregants they have, simply aren't notable. Some congregations may be individually notable, but they're exceptions to the general rule. [I also note the canvassing at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism -- BPMullins | Talk 03:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something wrong with notifying the project responsible for the article of the proposal to delete? I don't understand the comment. Also, where is this clear precedent on individual congregations written, and who adopted it? If the precedent were clear, then I don't understand why there are over a thousand articles (my rough estimate -- nothing scientific) on Wikipedia for individual congregations. Cbl62 (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Precedent isn't always the best argument for deletion because AfDs are taken on an individual basis. I think the accusation of canvassing is not that you notified the project, but that you opined about voting procedure. That's my assumption, anyway. the_undertow talk 03:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further note: Even if all local parishes are not notable, this one is. Per Wikipedia:Notability says: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Based on an archives search, this church has been covered in 400 plus articles in the Los Angeles Times, including several cited in the article. Doesn't that establishe it as presumptively notable? Cbl62 (talk) 04:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canvassing is not cool, in fact, its against policy to ask people to vote for a particular outcome. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps Cbl would be so gracious as to amend his comment as to a simple notification and remove any mention of voting procedure and reasoning behind a keep vote? the_undertow talk 05:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This whole discussion is bizarre and reminiscent of Farenheit 451. If it is wrong to post a message on the WikiProject page notifying them of the discussion, then I really am at a loss. I did not send spam messages to multiple people. I posted a single note on a single page that struck me as entirely appropriate. The guidleine you referenced speaks to "sending messages to multiple Wikipedians" and excessive notification. Again, I posted a single note. This entire discussion about deleting an article about a major LA landmark backed up by numerous article in the LA Times is discouraging. I've been editing on Wikipedia for about a year now, have created over 200 articles, at least 20 of which have been rated as good articles, have had almost 100 articles featured on the Did you know page, and have not yet run into this kind of effort to suppress knowledge and discussion. If this is the direction Wikipedia is taking, it's not a good sign.Cbl62 (talk) 06:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a disclaimer asking people to simply look at the article and decide for themselves. This is the first time one of my articles had become embroiled in a deletion debate, and I guess I take my contributions seriously (and criticism personally, I guess). I will now try to "cool down" and let people decide.Cbl62 (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Let's see, article was created 23:16, 11 april. One minute later Mr Senseless adds a proposed deletion tag to it. Nine minutes later (ten minutes from article creation) Mr Senseless makes this AfD. Six hours later Mr Senseless brings this AfD up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard (where I learnt about it). Meanwhile the article creator, in spite this kind of disturbances, continue editing the article and brings it up to a fairly good article. I say Mr Senseless needs to read WP:INSPECTOR, then take a break and ponder it. Then read WP:CHANCE and take some time to ponder that one too. --David Göthberg (talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The great improvements to the article Cbl62 has made establish notability. Giving an author some time to establish notability on a article that could have potential is a good idea and nominating such articles straight after creation should be discouraged. This is a good example of why. Davewild (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Why must the largest group of people in America to assemble voluntarily each week be kept out of Wikipedia? The number of churchgoers in any area exceeds those attending sporting events (for example). Why must the activities of this huge group go unchronicled? To keep out this large group seems POV to me. They are not merely relegated to the "back of the bus," they aren't allowed on the bus to start with! Student7 (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple references in RS. Notability seems above and beyond an average church, Looks like if given a little time it will be a decent article.--Cube lurker (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is asserted by the cited history. Therefore, I don't see many reasons for deletion.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now hear this![edit]

Okay.... this has gotten way out of hand. This is not an issue of POV on my part, and I resent that accusation. I'm not on a mission to get church articles excluded, I'm a semi-practicing Roman Catholic myself. This was an issue of looking at whether a subject in question met certain guidelines for inclusion, which at the time, it didn't. My own Church at home is very important to the local community, I agree with that, and its of a similar size and history to the one in this article, but it hasn't done anything or had the necessary coverage to allow a Wikipedia article. When I saw the article at first, it looked like a run of the mill local parish which according to WP:ORG should not be included on the basis of non-notability in the scope of Wikipedia. Significance to the community/ Church community (I'm not going to go into theology here) and significance in the scope of Wikipedia are completely separate and one does not usually mean the other. Sources were found, and the due to the connection with the priest abuse scandals, we now can agree that the article does meet notability guidelines. I'm withdrawing the nomination because WP:N and WP:ORG are now unequivocally fufilled, notability is established.

The bigger issue I personally have is that I feel like this discussion has at times resembled group think, (i.e. editors voting keep based on emotion and the fact it was a Church) and sometimes felt to me as if it was being treated as a attack by WikiProject Catholicism. Issues of canvassing aside, I want to apologize to WikiProject Catholicism if that's how this was interpreted and for not withdrawing the nomination once the sources were established. Please assume good faith, I'm a new pages patroller and most of what I deal with are attack pages, vandalism, and spam, but usually I'm quick to tag something that doesn't look right, and for the most part my intuition is pretty good. I made a mistake, I accept responsibility for it, let's let it go and work on building an encyclopedia.

Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 15:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2: Apartment Life[edit]

The Sims 2: Apartment Life (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is pure WP:CRYSTAL. Author is relying on a "teaser flier" (linked in the article presently) that mentions a possibility of another expansion pack, but mentions nothing of a title or anything else about it. Assuming there is going to be such an expansion pack at some point, there's no indication that this is what it's going to be. Gromlakh (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 18:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From what Google finds, the name was created by excited Sims 2 fans that saw the flier that the article talks about. Whether or not this expansion pack would be notable, this isn't even the confirmed name- the flier doesn't give the name. Definitely a case of WP:CRYSTAL. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do not Delete** according the official Sims 2 Website this is a comfirmed expansion pack. The flier indicates a small glimpse of what the game will offer. Like its current title the pack will focus on Sims moving into their own apartment that they must pay rent on as well as dealing with noisy neighbors, and medaling landlords. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.23.41.50 (talk) 21:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystal-balling. When the expansion is properly announced, an article which doesn't consist of original research can be created. Someoneanother 23:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:21, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pillars of the Church[edit]

Pillars of the Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. The phrase is used in the Bible, but everything else is fanciful. StAnselm (talk) 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Zero sources, much speculation (original research). I've never seen so many "seem"s in an article. Nick Graves (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Took the words right out of my mouth. My vote is for a Delete as well. JuJube (talk) 06:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Sting au Buzz Me... 23:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I seem to find this article rubbish. I may have voted for its deletion. I could be going away now. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur about the Seems, if you're basing your article on that, you sure as hell better back it up with some good sources that say so, this article doesn't even bother to have any link outside of Wikipedia, so delete per WP:OR. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Also violates WP:NOT and WP:V. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. Since nom'd no attempt to add sources (I can't find any) so looks like WP:NOR.--Sting au Buzz Me... 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This does not look to me quite like the standard WP:OR article. It looks to me as if the original author did have sources, but has failed to cite them. If that is the case, the article is not WP:OR, but merely one of many unreferenced articles. I have just placed a warning of this AFD on his talk page, in the hope that he will rescue the article. The article seems to be a commentary on Galatians 2:9 which refers events also described in Acts 15. There is no contemporary commentary on the New Testament; all we have is Early Church Fathers, often several generations later. The question is whether the article reflects ancient speculation or published modern speculation (neither of which is WP:OR) or mere recent speculation. I would in any event prefer to see the article trimmed somewhat or setting out competing views on the subject matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have strated to amend the article and get it up to Wikipedia standard. John D. Croft (talk) 06:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The above user asked me to withdraw my nomination. My vote stands, since the vagueness of the statements remains and the references added are also vague - there no page numbers, let alone direct quotes. There's no evidence that any of the references refer to the phrase "Pillars of the Church", and as such this is essentially a coatrack article. StAnselm (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete, G11. The article was substantively similar to the version that was speedied as a G11 by CobaltBlueTony. Author blocked as a spam/advertising only account. Blueboy96 01:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BookIt.com[edit]

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

notability vague or missing, low Alexa info - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Non-notable. Sounds promotional.Renee (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7, non-notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Speedy A7 would be declined because the article makes assertion of notability. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 22:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: The only stab at notability I see there is the award. Awards are generally considered evidence of notability bu the editor of this article will have to forgive me if I don't consider Outstanding deals by an online travel agency in the same light as a Nobel Prize.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it, Danno. There are a couple of announcements on Google News, and a deal of some kind with Atlantis Paradise Island, a plum for any company, but nothing in the way of independent, in depth coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — per nom. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 23:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Give the author (who likely has a moderate-to-severe COI) a bit of credit for making the article less spammy the second time around, but it still doesn't meet that darn notability standard. --Finngall talk 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Blatant conflict of interest, username reported. Non-notable subject, I'd almost say this is G11 material, but its not quite spam. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep & expand. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go for the Throat[edit]

Go for the Throat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Little context as a stand-alone article. Suggested delete or merge into the band article. Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Nenyedi • (Deeds•Talk) 20:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete (G12 - copyright infringement) by Cobaltbluetony. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 21:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benny Giay[edit]

Non-notable person in West papau RC-0722 247.5/1 20:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as copyvio. I think he might be notable, there is an independent source; but unfortunately the article is a straight copyvio from here. JohnCD (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The page is no longer there. Was it speedied as a copyvio? If so, why is the AfD still open? Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulted to keep. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucian Pulvermacher[edit]

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

This material lacks notability. That this person got 28 people to say that he was the Pope does not in fact make him important. A Google News Search turned up four entries, mostly talking about him as a curiosity. As Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or curiosities and this article lacks references I move that it be deleted. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't for things made up one day. GreenJoe 20:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are lots of crazy things in the world, some of them are noted: like this one. [1] [2] [3] [4] are some of the reliable third party sources that verify his notability. Jobjörn (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The last source you link is not in fact notable--it appears to be from a traditionalist publication (i.e., one with an axe to grind) and it's on a private website. The other two appear to be man-bites-dog curiosity stories--which does not in fact make him notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Two is enough. Also, I'm sure there are more. Jobjörn (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Either complete non-sense or completely non-notable. Either case, we don't want him. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jobjorn. The subject is a notable curiosity. I have added one of the links Jobjorn provided to the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The fact that he's a rival claimant to the papacy makes him notable. I don't think it's fair to appeal to WP:NFT - he does have a serious theological position, though I don't agree with it. StAnselm (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He really does not have a serious theological position. Basically, a bunch (where by a bunch I mean a few dozen) of his friends decided he was Pope. Sedevacantists may have a serious theological position, but someone with a few dozen followers claiming to be Pope does not. See this for a good explanation as to why. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, isn't conclavism just sedevacantism taken to its logical conclusion? If you think there is not pope, why not elect one? StAnselm (talk) 03:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but that doesn't mean he should get an article on Wikipedia. Hell, if I get a half dozen of my friends together to name me Pope and a local newspaper to do a story about it on a slow news day, would I get one? TallNapoleon (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That he is a rival claimant to the papal throne does NOT make him notable. However, news coverage does. Jobjörn (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In assessing notability, we should assess whether news stories treat their subjects as generally noteworthy, or treat them as colorful, entertaining, curious, etc. There are people who, every year, are written up in wire service reports that are published nationally (in the USA) for their lavish/garish home Christmas light displays. Such people are not appropriate for encyclopedic treatment, and that standard should be applied here. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would require us to be subjective - which we must avoid. We have a clear threshold for inclusion, let's use it. Jobjörn (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that requires the exercise of rational judgment in applying standards. The reference to "subjective judgment" in WP:N refers to an editor's opinion about the subject itself, not the necessary application of judgment to determine whether evidence establishes notability. It is analogous to assessing whether a source is genuinely reliable. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Jobjorn. In regards to "Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia or curiosities", sure, we can be, for the notable oddness. Lawrence § t/e 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This guy has Wikipedia pages in several languages:Deutsch, Eesti, Español, Nederlands,Polski, Русский, and Svenska. His "Enemy" Bateman calls him "In fact... well known inEurope and America as a most unconventional priest, and that is putting it charitably”.[1] The page had no references, I added some quotes and additional text. It clearly needs more work and citations. But deletion? Not, as long as improvement are possible. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Google News Search turned up four entries" Hm! Try a regular Google search on either "Lucian Pulvermacher" of "Pius XIII", there is much information on him, from all parts of the world! (I do not agree with the guy or his positions, I just think he has the Wikipedia required notoriety based on Google alone, and, the article, while needing further improvements, can be saved!) --Ambrosius007 (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hardly. You turn up a few thousand Google hits (in context, an unexpectedly small number for a figure who has suppsedly been given substantial news coverage), and most of those hits are to blogs, personal websites, and non-independent, otherwise unreliable sources. Certainly nothing to establish Wikipedia notability. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 16:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A few thousand Google hits (deducting repetitions) are likely to be more than the "four entries" mentioned as the rationale for deletion. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • The few thousand hits I mentioned included repetitions, and the four-hit count referred to Google News a far more accurate measure of independent sourcing. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are more than four Google News-hits, but that is hardly relevant. Are there multiple reliable sources with this as their subject? Yes. WP:N established. What more do we need? Jobjörn (talk) 10:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - How many supporters does he have? How widespread are conclavists and sedevacantists? As a non-Catholic Christian, I have no view on this matter. However, if this is not merely a minute splinter group, the article might be one we could keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is currently unsourced, but the article for another antipope, David Bawden, mentions that he probably has the most followers of any of the conclavist antipopes, with fewer than fifty. Pulvermacher probably has even less than that. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--- The number of supporters is of course relevant, altough hard to verify one way or the other. Equally relevant are the multiple reliable sources, mentioned above, the seven Wikipedia sites in :Deutsch, Eesti, Español, Nederlands,Polski, Русский, and Svenska. Last not least, there may be people out there, who may not be members, but are interested, intriqued, or, very upset. Do they count? -:))

AND, by the way, if we delete Pulvermacher, we should delete the other anti-popes too, Manuel Corral and David Bawden etc. Do we want to rid ourselves of this category?

--Ambrosius007 (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not be opposed to getting rid of Mr. Bawden's page, as again it sounds like it fails WP:NFT. Corral on the other hand has a couple of thousand followers, apparently, which definitely makes him notable. Can anyone comment on the other language articles about this fellow? Were they Babelfished or are they the real deal? TallNapoleon (talk) 01:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The problem here seems to be having enough independent sources. The article could be kept with more solid third-party coverage. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I'm not sure if there are enough. Most stuff on him seems to be from traditionalist and sedevacantist websites, which are not likely to be terribly neutral. The few news articles don't appear to provide much. TallNapoleon (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many people think they are God himself. So thinking that you are the pope is not so impressive. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was RESULT: Speedy delete per A7 (no claim to notability). --Ginkgo100talk 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Too Rude[edit]

Too Rude (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Presently non-notable group. Creator removed prod stating that "this band is on the uprising the page will be made sooner or later", but we can't predict the future. On a side note, the claim that "They are one of the first bands to mix Reggae with Punk Rock" is out by about three decades. tomasz. 20:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD A7. No assertion of notability. --Finngall talk 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7, so tagged. Makes absolutely no assertation of notability. And I thought reggae plus punk rock was pretty much what ska was. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep --JForget 00:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True 20[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    True 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable and the True 20 website, the source for the article, is gone. No sources outside of True 20 owned materials makes me question how notable this was to begin with. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy Keep - the site is down for server maintance as detailed on Green Ronins' site[5], http://greenronin.com/. There are 3rd party resources. Web Warlock (talk) 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I still would like to see some actual establishment of notability here, though; its ONLY sources are Green Ronin, its producer, and nothing else. That is questionable in and of itself; if it had some real sources, I wouldn't have put it up for an AFD, but there is nothing to establish the notability of the subject. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Look again. This what I could do in 20 minutes. I have not even opened up a magazine yet. Web Warlock (talk) 21:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And really. Should you have not put on a refimprove tag on first? Going right to AFD seems a bit drastic. You didn't even discuss it on the talk page first. Your resons to delete are not very good. Web Warlock (talk) 21:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - 10 references have been added and True20.com is back online as was promised on Green Ronin's own website. Reasons for the AfD are now null. Web Warlock (talk) 03:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Formal Request to have this AFD removed - for all the reasons I state above, plus I believe this nomination is in bad faith. Web Warlock (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question Going right to AfD? The article has been here for several years. If the article was created today or within the last month or so, then your contention that there wasn't enough time allowed would hold more merit. DarkAudit (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - still comon courtesy should have been observed. Web Warlock (talk) 23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment2 - a year and nine months is not several years. Web Warlock (talk) 23:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The combined history is going on two years. It's not a new article. What's your point? DarkAudit (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure - WW's almost arguing against his own position there.  ;) And being around for X years hasn't stopped an article from getting deleted before... still, it's no fun to see it happen to an article one likes... BOZ (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Support removal of AFD - Shelve this at least for the moment, or suspend it till the main website is back up. There is 3rd party published material for True20 beyond what Green Ronin themselves have produced, which in and of itself should make this AfD invalid. Tag it as needing references and let them be made, then if they aren't found within a reasonable time with some additional prompts if needed, then bring an AfD back. I won't call it bad faith without evidence to state it as such, but it's premature. Beyond that, with enough looking, I'm certain that reviews of the system and products for the system by staff reviewers in a few spots could be found to give additional sourcing, and establish notability.Shemeska (talk) 01:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - will agree that one of the primary reasons for the deletion is invalid as the website is not only not gone, but was only down briefly and is now functioning for me. [6] Was designed as a simpler version of the d20 system, and has been applied to a number of settings and worlds. Wish I had a stronger reason than that, but I'm not as familiar with the system as I wish I were. Maybe someone else can explain it better. BOZ (talk) 04:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Based on Web Warlock's excellent sourcing (once again). --Craw-daddy | T | 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:WEB.--MrFishGo Fish 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notability established (award-winning) and now well-referenced. AfD not invalid, but would have been better to tag first, really. SamBC(talk) 10:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep This is a well-sourced article about an award winning game. Edward321 (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Keep per Wikipedia:SNOW (non-admin closure). Notability criteria are met. WilliamH (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Heinrich Trettner[edit]

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

    Non-notable nobody. Fails WP:BIO. Fails Google test. Delete GreenJoe 20:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Last living General of the Wehrmacht is in fact notable, as is being Inspector General of the Bundeswehr. That said it does need rewriting. TallNapoleon (talk) 20:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep per TallNapoleon. Additionally, the number of notable awards and honors alone satisfies WP:BIO. Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this nomination even meant to be taken seriously? Olaus (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I only started this article recently. By no means do I consider this article finished. I felt that I had to add the most essential notable facts fast as it was nominated for speedy deletion. Heinrich Trettner is sometimes also called Heinz Trettner for those that rely on google. MisterBee1966 (talk) 21:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep This man held the top military post for his country for several years. "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" is a criteria for notability for any position: the guy seems to have received several honors and awards, aside from the notable honor of being made the top military officer for his country. Nyttend (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Article needs a lot of work, but notability is definitely established for having been a general in the first place, let alone the last living general of a now defunct military. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Rudget 17:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Date Records[edit]

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

    Barely-sourced article on non-notable record label. --Finngall talk 20:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep. Ty 23:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dean Karr[edit]

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

    Article on a photographer/videographer that is long on credits but short on encyclopedic information and reliable sources. The sole attempt to add biographical information was a copyvio from IMDb originally written by someone with a COI--this was subsequently deleted and not replaced. Subject might be notable, but author has provided little in the way of verifiable support. --Finngall talk 20:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Neutral Though short, I think his credits list on IMDB satisfies notability. It's most certainly an autobiography, though. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Article author asked me what the article was lacking; I recommended a better bio section and some mentions in publications to establish notability. Both are now present in the article, and it satisfies notability. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems notable as video director, though article needs improving as per above. Johnbod (talk) 00:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Rudget 17:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wallace Records[edit]

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

    Is this record label notable? I'm having difficulty finding reliable 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. - Philippe 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Church management software[edit]

    Church management software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Deletion per Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Deletion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization: Non-defining or trivial characteristic. Church management software is a stub with vague and obvious platitudes about office software. Church management software is just like any other non-profit management software. For example, Microsoft Office used in a church is no different than any other office. The references aren’t convincing that this topic is so notable that it needs its own article. Non-notable. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Comparison of church management software is also up for deletion; the two discussions may or may not impact one another. Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep a stunningly boring article but seems notable enough. The NYTimes article is substantial but doesn't seem to use the term Chruch management software explicitly. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per the nomination. X Marx The Spot (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Church Managment software is an extremely notable piece of technology Fatsdom (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep bad article on a notable topic. Needs some work and merging in Comparison of church management software is a good place to start. --Rtphokie (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Comparison of church management software before we evaluate the whole topic. Pace Fatsdom I don't see any inherent notability at all here. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Is well-written and well sourced, even despite its briefness, and is definitely notable. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this is a well-sourced article and I'm sure it can be expanded upon. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, The NYTimes article is the only source that I would consider as reliable and independent. And this article is not about church management software as defined in our article, rather the NYTimes article is about use of IT in churches. The latter is probably an article candidate, and one that content from this article could be fruitfully incorporated into. But the current article is simply not notable. Taemyr (talk) 09:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep I suppose we need to see the churches communities as independent of the software they use. And [7] although written like a Q&A column seems on closer look to be an article. Taemyr (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I agree. Merge to Comparison of church management software and then talk about them together. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep well sourced, the term isn't as important as the concept. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How is it well sourced? There are three sources, only one of which is about the topic. The NYTimes one is about generic use of IT in churces and the publicopinion one is about use of technology in churches. Taemyr (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You have to actually read the referenced articles, not just scan the first few paragraphs, then give up. The New York Times article states: "Specially-designed software for church management, to track contributions and membership, can be used by savvy pastors to minister to their congregants, said Pat Faudree, a spokeswoman for Shelby Systems, which is a leading church management software company." That single sentence defines the concept and gives it notability. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • While I can agree that the sentence defines the concept, it does not give it notability according to wikipedias standard for notability. To demonstrate notability there must be significant coverage of the topic in multiple independent articles. According to WP:NOTE this means that the source needs to address details of the topic. Taemyr (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • E pluribus unum --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry, I fail to see the relevance of this motto. If you are critizing my use of the failing of one article to imply the failure of all sources then note that the NYTimes was drawn forward as an example by you. As such it behoves me to point out that it does not demonstrate notability. However I have come to the opinion that the churches should be seen as independent of the software used, and I have no reason to assume that churchsolutionmag or christianitytoday fails to conorm with our requirement for reliability so these sources do demonstrate notability. Taemyr (talk) 08:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A quick google scans make it look like this is a common term used to describe this type of software. Support merging the comparison article into it. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So you wish to add nothing to the debate? This is not a vote. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and merge in Comparison of church management software. Appears to be a notable software category, though the references could stand to be improved a bit. Klausness (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep References and sources establish notability. Stubbiness is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This seems like a rather unusual collection of non notable material. --Stormbay (talk) 00:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Rudget 17:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lex Rex[edit]

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

    Doesn't assert notability along the lines of WP:BAND. Flex (talk/contribs) 19:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete as non-notable. - Philippe 04:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AMX on X 103.9[edit]

    • Since the page features opinion and not just fact, I think it should be deleted. It does not read like an encyclopedia article. Opinions about another morning show in the market are just that, opinions and therefore do not qualify. ----thanks - JG
    AMX on X 103.9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local radio morning show. Article reads more like a fan page rather than an encyclopedic article. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I say let it stay if it provides actual information about the show. Originally I believe this page was created for listeners to add strange messages about the show, if it comes to that it needs to be deleted. Right now, while it may need a little cleanup, it actually looks like it's providing some real information and has become a little bit more than just a fan page. --209.77.48.14 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may "provide information" but it still doesn't assert notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article is still under construction. It is not fair that one person with a personal vendetta against this article will determine the fate of this page. If a radio morning show like Kevin and Bean can have a page, why can't this page exist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.215.112 (talk) 19:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, I don't have a vendetta against the page or the show. I just don't see where it meets WP:N. Also, remember other articles being on Wikipedia doesn't mean EVERY article has to be. Show me where the show's notable and I'll be happy with it. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A morning show in a small market (by California standards) near LA isn't really notable. If it was targeting Los Angeles this might be different, but as it's targeting the suburban market it doesn't meet the guideline. Nate • (chatter) 00:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AMX is a notable show, it is one of the most progressive morning shows on the air today. This article does need work and is under construction. It should not be deleted with such haste. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.38.96 (talk • contribs)
    • If what you mean by small market, the fastest growing metro area in the country then yes, it is a small market. In 5-10 years the market that the radio station is in will be within the top 15 markets in the country. So as a pre-emptive strike on the growing market. It is best to keep this page up. And don't think that the Los Angeles market isn't listening, because they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.215.112 (talk • contribs)
    • Delete Non-notable morning show on a non-notable radio station. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Just one of many, many non-notable morning zoo radio programs throughout the world. I could find no significant independent reliable sources discussing the program. The article asserts coverage in a local community newspaper and a pornographic magazine but doesn't say what either publication actually said about the program. As a second choice, slight merge to the article about the radio station KCXX. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page should not be deleted because I can tell you that I've been on this site and there more pointless articles that noone complains about but yet they're still up there so I see no point in arguing against this one. Besides, this one provides useful information about the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.185.117 (talk • contribs)
    • DeleteObviously this is all a publicity stunt for a low rated morning show. The station is low powered and doesn't even reach as far as other stations in the "shadow" area, let alone Los Angeles County. It's like a shadow station of a shadow market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.130.21 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment Thanks for Hoffman's opinion. But the fact that the station competes and is able to stand in one of the most competitive markets in the country says a lot about the station. Keep the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.215.112 (talk • contribs)
    • let it stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.177.236.208 (talk) 04:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It's funny how people that are not affected by this great morning show choose to leave their unwarranted 2 cents. I live in Victorville (High Desert) and work in Riverside and hear the AMX every morning. It is a great show that serves the market which it's intended to. My friends and I all love it. Now to comment on a few things I read. Citing Kevin and Bean's alumni is completely unwarranted. If you did your research you would see that they have been on the air for over 10 years, where as the AMX has been on the air for less than 1. It is nearly IMPOSSIBLE for them to produce alum the likes of Kimmel and Carolla in that short amount of time. The market is not small for California standards, you would know this if you researched and saw how many markets are in this state, but you wouldn't take the time to do that living in the small market of Sheyboygan, Wisconsin. Whoever decided cite the station's signal as a reason to delete the AMX page is completely out of their mind. This page is about the AMX not about their radio station. Secondly, the station is NOT supposed to reach Los Angeles, that's why it serves the Inland Empire. Third, I have no problem hearing the AMX or their station anywhere in the Inland Empire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.30.212 (talk • contribs)
    • Comment KCAL-FM, a competing station in this station's market, has just been put up for deletion. Not sure by who, as the account's first contribution was the KCAL AfD, but it could be someone involved with wanting to keep this article. Nate • (chatter) 06:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional comment Probably not the best idea to admit on your show's blog that one of your cast created a page just for the show and you put it back up after it was speedied...
    " Shrug also told us that he started a WIKIPEDIA page for the A.M.X, but he didn't put any information on it. We threw it out to you to fill out, and we're learning some interesting stuff about ourselves. Feel free to add your two cents."
    " Doug was angry because our Wikipedia site got taken down, but Steve was his normal cheery annoying self. It made for a great Friday. It began with Doug's rant because Wikipedia removed our site after we were deemed "not important or significant". He's pissed and wants to boycott the site from now on. Shrug put the site back up, and we'll have to wait and see how long it survives this time. In honor of this fiasco, Shrug made his own "Wikipedia Song" and we played it for STUCK ON STUPID." Nate • (chatter) 07:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Additional comment to your Additional CommentWikipedia articles are, generally, supposed to be written by non-biased parties (i.e parties not involved with the entry) for someone who seems to know so much about wikipedia, you fail to know this. Therefore asking listeners to write the article is well within wikipedia guidelines champ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.175.30.212 (talk • contribs)
        MOVING THESE COMMENTS FROM THE AMX DISCUSSION PAGE TO PROPER FORUM
    • What Do You Have to Say About The AMX?

    this page shoould not be deleted. its a known factor that this station contributes its time to many people around the Inland Empire. To delete this page would be like taking away a piece of history. Please let it stay. Thank you.

    The article has a reason although it doesn't reach the greater los angeles area it reaches a demographic that recieves crap from los angeles called the inland empire and since the inland empire is on wikipedia shouldn't its notable morning radio show be allowed recognition? I think so —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.119.133.79 (talk) 06:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What do you like best about the AMX?

    AMX is a respectable show with a respectable name... The show wants to share to the world what good deeds that they do daily. Information should never be conceled no matter what topic. So with that said let the AMX Wikipedia stay! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.217.102

    • Delete Unreferenced, no hits in Google News, no assertion of notability. On a side note, I have done some cleanup to this article (just in case it can be saved) but it needs extensive rewriting to be more encyclopedic. - Dravecky (talk) 06:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I've done quite a bit more cleanup and the article is now quite a bit more encyclopedic, grammatical, and better structured. Which will be of small comfort when the article is deleted because all these enthusiastic supporters can't seem to come up with a few reliable secondary sources as references. - Dravecky (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete' unreferenced fan page. Zero Google news hits on 'AMX KCXX' or any of the host's names.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of companies of Pakistan[edit]

    List of companies of Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This seems to be a catch all with very few blue links. Red links are a problem on Wikipedia because they invite editors to create articles. Pakistan has a population of 164,741,924 (July 2007 est.) and the list could not accommodate even a small amount of the companies which exist there. Wikipedia is a world site but notability concerns must be verified. Delete and merge blue linked companies if not listed elsewhere. -- BpEps - t@lk 19:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am withdrawing my nomination of this Afd in favour of a Move to List of major Pakistani companies as suggested by TallNapoleon and considering the paring of red links by DGG which had been a major concern to all involved. BpEps - t@lk 04:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I tried once for about a month to stop addition of non notable and non verifiable entries in the list, but it's too difficult to do that. Now it is more like a web directory, rather than an encyclopedic article. Either it should be deleted or Fully protected after removal of non notable and non verifiable entries. --SMS Talk 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete good example of something better covered by a category rather than a list. Nick Connolly (talk) 20:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with nominator that red links are a problem, for the exact reason stated--- they invite editors to create blue links. In addition, Pakistan has a lot of companies, as might be expected for a nation of about 165 million people-- a little more than half the size of the United States. I hate to say delete, because business in Pakistan is a topic that should be covered by Wikipedia. On the other hand, the list violates so many policies-- not a directory, unmaintainable (due to the number of companies in Pakistan), and, rather than an indiscriminate list, a bunch of indiscriminate lists grouped into one place-- keep isn't possible. If someone were able to provide a Fortune 500 type list for Pakistani companies (with sublists), as calculated by a reliable source, that would be an acceptable article. Mandsford (talk) 20:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise that "red links invite editors to create blue links" is a goal within Wikipedia and I certainly have no goal to go against that. My concern is that it is an invitation to create non-notable articles. That this list has been spammed with email and URL addresses is not a concern. My concern is that it is an invitation (and quite rightly if it is a List of companies in Pakistan) to add every (pvt) and trader without our reasonable concerns about notability. BpEps - t@lk 21:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Endorse nomination as nominee of this Afd. BpEps - t@lk 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In my opinion there should be an article on Industries of Pakistan, and it shouldn't be a list, rather an encyclopedic article on the history of industry in the country, and current status of each of the industries(Oil, Heavy, Leather, Mining, Software, Telecom ... Industries) of Pakistan and it may list some big industry in each field. --SMS Talk 21:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about Economy of Pakistan? --NickPenguin(contribs) 23:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Unmaintainable. Suited for a category, if there isn't one already. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment The list has gotten pretty out of hand. At this point its hard to tell if the companies on the list are even real companies or two guys in a back room building computers. Its taken time just to deal with the enormous linkspamming that takes place. Would prefer this as a category. I support deletion, but if it stays would just ask for help in setting criteria for inclusion. Montco (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete Whoa, maybe I should start a company in Pakistan, maybe I'd get a Wikipedia mention then! No, needs a category and probably even several subcategories. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've thought more about this and decided to change my vote, Keep, but shorten considerably, including only corporations that have received international press coverage. The DominatorTalkEdits 05:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and remove the red links. The criterion is that such lists are assumed to mean notable companies, and should either have articles accepted on WP, or clearly justify them. Come to think of it, the best thing to do at AfDs is to improve articles, so I removed the red links. There's more to do--some of the Pakistani divisions of major international companies were redlinked & i removed them & should probably be returned or redirected; some links are to international companies &I didn't check on the Pakistani presence or Pakistan-related information in the main article; some of the existing articles might be notable. But I think it will do now as a start. DGG (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But whats the purpose of this list, when there is already a category Category:Companies of Pakistan) for this purpose? --SMS Talk 06:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as there is already a category for this. [[Category:Companies of Pakistan]] ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I am against deleting this article as it provides my and my employees with information and names about companies listen in pakistan. I then google the name of the company for more inforamtion. It would be unwise to delete this article as pakistan has hit 7% growth on average in the past 3 years , with more growth to continue as goverment becomes more export orientated I Strongly believe this article shoould not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomasqaz (talk • contribs) 20:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — Thomasqaz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    So, you mean it's serving the purpose of a directory, very efficiently to you. --SMS Talk 03:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 04:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kevin Thompson (pastor)[edit]

    Kevin Thompson (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This seems to be a person who is notable for only one thing. He was sent to prison on a minor crime and his sentence ended with no press notice. Borock (talk) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • No vote As a friend of Kevin's and a member of the church he formerly pastored, I don't feel that I should vote in this discussion. I did add a note about his current situation and plans to the article, but this was quickly deleted as original research. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. The connection with the shark smuggling and the Unification Church is interesting. Perhaps this might be better off if it were merged elsewhere? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TallNapoleon (talk • contribs) 21:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there were an article on the American Unification Church it might be merged there. As it is the Unification Church article covers the entire world-wide church of which the American church is only a small part. The actions of one person, no matter how wrong (Kevin pled guilty and served his sentence), would be undue weight if mentioned there. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Article said Moon himself was excited about the project. That seems pretty weighty to me. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Vote I'd better follow Mr. Dufor's lead on this one. It took months to bring the article to a genuinely neutral tone; not to mention, make it more factual, especially in cases where the media accounts cited are demonstrably inaccurate. Thompson was also in the media for a heroic water-borne rescue, in 1994, however there are too few online accounts (as yet) to back up an expanded article.

    Cuebon (talk) 06:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speaking of notable events, I've just posted copies of official records from 1994. This event was heavily covered in the San Francisco / San Jose media, for many days, and Thompson figured prominently. The story predates existing media web archives, however, I intend to retrieve and post copies from newspaper microfilm files.

    http://www.cuebon.com/Navynewspaper.pdf

    http://www.cuebon.com/Commendation.pdf

    Cuebon (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep, with any discussions of merging elsewhere taking place at the article. It appears there are more than enough sources to leave this hanging around somewhere. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Head bobble[edit]

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

    Delete. Contested prod. Possible nonsense, but even if it isn't, I think this page would be better suited for Wiktionary if they would agree to take it. No evidence of encyclopedic importance or reliable third party coverage. --Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. This is a notable gesture unlike anything used in the West. It is also (mainly?) called the "Indian head waggle". It has been covered in countless reliable sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The Google book sources found by Dhartung show clear notability. It would be nice if the article was expanded to explain what this gesture means. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record, can you please cite which Google book sources show "clear notability"? The link to a YouTube video just isn't doing it for me. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge => Gesture#Head bobble and tag the resulting redirect with Template:R from merge. The Google Books sources indicate that the gesture, its meaning and perhaps its history are verifiable, but they do not support notability sufficient for a separate article. If the Gesture article becomes overly large, a split-off of Head gestures would be a likely outcome, and a separate article would still not be supportable given present citable material. The content should not be deleted from Wikipedia; therefore, a keep outcome is appropriate with editorial fate depending upon discussion at the article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. As indicated in this article, the waggle is one of the few identifiers that transcend race, religion and status in India. It is a strong national characteristic. WWGB (talk) 13:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — sorry, that is not an "article", it is a blog posting, generally not considered a reliable source (or one suitable for satisfying verifiability) unless otherwise indicated (i.e. unreliable source unless proven otherwise). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:44, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alt.tv.game-shows[edit]

    Alt.tv.game-shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I have nominated this page for deletion due to the fact it is a non-notable (and basically) defunct internet group. Opinions are welcome. Modor (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)Modor Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 18:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete does not appear to be a newsgroup of any great importance. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sanctified mother of crud, I was actually a member of this newsgroup at one point. What painful memories... No, seriously, it doesn't seem to be a notable newsgroup, even if greats such as Randy West have posted there. It did get a tiny bit of bashing from George Gray on Extreme Wrong Gong, and I think it got credited on a couple of NBC's Most Outrageous Game Show Moments, but I can't verify either of these points. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no value here. This group isn't that notable and there isn't sufficent content in this article to warrant keeping it around--Rtphokie (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy deleted as confirmed hoax/patent nonsense (Mr T. in a Nintendo game?) GarrettTalk 22:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    F-Zero Z[edit]

    F-Zero Z (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This rumor originated from this German website. It has gone out of control (like everything Nintendo) and n-europe has confirmed this to be a April Fools joke. Also, can it be protected to prevent this page from being recreated again? « ₣M₣ » 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a confirmed joke, it fails just about everything. ukexpat (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I created F-Zero Z not knowing it was an April Fools joke. Now that I know it was indeed an April Fools joke, I apologize for creating the article and support its deletion. I also support the neccesary protection needed to prevent this page from being recreated. Thanks. E.M. talk ● contribs 20:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As an alternative to delete & salt, which would leave some good faith contributors wondering why they can't create an article about this "upcoming game", we could transform this into a non-hoax article about a hoax subject that would inform those editors - notability permitting, of course. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 20:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Is this AFD really necessary if the orginal creator of the Article supports its deletion and also says that its a joke? Dustitalk to me 20:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Speedy delete? TallNapoleon (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. null Mr.Z-man 22:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anahat (competition)[edit]

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

    This article on a cappella competition of dubious notability was prodded three times. I bring it here for some finality. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was withdrawn nomination following links from Phil Bridger. Neıl ☎ 08:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    4 Deserts[edit]

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

    These articles are about a series of non-notable running races that took place in four different deserts. Each of the four races has its own stub, as does the article (4 Deserts) in total. There are no references whatsoever, other than the website of the race, and I could find none on Google; there is very little independent verifiable information (I found two articles on Google News, one in the Norfolk Eastern Daily Press and one on korea.net. Neither were actually about the series of races, rather about runners with a mention of the event) - these articles fail WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. Prod was removed by an editor who claimed "these races are notable" without providing any evidence as to why - I presume this is because none exists. The other four articles are:

    As these articles all fail WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS, I would have to say delete all. They could be merged to one article, but even then, there's no reliable sources directly about these races, and none that show why these races are notable, actually exist. Neıl ☎ 18:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn per below links from Phil. Neıl ☎ 08:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect per consensus to Accepted. Content history will be intact at redirect page per GFDL and for mining. Not merging. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    South Harmon Institute of Technology[edit]

    South Harmon Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wholly constitutive of plot, referenced solely to primary sources; no reliably sourced evidence of notability. Article appears to have had several attempts at redirection; apparently the subject of some personal attacks and incivility. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep as a sub-article of the Accepted article or merge into the Accepted article. Many of the reviews [16] [17] for the film Accepted can be used as sources in this article. As far as fictional colleges go, I'd say this is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Accepted. Dustitalk to me 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Accepted and protect it. The movie is of course notable and contains sufficient information about this college and it's hilarious acronym - the fictional college is not - the article is rammed chock full of original research and useless plot synopsis trivia. Neıl ☎ 18:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm only going to say it once here: Oh, if you want it to be possessive, it's just "I-T-S," but if it's gotta be a contraction, it's "I-T-apostrophe-S." (Thanks, Strong Bad) Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Accepted but Do Not Merge - Information on this location can be adequately covered in the plot section. It doesn't hold sufficient notability as a fictional location to need it's own section in the Accepted article. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the movie article. While the movie is notable, the college isn't. Nearly all information contained in the article is plot trivia and it's written in a way that makes it seem as if it isn't even a fictional place. Even if the college was notable, it'd require a substantial rewrite. --clpo13(talk) 20:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article clearly states the college is "fictional." Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Only in the introductory paragraph. The rest of the article is written in an "in-universe" style. --clpo13(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. As might be expected, the "S.H.I.T." is not a real institution, but a joke made as part of the movie Accepted. Sorry, Rejected! Mandsford (talk) 20:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that it's not real is irrelevant. We have lots of articles on fictional institutions. --Pixelface (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are as bad as the characters in the film from Harmon college. Your kind of thinking is exactly what the theme of the movie sought to speak against. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a real school, no need to merge. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither is Starfleet Academy or many other fictional colleges and universities that are somehow escaping persecution from Jakezing. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes but Star Trek is of much more importance then Accepted, wouldn't you agree? Star Trek defined a generation of people who never got a wife... --Jakezing (talk) 16:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Not that it matters, though i was the one who tried to redirect it to accepted and ended up in a edit war to keep it that way. As i'v stated, no merit, could merge maybe.--Jakezing (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect Most of the article is based off of the plot of the movie- no need for it to be separate. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have a decision yet?--Jakezing (talk) 15:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    AFD discussions generally go for 5 days. Since this was opened on April 11, it should be closed on April 16. --clpo13(talk) 17:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as all plot information can be covered in the film. The specific details of a film need to be supported by real-world context; otherwise, the film is available to be watched. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Following this logic, we should get rid of Wikipedia altogether, since all of the information is available elsewhere. If articles should be deleted just because the films they describe are available, this would be a pretty empty site. As has been said before, there are many fictional places/colleges/people here. Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:42, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep this article. Why are you all listening to the illiterate user who started all this? You are as bad as the characters in the movie who tried to shut down the college! Dgmjr05 (talk) 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remember to reread Wikipedia:Civility & WP:NPA. If your wondering why... calling somebody a illiterate user i is kinda, bad don't you agree and just makes you look so "Unprofessional" and makes less room to support, no?--Jakezing (talk) 16:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will stop calling people "illiterate" when they become worthy of such a distinction. For God's sake, the way you talk gives me a headache--honestly. The Queen should be beating you with her purse for butchering her language. Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment on content, not contributors, Dgmjr. --clpo13(talk) 17:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am unable to adequately converse with contributors who ignore the simple rules of the English language. I am continually asked to read Wikipedia's rules and that is deemed acceptable; but when I ask someone to learn English, that is deemed not acceptable. Wow! Can you say, "double standard?" Dgmjr05 (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Merge → University of Florida due to insufficient citation support to meet the WP:ORG threshold; all other matters cited by discussants are editorial issues. In the process of merging, offending material as mentioned and alluded to below should be excluded from the merger, but that is a purely editorial matter. The article is to be tagged with {{afd-mergeto|University of Florida|University of Florida Student Government|2008-04-19}} and the target article tagged with {{afd-mergefrom|University of Florida Student Government|University of Florida Student Government|2008-04-19}}. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    University of Florida Student Government[edit]

    University of Florida Student Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable local student government association. No independent reliable secondary sources. Makes no claim of notability. Original research throughout. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge back into the UF article. This stub fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:ORG, and also has a direct copy of the UFSG mission statement pasted from the SG website without quotations or proper citations and is screaming "COPYRIGHT VIOLATION!!!" - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 21:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge back to UF article, without prejudice to recreation if properly sourced and rewritten to eliminate peacock words, address NPOV issues, and (most importantly) avoid copyright infringement. With a $13 million yearly budget and a constituency of >50,000 students, notability of this organization can be clearly established, but the issues with this article ensure that this version is not acceptable. Horologium (talk) 02:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 23:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    University of New England Students' Association[edit]

    University of New England Students' Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local student government organization. Makes no claim of notability, no reliable sources, only original research. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judging by the template at the bottom, student unionism in Australia is regularly considered notable. Some of the google hits point to coverage from external sources ([18]). Thus, I would say weak keep. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 01:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Exists, somewhat sourced and student unions are definitely considered notable here in Australia. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Until 1997 it was one of the few independent student associations (not affiliated with the National Union of Students or its predecessors). The was considerable controversy surrounding the affiliation referendum and the issue was even raised in the Australian Senate.[19] 59.167.44.41 (talk) 04:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Student unionism has been a significant issue in Australia over the last few years and UNESA was a significant and notable battleground. Gimboid13 (talk) 10:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy deleted by User:Elkman per G3. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC). Also, good suggestion for a redirect, (just noticed it), as a very plausible misspelling. Now redirects to Hootenanny, which is a valid disambiguation page. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hootanany[edit]

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

    I think this is a hoax. No references are supplied, and I can find no confirmation. The "hwabong" in the illustration is actually a hookah or hubble-bubble and the same picture can be seen in the article Hookah. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete Article is a hoax or joke take your pick. "Conformadox Judaism"? Yeah my Spidey sense is tingling there. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 (I've now tagged the article). While I initially thought the article was a misspelling of Hootenanny, looking at the article it's an obvious hoax. "Conformadox Judaism"? --Pixelface (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Would a redirect to Hootenanny work as a plausible typo? Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kill it Delete Sorry, got a little type happy there. Most likley a hoax. Hit that little delete button over there. Dustitalk to me 18:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please note that the creator of the article has no other contributions to Wikipedeia other than the creation of this article. Dustitalk to me 18:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually, it is real, and I was about to provide sources but I am in school and therefore cannot at this time, however I will as soon as I get out.

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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LSU Student Government[edit]

    LSU Student Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable local student government association. No reliable sources. Only original research. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Trim and Merge back into LSU's appropriate Student Life section. There should be a minimal mentioning of LSUSG's existence, but not a simple copy and paste, as it would just be displacing WP:OR from one bad article to one decent article. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 04:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CalSERVE[edit]

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

    Not-notable student government political party. SevernSevern (talk) 17:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Executives of the ASUC[edit]

    List of Executives of the ASUC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Extremely non-notable list of student government presidents. SevernSevern (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Although I do have to remind everyone that lists do not necessarily have to follow the same notability and citation formats as regular articles do (not that they don't have to follow it at all, it's just less strict). However, the subject itself must be encyclopedic — which this subject, unfortunately, is not. This article can always be integrated with a ASUC wiki if they have one, but not on Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 17:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:02, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Southern Region of the Black Law Students Association (SRBLSA)[edit]

    Southern Region of the Black Law Students Association (SRBLSA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable branch of Black Law Students Association. Nothing here merge to main article. SevernSevern (talk) 17:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete; with the caveat that it made me chuckle. :-) . - Philippe 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Girl drama[edit]

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

    Contested PROD. Seems to be a neologism with little notability and few to no reliable sources [Urban Dictionary doesn't count!]. RichardΩ612 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Delete. "Girl drama" not significantly different from "boy drama" or [your-modifier-here]-drama. "Drama" should suffice. I can't tell if you're serious or not, since you have a talent for arguing your case, but either way this is very infrequently used and not an encyclopedia-worthy topic. I can believe you didn't know what "teen angst" means. Unfortunately, this leads me to believe that you didn't know "girl drama" until recently, either. It's recent sexist derogatory slang, not a valid phrase for bullying, and "Mean Girls" is not a good source.
    • Comment First, "Mean Girls" was no where mentioned in this article! Also, my arguments for keeping this article have not violated neutrality in any way and I don't see why you should start making accusations and Personal Attacks based only on my efforts in trying to improve the content of this article and keeping it alive. I also find that your argument is not very valid in how you assume a connection between "girl drama" and "teen angst" and then draw even more accusations from the fact that I didn't know about "teen angst"! Again, I will need to emphasize that your comments and opinions are welcome as long as they refer to the content and not the author. "Girl drama" is indeed a valid and a well established phrase for "girl bullying" (which is usually more emotional and psychological than "boy bullying", and hence the term: drama) - and I am currently actively looking for reliable resources to back my claim on this term's validity. Also, I do not see any reason why this should be thought of as a "sexist derogatory term"! However, to be the Devil's advocate, even if we assume that "girl drama" is a sexist derogatory term that does not warrant for deletion according to the following wikipedia policies: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. In short, Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. Jubeh (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This seems to me to be a pretty textbook example of a non-notable neologism that does not belong in Wikipedia. ~ mazca talk 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Maybe a neologism, but definitely a WP:DICDEF. Even if there was some reliable source, it would belong in Wiktionary if at all.--Nsevs • Talk 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC) without any "significant coverage in reliable sources", the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline.--Nsevs • Talk 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Dictionary definition of a neologism citing no reliable sources. EALacey (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is not a neologism, it is a popular slang term that encompasses several aspects of girl bullying in schools and teenage relationships. Refer to Chick flick for a Wikipedia article on a similar term. Jubeh (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No reliable sources. And just a note that the above argument is not considered valid per this page.. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am trying to add more content to the article and to make it more reliable. I believe that it is not a WP:DICDEF since it can include a lot of content such as "effects on individuals/society" and "people's reactions towards girl drama". I also added several items in the "External Links" (some of them are links for books written on the subject, which can be used as references). We can use these links to expand the article (which I marked as a stub since it doesn't have much content yet). The reason why girl drama is interesting is that it relates to relational aggression, psychological abuse, bullying and also in some cases it leads to detrimental behavior and low self-esteem. For a while, I considered redirecting this article to relational aggression or bullying, however, I decided against this since it is not fully encompassed by either. I believe this article can serve as to provide information about this common cause of relational aggression and school-girl bullying as well as other aspects and issues that affect young women Jubeh (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment What is under debate here is not if such behavior exists, (I certainly wouldn't argue that point) but rather if this specific term is in widespread usage. Your sources must reflect that this term is in use to describe this type of behavior, otherwise this is original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Media-created junk term that is pretty much equivalent to teen angst. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Junk term with poor sourcing (unsurprisingly). +Hexagon1 (t) 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I believe that I have added enough resources (in the external links section) to show that the term is popular enough to be included on wikipedia. However, I think that there are too many external links right now and I am planning to clean that section up if it is decided that this article wont get deleted. As for the claim that this term is "media-created" I have two comments on that. First, this claim has not been verified by any resources. Second, if it can be verified, then I do not see why this should qualify the article for deletion! In fact, I would suggest adding a section in the article about the origins of the term (if it proves to be traceable). Second, it seems that describing this term as a "junk term" is subjective and is not a valid argument for deletion! Also, I do not happen to know much about teen angst (I never heard of this term before) but I suggest adding a short paragraph about it in this article and mentioning its relation it to girl drama (if your claim that they are similar is actually valid). In short, many of the more recent arguments for deletion either seem to be false or provide further evidence that this article can be expanded to include the various aspects that were discussed here. I have to agree that the sourcing still needs improvement; I am working on it but I believe that deleting this article is in no way beneficial to wikipedia and also that keeping it in it's current state (with the references mainly serving as a proof of existence of the term) is not in any way harmful to wikipedia (especially with the references proving that this is not original research). I believe keeping this article can in fact prove beneficial if/when more people in the community decide to help in expanding it. In summary, I find that most of the arguments made here can be directed towards expanding/improving the article and making it fit the wikipedia standards better rather than provide a case for deletion. I would also appreciate any suggestions on how this article can be made to better fit the wikipedia standards. Jubeh (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I respectfully disagree with your assertion that "the references proving that this is not original research." There are two sources that meet the guidelines for a reliable source: the book, and the "Why Girls Leave Home." I don't have full text access to either of those, but judging by the abstracts, I don't see the specific term "girl drama" being used to refer to this type of behavior in any significant way, so I can't call that "significant coverage" in terms of the notability guideline. When and if the term "girl drama" is used to refer specifically to what is described here in reliable secondary sources, then the article will meet the notability guideline and be included in Wikipedia.--Nsevs • Talk 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I find that a lot of the arguments for deletion mentioned here (especially those concerning sourcing) constitute of What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion. I recommend following the advice mentioned in the WP:WIGAD essay rather than deleting this article. I have accordingly flagged this article for rescue. Jubeh (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This term does not appear to have any validity outside of basic colloquial usage. There are other venues such as urban dictionary for individuals to discuss the significance of this term.Guildsman (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. There are many sources available about Girl Drama to show that it should stay on wikipedia as it meets the standards and more people will expand it. The Ultimate Ruler Dude (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. Note that User: The Ultimate Ruler Dude tried to remove all 'delete' arguments from the discussion. ><RichardΩ612 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - He also nominated two of my userspace pages, it was eventually found that the noms were in bad faith. After this he vandalised the userpage of User:Seicer, who closed the two MfDs. ><RichardΩ612 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per Ruler Dude and Jubeh, notable term about girl-girl bullying. Polmorry (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note that both User:Polmorry and User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude are accounts with no contributions beyond this AfD post. ~ mazca talk 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note that User:Guildsman too doesn't have any contributions beyond this AfD post. Jubeh (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - note that in fact, both users: User:Guildsman and User:Polmorry have created their accounts after this article was created. As shown in [User creation log: Guildsman] and [User creation log: Polmorry], while User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude has created his account a few hours before this article was created as shown in [User creation log: The Ultimate Ruler Dude]. I believe that it is against wikipedia's policy to count votes of users who created their accounts after the Article/AfD was started - but I am unsure about the policy's specifics with regards to The Ultimate Ruler Dude's vote (since this user was created only a few hours earlier than the article). Nevertheless, I would like to thank User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude and User:Polmorry for supporting keeping this article, and would appreciate any help they can provide in trying to improve this article in order to make it comply with the wikipedia standards. Jubeh (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment votes are for making a cogent argument, not racking up numbers. What we are trying to do here is establish consensus as regards the notability of this term. However, votes of brand-new users with few or no other contributions are treated with skepticism, because some unscrupulous people engage in the nefarious practice of sockpuppetry. I certainly hope that is not what is going on here, but I woud also caution everyone not to make such accusations lightly, remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. Hold off on deleting it, as the article was just created on Friday. Article is flagged for rescue and sources of various quality are coming in. Someone needs to get a hold of the "Odd Girl Out" book and see if it actually contains the term "girl drama". Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. While there are a few sources, they're not particularly reliable, and I'm not convinced this is a notable neologism. Terraxos (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment I am trying right now to look for resources on this subject at my college's library (I have only been using google so far). I am hoping to have something of significant reliability by the next couple days.Jubeh (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, funny but only a neologism and likely to stay one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Articles for deletion archivesThis is an archive of a closed deletion discussion for the article Mat Nastos. Please do not modify it. The result of this discussion was "delete". The actual discussion is hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. --ROGER DAVIES talk 06:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talal El Khoury[edit]

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

    autobiography written by a non notable personage, full on POV and it cites absolutely not one single reference. in short: not encyclopedia material Elie plus (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No assertion of notability . Per nom. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 17:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, borderline speedy. Lots going on, but even lacking an assertion of notability. Also a possible WP:COI, since User:Tekhoury is the main author.--Nsevs • Talk 18:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The first AfD isn't even closed yet, but it looks like it's heading for a "delete". I think the nominator has got a bit confused by the process here. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete; fails WP:BIO#Politicians. - Philippe 04:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jim O'Leary (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillor)[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Jim O'Leary (Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Councillor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another non-notable local councillor in Ireland, referenced only to his own website. Fails WP:BIO#Politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - another one with insufficient evidence of notability. Warofdreams talk 21:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - This person was an Elected official, does that not satisfy "who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office"? Yes, it could use cleanup and Cites, but as a politician, even Wikipedia:BIO#Politicians (Cite #9) assumes that they are available even if not present. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. Please re-read WP:BIO#Politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have, that is where I am quoting from, why do you think I am asking you this question. So, I will assume you dont have an awnser to my question. Therefore Keep Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The answer is very clearly set out in the guideline which you claim to have read. If you had read WP:BIO#Politicians, you should have noticed that it says

            * Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. Generally speaking, mayors are likely to meet this criterion, as are members of the main citywide government or council of a major metropolitan city.
            * Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."

            There is no evidence that O'Leary has "received significant press coverage", which is clarified in a footnote:

            "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalist"

            At this point, there is no evidence that O'Leary has received any coverage in reliable sources, let alone been "written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles".
            It really shouldn't be necessary to quote whole chunks of a guideline when a specific link to the relevant section has been posted :( --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I believe he has recieved significant coverage [20] and is a outspoken member of the community [21]. Also, as I said prior, footnote #9 assumes that biographical material exists, even if it is not online at this time. And, please dont Bite. It does not look good comming from an Admin. I asked a simple question and you awnsered with a non-awnser. My !vote is still Keep based on the provided links. (Edit conflict w/closer) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete; fails WP:BIO#Politicians. - Philippe 04:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John McGinley (politician)[edit]

    John McGinley (politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Another unreferenced stub on a non-notable local councillor in Ireland. There are two external links, one to his party's website and one to that of his employer, the Electricity Supply Board of which he is a worker director. A Google News search throws 11 hits, but none of them seem to amount to anything like the substantial coverage required by WP:BIO#Politicians to establish notability for local councillors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - there was more evidence of notability (general secretary of the 4th largest party in the country and a mayor of one of the most populous counties), it was removed, and I've added it back. I'd also add that the local newspaper for his area - the Liffey Champion - isn't available online so wouldn't come up in Google News. He'd be covered in it pretty much every week. --89.101.141.253 (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply The General Secretary of the Irish Labour Party is not at all a high-profile role; it's a an important job in the party, but it's a backroom job, and the gen sec would usually have very little public name recognition. The ref which you reinstated does mention McGinley, but it's not about him, it's about the N9 road and he gets a few quotes in it; that doesn't establish notability. I don't have access to the Liffey Champion, but I'll take your word that he gets regular mentions there; however even that coverage is in articles about him, that doesn't establish notability per WP:BIO#Politicians. The guideline refers to "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage.[7]". That footnote7 says

        Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists. An actor who has been featured in magazines has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple magazine feature articles, by magazine article writers. An actor or TV personality who has "an independent biography" has been written about, in depth, in a book, by an independent biographer.

        I don't see any sign of evidence that McGinley "been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists". I did a search of the Irish Times archives for "John McGinley" which threw up 151 hits, but most of them are about a Garda from County Donegal who featured in the Morris Tribunal. So I searched again, this time for "John McGinley" kildare, and got 20 hits, but none of the articles are actually about him. The closest I can see to something about him is two articles speculating that he might be the Labour candidate in a by-election: this one first mentions his name in paragraph 14, and this one in para 10, but there is only one name-mention in each case, and in the end he didn't win the nomination for the Kildare North by-election, 2005, and I can't even find any evidence of him actually having put his name forward for selection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He didn't go forward, but what does this have to do with anything? Also, isn't Mayor of an area of 190,000 people 'notable' as local politics goes? That reference was to reference him being Mayor, as it happens - as Kildare CoCo's website doesn't mention past mayors, just the current one. --85.134.182.22 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Local councils in Ireland have very little power, and no non-trivial source of revenue. The mayor of an Irish county council is not a powerful executive office (which it is in the USA or in London), it's a rebranding of a role which was known until a few years ago as "chairman"; a part-time post, which in any case is held for only one year. Even the news of his election as mayor gained him only a brief mention in the county newspaper, the Kildare Nationalist, which doesn't suggest that the county newspaper regards it as a hugely important role. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The Nationalist isn't anywhere close to being 'the county newspaper', The Leinster Leader would have the highest circulation and in any case, the north-county and south-county media generally ignore political and sporting figures from the other end of the county - the Nationalist is a south-county paper.. Business rates and motor tax receipts aren't 'non-trivial'? Since when? --89.101.141.253 (talk) 07:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not enough mentions in reliable third party sources and fails WP:BIO for politicians as he holds no national or sub regional office. Valenciano (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Redirect to Kieran O'Donnell. - Philippe 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kieran O' Donnell[edit]

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

    Unreferenced stub on a non-notable local councillor in Ireland. He is member of Limerick County Council and a failed candidate in the elections to Dáil Éireann and Seanad Éireann. Fails WP:BIO#Politicians. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge with Kieran O'Donnell. The article is out-of-date, probably because its title includes a space between the apostrophe and the "D". However, O'Donnell is now a TD and therefore is notable. Warofdreams talk 21:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • oops! I hadn't spotted that, which I would have done if I had checked properly. :(
        In principle, merge is clearly the best solution, but I don't like unreferenced material being added to the biography of a living person. I suggest that it would be best to just redirect to Kieran O'Donnell. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looking for references, the facts in the article seem to almost all be from [22]. This is a partisan site, but should be OK for uncontroversial details. Warofdreams talk 00:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep, with many suggestions to merge all similar ones. (see Talk:St. Louis County Road 7#Merge St. Louis County Roads)- Nabla (talk) 12:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    St. Louis County Road 7[edit]

    St. Louis County Road 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    State highways in the United States are considered notable, but typical county roads are not. This article displays nothing to show that it's more than a typical county road. One might wonder how a 52-mile-long county road isn't super-long, but note that St. Louis County, Minnesota is about 130 miles "tall" from its southwestern corner to its northwestern corner. Nyttend (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This does appear to be a typical minor county road, best covered in a list. --NE2 16:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do you have an opinion on whether this should be deleted? Nyttend (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I gave my opinion - it's best covered in a list. --NE2 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per NE2 above. There's no target yet, but Category:St. Louis County, Minnesota lists a few of other similar articles. It would be an incomplete list, but I would be happy to do the work to cleanup and merge those articles into a list article once this AFD closes. -- Kéiryn talk 00:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this, then, how you interpret NE2's ideas? I wasn't aware that there were other such articles from which to make a list. I guess I understand a good deal better now. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. Had those other articles not existed, I would have !voted something like "Weak keep for now". -- Kéiryn talk 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Boys & Girls Club of Lancaster[edit]

    Boys & Girls Club of Lancaster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    non-notable. It's not the oldest. It set no precedents. It isn't international or national. Kingturtle (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was no consensus (kept by default). - Nabla (talk) 12:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    UGS Teamcenter[edit]

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

    No sources independant of the subject matter to establish notability. Withdrawing nomination, see below. Explodicle (talk) 16:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Teamcenter has over 3 million licensed users, and is the clear leader in the PLM software sector. Please do not delete, I'll add some sources. Brad Halls (talk) 03:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Those seem to establish notability to me. --Explodicle (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete; fails WP:BIO#Politicians. - Philippe 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mary Doherty[edit]

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

    Non-notable Irish politician in County Donegal who received only 339 votes at the Irish general election, 2007. The article includes two references to coverage in a local newspaper, but the only one linked in not substantial, and she seems to fall well short of the degree of coverage required by WP:BIO#Politicians, which notes that unsuccessful candidates are generally not notable, but maybe notable if they have received widespread substantial coverage. Two election-related pieces in the local newspaper don't seem sufficiently substantial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. It looks like she wrote this article herself... TallNapoleon (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - article contains no evidence that she has done anything which qualifies as notable. Even if she "has nieces and nephews whom she is very concerned about". Warofdreams talk 21:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy deleted as spam (G11). Can't seem to find any copyvio, but this is nothing other than advertisement. Anyone willing to re-write this can contact me for the text of the article, however note that you should probably do it at a better title. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forgan of St. Andrew's - Golf Equipment[edit]

    Forgan of St. Andrew's - Golf Equipment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article's purpose turns out to be as an advert for a new company with the same name as an old company (cf the author's other contributions). I don't know enough about golf to know whether the original company could be notable in the sense of WP:CORP, but the basic requirement is that it must be talked about in secondary sources, and obviously there is no attempt at that here. The whole article feels like a copyvio too, though I'm not sure of this because I haven't found a source on the web. Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (if sources can be found) - but needs rewriting for tone, addition of sourcess. Also, it does sound fishy - delete or blank if copyvio is found. There are a number of sources out there, and the company (old and new) seems to be a significant manufacturer of golf equipment. It's common that an old brand gets acquired and relaunched under new ownership. Very common with sporting equipment. The article would tend to cover the entire history of the brand, not one period of corporate ownership, so it would close by describing those circumstances.Wikidemo (talk) 18:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rewrite The present version is obviously a copyvio--see the last two paragraphs, and is very spammy. Probably an acceptable article can be written, but it has to start overDGG (talk) 17:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - article revision — added Template:Infobox Defunct company and talk-page tagged to WikiProject Companies. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. Ty 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Olav Harald Ulstein[edit]

    Olav Harald Ulstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    All this article mentions is that this is a painter. No assertion of notability, nothing. The Nynorsk Wikipedia article also mentions that he runs a local gallery and is a local politician. That's it. I have looked for significant exhibitions or press coverage, but I haven't been able to find anything. AecisBrievenbus 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete (A7) by User:TexasAndroid. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    CanWest Flight Services[edit]

    Sources can't be found which would give this company notability, therefore it doesn't fulfill requirements of WP:CORP. Ground handling companies are generally not notable, and even more so when they operate at a single non-major airport. Россавиа Диалог 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DSOV[edit]

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

    This club plays in the Vierde Klasse, which is the seventh tier of football in the Netherlands. They are nowhere near a professional or semi-professional level, and they have played no significant role in the history of Dutch football. Their only claim to notability is being one of the previous clubs of Khalid Boulahrouz. I don't see how this is sufficient to warrant anything other than a brief mention in the article about Boulahrouz. AecisBrievenbus 14:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 04:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shannon Browning[edit]

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

    This guy is not notable, he is actually a projectionist according to his own profile who has some hobbies including amateur film-making and comic-writing. Grahame (talk) 14:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP. - Philippe 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Google Street View locations[edit]

    List of Google Street View locations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This is unencyclopedic and not useful information. Wikipedia is not a directory service, nor an advertisement for Google Street View. At the rate Google is adding streets to their service, it's virtually impossible to keep up with it. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep. This is a difficult case. The google street view service is already quite popular. the more popular it gets, the more relevant get the locations of the streetview. Therefore, given the relevance that already exists, I would currently keep the article, since the information is useful. --Abrech (talk) 15:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep:This page is not a directory for Google Street View, but is rather here to provide encyclopedic information on the development of this growing service. Neither does it advertise, but it just provides complete information in a more organized fashion than it has been written in the GSV article. It was formed as a subpage to avoid making the GSV page too long or incoherent. GSV is extremely notable for all its locations, which are published often in media and other reliable sources. As GSV expands to more areas, in order to avoid making this page too long, the more appropriate action would be to create more pages pertaining to individual countries (...location in the United States, ...locations in Canada, etc.), not to do away with the idea altogether. I have also suggested including in this list whether each location is complete or partial, though no one has done that yet. Sebwite (talk) 15:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Street View is not up for deletion, and I actually have no problem with that article. But the List of Google Street View locations is nominated for deletion, and I fail to see how it is not a directory, or listing of cities that have been "street-viewed" by google. The list also has some serious WP:OR and speculation issues near the end, so IF it is to be kept, it needs serious work. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above. Google Street View is a form of reference source. Like Sebwite, I can see where this page may become obsolete in the future, but it's a valid extension of the parent article. 72.151.55.27 (talk) 17:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note This anonymous user has less than 50 total edits. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why all suburbs are listed; it seems that it would make more sense to simply list metropolitan areas, which should then be of manageable size for the main article. --NE2 17:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - The suburbs are listed because not all suburbs in a metro area are street mapped right now (i.e., most of the Fox River suburbs north of Aurora in Chicagoland), so, at least at this point, it is an important distinction to list which are predominantly SV'ed so far. I have made a proposal to only list Cities/Towns that show up on the next closest zoom level after the first zoom level where the street view street outlines in blue are visible, which is zoom 9. This has been more or less accepted by those regularly updating the page as a good guideline). Also, some "suburbs" are really not suburbs, they are more just rural towns (under 25,000 population, but are the largest cities within 20-30 miles) that Google has already Street View'ed, but, it is not apparent from Google's Street View (i.e., the towns in Indiana that got Street Viewed from the Indianapolis "hub", many of these would not be considered a "suburb" of Indy, but, they are not given their own Camera icon, for various reasons, like size, etc.). I don't disagree that at some point in the future, this page will not be viable, as Google's eventually goal I'm sure is for all major cities and surrounding areas to be Street Viewed. At this point though, Google isn't getting it out that fast, as updates to the available Street View locales come at a minimum a month apart, if not more, and there are plenty of markets that are not Google SVed. And that is all this page is supposed to be, and encyclopedic list of what locales are predominantly SVed, so far. Dletter (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I still don't see why it's important to list all of them - someone's driven and recorded for Google, and has gone through a metropolitan area usually without regard for town lines. How much coverage does there have to be to include a town? What's covered by the lines on [23]? --NE2 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I never said we should list all of them. If you read the discussion for the article, the main contributors to the article have agreed that cities that only have an expressway/highway SVed should not be listed. The purpose of the article is to identify the cities/towns/villages that have, at minimum, their downtown/business district SVed, if not multiple residential areas, which is still a pretty unique thing for a city, which makes it noteworthy, which is the reason for the article & list. If any of those cities in your zoom link have been listed on the page, they should be pulled off, I'd have no qualms about that. And as I said before, at some point, this list will not make sense, as if at some point 70+% of cities with 50,000+ population are street viewed, it isn't a 'unique' thing for a city anymore then. But, that is a while off I would think.Dletter (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So how do we decide where the line is drawn? The blue lines on that link pass through downtown Westfield - how much more would be required to list it? Is what's in Queens enough to list it? What about Hempstead? (Both of those are listed, and Hempstead has only slightly more than Westfield.) --NE2 19:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Unless I am mistaken, Queens is a borough of NYC, which is considered a county in NY, and the article is listed to list cities/towns/etc, not counties. I would not object to links next to the New York City link that state which boroughs are predominantly Street Viewed. New York City is an exception to the rule though, because of its size and structure. As for Westfield, NJ, it seems pretty clear that the only SVed thing is Highway 613, which pretty clearly means you don't list it, because none of the surface/business streets have been mapped (other than the one highway street, which happens to go downtown). If it looked like Gas City, IN, then it would be listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dletter (talk • contribs) 20:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Also, I have proposed that this could be made into a "Category" that gets linked up to city/town/village articles, instead of an article itself. Although, then the list would be totally alphabetical, rather than split up by state, which I think is helpful. Although we could have a main Category for "Municipalities predominantly covered by Google Street View", and then subcategories for each state, which then have the city/town/etc links in them. Dletter (talk) 19:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps the category is the better way to do this, but I do remain strongly opposed to keeping this article. I would favor transferring this to a category and linking to that from the Google Street View article. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: The purpose of listing places like Elkton, Maryland or Westfield, New Jersey is to show these minute areas of these towns that are covered, which are the only parts of their respective states that are covered. The states of Maryland and New Jersey now have minimal amounts of coverage, and though I am unsure of the accuracy of the information given, it does state in the article it is for "national security" reasons. But for now, I see a lot of value to an article like this, which shows what areas do have some coverage and which ones don't. Google has stated its goal of SV-ing the whole world, but at the rate they are going, that is years, perhaps decades away. When the finally do reach that goal, articles like this would no longer be needed, and the focus instead could be the order in which different places were introduced. But for now, this is a good, completely organized list.Sebwite (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Isn't this discussion about the AFD of this article. This looks like it has become a discussion on what should be in the article's content, and that really should be on the article's talk page. With that...
    • Keep: it clearly is informative, useful, and has enough people interested to improve it. LessThanClippers 21:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems notable enough. The list is definitely not an advertisement, and I'm not sure that updates will be impossible to keep up with. Maxamegalon2000 22:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Indiscriminate, or soon to be. Good grief, the town of 6000 people outside my city of 60000 has Street View. (And we still have crappy-resolution satellite coverage, go figure.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's not indiscriminate because the percentage of locations on Google Street View is still very very small. It's possible that in the future this list may become unwieldy, but it isn't there yet. I agree this is a notable list, extremely easily verified (hint: go to maps.google.com and zoom in). It could perhaps be expanded a little to include more discussion on censorship of images and where. But short of merging this with the main article, which would make it unwieldy, I say keep it, with the understanding that it may need to be pared down in some fashion if we ever get to the point where the number of cities imaged enters the hundreds, as opposed to just dozens. 23skidoo (talk) 00:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that the only way to verify this list right now indicates to me that the list should be deleted as a violation of Wikipedia's no original research policy. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete You are kidding, right? I thought airline destination lists was the farthest we would go. I know the following is bad afd-manner, but this list is like List of websites indexed by Google or List of articles on Wikipedia. The entire purpose of Google Street View is to show street views, there is absolutely no need to list every site covered by it (just as the purpose of Google is to index websites, and there is no need to list those). I suggest that this article be deleted and that the "Areas included" section of Google Street View is severely cut. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, this article has no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Jobjörn (talk) 00:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You say 'The entire purpose of Google Street View is to show street views'. Yes, and the article would not be needed if Street Map covered the entire world (or even U.S.). The fact that a city being predominantly Street Viewed is a unique thing is why the list is interesting and provides some information. Even those for keep above admit that the page will become obsolete once a good majority of areas are street viewed in the U.S. (which is the primary focus of the article right now). As I also said, while it was made as a page list, I would see it as maybe more appropriate as a category linked to cities/towns (that would also give the added benefit of being shown on a city/town Wikipedia page in the categories section at the bottom).Dletter (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a "unique thing" for a city to be "street viewed". Google is taking pictures of the streets of cities and towns across America. True, they started with the larger cities and ones that were easier for them to access; but their goal is eventually included all cities in America and the world. But to me, the only reason that this article seems to exist is to have a "feel good" list so people can easily say, "my city is better than yours because we're on street view." That's not what wikipedia is about. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Honestly? Wow. Why don't we make a List of locations covered by Google Maps? </sarcasm> phoenixMourning ( talk/contribs ) 02:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response This is not the whole world of Google Maps. This is just a unique, catchy feature that has gotten a lot of media attention, particularly for individual, obscure locations. It currently exists in only a minute part of the world and is growing, and getting a lot of scrutiny and attention as it does. Sebwite (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article on Google Street View accomplishes the goal of covering this "unique, catchy feature" just fine. The list of street view locations requires us to perform original research to verify cities and towns that are "street viewed", which is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy. Dr. Cash (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not OR. It is not originally published thought or knowledge from one's own study or inferences. It is something that is cleary, undoubtedly verifiable just by making the right clicks.Sebwite (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As much as I dislike the idea of deleting articles that people worked hard to create, I think I might actually have to suggest something be deleted for once. I don't think that this has any potential to be a good article. Any content added to the article must be OR- there's not going to be any real sources about this. I don't see anyway the article can be kept without violating the WP:OR policy. CrazyChemGuy (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not OR: As I explained above, this is not OR. This information is obtained 100% from verifiable sources. Besides there being a large number of news articles about SV coming into individual communities, just a glance at the right point on the map clearly shows which areas have SV. And Wikipedia policy allows primary sources to be used for WP:V once notability is established. This is not a publishing of original thought or an inference that is made about a topic at one's own point of view. This is purely factual information from reliable sources.Sebwite (talk) 01:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would recommend taking another look at the original research policy, because you clearly don't understand it. Any time you collect information that's not readily apparent in another source, that's OR. Furthermore, this information is encyclopedically worthless. Dr. Cash (talk) 13:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The information in here IS readily apparent, and thereby is not OR. Just staring at the map will provide it, no inferences required. Additionally, Google allows direct links to a map of a particular place at a zoom-level of choice, with or without the SV function enabled, so an external link to a page that would instantly verify all this information is possible. If someone counted the number of streets in a city/town that are SVed, compared it with the total number of streets in that city/town, and calculated what percentage of streets there are SVed on this basis, that would constitute OR. But this is all info that is published in the map itself.
    • Delete. I wouldn't call this original research, but rather a directory that unnecessarily and imperfectly duplicates some of the function of the primary source. If someone wants to know if their town has a street view, they can find out immediately and authoritatively using Google maps. The list is too big, too trivial, and changes too quickly to be worthy of encyclopedic treatment. --Itub (talk) 08:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep. This list will probably be uselessly large in a year or two. But for now, it does seem useful given that there aren't all that many locations that are covered by google street view. Klausness (talk) 10:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand what you are saying that this info may one day become useless, but I do not think it'll be in a year or two. I think it'll be much longer, perhaps decades, before the entire world is covered by GSV, at the rate they are going. It has not even been introduced outside the United States yet. And even when the world is completely covered, the focus of articles like this could be modified to describe the historic development of this feature. I predict that in the future, there will be a lot of Wikipedia article on GSV, given the amount of attention and publicity this service has gotten, and what will come of it in the future. This is just the beginning.Sebwite (talk) 15:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds to me like you're in denial here and have some real issues. Might I suggest getting a life and editing something worthwhile, rather than duplicating some list that's better served by google doing this themselves? Dr. Cash (talk) 03:36, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Yeah... right... let's have a list with every street in the world! OK... Seriously... WP not a directory. Keep record of expansion of the service on the service's article, no need to create an artilcle for that.- Nabla (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment:This is not a list of every street in the whole world. GSV at the present time covers only a small fraction of the world, and it probably will cover far less than 1% of the world for a long time to come. Therefore, places in which this service is available are quite unique.Sebwite (talk) 04:37, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete; fails to meet WP:BIO#Politicians - but without prejudice against recreation of a properly sourced article demonstrating notability. - Philippe 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sean Lynch (politician)[edit]

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

    Stub article on a former county councillor in County Longford (one of Ireland's smaller counties, pop ~35,000). There is one substantial reference: this 2000+ word article reprinted from the local newspaper, the Longford Leader. The article is solely about him, and does note that he is a former Chairman of Longford County Council, but it appears to be the only substantial independent coverage of him, and I don't think that's quite enough to establish notability per WP:BIO#politicians. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete - the newspaper article is good, and Lynch has done two things of some note: he has been the Chairman of Longford County Council, and was the last elected Republican Sinn Féin representative in Ireland. As it stands, the article is of little use, and with very limited references available to improve it online, I'm in favour of deleting it, while allowing that someone with access to local newspapers, etc, may be able to create a useful article. Warofdreams talk 21:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Change to disambiguation page. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nanofiction[edit]

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

    This page fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, particularly WP:NEO. It's unsourced and non-notable. 64.236.80.62 (talk) 16:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shane Pearce[edit]

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

    This seems to be a hoax, although it has been around a long time. I can't see anything on google which supports it. Grahame (talk) 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. (Content added to the mentioned article's talk) - Nabla (talk) 00:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization[edit]

    Web 3.0 Search Engine Optimization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Whatever minimal content is properly sourced can be merged into Web 3.0 or Search engine optimization. We do not need a separate, stub article on this topic. Jehochman Talk 13:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    K Smith[edit]

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

    Non-notable rapper (his sole claim to fame is that he's related to Will Smith). Article was previously deleted multiple times as K.smith; speedy deletion declined. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have found this source [24] as well, although I'm not sure how reliable it can be considered. This might be one where he should be notable enough once the album is released, but at the moment is questionable because of the lack of reliable sources. Google news search doesn't look good. He shouldn't be deleted just because he is taking advantage of his relation to someone famous, but sources are still needed to establish notability. I'm not sure on this one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Press releases do not establish notability. I agree that the article should not be deleted because he is trading on a famous relation; it should be deleted because the notability of the subject cannot be established. If, once the album is released, he garners enough media attention to pass notability, the article can easily be re-created. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm holding off at the moment because the simplicity of his name makes it a tough search term. I'm not convinced that we can't establish notability... it just might be very hard to do so. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC & possibly WP:NOTINHERITED.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've also found this. Also, the supposed hit song "Better Man" was performed with the notable Omarion. Searching for that single with song and quotes + Omarion gets over 47,000 hits. Not sure where this brings us. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all my previous research. Bent over backwards looking for legit reliable sources, couldn't find them (just press release type info). He could very well be notable in the future, after release of album or more succesful single, but now there isn't much and any page on him would be hard pressed not to violate WP:BLP. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Note: speedy deletion does not count as a 'first' deletion discussion (because usually there is no discussion involved), so I renamed the page - Nabla (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Acadiana/Southwest Louisiana[edit]

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

    This should really be two that already exist Acadiana and Southwest Louisiana that can have "See also" to each other. Aaron charles (talk) 05:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge into the two pages listed into the nom, and then possibly make it a WP:DAB to point to each of them.--Nsevs • Talk 15:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Just delete if this is truly a neologism, which it appears to be. --Nsevs • Talk 22:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This is listed as a second nomination, but I can find a first one... Was it an error in the nomination?--Nsevs • Talk 15:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply The first was a speedy deletion that was deleted. Honestly, there is nothing to merge. This page was bastardized from the original Acadiana page. Nothing new and little true is presented.Aaron charles (talk) 20:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. - Philippe 04:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of TNA tournaments[edit]

    List of TNA tournaments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This page seems to contain information on non-notable tournaments held by TNA. iMatthew 2008 23:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete - List cruft. --Endless Dan 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment It's NOT listcuft WP:Listcruft. SunCreator (talk) 13:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: I dunno, there's something like 100% blue-link in there, which suggests that the tournaments are not quite so non-notable as all of that, and even if they were, WP:LIST does not require everything listed to pass the notability standards for a stand-alone article. TNA is a major wrestling promotion. Would the nom care to proffer a valid policy ground to delete?  RGTraynor  17:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It fails notability. iMatthew 2008 19:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep The claim for non-notability is incredibly specious given most wrestling pages - especially since wrestling is built upon half-truths. Regardless, the tournaments referenced have been part of TNA storylines, visible on TV, PPV and released DVDs. Claming non-notability is thus silly. The tournaments don't fit nicely into individual pages - some spanning different shows, PPV events over weeks. On that level, it's clearly notable. My rationale for only a week keep is that the page definitely needs improvement - sourcing et al. Minkythecat (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional edit: the only argument for deletion is that it's a list of links. The counter-argument is simple; all these tournaments relate to a specific wrestling company.Putting into main TNA article eads to bloat. Minkythecat (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If the tournaments are non-notable, then why do most of them seem to have articles? Maxamegalon2000 22:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is another nomination that was badly done. A bot had to complete the nomination. The reason for the nomination is not appropriate either. The nominator did not argued that the list itself is non-notable. Instead, the nominator instead argued that this is a list of non-notable tournaments, effectively asking us to pass judgment not only on this list but each and every one of those tournaments that also have an article here on wikipedia. If any of the tournaments are not notable, then the article for the tournament should be nominated for deletion and not this list. I also feel that this is a hasty nomination. A more appropriate response to this list would be to tag it with the {{notability}} tag instead, voice any concerns at the talk page and allow some time for other editors to improve the quality of the article. I will furthermore point out that WP:Listcruft is not a valid reason for deletion as that is merely an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it. --Bardin (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep -I see no reason to delete it. Vermon CaTaffy 8 (talk) 17:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. The "delete" arguments about the unreliable sourcing are more persuasive than the several "keep" comments that just assert she's notable without further argument.  Sandstein  07:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Nadine Jansen[edit]

    Nadine Jansen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:PORNBIO, no indication that the subject can satisfy the GNG or any other specialized guideline. Porn performer in a handful of nn production, so trivial she isn't even listed in most of the standardly-cited-here porn indexes. GNews and GBooks hits negligible (although the searches do show a much more notable jazz performer of the same name); Ghits on lots of galleries but no relevant substantive content. One prior AFD summarily deleted, apparently as coatrack for personal abuse. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment A filmography/list of work was removed from this article by a vandal, then "officially" by a notoriously content-hostile editor. (Note: Complete lists of works, appropriately sourced to reliable scholarship (WP:V), are encouraged...) Nadine Jansen is a well-known model in English, German and Japanese media. (ナディーン ヤンゼン in Japanese.) However, I'm not getting involved here since content-destruction seems to be the main purpose of the project which presumably over-sees this subject, and she falls outside my particular area of work. If another editor wishes to put in any effort in saving this article on a notable subject, feel free to contact me and I'll do what I can to help. Barring that, there's no sense in fighting a losing battle over a subject that doesn't interest me though. Dekkappai (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article has been almost fixed. Needs some cleaning up though. But the fact is that she was 2003 Newcomer of the Year as voted by the Voluptous Mag. That is notable enough. Norum 02:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding back all the unsourced content previously removed from the article is not "almost fixing" it. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It is sources if you look towards the bottom. The sources are there. I just could not make it click-able. Norum

    19:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

    None of those are reliable sources under WP:RS and WP:BLP, which was why all the rubbish was removed to begin with. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    If link from Vuloptous and the Score magazines and especially her own website is not enough, then there is obviously something wrong with the person that is trying to get her entry deleted. Norum 17:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails PORNBIO because Voluptuous Magazine award isn't a well known award. Fails general notability guideline because none of the sources given in the article and found through google books and news are reliable sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She's notable enough. I'm not sure if the instigator of this motion is some religious prude or just a jobsworth, either way I don't think they have any proper reason to want this bio deleted. 90.211.186.163 (talk) 11:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC) — 90.211.186.163 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Delete Fails PORNBIO and GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 16:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep She's notable enough. There's no reason aside of the deletionism to remove this bio, and that's not good enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.21.112 (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep' - She had her several TV show appearances in mainstream German media. See here for a bit more detail from an ealier article version. That clearly makes her much more notable than someone who just did a few photo shoots. I saw those features myself - and unless you claim I am lying, this then all becomes about the fact that proving appearances in TV shows before the internet age is tricky. For an erotica, not porn, artist, she is clearly notable. Most people may not care about the notability of such performers, but that is not a reason for deletion - in her field she is huge (pun coincidental, but appropriate). Ingolfson (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Then there ought to be coverage satisfying the GNG, which nobody has turned up. No article at the German Wikipedia, either, it seems. And TV appearances in 2002 and later years aren't "before the internet age." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The bottom line is that you lose, Hullaballoo. She's notable enough. Norum 22:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not only is there no evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources - a requirement of the general notability guideline and the basic criterion given in the specific criteria for people (of which the criteria for pornographic actors is part) but there doesn't appear to be any coverage by reliable sources at all. The current article is copy pasted from an older version but it only gives apparently unreliable sources such as IMDb as well as obscure, unreliable, non-notable pornographic websites and magazines including http://www.amontillado.it/ and Voluptuous Magazine. Whilst I have to admit I am not familiar with these publications I would imagine that the information contained within them is designed more to titillate rather than to be an accurate source for a high quality encyclopaedia - I can find no evidence that any of the sources have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. This a biography of a living person, the fact that the individual works in a industry from which individuals do not receive a lot of mainstream - or other reliable - coverage does not change the fact that no reliable sources should mean no article. Guest9999 (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO, which is the standard we have to apply since her main claim of notability seems to be having big boobs. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clearly notable in her field. Spurious proposal for deletion at best. --80.192.1.168 (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. No WP:RS coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Her magazine credits at http://us.imdb.com/name/nm1305322/publicity are probably correct and there's another minor award in there, but the problem is there doesn't seem to be much to say about her beyond listing her credits, which is already done elsewhere. Also, it is so annoying to try to do a web search with all the WP mirrors and even book searches with the Icon group print mirrors! I rather wish Wikipedia's licensing did not allow that, because it's ruining the internet. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 06:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete; without prejudice to recreation if properly sourced. - Philippe 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gooberball[edit]

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

    I originally listed an improvement tag for notability on this article, another editor placed a prod and the prod was recently removed. Since the prod was contested I'm nominating for AfD. This sport, or rather variant of a sport, does not seem to achieved notability yet based upon several google searches. Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment the official site of gooberball doesn't seem to have anything to do with gooberball making me question if this is a hoax.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Seems to fall in the category of games that have been "made up". This is one of the more interesting "-ball" articles I've seen, with its combination of ping-pong and musical chairs, but no evidence that it's anything else but the product of a good imagination. Mandsford (talk) 12:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Hoax? Something made up one day? Either way, not notable. No indepedent sources. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response from author to comments above. Understandable why it would look like a hoax, but it's not -- this is a real (and fun) game. True, it was made up one day (like everything), though at least 5 years ago, maybe more, by folks we don't know in another state. I didn't know the details of the submission criteria when I wrote the entry, but now that I do we're working to trace the game back to its source. It may go by another name, or have been documented near where it originated -- all of which we hope to learn soon. As for the website, according to the webmaster it was set up out of Michigan, but the hosting got messed up and is pointing to the wrong page -- to be resolved shortly. Assuming we do find a good independent source, do you have any tips on polishing the page up to wikipedia standards? Thanks to all for working to keep things clean. acecabezon (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 20:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anarchism.net[edit]

    Anarchism.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Complete lack of notability. I first added a warning asking for reliable sources to be added to this article on February 10. None were added. On March 17, I "proded" this article, but User:Skomorokh, removed my prod, saying this deletion was not uncontroversial enough. But people, please have a look at the links on this page. That in no way constitutes notability. Carabinieri (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This debate has been listed as an Anarchism task force deletion discussion.
    • Comment the proposed deletion was contrversial because of the acrimony related to the keep, overturn and deletion of the article on Per Bylund, the individual who founded the website. I have no opinion on this discussion. Skomorokh 17:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rolf Saalfrank[edit]

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

    Tagged for speedy, but he did have some achievements, as shown in the article. It was only five minutes old when tagged so perhaps a German speaker could add more content. Punkmorten (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Is this really a nom? The sources provided provide enough notability to pass WP:ATHLETE, although I would like to see some more secondary sources in general.--Nsevs • Talk 15:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Definitely passes WP:ATHLETE. Just needs expansion.--Fabrictramp (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I say keep. Punkmorten (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, can that be interpreted as a withdrawal of the nomination? --Nsevs • Talk 14:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, I've just realized that maybe my comments aren't so clear. I have just been confused this whole time because it seems to me that an AFD nom is essentially an opinion that the article should be deleted. The language in the nom seemed neutral at worst, and now the "keep vote" just makes me scratch my head... If you thought the page was a keeper, why list it on AFD? --Nsevs • Talk 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because someone attempted to speedy it, and while I whole-heartedly disagreed with that, I thought it could be ok to discuss the issue. Punkmorten (talk) 17:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm sure the nominator meant well, but it really is a waste of valuable time that could be spent on editing to bring an article to AfD that you don't think should be deleted. If you find a speedy deletion tag on an article which you don't think merits deletion then simply remove it quietly. The speedy deletion nominator can bring it to AfD if the removal of the tag is contested. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Clearly meets notability requirements for athletes. Edward321 (talk) 19:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. - Philippe 04:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A.R. Whitworth[edit]

    A.R. Whitworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreferenced in-universe article on a minor character in a minor HBO drama. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. Almost a speedy. Redirect to main article and merge anything there that is worth keeping, which may be nothing. --John (talk) 15:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. - Philippe 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A. C. Wharton[edit]

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

    An article on a county mayor (not a major office) which contains no independent biographical sources and no obvious claim to notability; seems to exist solely because he is a member of Mayors Against Illegal Guns Coalition. Guy (Help!) 11:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep I think this article could be expanded. I did a google search and found reliable sources reporting a run for the mayor of Memphis, TNand links about his son's indictment for rape. Google found 12,900 hits for "A.C. Wharton". This could be a good article about a notable politician.--Adamfinmo (talk) 01:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - He's a pretty important political player. The county of which he is mayor is the largest county in Tennessee (with about 900,000 people) and includes the state's largest city (Memphis). (Note: County mayors wield a lot of power in Tennessee.) He's the first African American to be mayor there. Article could be greatly expanded. --Orlady (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of English footballers not playing in England[edit]

    List of English footballers not playing in England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsustainable, unmaintainable, useless and permanently-incomplete list of nominal value even if it were ever complete. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - Useless is incorrect as it's already provided me with info what I didn't know and couldn't easily work out elsewhere. Incomplete is not an issue as most things on wiki are incomplete. Why is it unmaintainable? I suspect it's quite maintenable remember this is the football section that has the number of match appearances on the football player infobox, something that changes about once a week for every active footballer! Footballers moving country doesn't happen anything like as often. SunCreator (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Redundancy between lists and categories is not a valid reason for deletion. Please see CLN. Celarnor Talk to me 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Lists are often better then categories. See WP:CLN. Red links indicate someone is trying to make a complete list. Red links can't be added into a category. Nor can a category tell you which English footballers are playing in 'Spain' which this list does. I'll Assume good faith that this list is being used usefully and therefore it's a keep. SunCreator (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. This is the list equivalent of the "English expatriate footballers" category and should be kept as such. Nominators rationale for deletion is extremely flimsy, as Wikipedia is not working toward a deadline and nothing on Wikipedia will ever be complete. Combined with the guidelines put forth in CLN, which the nominator is probably not aware of, there is no real reason to delete this. Celarnor Talk to me 18:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not required if we have a category, and per previous AfD discussions on identical categories. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review CLN: "These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa. This approach has resulted in two main link-based systems of navigating Wikipedia. See the navigation menu at the top of Wikipedia:Contents, and see Category:Categories. Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system - doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." Celarnor Talk to me 15:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually I reviewed it before !voting having seen it cited in rebuttal to another delete !vote. However, it also states that the guideline "should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception." My opinion is that this list is an exception to the rule as it is quite a trivial subject in comparison to, say, List of cities in Israel and I think the category is more than enough to cover it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can a category list short summaries of the players? Can a category group them by the locations that they are playing in? There are reasons that redundancy between lists and and an accompanying category isn't a reason for deletion, and one of them is that lists can do a lot more for a human reader than a category can. Celarnor Talk to me 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - unreferenced, out of date and lacking many players; content already covered by a category anyway. GiantSnowman (talk) 23:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an improvement argument, not a deletion argument. Per BEFORE and DEL, if something can be fixed without deleting it, then it isn't a very good candidate for deletion. Also, coverage in a category isn't a good rationale for deletion of a list, since they are meant to be synergistic, with each making up for the others weaknesses. The deletion of this list would put a hole in the list navigation system, much in the same way that deleting the category would put a hole in the category system. Celarnor Talk to me 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Leonardo da Silva Vieira[edit]

    Leonardo da Silva Vieira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested deletion after author removed PROD. Fails the criteria at WP:FOOTYN and WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played a professional game. No references or sources are listed to prove other notability. Eastlygod (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    25 New Ivies[edit]

    25 New Ivies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A neologism, no sources other than the one that coined the neologism. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Delete per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Ivies. Sorry, I was going to speedy this a little while ago, but decided to watch and see what happened. The term is still in common usage among the schools who were awarded the title, however overall I do not believe it is notable enough for an article. It also qualifies as "Academic Boosterism". The term is mentioned on the Ivy League page as an example of an "Other Ivies", which I believe is enough for Wikipedia. Danski14(talk) 17:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nominator states "This is a term that appeared in an article in Newsweek magazine LAST WEEK." Almost every person who voted for "delete" also included the phrase "per nom." As one of the major (if not the major) reason for deletion was that the term was barely a week old, and that is no longer the case, we should disregard the previous AfD on this topic. Coanda-1910 (talk) 22:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as insufficiently established. But I think New ivies is sufficiently established by now and that a suitable article could be written on it. DGG (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Mysteries[edit]

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

    Badly written POV article about a non notable band Kameejl (Talk) 11:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe instead of deleting it should be reverted to this version, which was about the David Bowie song? Perhaps not very notable either though. --Frokor (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Residence Cikgu Yahya[edit]

    Residence Cikgu Yahya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    An article about a teacher's house, as near as I can determine. It doesn't verify or even assert notability. The PROD was challenged by the creator, who added some information but did not address notability concerns. I tagged it for notability and left a note for the creator yesterday, but the notability tag was removed by an IP editor who was, I believe, also attempting to place this in the category of living persons. Buildings obviously don't apply; if this were an article about a living person, it would clearly be an A7 and eligible for speedy deletion. Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2006 AHSAA Football Playoffs[edit]

    2006 AHSAA Football Playoffs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Orphaned article about one year's high school football playoffs. Plus a reference to The Game, which is incredibly lame. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete As the creator, go ahead and delete. I've been meaning to ask for deletion on this one for quite some time but never got around to it. --Lissoy (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Keep (non-admin closure). The notability criteria are met, and consensus cites the nominator's speed in nominating an article for AfD as their first edit, presumeably so soon in accordance with the creation of the account. WilliamH (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dennis Yagmich[edit]

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

    "This minor cricketer is included when thousands of other more esteemed Australian first class cricketers who played substantially more big cricket are not deemed sufficiently notable." -- procedural nomination on behalf of User:Redders380 whose rationale this is. I have tidied up his nomination and do not support it. I am neutral. Mattinbgn\talk 11:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedily deleted (non-admin closure) -- Roleplayer (talk) 12:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Uberloser[edit]

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

    PROD tag removed by User:Uberlosermusic who also started the article. No sources except their own website and no assertion of notability. Likely to be self-promotion. >< RichardΩ612 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    High School Musical 4[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    High School Musical 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Future film that hasn't even started production yet. Was previously deleted in 2006 (see first discussion). Roleplayer (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That's not a reliable source Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 10:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only that, but it doesn't confirm that they've started making the film, read WP:NFF. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedily deleted. GBT/C 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Brandon Link[edit]

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

    My thought is that the article as it stands should be deleted. It is a biography of a living person that doesn't prove notability, contains no references or citations from reliable third party sources, and can't even agree on the subject's name (even the interview calls him Brandon Lang not Link and no citations seems to exist for the name change. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    I understand your concern for notability, but I assure you that in the sports world this man is very recognizable. Brandon Link is this man's real name, as credited in the movie "Two for the Money". Brandon Lang is a sort of alias and the name of the website he operates where he sells his sports expertise. Please see the website www.BrandonLang.com for more information on his business. In the sports world Brandon Lang/Brandon Link is a notable figure who appears often on radio and television. I believe this article should be allowed to stay on Wikipedia for the fact that Brandon is a notable figure and the public will want to know more about him. Further, Brandon publicly prides himself in his ability to pick games and even operates a well known web site where he displays his records. People accessing this page are very interested to see the long term results of his website.Vince1973 (talk) 16:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Vince1973 — User:Vince1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    How in the world could this entry be deleted? I check Lang's Wikipedia entry every single day to see his updated statistics. Brandon is probably the most well known handicapper in the world. Unfortunately he conceals his true statistics from the general public on his website. Furthermore, there has not be one single sentence posted on his Wikipedia entry that has not been accurate.

    • Well, where to start: 1) Please sign your posts with 4 tildes 2)His "stats" aren't updated everyday and even if they were this isn't the place for that sort of thing (which I'm sure exists somewhere more relevant anyway, maybe even the website you "plug" above) 3) the article doesn't have the reliable 3rd party sources it needs 4) how about some proper references and citations 5) do we want to address the "advertising", COI, or "spam" policies and play point-counter point? 6) there is the apparent issue of "sockpuppetry" which has been suggested elsewhere about the article 7) Even IMdb doesn't agree that he is the same person 8) to be fair there is an interview on ESPN.com with someone named Brandon Lang 9) I'm thinking that if this isn't a "hoax" of somesort than the author shouldn't have any trouble substantiating the name change, notability, etc 10) Maybe User:Quadzilla99's edit log from when he redirected will contain something? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Jasynnash2, I originally found this article on Brandon Lang which quoted the biographical information in the first few paragraphs. I am only responsible for the last two paragraphs of this article as I enjoy monitoring Brandon's website and his daily performance. Perhaps if there is an issue regarding the actual biographical information, the page can be altered to only address his website and sports picking services which are 100% factual and cannot be disputed. I also realize I do not update the information every single day, but I would be willing to do so if that was an important aspect. I had been updating it every few days, but would be more than happy to change that. If there is still an issue, I will do my best to address each of your 10 points in order to make sure this is an acceptable article. Finally, you mentioned the relevance of this information relating to Wikipedia. While this man is well known in the sports world, there is no readily available information to the public who may want to learn more about him. I would be more than happy to remove all biographical information since we lack a third party citation, but the information regarding his website is very useful and very relevant to anyone who has ever heard of him.Vince1973 (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Vince1973 — User:Vince1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]


    Jasynash, I just familiarized myself with the notability guidelines specific to wikipedia and I believe I now have a better understanding to your point of view. I feel like if we remove the first two paragraphs which are biographical, and without citation, the article could stand alone as a verifiable source. Please see how the article stands right now, which mentions only the business side of BrandonLang.com and the statistics supported by the web site. This new format removes all claims and biographical information that is not substantiated by a third party.Vince1973 (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)Vince1973 — User:Vince1973 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability at all. Wikipedia articles themselves are not accepted sources per WP:RS. DarkAudit (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    not speedy by A7 it asserts his accuracy as a sports picker. but speedy as G11 primarily promotional The article is rather clear about it, and the defense of he article giving above is even clearer.I dont usually think we should speedy as either A7 or G11 an item at AfD, but this seems a clear case of it.DGG (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The only people that want this article deleted are those associated with Brandon Lang's website. There is not a single thing on this entry that is innacurate. Brandon disclosed all of his information himself. If Brandon had positive statistics then this would not be an issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPMcGavin (talk • contribs) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Merge to Q Continuum#Known members of the Q Continuum. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    0 (Star Trek)[edit]

    0 (Star Trek) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Tis belongs on Memory Alpha. Unsourced article about a character in the Star Trek books (but not TV or film franchise) written in-universe and not cleaned up since tagging in January. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. John254 23:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    055 Brigade[edit]

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

    This has been tagged as unreferenced for a year now, and there are only 180 unique Google hits. A smerge / redirect might be appropriate? Reads as WP:OR given the lack o sources. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep. John254 23:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    16 Magazine[edit]

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

    Unsourced article on a defunct magazine. Technically it cites two sources, but one is 404 and the other is not independent. Compromised by unreferenced peacock terms. Guy (Help!) 09:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Plenty of WP:RS coverage found in Google/Google News/Google Books searches. 16 Magazine is credited as leading its genre.[26] A book source found states peak circulation of 4 million. The article needs cleanup, not deletion. As for the magazine's defunct status, notabilty does not expire. • Gene93k (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, tricky to Google but definitely a notable magazine in its day. Discussed in biographies of Jim Morrison, histories of punk rock, etc. Notable as being a music-oriented publication run by a woman. --Dhartung | Talk 11:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The subject is clearly notable, and the fact that the article needs work doesn't change that. Pitamakan (talk) 12:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. A good example of Wikipedia's web-bias. Just because a magazine is defunct and dates back many years and doesn't have a million Ghits shouldn't disqualify it, and the magazine clearly was around for a long time. Definitely notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notability easily established per above comments. I wish people would do a bit of basic research before wasting everyone's time by nominating articles on notable subjects for deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


    Thank you all for the "Keep" votes. I did my best with this article, as I do with ALL of the articles I originate, in trying to find proper verifiable resources and what not. Quuite frankly, I am getting rather discouraged and am seriously considering no longer contributing to Wikipedia. Why? First the vote for deletion on this, and then having other topics like my Nick Gabaldon surfing entry challenged. I feel like there is some sort of bias going on here. Unlike some people, I don't wilfully create frivilous entries. Each one I feel is important and should be included! It took me the better part of two years to research 16 Magazine as well as the Nick Gabaldon article. Why can't people understand or appreciate those efforts and all the blood, sweat, tears, passion and sometimes personal travel and expense that goes into learning about the topic and then sharing with others here? What is it with some here who are constantly trying to shoot down other people's work just because they don't agree with stuff or have some sort of prejudice against either the topic or possibly the originator of the topic? It's sad to see how Wikipedia has become increasingly elitist in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ladycascadia (talk • contribs) 17:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    15 50[edit]

    15 50 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A Greek rock band. Sources are: the band's website, the band's MySpace and the band's fansite. Guy (Help!) 08:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, fails WP:V, WP:BAND. Could probably be speedied. Neıl ☎ 18:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this is deleted, do remember to delete the templates, images etc. Punkmorten (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep If sources are poor, add the {{unreferenced}} tag or something similar. The absence or quality of the sources is simply not an acceptable reason to nominate an article for deletion. Searching google for the band's albums in their original Greek language revealed a lot of hits. I can't read Greek but I get the firm impression that stuff like this and this are non-trivial mention in independent publications. This indicates that the band's latest album was something of a chart success by entering the Greek album chart at 29. Seems notable enough to me. With a ridiculous name like 15 50 and the relative scarcity of info in the English language, it might well prove to be a huge challenge for anyone to improve this article. Not impossible but difficult. That's not a reason to delete it though. --Bardin (talk) 09:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no evidence that this band passes WP:MUSIC, also not verifiable Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 18:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unverifiable, fails WP:BAND. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:08, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 23:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die[edit]

    1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Books which are lists of foo you must read/do/see/eat/be aware of/have sex with before you die are something of a a staple these days, no trading season is complete without half a dozen of them. We have no sources for this one, and it's been tagged as such since June 2007 with no apparent attempt at cleanup. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Nomination sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. StAnselm (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Nomination may sound like WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but this looks to fail [WP:N] to me. This book has won no awards and there is scant information on it. BananaFiend (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep I would normally agree this article is not worth having, however there are 48 google news hits, [27] some of which focus upon the book, so it has been discussed in reliable sources, and is notable. special, random, Merkinsmum 11:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: This book has cracked #18,000 total on amazon.com's sales ranking and is first in its category.  Ravenswing  17:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, seems to pass WP:BK, based on the newspaper reviews available at Google News. Zagalejo^^^ 17:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Merkinsmum. Plenty of coverage can be found via Google News. --Pixelface (talk) 18:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The bloody thing is in every bookshop, servo and shampoo here in Australia. +Hexagon1 (t) 01:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even I've heard of this one, it's a prominent book. The DominatorTalkEdits 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Reviews and other sources must be added to the article or it can not be kept.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Care to help? If you add one source, I'll do the rest of the work. Zagalejo^^^ 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    [3][4][5][6] Those are a few I've found that mention the book, don't know how useful they are, they're formatted with the "cite X" templates, feel free to add any to the article. The DominatorTalkEdits 13:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC) 'References'[reply]

    1. ^ see article
    2. ^ Rubbo, Mark (2006-04-22). "1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die". The Age Company. Retrieved 2008-04-12. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
    3. ^ Boxall, Peter (2006-02-26). "Can you tick off Tolstoy?". Gaurdian News and Media Limited. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
    4. ^ Reardon, Patrick T. (2006-06-06). "Reading for pleasure, not guilt and a few guilty pleasures". Chicago Tribune.
    5. ^ Dawson, MacKenzie (2007-07-23). "To-Do Until Death". New York Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12.
    6. ^ Fagan, Gabrielle (2006-04-01). "Books: What you must read ; 1001 Books You Must Read Before You Die, by Peter Boxall, Cassell Illustrated, pounds 20. Reviewed by Gabrielle Fagan". Birmingham Post. Retrieved 2008-04-12.

    comment lack of refs in the article is not a deletion criteria- if they exist in reliable sources, the subject is notable, it just needs the refs added to it but that's grounds for a tag, not deletion. Merkin's mum 23:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete unsourced. Appears to be original research. Yahel Guhan 05:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, notable book. - Pureblade | Θ 17:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Captains of Industry (record label)[edit]

    Captains of Industry (record label) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A minor indie record label, now defunct. No independent sources except one (press release?) from an Indie chat magazine which is probably not actually a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Released albums by major bands and being defunct is not a reason for deletion. I added some more references. the wub "?!" 20:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two refs form Drowned in Sound. Is that reliable? It says "material", not albums. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The label released albums by several notable bands. Sources can be found that establish notability; not much specifically about the label but it can be found in coverage of the bands that were signed to the label. --Snigbrook (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but tag with Template:Refimprove, as it is quite probable that there will be some more mainstream citations available that connect the label with the stated artists. It is generally accepted that notability is not inherited, but I would argue that the label played a role in the rise of the noted bands and that on the basis of that notable role the article may be kept. There is a valid argument related to record labels that parallels the 'article on album by notable artist - OK' argument stated as "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." I am certain that this will not satisfy all people, which is why I am offering my opinion here rather than closing this AfD. P.S. I have added Template:Infobox Defunct company and change the tense of the opening sentence. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Ceyockey. --John (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Pigman☿ 05:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Illmanic[edit]

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

    WP:COI crystal ball gazing by interested party Herostratus (talk) 07:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Wizardman 21:38, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Associated Students of the University of Montana[edit]

    Associated Students of the University of Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Student government at a fairly minor university Herostratus (talk) 07:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Hardly consensus but the only achievement of notability in the article is directing an award-winning film, Festive Land: Carnaval in Bahia. A single achievement of note is generally not enough to sustain a WP article on an individual. Pigman☿ 05:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolina Moraes-Liu[edit]

    Carolina Moraes-Liu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Curriculum Vitae, using Wikipedia as webhost. In Portuguese Wikipedia it is also under AfD: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Carolina Moraes Liu Tosqueira (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete Does not meet notability requirements per WP:Notability and WP:BIO. Dgf32 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC) Dgf32 (talk) 19:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • "'Note"': Apparently, there is a Brazilian user trying to get some articles deleted for personal reasons. The user that nominated this article, Tosqueira, is Brazilian, as noted by another Brazilian user, Christian Bitencourt at the pt discussion. Tosqueira only contributions to wikipedia has been in Table Tennis, and he has been called attention for deleting and changing contents. The example is also in the pt disccusion in this link [[28]] .
    • Also note that TosqEIRA nominated this article right after Alex PerEIRA did it for the pt site. And Alex Pereira was the first one to vote here. All this info is on the pt discussion at this moment. Song2myheart (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)Song2myheart[reply]
      • Comment I've reviewed the issue again in light of your comment. In this case, the motivation of the editor who nominated this article for deletion is irrelevant. There are no independent sources available to establish notability or to verify content. Dgf32 (talk) 20:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete While this article is not necessarily spam, the subject is non-notable. No sources available to establish notability. Dgf32 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also note that TosqEIRA nominated this article right after Alex PerEIRA did it for the pt site. And Alex Pereira was the first one to vote here. All this info is on the pt discussion at this moment.

    — Song2myheart


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

    The result was no consensus to delete; default to KEEP (but my preference would be that editors work toward merge). - Philippe 05:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Biological fluids[edit]

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

    Subject should be a category, not an article Stanley011 (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (BTW, I followed wikipedia's instructions ver batim on this and for some reason it messed up the formatting. Does anyone know why this is? Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep. This isn't in good shape as an article, but the point seems to be that from a bio-engineering standpoint biological fluids have properties in common, even if they are all different in composition. This figures into the design of medical equipment and prostheses. --Dhartung | Talk
    • Keep and cleanup. Looking at the Biological material disambig page there doesn't appear to be an existing article on the same subject. Needs cleanup though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and Redirect to Body fluid, merge any needed info. This topic already has an article. Earthdirt (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, and expand Real subject. Body fluid is a somewhat different concept. The two articles are very different. Change title to the singular per MOS. DGG (talk)`
    Comment I respectfully disagree, though the approach to the articles are different, the topics are the same. The article biological fluids merely focuses on the biomedical engineering and physical properties of body fluids. So yes, the articles are different, but really Biological fluids should just be a section called "Biomedical engineering" in the article "Body fluid", which could definitely use the extra expansion anyway. Earthdirt (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete too broad a topic, simply a dictionary definition. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand Article only refers to 1 aspect of the topic, a Medical aspect of it is somewhat different, see [29]. Relevant 2 WikiProjects added to Talkpage. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak merge to Body fluids, at least until such time as substantially more information justifies a split. Otherwise Keep. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong merge - (terminally dire rather than Dhartung's "not in good shape"), but clearly discussing the same substances albeit different aspects of their physical properties - so merge as a section of Body fluid as per Earthdirt's suggestion. It would be like claiming "bricks and mortar" as an article on construction materials should be distinct from "bricks with mortar" on method of construction with these items and then point out that Brickwork is quite distinct. So just merge what risks being forks and make free use of redirects. David Ruben Talk 00:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:15, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Economic encroachment[edit]

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

    This reads like original research. The immediately available web sources indicate that this term has some use, but none seem to support the term's definition as given in this article, or its association with such varied practices as slavery, feudalism, communism or free market economics. To the extent the article has sources at all, they are unspecific and do not seem to address the topic of "economic encroachment" itself; the article is therefore also a synthesis of published material serving to advance a position. Sandstein (talk) 06:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. A notable topic covered by scholarly sources, with multiple uses, but we need a much more rigorous and attributive (e.g. "Smith says X, but Jones says Y") approach. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is such a general concept, probably 90 percent of all human activities could be lumped into it. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Wizardman 02:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Oppera[edit]

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

    Non-notable band, no evidence that this passes WP:MUSIC, no independent sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I am also nominating the two albums by Oppera, as they also fail WP:MUSIC:

    Violince (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Oppera (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    October Sky (band)[edit]

    October Sky (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable band. Fails WP:MUSIC - they're not signed to any labels, haven't been covered by any significant publications, etc. Can't find any news articles or relevant secondary links. Side note: article has been largely edited by User:Octobersky, which is almost certainly a COI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. - Philippe 05:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Crank Dat Batman[edit]

    Crank Dat Batman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    It's been speedied and deleted twice now, and it was recreated for a third time. It seems to be a non-notable internet meme by an unnotable group. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why is this in the "Places and Transportation" category?--Oakshade (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...Good question. I've sorted it to W - Web and Internet, as it's an internet Meme. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedily deleted (G12, copyvio) by Alexf. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 12:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unbuilt Kocatepe Mosque[edit]

    Unbuilt Kocatepe Mosque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Strange article. We already have Kocatepe Mosque. Merge any info into that one? This one is totally unreferenced and smacks of a cut/paste job, I couldn't find it right off the bat. Tan | 39 04:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: I'm curious about the potential of copyvio here. The inclusion of (Fig. 26) and such seems highly suspect. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete. Found it. It's a pay site, but Google brings up key phrases. Here. Tan | 39 04:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per user above.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 05:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete Was a copyvio, but now it's been blanked by the author. PeterSymonds | talk 06:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Reith[edit]

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

    Largely biographical article about a non-notable radio talk show host. No references, reads like an advertisement. InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom. I see it as an advertisement.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 04:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not quite sure it's entirely spammy, but it's not notable. To quote from the article: "It is the number one general local live talk forum in Central New York. He also happens to host the *only* general local live talk show in Central New York." Interesting trivia, maybe. Notable, no. Bfigura (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Convinced it's not spam; admittedly the tone isn't encyclopedic, but that's not a killer at AfD. The subject isn't notable: minor local radio presenter. PeterSymonds | talk 07:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete This article is an unreferenced trainwreck of pov, trivia, and potential libel. It fails notability and the subject is not the topic of any reliable secondary sources. - Dravecky (talk) 06:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Yet another non-notable radio personality. --Rtphokie (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The WiLD Morning Show[edit]

    The WiLD Morning Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Largely biographical article about a non-notable (outside of their home market) radio morning show. The standard for inclusion in the encyclopedia, as I've observed thus far, for radio shows is that they must either be syndicated outside of their home market or they must have been present in that market for an extended period of time. To the best of my knowledge and research, this show meets neither criteria. InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) Delete Agree, there's nothing notable about this show. Even in the area where it is broadcast, it isn't very popular or anything like that. I've never seen it mentioned in any local news boradcast or newspaper. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a run of the mill radio show. Being on the air doesn't automatically make one notable. Bfigura (talk) 04:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Bfigura. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Bfigura. Clearly fails WP:NOTE. PeterSymonds | talk 07:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to WLDI Here's what we're probably missing this morning: "Hey, Jason, did you see the comments about us on Wikipedia?" "Missed it, Kevin. Then again, I miss a lot of things..." (fake laughter); "They hate us. Virginia, can you do a Sally Field for us?" "They hate me. They really...really.. hate me!" (fake laughter). "We love ya, Sally." (fake laughter). "It's 10 minutes after nine, you're listening to the Wild Morning Show. Back after this." Mandsford (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable, and probable COI on part of creator/main editor, who appears to be the producer of the program. Horologium (talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertion of notability, no references, no secondary sources found in a Google News search, and article needs as bit of rewriting even after I did some cleanup and wikifying today. - Dravecky (talk) 06:36, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Per Dravecky--Rtphokie (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Torture in china prisons[edit]

    Torture in china prisons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Appears like entirely original research. No references, massive amounts of POV - this is not an encyclopedia entry, it's a class essay. The article is not even really about the title; it is an analysis of human crimes itself, using China as home base. Tan | 39 03:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - author blanked the page (Keilana reverted) - this probably meets speedy criteria G7 now. Tan | 39 04:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment This subject probably is notable. Google "torture in China prisons". I'd say this is a stub, not an article worthy of deletion. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I did google it - it's sort of like googling "hiking in Arizona" or "Communism in Cuba"; it would be very hard to write a well-referenced yet entirely NPOV article. You couldn't even stub anything out of this one, there's nothing that's not original research. With the author blanking the page, this should be speedy deleted now. Tan | 39 04:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per CSD G7; it counts after author blanked - right? Plus it's an essay, which I do not count for speedy deletion. BoL (Talk) 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Covered already, censorship makes it hard to verify enyway, reads like a blog entry. Minkythecat (talk) 07:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the better article. I like the recommendations. If President Hu reads Wikipedia every day, you might change the world... Mandsford (talk) 12:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A.k.a Jersey[edit]

    A.k.a Jersey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-remarkable film produced by amateur film director and none of the maker's have articles. No reliable sources and currently the article very clearly fails WP:MOVIE. The Dominator (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable film. Appears to have been produced by an independent film company, and the director and actors are also non-notable. The IMdB source doesn't give indication of notability either. PeterSymonds | talk 07:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Consensus leans to delete. Sources added to article since AfD was begun appear mostly trivial/passing mentions and includes at least one that is recursive: That source used info from the Wikipedia article for its substance. Pigman☿ 18:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rob Otto[edit]

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

    Article about a non-notable American sports radio personality. InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete could find no RS on subject. -Icewedge (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Something that I missed in my initial read of the article is that the subject has been nominated for an Emmy Award. There is no citation for this statement in the article, but if it were to turn out to be true, is that enough to establish notability? --InDeBiz1 (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think so. If he had won an Emmy, then definitely! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not entirely sure whether this is true - I've just Googled for any mentions of Rob Otto being nominated for an Emmy and nothing seems to have come up. If this claim about him being nominated for an Emmy is false, then this most definately should be Deleted. Bettia (talk) 10:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Article asserts notability, more for his work announcing for pro and college sports teams than his radio show, and there are a number of sources to verify much of the article. Finding this [30] after just 30 seconds of searching, I bet there are far more available with more sophisticated searches. - Dravecky (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Subject appears to be a notable radio and television broadcaster. RSs look to have been added since this article was nominated for deletion. — X96lee15 (talk) 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy delete. I think this one is blatant enough to fall under G3.--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gil mann[edit]

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

    Hoax article. No relevant Google hits. No links from other articles. Gimboid13 (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete G3. A Heisman and pulitzer prize winner who wrote a well received short story called "Gerard: The Fifth Tellatubby". Right, and I've got some waterfront property I'd like to sell you. Bfigura (talk) 03:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G3 per both Bfigura and Ten Pound Hammer and his otters. BoL (Talk) 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete by User:KnightLago, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Real Life Henderson[edit]

    The Real Life Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable, I can't even find a single reference to it. Has been speedy deleted, PRODded, PROD2ed, and then an anon removed the prods with no explanation Corvus cornixtalk 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete by User:KnightLago, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Muizz[edit]

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

    Doesn't make any sense and is unreferenced. Might be SD. Me what do u want? Your Hancock Please 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Consensus is that article does not meet WP:CORP for lack of reliable sourcing. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mondi Fashion[edit]

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

    Article about a fashion label without any secondary sources given. Seems to fail WP:CORP. The article was created 2 years ago as a clear advert [31] and has not improved since. If anybody has sources and wants an article about this company, I suggest a rewrite from scratch. B. Wolterding (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Per lack of reliable references. Luksuh 03:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete as vandalism by User:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A.T. Austin[edit]

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

    Non notable wrestler seems like original research, fails WP:BIO - Milk's favorite Cookie 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Is there a way to turn off Google's *(#@$! auto spell-check? It keeps changing "A. T." to the word "At" when I try to search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a total hoax. Searching the name with Total Nonstop Action Wrestling turns up nothing whatsoever; furthremore, I doubt a professional wrestler would be only 14. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed. A MySpace link came up to "Alvin Theseira" - the so called wrestlers "real name" - Milk's favorite Cookie 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hogging[edit]

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

    Properly creating second third nom for User:Peggynature, who relisted an old nom from 2006. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -- notability and verifiability have not been established. Wikipedia states that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiability' in this context means that readers should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Therefore, even if the practice does exist, it does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia unless it can be verified by reliable sources. There are only two sources for this article, both of which are based entirely on interviews, which do not establish verifiability or notability. The Wikipedia general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." Furthermore, the Wikipedia guideline on fringe theories states, "it is important that Wikipedia itself does not become the validating source for non-significant theories." If you search online for this topic, Wikipedia, aside from humour websites and self-published books, appears as the main source of information, lending a sense of 'validity' to build on the scanty references in the article. See Talk Page for more details on unverifiable references that had been added to the article. This article also falls under What Wikipedia is Not -- I do think this term could be included in a dictionary, like Urban Dictionary or even Wiktionary, but its sources do not provide adequate notability for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Peggynature (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only two of the sources could be argued to be 'reliable,' and they alone do not constitute Notability. See talk page. Peggynature (talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The nominator (incomplete) over-wrote the first AfD page; I've reverted so that the old discussion is back. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Apologies -- that was my mistake. I wasn't sure how to create the new discussion page for something that had been nominated in the past. Thank you for correcting it. Peggynature (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep. Multiple sources demonstrate verifiability and notability. The subject is a notable social phenomenon that has been covered in more than one venue. Celarnor Talk to me 02:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read the sources? The sources that come after the 2003 article by Sarah Fenske are all based on that 2003 article and do not provide independent verification of the phenomenon, outside of interviews which may constitute primary sources. The 2003 article itself was based on interviews. Peggynature (talk) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources are not reliable. See the article's Talk Page.Peggynature (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree. Scholarly coverage by medical professionals, even if brief, is reliable. News coverage by print sources is always reliable. Regardless of the source of their research, peer reviewed journals are always considered reliable. Celarnor Talk to me 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:V and WP:N concerns satisfied by multiple reliable sources. Any fat chix with inner beauty wanna chat?? Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But did you read the sources? Peggynature (talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure that most of us have. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Have you? Peggynature (talk) 02:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Wikipedia general notability guideline states that "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." The "verifiable" sources are 1) a 2003 MSM article based on intervew, 2) a qualitative research paper based analyzing the interviews from the 2003 article, 3) a self-published weight loss book by an MD who has never published anything on sexuality, and includes half a page on 'hogging' (page 8) in his book and 4) a joke website from a college. Oh and 5) an "unofficial" study by Judith A. Sanders for which no reference is provided, or could be located using Google Scholar. Peggynature (talk) 02:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That doesn't mean that there aren't any reliable sources out there whatsoever. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't -- but I have been looking for them for over a week, and have not found them. I originally thought it was a verifiable phenomenon myself, until I read the sources. Due to my profession, I have access to almost every peer-reviewed journal available, and I'm fairly experienced at finding things. Everything I've found relating to this topic actually is based on the original source -- a 2003 article in Cleve Scene, wherein the author herself admits that none of the stories can be independently corroborated. Further -- the burden of proof is on the article's authors/editors to show the article is notable and verifiable -- not on me to prove that it is NOT. Peggynature (talk) 03:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's odd, it only took me a few minutes to find one; granted, I have the full Ebsco databases at my disposal, but still....See (Kelly Air Guard unit facing sex-harassment probe (May 19, 1994) Adolfo Pesquera and Christopher Anderson Express-News Staff Writers San Antonio Express-News Page 1A (1156 Words). Another good source. Rather than fighting pages like this, the nominator should be looking into things such as WICU and ARS to help this article improve if they can't do it themeselves. Celarnor Talk to me 03:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please post a link, if available? I'm not able to find it using a title search. Peggynature (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The link won't work for you unless you're on my schools network; since the link to the database interface is on the public website, it has to check to make sure you're on a local subnet first. The article discusses a Kelly Air Guard unit under an internal probe after engaging in this practice and bragging about it to the wrong people. Celarnor Talk to me 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's an excerpt: "It does go beyond the bounds of good taste," Martinez said of the log. "We need to clean it up." The "Hog Log," as it was labeled by the pilots who composed it, is a scrapbook in which at least six pilots apparently included derogatory references of a sexual nature..." Celarnor Talk to me 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So does this article fail or pass WP:N?--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it the subject of coverage by multiple, verifiable, reliable, sources? If it is (and I think that's very much the case), then yes, it is, per WP:N. Although articles don't pass or fail notability, subjects pass or fail notability, since the article may be incomplete, as it is in this case. Celarnor Talk to me 03:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (3 edit conflicts, wow) I read it over and I agree. Thanks.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Politically correct? no. Polite? no. But notable? Yes, as verified by the sources. Wikipedia is not censored Bfigura (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Though I'd love for this to disappear as much as I'd love American Idol to disappear, I can't deny it's notability and popularity. Our culture marches relentlessly toward oblivion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The existence of multiple reliable sources which are primarily about the topic is proof of notability.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • weak keep- in the UK this is called Moose -hunting or something, I think. I wasn't sure about these sources, but checked them and they seem ok. special, random,Merkinsmum 11:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it is a notable term and well referenced. The referencing and inline sourcing could be improved though. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: passes WP:V. That Peggynature does not think so is apparent, but challenging everyone who accepts the sources scarcely assumes good faith. For my part ... (1) yes, I've read the sources, yes, I consider them valid, and (2) no, there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or practice suggesting that a source based on interviews is by that token questionable. How many newspaper articles aren't buttressed by interviews? (3) I am curious as to the mention of "fringe theories." What theory is propounded by this article? It can't be that the term is in use; "Hogging" + "sex" + "fat women" returns 734,000 Google hits, and it's plain from reviewing some that this is a term in current usage. Disgusting though the practice may be, that's scarcely pertinent.  RGTraynor  16:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was No concensus. Fabrictramp (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Daat Research Corp[edit]

    Daat Research Corp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article doesn't seem like it is notable in any way that would justify inclusion. It seems notable enough to not demand a speedy deletion, but I think it still should be deleted. Captain panda 01:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is just rough draft for now. We should complete the article over the next few days with pictures, demos and references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DaatResearch (talk • contribs) 01:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Others may fear of calling WP:SPAM early, but I fear not... lack of potential reliable sources in cursory search COI == hogging. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give the article a chance and if it's spam, then we delete. (snickers) BoL (Talk) 02:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Cursory search yields plenty of results, contrary to Blaxthos' statement. Plenty of material about their work. Nominator may want to review deletion guidelines (specifically, if something can be improved by editing, it isn't a good deletion candidate, etc) and look into places such as WICU and ARS. Celarnor Talk to me 02:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per celarnor's sources, looks notable to me. I have informed the page's author about COI nonetheless, but will assume good faith on their part given that the company is indeed notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 04:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The NASA Spinoff article is a press release, as are most or all oft he other sources cited. DGG (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You haven't addressed any of the material I put forward. Celarnor Talk to me 16:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: What research into this subject's notability could the nom possibly have done in ninety seconds?  Ravenswing  16:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Sources are provided in the links(Plenty of material about their work) above. Two of the posts above did not assume good faith and a case of don't bite the newbies occurred. SunCreator (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There is no depth to the information about this company available on the web, dozens of business listings have their basic information (date founded, president, contact info, ect.) but with quite a bit of research I was only to enlarge the article a small amount, which suggested a lack of notability. Based on the research I did I would say that right now there is not enough information to push this article to anything larger than stub status. The original article was pretty large but contained a lot bunch of information about CFD that was not particularly relevant to the company itself and would be better just linked too; I am in the process of removing that now. -Icewedge (talk) 00:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Notability is not 'just the web'. Some links above are to a publication in print, and stubs are of course fine, over 50% of articles are currently stubs. SunCreator (talk) 02:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not saying that it should be deleted as a stub, rather that, if information on a subject is so hard to find then it is not notable, if it was there would be information on it. As for the "publication in print"; are you talking about the links presented by celarnor? All of those mentions are extremely breif, I would also classify them as trival because all the articles cited talk about the company products, not the company. -Icewedge (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please review the print sources that have been presented. If those aren't enough, there were about 60 other ones that could be listed. Celarnor Talk to me 03:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 00:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess protection plan[edit]

    Princess protection plan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreleased movie, not-notable and fails WP:CRYSTAL ukexpat (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    clear evidence of notability here: [33][34][35][36].

    Smith Jones (talk) 02:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That last source is ... I don't know what it is, but it doesn't look like RS material to me. The second to last is a google search, which isn't at all a notability metric (see THISNUMBERISHUGE, the only mention in the second is an audition reading for the movie by an actor, and the first is IMDB, which isn't generally considered a reliable source. Even if it were, the only thing it mentions is that an actor is in it. Celarnor Talk to me 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    #2 was pulled from YouTube, and #4 looks to be fanfiction. Boolean values are great, Smith Jones, and you should really learn how to use them in such things as Google searches. The one in #3 gave you everything with those three words in it; "princess protection plan" (in quotes) only gives three hits. Nate • (chatter) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Plus, he/she spelt "princess" wrong in the Google search anyway...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete without prejudice to future recreation per my above criticism of presented sources. While it may not have much coverage now, as a movie that might be in production in the future, sources can show up at any time. Celarnor Talk to me 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, no reliable sources, and Smith Jones, your Google search was just utterly wrong. Corvus cornixtalk 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, WP:NFF.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Epic fail on sources; even the silliest YouTube video gets more than three hits unlike this title. Nate • (chatter) 09:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete No proof that this even exists yet; WP:CRYSTAL indeed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • fine but you should a t least give permission for recreation if and when theis film proves itself to be exist. and i see no reason why a reference to these movies cant be made later on when there are better sources. Smith Jones (talk) 20:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 19:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Las Vegas Sample[edit]

    Las Vegas Sample (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable CD, not released for sale, fails WP:MUSIC ukexpat (talk) 01:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - per the hammuh (don't hurt em!) Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep - Nom withdrawn (NAC) Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Twin Lakes Airport[edit]

    Twin Lakes Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disambiguation page with only two links. Not really necessary, pages can be linked to each other. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdraw I didn't realize that there were five airports with that name. In that case a DAB is welcome. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete. ... discospinster talk 00:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rene Martinez Leon[edit]

    Rene Martinez Leon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A musician should definitely be mentioned in one or two reviews to be notable. This guy does not appear on google news. He doesn't seem have a CD for sale on sites like amazon. Cambrasa (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Veinor (talk to me) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    William LaForce[edit]

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

    Non notable state politician, fails WP:BIO, no sources. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete If he wins, it can be restored but per precedent, running is not grounds for notability. Eusebeus (talk) 00:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 22:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Liber HVHI[edit]

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

    Delete. No indication that this book is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. It is self-published and the author does not have a Wikipedia article. Google search does not result in much other than places to buy the book. In the first 10 pages of results, all I could find in the way of acknowledgement was this review and this review. Originally speedy-tagged but I brought it here because I don't think speedy applies to books. ... discospinster talk 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    strong delete- why can't books and everything be covered under A7 Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Articles, so they can be speedied as "no assertion of significance or importance"? That should be changed IMHO. This is a book self-published on lulu, with no google news hits. Merkin's mum 01:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment the first review disco found is only available in google cache and is probably not WP:RS anyway of course as it's a webzine, the second ref is an essay by the author of this book himself. Merkin's mum 01:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus (kept by default). Several concerns were raised that deserve attention: overlapping with other articles, and the title itself - Nabla (talk) 19:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Goofing off[edit]

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

    An amusing piece of original research, with references and stuff, and all appearances of an encyclopedic article. On other words, an excellent piece of goofing off :-) `'Míkka>t 00:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete, without prejudice to recreation. There are probably sources out there that discuss goofing off in some depth, but none are presented; however, that shouldn't preclude the presentation of some later. Celarnor Talk to me 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is technically a notable subject. If "duh" can have an article, shouldn't "goofing off"? This has third party references anyway. TheNobleSith (talk) 04:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    duh isn't an article. It's a redirect to wiktionary. Celarnor Talk to me 04:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are lots of scholarly sources for this. The only issue is whether it is better covered elsewhere. Idling is something else and Skiving, Bunking off, Dawdling, Gawping don't exist. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete. Article may be misplaced? In my view, article would be better placed in the wiktionary. --Abrech (talk) 09:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not a reasonable topic for an encyclopedia article, but could be fine for a dictionary entry. --Itub (talk) 10:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have made a quick cleanup pass through the article to improve its tone and references. I like the reference that talks of "mouse potatoes, people who hide from real life and spend their whole life goofing off in cyberspace." but have restrained myself as it is perhaps too painfully accurate here. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Cut it out, get back to work I can see where a decent article might be written about the origins of the term, but it would fall in the same category as coffee break or sleep or reading. Besides, the Emperor Nero was not goofing off. Fiddle playing can be hard work. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, discussion of the origins of the term would be dictionary material. I already checked the origin of the term in the OED and it wasn't interesting enough to include in the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it is not clear, what I've been doing is create stubby sections as I encounter a source which discusses some new aspect of the topic. These are short because I am trying to avoid writing an essay of my own which would be OR. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect: to somewhere, anywhere. For pity's sake, we don't have separate articles for "Having sex," "Buying groceries," "Changing your oil," "Lighting fires" or any of the other bajillion things humans do. The etymology of the phrase is better served on Wiktionary.  RGTraynor  16:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but we have articles on Sex, Store, Oil, and Fire. Celarnor Talk to me 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Celarnor just beat me to it) We certainly do have articles about these things - see Sexual intercourse, Shopping, Service (motor vehicle) and Making fire. It seems that your objection is purely to the tone of the title. But you don't offer a better alternative. And since scholars in the fields of education, business and sociology don't mind using this term, why should we?Colonel Warden (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Changing to keep due to presentation of potential sources; it was borderline for me anyway. Celarnor Talk to me 16:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as a disambiguation page referring to procrastination, slacking, idleness and anything else appropriate. The cited sources do refer to "goofing off", but they don't imply that this is a term of art or has any consistently defined difference from the terms I just mentioned. (I note that the definition for "goof (off)" in the Oxford English Dictionary is much more general than the one used in this article: "To dawdle, to spend time idly or foolishly; to 'skive'; to gawp; to let one's attention wander.") It would be better to refer the reader elsewhere than to provide a list of facts based on articles which happen to use one particular slang expression. If the current content is kept, the article should be renamed to have a clear and non-slang title, like evasion of responsibility. EALacey (talk) 18:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not how we use disambiguation pages. To discuss the various aspects of goofing off, we would just wikilink in the course of a normal article. Retitling is a better idea but the trouble here is that article titles should be the form of words which a reader is mostly like to use. I fancy that evasion of responsibility fails this test. Also, if you look at how the phrase is used, you can see that it typically means something different. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I don't mean that procrastination, etc. are aspects of something called "goofing off". I mean that "goofing off" is a term which can refer to various things including procrastination, but isn't the name for any distinct concept. And I think that the current article bears this opinion out, in that the phenomena it lists seem to be distinct only in that a reliable source happens to have used the phrase "goofing off" for each of them. For example, the cited article by Cynthia R. Shuster encourages people to take leisure time but doesn't appear to be about neglecting "obligations of work or society" at all. If consensus is to have an article about "engaging in recreation or an idle pastime while obligations of work or society are neglected", I think we're going to have to accept that there is no way to express that precise concept in one or two words; accuracy is more important for determining an article name than plausibility as a search term. (You're right that "evasion of responsibility" usually means something more like "denial of guilt" and isn't a good name for this article.) EALacey (talk) 20:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. More than a dicdef, sources are available. I can't in all honesty construct an elaborate counterargument to that kind of frivolous nomination. --Kizor 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep due to another outstanding job of finding sources! Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Dictionary definition; but I must admit I stared at this with lots of ideas to "fluff" this up. Kinda defines "self-fulfilling prophecy" goofing off by padding the "goofing off" article. King Pickle (talk) 19:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:DICT. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable, encyclopedic, well written, good sources. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • Keep I think because so many people goof off by reading Wikipedia at work, this article should be polished a bit and expanded, and be featured on Wikipedia's front page!207.43.79.22 (talk) 16:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep although I agree with Colonel Warden. Is there a one-word noun that means the same thing as "goofing off"? (Procrastination isn't quite the same thing.) If so, rename to that, and create some redirects for common synonyms. So Awesome (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interweb[edit]

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

    Basically a dictionary definition. The list of uses is beyond trivial, and what little information there is on the origin of the term can either be transwiki'd to Wiktionary or merged (if necessary) to Internet. Powers T 00:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Just so everyone knows, WP:TRIV is a style guideline, not a content guideline. --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep if there are citations for any of the OR. The article is attempting to detail the history of the phrase, which would be okay. I wouldn't call the usage history section a trivia section; they're trying to write a chronology here; the problem is, it's all OR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 02:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - I beat teh interweb. The end guy is hard. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki if possible, otherwise Delete BoL (Talk) 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Baleete or however you spell that. Trivia, original research, lack of available sources, unencyclopedic, Numberwanged... (sorry, it's late and I'm actin goofy). Seriously, this is mostly original research and dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Denoobify mah intarweb. OR, V, an N issues. Celarnor Talk to me 03:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Started sourcing it. The issues with this article are not insoluble.--Father Goose (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As far as I know, works of fiction can serve as primary sources for citations. If you have seen a TV show, movie, read a novel, or played a video game... then you are allowed to cite the actual work of fiction as your source, as long as you are not providing an original interpretation of the plot. I see none of that happening here except for "quite possibly the first occurence of the term" which isn't that much of a stretch to assume and could be amended to say "first occurence of the term in popular culture." Trivia does not equal OR. If you think this article is trivia then say it, don't label it as OR. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be simply that some people are unaware of the WP:PSTS portion of WP:NOR which points out that describing the contents of a primary source is not "original research". Or maybe it's that the definition and origin given of the term interweb was viewed as original research -- yet it was correct and is now sourced.--Father Goose (talk) 10:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It also may be possible that some people are unaware of the WP:SYN portion of WP:NOR. The OR is a question of synthesis. Even if every single one of those uses is verifiable, they serve no purpose but to demonstrate that it's a term with widespread use in popular culture. You need an actual source for that -- a conglomeration of primary sources doesn't suffice there.
    Also, please point out exactly where the origin of the term is sourced. In the Simpsons book? A book on the Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker culture by any stretch of the imagination -- the only thing the two have in common is that they both peaked in the 90's. So, yes, the claim about the origins is still unsourced. - Revolving Bugbear 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why people keep misinterpreting WP:SYN in this manner. It prohibits combining one source with another to misrepresent what the first one says; it doesn't prohibit making an accurate summarizing description of multiple sources. As to whether or not the Simpsons book is reliable, an accurate claim is an accurate claim.--Father Goose (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The claim that "an accurate claim is an accurate claim" shows a blatant disregard for policy. Wikipedia is not in the business of truth, it is in the business of verifiability. Verifiability means being claimed in a reliable source. A book on the Simpsons is not a reliable source on hacker culture. To claim otherwise is absurd.
    And you are correct that SYN does not prevent a summarizing of multiple primary sources, but it does prohibit doing so to advance a point that is not supported by secondary sources. That's original research, quite obviously. There is no secondary source supporting what is advanced by the slew of primary sources, so it is original research. - Revolving Bugbear 23:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we keep talking about OR, but I'd need to know what part(s) of the article you think are OR. Right now our discussion is rather abstract. Also, I'm not arguing whether the Simpsons book is an authority on hacker culture; you'll note I only provided it as a citation for the opening paragraph (general description) and for the Simpsons-specific claim. Additional sources will have to be found to back up the details contained in the article's second paragraph -- although the Simpsons source does affirm its general thrust: that the term originated in online circles. A little bit of actual "original research" also affirms it: a search of Usenet posts shows it being used in the late 90s in this manner, and the earliest mentions are from mid-1994 in connection with Babylon 5 -- again, consistent with what the article says. This is what I mean about accuracy; personal opinion or crackpottery is unverifiable OR, to be sure, but if a given statement is apparently consistent with reality, I'm willing to not declare it OR or unverifiable, and just give it some time for a source to turn up.
    My regard for -- and command of -- policy is deeper than you realize.--Father Goose (talk) 09:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you reread my original post, you'll see what I think is OR. The list of uses is synthesis -- a collection of primary sources used to advance a secondary point. And the origin is unsourced. Also, the uses you note there are indeed verifiable, but they do not speak to the history of the term any further than "it is at least as old as X." Anything else is OR.
    As for "just give it some time for a source to turn up" ...:
    The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material.
    Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed
    From WP:V. If all unsourced information is removed from this article, then all that's left is a dicdef and a list of uses. If you have sources for the relevant information, or you have other pertinent information with sources, please add them. Otherwise, this article misses the bar by a long shot. - Revolving Bugbear 20:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, only source cited is a trivial, passing mention. It's simply a neologism, even if a popular one. It's already on Wiktionary, so no need for a transwiki. Seraphimblade Talk to me 19:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, and his otters. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, it's a perfectly cromulent encyclopedia entry. --Pixelface (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep recognizable word and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on neologisms or terms of which there are many such published works. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Well accepted parody term in popular culture. The sources are enough to demonstrate that. collecting what lies obvipous isnt OR, but a way to build articles. DGG (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To me, the issue is not OR but rather whether this article can ever be expanded beyond a mere dictionary definition. What else is there to say but "Here's what it means, and here's where it was used"? Powers T 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but cleanup. Q0 (talk) 13:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article to define a neologism... not our mission. Transwiki to wiktionary if it's in their mission, delete otherwise. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Just as a reminder, if we merge, then we cannot delete per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, i.e. we would redirect without deleting. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Internet slang. A dictionary definition and a list of uses. I doubt this can ever be a full-length article; if it can, please prove me wrong. - Revolving Bugbear 21:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep decently well cited, notable in its own right. -Drdisque (talk) 03:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One reference is "decently well cited"? And notability is not at issue here; whether the subject is encyclopedic (as opposed to being limited to a dictionary entry) is. Powers T 12:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Firstly, it has 5 references, 4 of them just aren't formatted into the reflist. Secondly, it doesn't read like a dicdef and is substantially larger than a dicdef. I feel it is encyclopedic. -Drdisque (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (it even has some rererences) and cleanup --WhiteDragon (talk) 18:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was merge to Dietary supplement. I wouldn't know what, so I'm just redirecting. Please merge any relevant content from the history. Sandstein (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Whole food supplements[edit]

    Whole food supplements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Subject is non-notable, the content in most cases has nothing to do with the topic, there are no relevant references, and the term "whole food supplement" doesn't even appear to have any objective meaning or standard definition. Recommend deletion; it's irreparable. See WP:NOT and WP:N. Consensus of everyone who has contributed on the talk page seems to be that the article is nonsense. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Merge and redirect: Food supplement can hold this distinction without difference. Ultimately, it is a distinction without difference, but there is no accounting for what some people will set store by. Thus, even though it is nonsense to take a smushed up saw palmetto frond for your prostate instead of the active ingredient, the food supplement world contains an enormous population of people who, in the pursuit of "natural," will do the most unaccountable things. That said, there is by no means evidence nor popularity enough to sustain an article on this particular fraction of a fraction of a population's pet theory. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Food supplements are not considered to be whole food supplements. The notion promoted by vendors of whole foods supplements is that they are better than food supplements that consist of USP-type isolated nutrients. The value in elucidating this topic is most likely that of clarifying a very fast-growing murky area of misinformation in the dietary supplement industry. "Whole food supplement" products at this time, according to industry statistics, have reached top-selling status by selling what amounts to "natural religion" rather than nutritional science. See the large product bays in any large natural food store nation-wide to confirm the popularity. Providing unbiased, independently published scientific information that shows that whole food supplements provide lower than optimal doses, while making a claims of superior absorption that are contrary to published science can help people make better choices. Nutrinut (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.53.241 (talk) [reply]
    Merge and redirect to Food supplement: “Whole food supplement” simply isn’t a notable concept. We can’t say what the term means because it has no recognized definition. It exists only as advertising lingo used by a few minor supplement products, some of which seem like snake oil. It is, as Utgard Loki's said, a “particular fraction of a fraction of a population's pet theory.” I agree in principle with Nutrinut’s comment: “Providing unbiased, independently published scientific information that shows that whole food supplements provide lower than optimal doses, while making a claims of superior absorption that are contrary to published science can help people make better choices” The problem is that the subject of “whole food supplements” is so non-notable that there don’t seem to be any good secondary sources that have commented on it. It’s hard to justify keeping this article, especially in its current state, given the absence of reliable secondary references, operational definitions, and overall notability. Rhode Island Red (talk) 04:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was no consensus, default to keep. Wizardman 21:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Johnston Green[edit]

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

    Unsourced in-universe article about a fictional character.

    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Gray Anderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Emily Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Dale Turner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Sarah Mason (Jericho character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Skylar Stevens (Jericho character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Jimmy Taylor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Quick Robin to the Bat Cave (talk) 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I think at least a couple of these might be able to be improved with some out of universe info, but I am unable at the moment to try to improve it. However absolute worst case scenerio, I'd say they should be merged back to List of Jericho Characters. (This does not mean I support merge over keep if improvement can be made, but I oppose a straight delete.)--Cube lurker (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I have no interest in references, as I do not believe they could do much, and I'm fairly sure that truly "outside" sources wouldn't exist. The point is that the article draws from fans, exists for fans, and reiterates what fans know. In other words, there is no testimony that this character has stood out from other characters on television, no indication that people are saying, "You know, you're being a real Skylar Stevens!" There is no indication that there is a "Which Jericho character would you be" game. There is no indication that this is operative outside of the fans. That's what one means by "fancruft." No context. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, consider merges if desired. I have concerns about this deletion proposal, given that the nom has only seventeen edits in total - all but one of which are deletion-related. As well, in keeping with established practice, the articles should be considered for merging first with consulation from the Jericho article regulars. --Ckatzchatspy 20:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge all (but one. Keep Robert Hawkins (Jericho character))Keep. I was planning to merge all the minor characters today. As you can see in the Talk:List of Jericho characters, I have requested one merge in October 2007 and one in April 2008. I did both yesterday. Yes, I ve been waiting 5 months for the first case. There is no worry to make things really fast. -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I would like to ask Quick Robin to the Bat Cave to withdraw the prod for the minor characters in order to merge them in the main article. In the other cases, I would like to read more opinions in order to form my own in what we have to do. Maybe some characters are worth to have their own article. Maybe the two main characters. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 21:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'm with Utgard Loki on this one. Pure fancruft with no real world relevance. Also I do not have any concerns with the nomination. McWomble (talk) 02:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Do you believe that we have to transfer some information in the List of characters article or not? If we do, in practice delete = merge and then we have to discuss which redirects we need or not. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment We must have some concerns for the nomination. The nominator didn't use Jericho's talk page, didn't warn contributors for the nominations, he is involved only in nominations (including Beth number). -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I also have some concerns with the nominator. If you look at his contribs, he has only done two deletion proposals (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 Australian Equine influenza outbreak, and Beth number) and started one page. Aside from those edits and this AfD, he has done no other edits. The Equine influenza outbreak AfD was closed as a Keep under WP:SPA. This user does not have enough experience and also did not use the talk page at all. I'm not an admin but it seems that most people support either Keep or Merge. Either solution would be satisfactory to me.
    Also, should we be considering WP:IAR (see also WP:IAR?)? WP:IAR? says that "The spirit of the rule trumps the letter of the rule. The common purpose of building a free encyclopedia trumps both. If this common purpose is better served by ignoring the letter of a particular rule, then that rule should perhaps be ignored." We are trying to build a comprehensive encyclopedia. Jericho is quite notable as a TV series, and therefore there should be information on its characters in Wikipedia. The information in these articles comes from the actual episodes -- third party sources aren't going to necessarily exist. This doesn't mean, however, that these articles (or at least the information in them) can't exist. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 07:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Have to admit, I'm a little baffled at the delete votes when there's such a clear merge or redirect target??--Cube lurker (talk) 14:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I had to be a little bold. I merged the remaining three minor characters in the List of characters (Sarah Mason (Jericho character), Skylar Stevens (Jericho character), Jimmy Taylor). I am pretty sure that there is a consensus about these characters. Afterall, it was something to be done before this nonination. Of course, if someone still believes that instead of converting the articles into redirects, please feel free to express it. I think we have to focus are discussion to the main characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Robert Hawkings is the second most important character in the show. I suggest we keep this article and do a serious cleanup. All the others can merge. -- 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Whether Robert Hawkins is the first or 50th most important character in the show is irrelevant. It's pure fancruft. It fails WP:V and WP:RS. And I do not have any concerns about the nomination. It's a perfrectly valid nom. McWomble (talk) 04:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional comment. Simply migrating the content to List of Jericho characters doesn't change the fact that it's still unreferenced fancruft. Admins should take this into account when making a decision at the conclusion of this AfD. I have serious WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR concerns about List of Jericho characters too. McWomble (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please check Category:Lists of television characters. The list of Jeirvoh characters follows the same criteria with all of these articles. I don't understand how it is Original Research, but he can do this discussion after we finish with the characters. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Please check WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The above articles are nominated for deletion on their own merit (or lack thereof). They quite clearly fail WP:V and WP:RS. McWomble (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This discussion is off-topic. If someone nonimates one of the 200+ articles, we discus it there. Friendly, Magioladitis (talk) 12:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification. The articles in this AfD are nominated on their own lack of merit and the fact that other lists exist is irrelevant. The articles in this AfD quite clearly fail WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. McWomble (talk) 12:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. If Robert Hawkins (Jericho character) is to be ketp then it has to comply with WP:FICTION, WP:V and WP:RS. The new "Character conception" section is good - it is factual, referenced and has real world relevance. But the rest of the article is unreferenced and that content should be deleted unless reliable third party sources can be cited. Whether the others are kept or merged is irrelevant. The content of those pages is still unreferenced, in-universe fancruft with no assertion of notability and no real world relevance. Any unsourced material can and should be deleted. McWomble (talk) 08:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Non-notable character on a television show. Insufficient third-party references exist to write anything more than an in-universe plot summary. -- Mikeblas (talk) 18:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- are you saying that Johnston Green is non-notable to the TV show or that he is not notable outside of the series? If the former, that is quite wrong. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 16:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First of all, this is a multiple nomination. Which of all is "non notable character on a tv show"? Secondly, I would like to inform you that I already merged all but "Robert Hawkins" to the List of the characters. If we decide to keep the characters, I'll just add a link to the "main article" of each characters. If we decide to delete/merge them everything will be ok. No valuable information will be lost. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think in the above list we have to include:

    Mimi Clark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Eric Green (Jericho character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Gail Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Stanley Richmond (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    Does anyone disagree with that? -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    No objection from me. They are also pure fancraft and the only source is the network the produces the show. No assertion of notability and fails WP:RS. McWomble (talk) 11:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Object -- If you don't want these characters to have their own pages, then just merge them into List of Jericho characters. The articles have valuable information and if they are deleted, someone who wants to learn about the characters won't be able to. -- Imperator3733 (talk) 06:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Migrating the content to List of Jericho characters does not solve the fact that it's purely unreferenced fancruft with no real world relevance. There is no evidence that the information is valuable or useful because there are no third party references supporting notability or verifiability. McWomble (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. Insufficient third-party references to write any kind of meaningful article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Merge the various characters. The usual compromise. why not do these things away from AfD. DGG (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It's not a compromise if the content is still unreferenced fancruft. The content is not encyclopedic. McWomble (talk) 09:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 23:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aquila Theatre[edit]

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

    Well i was on wikipedia and found this article which i think is not notable enough.--Pookeo9 (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_11&oldid=1116879794"