Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 April 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 11 April 13 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep per withdrawn, Non admin closure, CenariumTalk 17:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Party school[edit]

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

I put PROD on this article a while back and it was removed. I explained my concerns on the talk page and allowed time for improvement. There has not been any. My concerns are:

  • It is not clear that there is an encyclopaedic topic here.
  • The article is meant to be about "party schools" but it is actually about some lists of party schools, which are recounted in full. It seems to be a bit of a coat rack.
  • The lists seem to be arbitrary and published primarily for humorous reasons.
  • The lists are referenced solely to their primary sources. There is no good evidence provided of secondary coverage or notability. Note: The Encarta reference is not an encyclopaedia article but syndicated content from the Princeton Review.
  • The lists are published without explanation of their significance or methodology. Even if the topic is considered encyclopaedic, the article does not cover it in an encyclopaedic way.
  • The lists may be copyright and including them in full may be a copyvio.
  • The article is occasionally tweaked to change the rankings. It is a vandal magnet.

To be honest, my main objection is that just "feels wrong" to have this in an encyclopaedia. Whether it all adds up to a case for deletion is for you to decide... DanielRigal (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn due to improvements in the article. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yeah, as it is this is obviously just a dumping ground in order to avoid AFDs on articles for the individual lists (or perhaps some of them were merged pursuant to an AFD -- who knows?). But there's not much that's encyclopedic here. On the other hand, it's a pretty notable concept. Didn't Playboy do the first list back in the 1970s? Or was it something like National Lampoon? Certainly it became a big deal after Animal House. Weak deletish as is, no bar to a better article being banged into place. --Dhartung | Talk 00:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's obviously a much-discussed concept. See [1], [2], [3], etc (to use one set of search terms). At the very least, we could just trim this to a stub for the time being. But there certainly are things that can be said about the lists. The Princeton Review's list, for example, has been criticized by the American Medical Association. [4] Zagalejo^^^ 00:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Zagalejo. The rankings themselves should be omitted (we can link to them but we should not reprint them, given that it would be hard to establish their accuracy). However, the article can discuss the idea of "party schools" and how colleges have reacted to being named as such -- or not named as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While the current article may be in bad shape, that isn't a reason for deletion, as that can be changed through normal editing. Obviously, the subject itself is notable and verifiable per both the sources that have been presented in the AfD and the sources that already exist in the article. Celarnor Talk to me 02:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I understand what you say, in fact it mirrors my logic in not sending it to AfD straight away after the PROD failed. I wanted to see if anybody could do anything with the article. The problem is that the it has been tagged as deficient for a while and there has been no progress at all. That is why I decided it was a dead loss and sent it here. If it is possible to rescue it then I have no objections but, one way or the other, it can't stay as it is. --DanielRigal (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't working toward a 5-day deadline cycle. In the future, you should look into venues such as WICU and ARS as places to point out poor articles whose subjects assert notability; AfD is not forced cleanup, although that's exactly what you're trying to use it for. Celarnor Talk to me 12:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I explained myself poorly above. Please don't misunderstand me. I would not have sent it here if I didn't think that there was a good chance that it really should be deleted. Before I saw the AMA criticism (linked above), I was of the view that there was probably no encyclopaedic topic here, although I admit that I was not 100% sure. There are real concerns about its notability, arbitrariness and its copyright status. These are valid reasons for deletion. The reason I held off sending the article to AfD was in the hope that somebody would resolve my uncertainty by demonstrating notability. That didn't happen. All I got was a cryptic response on the talk page saying "Don't doubt me". I wasn't trying to game the system. I really did think that this was the right thing to do. I would also point out that notability of the topic is not the only issue here. Articles on notable topics can be deleted if their content is of no merit at all or is copyvio. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It is a notable term, and has been used by many, many mainstream references (just do a google search). "Just feels wrong" is not a basis to delete an article. The article needs improvement, sure. But the best way to improve is to work on it, not delete it Stanley011 (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete The article libels various academic institutions. It also does not have a NPOV since it focusses purely upon American colleges and has nothing to say about the thousands of such institutions elsewhere. And I suppose that most of them have parties of some sort at some time, so the concept is quite subjective. This is journalism, not encyclopedic material. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To say that the article "libels various academic institutions" is false. All of the lists are taken from other sources, which are the subjective opinions of the editors/writers of those sources. Since the claim "party school" cannot be proven or disproven, the term libel is completely unapplicable in this context. I suggest reading up on libel before using it in your justification for deletion. Thanks. Stanley011 (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You completely miss the point. I am not saying "innocent dissemination" applies in this case. I am saying that "libel" emphatically does not apply because the term "party school" is a subjective determination that has no truth value. If I were to write that you were "ugly" even though eveyrone else in the world agrees that you are handsome, would I be guilty of libel? Stanley011 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Furthermore, even if it were the case that "party school" has truth value, (which it emphatically does not) and that the labeling of certain schools in this article as party schools is false, it STILL would not be libel because all the article does is report what other sources have written. For example, if a newspaper (let's call it the "Faulty Herald") falsely asserted that you robbed a bank, and then I were to write "According to the Faulty Herald, Colonel Warden robbed a bank" I cannot possibly be held guilty of libel because my statement was true. That is exactly what this article is doing Stanley011 (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not saying that this should or should not be deleted, but I will say that this article fails to mention that this term appears to be specific to the United States, and the whole article is completely US-centric, which is appropriate if its subject is connected to the US (this term presumably isn't used outside the US), but it should still mention that it is a US term.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created, around the same time as this article was created, two articles on the Playboy rankings ("Playboy's Top Party Schools 2002" and "Playboy's Top Party Schools 2006"). Playboy's was the original one, going back to 1987, so I think it deserves a prominent place, but instead of keeping separate articles on those two rankings I transferred the information over to this article. I've tried to use more prose, and keep it well sourced, so I hope this can be an indication of the direction the article should take. Also, under the "Party School Network" heading the "CollegeHumor" list was repeated, simply with a different school as number one. I assume this was some kind of vandalism, so I removed it. Lampman Talk to me! 16:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update To further improve the layout of the article I have put the four rankings into a chart. It could still need expansion and more sources though, but I think it looks better now. Lampman Talk to me! 17:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has room for improvement, but I haven't seen any good arguments for deleting it. I also think the lists would have to remain in, since the article would be more or less meaningless without them, but perhaps in a somewhat reduced form. The weightiest argument is copyvio. It seems a borderline case, and I don't know if any of us here are lawyers, but it should be said that Wikipedia does contain certain notable lists – based on subjective criteria – published by magazines, such as Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time. Lampman Talk to me! 16:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that is precisely the problem. Without the lists the article is almost non-existent! The whole things is just a coat rack to hang republishing the lists on. The Rolling Stone article differs considerably from this one in that it is actually a proper article with content explaining the significance and methodology of the list. It also only quotes a small portion of the top 500 list. As a bonus, it is also referenced from a proper secondary source. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason why this article couldn't look something like that. There are hundreds of newspaper articles in reaction to the Princeton Review's list alone. I'll try fiddling around with the article in a little while. Zagalejo^^^ 18:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've started it over from scratch. I'm far from finished -there's no shortage of material to work with - but I plan to add a "reaction/criticism" section later this evening. Zagalejo^^^ 20:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, but I see no reason for entirely discarding the lists. I've added back two of the lists in a somewhat abbreviated form; this isn't much different from listing some of the colleges in the text, but it will facilitate understanding for the reader. The point that most clearly emerges from this is the disparity between the two lists, implying that one or both of them must be based on rather imprecise criteria. As I see it this isn't original research; it's simply using a table to clarify a point that doesn't come through as clearly in normal text. Lampman Talk to me! 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I removed the lists because of all the talk of potential copyvio. I figured that just mentioning a handful of schools in the text would be better. But I agree that the lists are useful for comparison purposes. Let's see what other people think. Zagalejo^^^ 01:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it might be a gray area, though it seems clear to me that presented like this it must be considered fair use. But perhaps we could ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions? Lampman Talk to me! 01:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's WP:SNOW in my mind. I would be willing to bet that the only people who are pushing for this odd deletion are some university administrator or lackeys thereof. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 22:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, this seems like it was done in good faith. Zagalejo^^^ 01:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree there's no point speculating in alternative motives, but I also agree it's SNOW, for two reasons: 1. the consensus seems clear, 2. it has improved manifold since the nomination. I think we might as well close the nomination now. Lampman Talk to me! 01:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. I am happy to confirm that I am not a lackey of any educational estabishment. I am also happy to confirm that the article has improved so markedly that I withdraw the nomination. The article still needs some work but it is well on its way. Zagalejo has exposed notability that I had no idea existed when I nominated the article for deletion. Many thanks to everybody for their work. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be inherently notable. --SharkfaceT/C 01:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Weak, Weak Keep The notion of a party school is notable and verifiable. --Firefly322 (talk) 04:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A pretty notable concept. Maxamegalon2000 05:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though I agree with what I believe Colonel Warden's underlying concerns to be above, I also believe that the journalism, NPOV, and extra-legal libel aspects he rightly sees aren't so hopeless in this case. I have somewhat similar concerns with the article Corruption in India as I do with this one. Perhaps the references of the Corruption in India have been written by academics at mystical "partying" schools, the nearest Indian mystical, spiritual institutional equivalent to the North American corporeal abuse of alcohol. (I realize it's a mind-bending stretch of a comparison. A trance either patry-school rave-induced or Indian-Academic Mysically self-induced can make this comparison easy to see. Pepperdine is supposed to have a bunch of "Christians" on all sorts of mind bending drugs. Those students should understand what I wrote easy. )--Firefly322 (talk) 12:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very curious to see you explain what "extra-legal libel aspects" apply in this article. How can something that reprints the opinions of other sources ever be considered libel? Stanley011 (talk) 15:04, 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. Wizardman 02:33, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Truscello[edit]

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

I deleted an earlier version of this per WP:BLP as an unsourced negative bio, but it's back with a pile of external links, so I'm bringing it here.

We seem to have a lot of these articles that amount to bios of extortioners and rackateers that are only notable because of the "mafia" connection. I'm not sure there are notable per WP:BIO

More worrying is the poor sourcing. Actually no individual allegation here is sourced - and they are certainly negative. External links are not sources, but even if we allow them, most of these boil down to research posted on the websites of one Jerry Capeci, now he may or may not be reliable - but should we reallty have bios with criminal allegations just because he chooses to? Docg 23:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral 206 Yahoo hits ... but two of them were from the New Yorker and New York Times. I'll review them to see if there's enough to salvage this and change my !vote accordingly. Blueboy96 01:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - I am unsure of the notability of the subject but, I think the article definitely needs to find its way to a more neutral stance. The author seems to make lots of contributions to the crime stuff and by default I'm inclined to believe that he knows alot more about the subject than I ever will. Not fully familiar with BLP but, if this article is an out and out violation of that policy than it needs to be deleted. Otherwise verification of notability and substantial rewriting is in order. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable and a WP:BLP violation. The only one of the references in the article which looks like it could be promising is the reprint from the Village Voice, but that doesn't even mention Truscello by name. He gets six hits in Google News, including the New York Times and New Yorker articles mentioned above. The NYT article mentions him twice, but these are no more than name checks without even a whole sentence about the subject. I can't see the whole New Yorker article but he doesn't get a mention in the first 800 words. The other articles are also behind pay walls but the summaries displayed by Google clearly show that Truscello is not the main subject of any of them. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 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 per absence of delete preferences; redirecting and/or renaming to be decided on the article talk page (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skateboarding brands[edit]

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

Is this article really required? We already have a Category --Anshuk (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep, but rename to List of skateboarding brands. Categories and lists such as this one shouldn't be considered to be in conflict with another, as each one provides functionality that the other does not; for example, this list provides information about what the company produces, and what country it is located in, which an overall category cannot. However, the category is useful for linking articles together and machine readability, which lists can not; they are synergistic in nature and should not be deleted. Please view the categories and list guidelines. Celarnor Talk to me 02:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what you are saying; but this particular list doesn't provide any more information when compared to a category. Check it out. It's more of a navigational control just like a category. Anshuk (talk) 10:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what lists are for, and it does its job wonderfully. Again, please view guidelines on categories, lists and navigational templates. 18:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as Celarnor, and then clean up to meet WP:LIST. Another advantage of the list (in addition to giving additional information such as product line) over the category is that it can provide information on companies that have not yet been added to wikipedia or are not notable enough to deserve an article on their own (provided their existence can be sourced). I'll be happy to help in this endeavor if the article survives AFD. --Nsevs • Talk 15:26, 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.

Inconnu (World of Darkness)[edit]

The result was Merge to Masquerade_society#Inconnu (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 20:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Inconnu (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional vampires. Contested prod. Prod was removed with no other alteration to the article, nor explanation on the edit summary or talk page other than "I don't agree with this deletion." Online sources don't (obviously) cover everything, but searches seem to reveal only fan sites (and other unrelated things like an inn in Canada, a band, etc.). --Craw-daddy | T | 23:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I would not be averse to a large merger of this article and many other similar ones in Category:Vampire: The Masquerade (quite a lot of which I have prodded today). Together some coherent article might be possible that even has proper sources. I, however, am not familiar enough with that RPG to do such a thing, and these articles have been around for a year and a half or so with no references outside of original source material. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, I noticed your prod work :) I've de-prodded several (but not all) of them; I agree with you, they've lain fallow for a long time, and need some work. Hopefully the discussions generated by these AfDs will activate this. If not, and no one is willing to work on them, best they be removed until someone wants to recreate them in a usable state. Either way, Wikipedia benefits. ◄Zahakiel► 23:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, I probably shouldn't have mentioned I prodded a bunch of stuff. Now it will lie around not being improved for an even longer time. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean my activity in particular, I noticed your prods before you said anything in this discussion. If you just mean in general, I hope that's not the case... I agree with your concerns, and think they should all be improved, merged, or removed. ◄Zahakiel► 01:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you provide some references that demonstrate this? Otherwise, how do we know this? --Craw-daddy | T | 11:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I can. I shall add a reference to the article but please be aware that AFD is not cleanup and it is better to tag such articles for improvement before bringing them to AFD. Better yet is to add material for a topic that you know something about. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prodded the article first, and the prod was removed with no other comment, alteration, or explanation on the article's talk page, other than "I object to this deletion". I agree that AfD should not be a tool to force cleanup, and that was not my intention here. And I do add material for topics that I know things about (as well as things that I know little about, having helped promote an article to GA, and save others from deletion). Witness, for example, my additions to Z-Man Games. But all that has no bearing here, as we're talking about this particular article. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. The reference you added clearly falls in the realm of "trivial" as it's a brief passing mention in a book's glossary. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. It is, in any case, a mere token. There is torrents of material out there for this franchise which spans role-playing, books, card games, cartoons, computer games, tv shows, LARPs and who knows what else. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And again I ask, how much of that directly addresses the Inconnu, from the point of view of that required in WP:N? I know there's "tons of stuff" about this franchise. --Craw-daddy | T | 13:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusionism vs deletionism: The Eternal Struggle. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 14:21, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's loads about the franchise, but not independent stuff about each sect, clan, etc. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the requirement., There just has to be substantial coverage of each, not a separate publication on each.DGG (talk) 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that was; I'm saying that, as far as I can tell, there isn't any noticeable independent coverage of each sect, clan, etc. Of course there's lots of mention in sourcebooks, but that's not really independent coverage :) SamBC(talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge not sure where yet, but I think what we could really do with is a mass-merge (leaving redirects) off all of these sorts of articles, and not just VtM or WoD related stuff, either, there's loads of instances of this sort of thing with RPG and fantasy/sci-fi related stuff. SamBC(talk) 14:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what would this mass-merge achieve apart from wasting our time? Note that others such as User:TTN went down this road and found themselves sanctioned by Arbcom. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And that's why we're starting to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Role-playing games, possibly with the idea of proposing something at WP:PM. Wasting your time? How about providing articles that actually have sources and demonstrate their notability? Don't violate WP:WAF and/or WP:PLOT? --Craw-daddy | T | 15:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You claim to be an advanced mathematician. In my experience, the mathematics articles are poor quality and rarely have sources or inline citations to justify their intricate statements. Since the accuracy of mathematics is of some importance in the real world, while the accuracy of fiction is not, your time would be better spent improving the maths articles. Deleting this article helps in this project in no way. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I when I can help edit articles like this Ogre? I have never played that game, nor ever owned a copy of it, yet I helped make it into a GA. But this is again besides the point and has nothing to do with the notability of the article under question. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ogre is a nice little game and the article on it looks good - thanks for your work on it. I'm still not seeing how tearing down other game articles helps to creates such fine articles. The general idea of Wikipedia is that you start with stubby imperfect articles and turn them into good ones. Deleting articles obviously aborts this process and should only be done in hopeless or problematic cases. This article is neither. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the risk of repeating myself, where's the information about notability? Just because V:TM is a major RPG (which I'm not disagreeing with, it should be noted), that doesn't mean that every vampiric sect or clan in the game is notable. Where's the references to say this, now that the article has been around for almost a year and a half? I don't object to a merge, but as is even with a merge, there's noting to denote notability about this clan of vampires in the article in its current form. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge Sounds like this is rather non-notable even in-universe. And it shows no general notability on its own, so I don't think there should be a separate article. Merging many of those articles sounds like a good idea though, ideally removing stuff which is against WP:PLOT and WP:GAMEGUIDE along the way. --Minimaki (talk) 10:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which, beyond the opening sentence of the article and two other brief ones, seems to be everything. --Craw-daddy | T | 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and replace with a Redirect somewhere like Sects in Vampire the Masquerade. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge under Sects in Vampire the Masquerade or the like. The sect (and directly from user-Jhattara; "e.g. Sabbat (World of Darkness), Anarchs, Black Hand (World of Darkness) and Camarilla (World of Darkness)") should be kept as they are all important to the in-game universe. Notability can come from official sources (the core rulebook, and in many supplements)! (if I wasn't moving I would try to fix it myself, but I won't have Internet access again till June) Noremon (talk) 04:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, notability absolutely can't come from the original sourcebook. It requires secondary sources that specifically discuss the Inconnu as notability isn't inherited from Vampire: The Masquerade (which is quite notable, and I don't contest that). Basically all of these "keep" votes seem to ultimately be WP:ILIKEIT. Where is the evidence of independent reliable secondary sources? --Craw-daddy | T |
it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them to this essay is not encouraged. It also states subordinate notability sometimes may not be inherited from parent notability, but that sometimes that is the case. For something that is introduced in official material and later supplemented such as with the Sabbat & the Inconnu that is also a major device for setting I think that the notability is inherited. If you are looking for other sources not from official material then simply do a search on google and you can find many fansites that can give notability to just about any of the aspects of this RPG. Here are just 2 on the Inconnu Patman-Sects-Inconnu & Inconnu @ VirtueVerseNoremon (talk) 06:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the various vampires. The usual compromise. why not do these things away from AfD. DGG (talk) 23:36, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. If Metropolitan90 feels a redirect to the parent org would be worthwhile he is welcome to create one. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC) It doesn't matter that much to me. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Technology Student Association[edit]

Texas Technology Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable state-wide branch of club. No reliable sources and no assertion of notability SevernSevern (talk) 22:33, 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 delete a7, webcontent, I don't think it asserts notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quazinto[edit]

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

NN site, speedy declined on spurious grounds despite the deletion log. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V. One Night In Hackney303 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What? Spurious grounds? There was an assertion of notability. If you feel the grounds were spurious, why don't you take it up with me instead of bringing it into your AfD, which doesn't add anything to the validity of your argument to delete. the_undertow talk 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggest you follow your own advice, given that your comments here have no relevance. One Night In Hackney303 22:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a lack of notability / reliabile sources. I don't find that being a web site "designed for kids, by kids" automatically confers notability somehow. Bfigura (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete A7, like the previous versions. There is an assertion of uniqueness, true, but no assertion of notability. Appears to have been speedy deleted numerous times before, so a good Salt is in order too. I'll tag it for speedy. ~Eliz81(C) 22:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do whatever you need to. I just can't face the world today. the_undertow talk 22:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm essentially in agreement with Eliz. A Google search yielded very little beyond various Yahoo Answers and WikiAnswers sites. GlassCobra 22:58, 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 at least until reliable sources are provided for this man's existence. As the article lacks any sources, it fails WP:V, a Foundation-level policy. This makes irrelevant Corvus's argument that the article should be kept because of the subject's supposed notability. Also, Drachenfyre's argument does not appear to raise any points relevant under applicable inclusion policies or guidelines. Sandstein (talk) 14:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William de la Pole the Elder[edit]

William de la Pole the Elder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

GEC, Complete Peerage XII(1) states that Dugdale said that the father of William de la Pole (of Hull), an article formerly entitled William de la Pole the Younger was named in the Pipe Roll of 26 Edward I as William de la Pole, but the editors evidently could not trace his reference. They cited one work that said he was a cousin of William de la Pole od Powysland (i.e. Powys Wenwynwyn), but that there was no evidcne cited for this and none was known. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography states that the origins of William de la Pole (of Hull) and his brother Richard are obscure. I have recently edited that article to confomr to what Oxford DNB says. The sole merit of this article is that its subject provides a link between the Princes of Powys and the de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk. However in view of what GEC says, we cannot even be certain of the name of William de la Pole (of Hull)'s father, let alone his ancestry. Accordingly, this article is about a person of whom nothing is certainly known. Such an article cannot be retained. However, I am nominating this for AFD, not PROD to give a chance to its creators to save it. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, heir presumptive of the throne of Powys Wenwynwyn is notable enough. Corvus cornixtalk 22:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have failed to read my nomination and the associated links properly. The alleged relationship is wholly spurious. See also William de la Pole (of Mawddwy). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I read your nomination. Nothing stops you from placing the information you provided above in the article. Corvus cornixtalk 22:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it is not a question of non-notability, but of non-existence. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: claims of his existence are unsupported, and there is every reason to think he is a historical non-entity, invented to make a genealogical link that is bogus (i.e. the family of the daughter of his supposed father Owen de la Pole inherited the family land and titles, suggesting no such brother with descendants existed). Violates WP:V. Agricolae (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the only verifiable information is that there was a William, younger son of Owen de la Pole, which is IMO insufficient for an article. Choess (talk) 21:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Peterkingiron (talk) 22:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP VERY STRONG keep, I have come across other articals myself (Will try to uncover them, prehaps write to the Library of Wales). The Mathrafal dynasty of Powys ... by the end of the 13th century... made their principle seat at Pool, in Powys. Today known as Welshpool. Owain adopted the more Norman sounding name de la Pole in reference to this... of the Pool. This is well known among historians of Welsh interest. After the Statute of Rhuddlan abolished the princely title of Prince of Powys, the male descendents of Owain de la Pole were given title and land in Yorkshire, while Powys Wynwynwyn went to his eldest daughter Hawise... but in reality it was administered by her husband... transfering the land directly into Norman hands. They (the remaining male heirs) were 'bought off' from their historic claim...the back ground here was that the English crown wished to disassociate the remaining male heirs of Gwynedd (Rhodri of the Aberffraw line was given title in England, too) and Powys. Please keep!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is one site that lists his genelogy. http://www.welshicons.org.uk/html/powys_wenwynwyn.php
    • Verifyability requires more than just a nationalistic web site or adamant desire. As strong as Drachenfyre feels about it, it is still unverified by reliable and unbiased history. This connection between William, son of Owain (fully documented, but historically insignificant in terms of notoriety - the son that is, the father was notable) and the later de la Pole Dukes of Suffolk appears to be nothing but a 'names-the-same' fallacy (this person and that person had the same or similar name(s), so they must be the same person or related). Agricolae (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Redactions as per Choess. Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (by nominator). The Welsh icons website does show the alleged descent of the Dukes from the Pricnes of Powys. However the question arises as to what that website's sources were. I have posted a comment on that website, asking for sources. For the moment, the alleged descent must be regarded as unverified, since the weight of evidence remains against its reliability. I will be happy to withdraw the nomination if a credible source can be provided, but not until then. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've looked into this further, and it appears that Owen de la Pole did not have a son named William; that information was only sourced to a website, and it's contradicted by a reliable source (G.T.O. Bridgeman's The Princes of Upper Powys). The website appears to have included Owen's brothers among his children, and we already have an article on Owen's brother, William de la Pole (of Mawddwy). At this point, it seems we really have no reliable sources at all for the individual under discussion. Choess (talk) 00:45, 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. Wizardman 02:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus Institute[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable organization and was created by editors affiliated with the group. This organization, based in Southern California, should not be confused with the more prominent organization of the same name in Boston. The article has multiple references and external links but when you actually visit them, you find they are inadequate to establish notability. See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#User:Tang23 (permanent link)
A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete for now. I am not entirely certain how to judge a think-tank organization. Right now I am focusing on how many notable individuals may be a part in combination with how often their research work is cited by mainstream publications, rather than Reason Magazine or the Cato Institute, which are generally sympathetic and probably have an interest in pimping this organization. Just on my search, I didn't really find anything and none of the refs offer anything in this regard, just their own website, plus Greg Mankiw and Cato sites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)


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

The result was keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 00:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elan School[edit]

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

The article does appear to meet the school notability standard. I see one instance where classmates of the school testified in a murder case against someone who went to the school, but that doesn't really have anything to do with the school. — Dædαlus→quick link / Improve 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - This school is notable. This is not a garden-variety school, but rather a boarding school with a one-of-a-kind program for teenagers with behavioral issues. It has been in business for 37 years, and was formerly very controversial. The incident in which "classmates of the school testified in a murder case against someone who went to the school" was a highly celebrated case involving a murder that had remained unsolved for many years. The man who was eventually convicted of the murder (which he had committed as a teenager, before being sent to Elan) was a relative of the Kennedy family, and testimony from Elan School classmates was important in getting him convicted (they testified that he had talked about the murder). The sentence in the article about the murder case (which I wrote) is a short and mild fraction of what could be written, but I felt that more extensive discussion of it would be undue emphasis in an article about the school, particularly in such a short article. The cited reference is part of an article in the The Atlantic magazine; that section of the article is mostly about Elan. Additionally, the Michael Skakel article states that a book about Elan School (book is not identified) figured in the murder trial. --Orlady (talk) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 01:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plainly notable. When you get a highly publicised murder case involving a number of pupils testifying it clearly involved the school. In addition there are a whole bunch of other controversies, for example here, here, and here. Sure the page needs work but sources are available for it to sail through WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 01:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ORG. This school has years and years of WP:RS coverage. It is a controversial institution even beyond the Skakel case. • Gene93k (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Orlady. This is a notable school. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 02:43, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricki White[edit]

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

non-notable according to WP:BIO. I can't find any nominations or awards for her nor any reliable sources that can confirm her notability for the general criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 21:39, 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 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of past Gateway products[edit]

List of past Gateway products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an indiscriminate list if I ever saw one. Most notable products should be under the Gateway page, the rest should sink under the waves. Eldar (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete' I normal like lists as they are useful see WP:CLN, this list however doesn't have inward links in the items listed, so it's of no use for navigation or a list of articles to be done. It appears the items on the list (with a few exceptions) are not notable. SunCreator (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of brand names and serial numbers is insufficient for a Wikipedia article, even if the list is well documented. Weak delete - a sourced list of well-documented, well-described items would be much preferable to this, which appears to be a release list. B.Wind (talk) 03:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep, the impressive improvements to the article, primarily by User:Aditya Kabir, have demonstrated an encyclopedic article can be written. Almost all contributors who have commented since the changes were made have been persuaded that the article should be kept (including the nominator). The title of the article and a possible move should be discussed on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thong in the news[edit]

Thong in the news (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The page is just a list of news items, most of which are of dubious notability to say the least. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per improvement to the article. The name needs to be changed, though. ~ mazca talk 18:00, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Thong (clothing) and delete.(See below) Reads like a trivia section, and while some of the trivia is, as Mazca says, entertaining, most of it is probably not notable, and certainly not notabe enough to have its own page.--Aervanath (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just a note: merge and delete is not a valid option under the GFDL. Bfigura (talk) 22:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip, although you could have phrased it in a slightly less baffling way. ;) WP:MAD is an explanation of this in case anyone else is as confused as I was. ~ mazca talk 23:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. (I haven't actually seen WP:MAD before, so thanks for putting it up). Best, --Bfigura (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slight merge of the most significant items into Thong (clothing). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete as news/trivia (or merge if there is anything of value in it). JJL (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup Why do you people want to delete something that can be cleaned up? Because we're being lazy and a delete is the quickest of solutions? What do you do to your ailing grandma? Delete her? Aditya(talk • contribs) 05:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Aditya makes an excellent point. The article could use a better lead, but this article is very well referenced (i.e. verfiable) and definely discriminate. And even in a worse case scenario with some arguing to merge above, we would redirect without deleting per the GFDL to keep contribution history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 06:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just because it's well-referenced doesn't mean that the topic itself, or any of the news items, are particularly notable. There are plenty of events happening every day which are reported in reliable sources, but we don't include them because Wikipedia is not a newspaper. --Aervanath (talk) 11:14, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOT#NEWS may be a bit irrelevant here, as that particular bit of policy is about news coverage of particular happenings (i.e. President Bush's trip to Morocco, or something like it), and not at all about something that has been on the news over the time. In fact, continuous news coverage over time very much establishes notability of a subject. And, content forking (i.e. keeping this article separate from the Thong article) is very much in line with Wikipedia traditions. Nothing wrong there, apart from desperate need for cleanup. But, "this needs improvement", as I see, is a call to constructive editing, not deletion. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I already adxded the vaguely relevant bits to Thong (clothing). -mattbuck (Talk) 13:30, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which means we cannot outright delete this article then; we'd have to redirect without deleting per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aditya, you are absolutely right that continuous news coverage establishes notability of the subject, which in this case is Thong (clothing). However, in order to justify forking an independent article discussing the news coverage, we would have to find reliable sources discussing the news coverage as news coverage. All the sources in this article are talking about the item of clothing, NOT the news coverage thereof. If the article were instead to draw on sources analyzing the ways that the news reporting about thongs has been notable IN AND OF ITSELF, then I would switch to Keep. But if not, then there's really no point in having it.--Aervanath (talk) 15:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. That'd take a day or two, though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A day or two to...what? find those sources?--Aervanath (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(inserted) Find what sources? The news coverage issue can be addressed by use of expansion, reorganization and copyediting, and that's what I'm trying to do. Though the article definitely would benefit from a better title. But, I don't think "hey, it has a wrong title" can ever be a reason for deletion. We have a move button that works much better than deletion discussions at that. It still weighs more on the cleanup side than merge or delete.
(undented) I don't think anyone has said "Let's delete this because it needs a better title." If you can think of a title that would fit it better, and would convince people that it should not be deleted, then, please, by all means, mention it here, and the closing admin can move it to that name, if that's what the consensus is.--Aervanath's signature is boring 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - anything that can't constructively be added to Thong (clothing) isn't needed. The alternative is a couple of million Foo in the news articles. Pseudomonas(talk) 15:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As has been covered by Bifurga and myself above, per the GFDL, if we merege, we cannot delete, we would have to redirect without deleting as contribution history must remain public in the case of a merge. There was a recent AN thread on the topic and consensus was that this is indeed the case. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since mattbuck has already added the worthwhile bits of this article to Thong (clothing), any talk of merging is pretty much moot, so there's really no need to preserve this article, or its edit history.--Aervanath (talk) 18:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually if anything was added as you say, then a merge was in fact done and according to the GFDL, the edit history MUST be preserved. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I keep seeing this argument, but I've never really seen any real specific explanation for why this is so. The Wikipedia:Merge and Delete essay doesn't really do a good job of this either. --Aervanath's signature is boring 18:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is necessary for the sake of copyrights and possible problems with an article that whoever contributed the content remains clear. Anyway, here's a discussion we had on the subject (notice that by the end of the discussion, the consensus was to merge the history). Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • vote changed to Merge and redirect per Grand Roi des Citrouilles--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If anyone else was as confused as I was about the merge and redirect thing, the relevant section of the GFDL is 4-I. Cheers,--Aervanath's signature is boring 19:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, which has already been performed. My compliments to mattbuck for doing a good job with the merge.--Father Goose (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In its rewritten form, keep. Nice job, Aditya.--Father Goose (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current state--though Im not sure of the proper title. This is nota place where NOT NEWS applies--it is a discussion of multiple events on a common theme, not a particular news item. DGG (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we really going round and round discussing how this article needs to be merged (or deleted, as all that's relevant has been already merged)? Is it because we are tired of expanding and improving articles? Is it because we find it easier to gut existing articles and shove them into another? My, I was under the impression that growth doesn't happen that way. Anyways, I have started working on the article, and some help there would be very nice. I found it pretty distressing that only one editor so far has done something more constructive than discussing a reduction of the wikipedia, where as many people come to read on Pokemon characters as Quantum Mechanics. Aditya(talk • contribs) 21:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not tired of expanding and improving articles. However, some articles do not meet the standards of Wikipedia, either through lack of notability or other reasons, and can not be improved to meet those standards. That is the reason why we have the Speedy Deletion, Proposed Deletion, and Articles for Deletion processes. However, sometimes articles CAN be improved to the point where they no longer deserve deletion, which means that the nominator simply, in good faith, was mistaken. That said, I'm still not convinced that this has happend. This subject still doesn't (even after your substantial, and, I must say, well-written, improvements) warrant its own article. If the article were to be changed to a redirect, and the article condensed to a section of Thong (clothing), I still think that would be a better treatment of this topic.--Aervanath's signature is boring 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. It is really appreciated, though I know I have not been able to expand an improve it much, yet. The first thing that needs to be changed is probably the title (something in the line of Thong controversies, Social impact of thong or something). Not daunted, though, as this article shows enormous potential to grow into a formidable piece with time, patience and hard work. Already the amount of information has grown somewhat beyond the scope of integration into another article (and, I can't take the credit for that, not in the least).
But, what I see is that only three bits were picked out of the long line of significant thong information to be integrated into the mother article (plus one highly suspect piece of information on thong hygiene quoting Yahoo Answers as a source). Not enough, not remotely enough, especially if we want to remove this article by way of merger or deletion. Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Content forking are two pieces of guidelines that may guide us in this situation fine (i.e. when content keeps growing it's appreciated that articles are split out). Of course, there has to be a {{main|this article}} type link put into the relevant section of the mother article. Therefore I'd propose to invoke WP:HOPELESS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT here (also Template:Sofixit, may be).
I find the information presented comfortably encyclopedic (as opposed to you finding this as one of those articles that "do not meet the standards of Wikipedia... and can not be improved to meet those standards"), as they clearly represent an impact of thong on the society (Laws and bills? Beauty Queen demoted? Schools panicking? A child-porn controversy? A GI controversy? - there is way too much in there for a delete, or even a merger). WP:BRAIN may be a nice essay to understand the situaion. Since notability, reliability and verifiability of the information in the article is firmly established, I'd still say it requires a cleanup, which may require harder work than simply wiping it out of existence. Aditya(talk • contribs) 17:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination - due to the stirling (or is it sterling?) work done on this article by Aditya, I withdraw my nomination, although the article does still need attention, I feel it has justified itself on grounds of notability and such. Less references from The Sun and The Daily Mail would help though. I encourage all participants of this debate to help Aditya's work. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Social impact of the thong"? Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me.--Father Goose (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:NOT#NEWS is for people like Corey Delaney, etc.—this isn't him (although I'm loving the irony I just thought of in that the title contains "thong"...). Per DGG and Le Grand Roi, this is a discriminate and useful list. It's sourced. It can be improved. So can most things. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 07:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a news collation service. Stifle (talk) 15:55, 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 --JForget 00:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jam tomorrow[edit]

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

Non notable neo. No other refs than the book, and that alone is not significant enough. It does not deserve it's own article. My vote is for Delete, but if a good justification can be brought for a merge, I'll probably go with that too. Undeath (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, covered in Cassell's Dictionary of English Idioms, Fun With Proverbs, etc. Clearly in wide use. --Dhartung | Talk 21:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While I disagree with Dhartung's point (just because something is in a dictionary doesn't make it notable), if you do a google search for "jam tomorrow" you will come up with a lot of articles that use the phrase. So definitely in wide use. I've put an {{unreferenced}} tag on the article, since it completely lacks any sources, but I think this article is salvage-able.-Aervanath (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My point was that by being in a dictionary it was not subject to WP:NEO, which is widely misapplied in my view. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable phrase [5] SunCreator (talk) 23:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The phrase is notable and in use. The article goes beyond a definition to describe its history and contemporary use so it isn't just a dictionary entry. It could do with more references though. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the vote is for keep, the least that should happen is to take out those large blocks of quoted text. A quote is not meant to be that long in an article, mainly because that actually may be a copyvio.(I don't know if it truly is or not though) In my opinion, the quotes should be taken out, and more links should be provided. Undeath (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Through the Looking-Glass was published in 1871 and has expired copyright. I am not sure about the other quote. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Lewis poem is from a 1954 letter, but we only quote two of six stanzas.pdf I don't see what's wrong with an extended quote, myself, but in the latter we probably only need the first four lines of the second stanza. --Dhartung | Talk 22:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The phrase is notable, and it is convenient to refer people to the page when I use the phrase and they give me a confused look. --Larry Hastings (talk) 13:49, 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 per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 00:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lamhirh[edit]

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

A fictional character without any secondary sources given. PROD was contested with comment: "main protagonist - notable". I disagree. Notability requires objective evidence, and I do not see any here. The article combines pure plot summary ((WP:NOT#PLOT) with unsourced interpretation of the character ((WP:NOR)). B. Wolterding (talk) 20:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Could be expanded; these novels are some of the best selling sci-fi novels in Japan. But all of the articles need some heavy clean up; they're using the 'correct' spelling given in the guidebooks, rather than the phonetic spelling used in all the English translations. That seems to go against the MOS guidelines... Doceirias (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Quasirandom's and Collectonian's reccomendation. I could not find any reliable sources that would warrant keeping the article. A link to one of the more notable fan sites on the List of Seikai characters would provide the same level of information from a fan standpoint (which appears to already be there). --JadeFox (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I'd learn towards keep, simply because it's a main character from a series of novels and of two anime series, and I've seen us dig up enough real world context on characters that had much less than that. So consider me supporting keep, but with a merge tag on the article. And this might be some of my own bias coming out, but as far as fictional characters go, she's far better developed than most (which might indicate some additional real-world context). -- Ned Scott 03:20, 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. Wizardman 03:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indie-electro[edit]

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

Properly creating 2nd nomination for User:The-15th, who improperly (but in good faith) re-opened the earlier discussion with the following rationale: "The article has been created again with the same redundancy as the last time. The genre DOESN'T EXIST, but the person who created the article again doesn't seem to understand anything about it. Delete." I am neutral on this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:36, 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.
  • Excellent idea 'Paul Erik'. Will do just that. SunCreator (talk) 17:22, 21 April 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 - there was a clear consensus that this event does not meet notability standards. The problem with the Irish Times source is that it is an announcement of the event, of a type commonly prepared from an organisers' press release, and not a report on the event. TerriersFan (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Docklands Fun Run[edit]

Non-notable local non-competitive sports event. City marathons are usually highly notable, but the world hosts about 3 billion fun runs every day, and most are of nothing more than minor local significance. This one, referenced only to its organiser's website, looks no different. There are no references to substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, so fails WP:N. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:05, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Five second Google search keep - An article in The Irish Times devoted entirely to this topic constitutes non-trivial coverage in a reliable source independent of the subject, thus satisfying WP:N, and more importantly, verifying the existence of and basic facts about this topic. I would strongly encourage the nominator to do a minimum of due diligence in nominating articles for deletion. Skomorokh 12:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Delete Although I agree with the nom that most short road races are usually non-notable, this one might be with some coverage. Not enough coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search on Google news[6] reveals just one solitary ghit[7] for this subject. A single report about an event or topic is not sufficient to establish notability. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:56, 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 delete G4 by User:CIreland. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Untitled 8th Studio Album (Green Day Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased (and as of yet untitled) album with no claim of meeting WP:Notability. While it is likely the album will be notable one day, there isn't enough here to satisfy WP:CRYSTALBALL. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by nominator: I see this has been through AfD before, and resulted in a delete. G4 applies if anyone is inclined to speedy.--Fabrictramp (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete G4 Not sure how close this is to the previously deleted version, but it's probably close enough for G4 to apply. So tagged. (On top of that, based on my knowledge of Green Day, many of these covers seem dubious.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:58, 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) 02:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Love Without Pain[edit]

No Love Without Pain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced information; too early to determine tracks, if it's true Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 19:02, 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. Pigman☿ 05:47, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Management Team[edit]

Senior Management Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

dicdef that also happens to be inaccurate (the educational use is hardly the most common usage) Ratarsed (talk) 17:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as the original prodder, I think my original prod reason — Inaccurate (the educational use is hardly the most common usage) dicdef; IMO not worth transwikiing due to the inaccuracy and the fact that it's a self-explanatory term — sums it up. — iridescent 18:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Well, it's accurate for the school I attend, but educational usage isn't the same as most common usage. PeterSymonds | talk 09:13, 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 --JForget 00:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InGen[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources and is just an in-universe plot repetition of information culled from the Jurassic Park articles and is therefore duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep central in enough novels and films to justify forking it out for stylistic reasons; also, large number of relevant ghits for "International Genetic Technologies". JJL (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that matters if it fails notability, which you haven't addressed. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to WP:CFORK and WP:Summary style. JJL (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge major plot element in two best selling books, three major motion pictures and an upcoming movie. BJTalk 18:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, merging this somewhere and redirecting wouldn't be a bad idea but I can't think of any suitable pages. Isla Nublar and Isla Sorna suffer from the same problem as this article. BJTalk 18:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. Article is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Luksuh 03:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:FICT by lacking any evidence of real-world notability. Terraxos (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is an important plot element of notable books and films. Celarnor Talk to me 18:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Keep, much discussed as a plot element of multiple books and films, so much of the article could be referenced to non-primary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, organizes information about the company, easier to find than if it were deleted
  • Keep — (or maybe merge) per Bjweeks. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 19:18, 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. Notability seems to be established, though reliable sources should be added to the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tretter Collection[edit]

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

Fails WP:ORG, fails to cite sources, and fails Google test. Delete GreenJoe 17:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. --  Aleta Sing 21:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Google in fact does return relevant hits that can be used to source this article. Aleta Sing 22:00, 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. Although consensus appears to be for keep, we must discount those arguments that are either WP:ILIKEIT or based on non-existant policy. Let's be clear: notability is not transferrable. Simply being associated with notable people does not make one notable. When I looked at the content that had been removed, it was clear to me that (unless sourced), it was a massive violation of WP:BLP, and as such could not be included in this article. With sufficient time to source it, no one did. Therefore, my decision (which I expect to be controversial) is DELETE.. - Philippe 15:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally: A user has asked to userfy this article to attempt to improve it's sourcing. I have done so. - Philippe 17:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Guppy[edit]

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

Unnotable person, BLP nightmare (ie almost no sources for serious accusations) and far from being nPOV appears to be an attack page. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please contain your bad faith, this chap is unnotable and your claim this is a bad faith nomination is what in bad faith. Thanks, SqueakBox 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - What is wrong with some wikipedians! This is obviously a notable page - if it is deficient in its content then improve it. It has a reference. Chendy (talk) 11:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - Really, why is this even being consider for deletion? Ecoleetage (talk) 01:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely Keep -- Guppy is admittedly a minor figure himself, but he figures prominently in the career of Boris Johnson, the addled buffoon who may well become the next Mayor of one of the world's largest cities, London. The fact that Johnson would entertain a plot by Guppy to nobble an inconvenient journalist says a great deal about both men. I lived through the whole Guppy Episode, so if it is only a matter of sources, I would rather provide them myself than see an essentially correct page censored. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad.staddon (talk • contribs) 18:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC) only edit of user[reply]
  • Keep - This should be kept because of the subject's association with Boris Johnson and Mark Thatcher.Mostyn 15:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - it must (and definitely can) be sourced and improved, but it's lasting notability is a big question for me. In other words, this article is very likely a WP:ONEEVENT issue. BWH76 (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak delete. Based on this article, it seems that Guppy's friends and relatives all pass WP:BIO but he has no apparent notability on his own. If this is kept, the article needs to be expanded and better source to demonstrate better his claims to fame. Being the best man at Earl Spencer is not enough; nor are simply being a friend of Mark Thatcher or being the son of a very notable zoologist. People who claim sufficient notability should ensure that the source(s) of the notability be included in the article.B.Wind (talk) 03:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator has been removing relevant details from the article, in particular that the subject is a notorious criminal. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless notability rubs off from other people, I'm not seeing any claim in the article for his actual need to be in an encyclopedia. Shell babelfish 03:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that is because the nominator has been taking such well-sourced material out. Since this is disrupting the AFD, I shall re-instate it.
  • Keep - This should be kept because of the subject's association with Boris Johnson, who is running as Mayor for London in the UK, and Mark Thatcher. --Tomhannen (talk) 14:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete as probably made up and failing the notability guidelines anyway. Davewild (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hans Shlepkopper[edit]

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

This is not an existing surname, there is no single Google hit for it outside the technoviking discussions. The name was probably made up in this blog with other fake information. Сасусlе 17:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article Techno Viking was speedied, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 18:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most likely a made up name, and the article is incorrect in saying that this person is known as the Techo Viking- the g-hits make reference in a fakelore way (see the blog link; this is typical). JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:20, 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 per absence of delete preferences (non-admin closure). The possibility of merging is left open to editors of the article. Skomorokh 14:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabbat (World of Darkness)[edit]

Sabbat (World of Darkness) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fictional clan of vampires. Contested prod. Prod removed with no other change to the article, nor explanation on the talk page other than "I object to the deletion". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 23:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Major element of a hugely notable franchize. While it it is true that notability is not inherited, major plot elements of highly notable works have historically found a place in Wikipedia, if not as stand-alone articles then certainly as sections of other entries. In this case, as with the recent D&D related AfDs, the notability of this article seems to have passed the threshold established by consensus. ◄Zahakiel► 23:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What consensus exactly? As is, this certainly fails the WP:PLOT and/or WP:WAF guidelines and there's no references outside of original source material. My comment on the similar AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inconnu (World of Darkness) applies here too. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've expressed some lack of familiarity with these topics on your comment on the AfD for Inoccu, so you probably haven't been following the AfDs of other RPG-related discussions such as a great many of them on D&D related elements and creatures. The overwhelming majority of AfDs resulted in Keeps, or at least Merges; I'm talking about that consensus, lack of secondary sources is generally not considered a reason for deletion on its own if the article is on a major element of a very notable, highly referenced work. This is a somewhat controversial area, as you'll quickly see if you read the talk page for WP:FICTION and related pages, but having been a part of a number of said AfDs, I'm just letting you know how they've gone. This is not, of course, saying that this article will definitely survive this attempt at deletion, but based upon how similar articles have been dealt with, I think it should. The reasons that apply there apply here also. ◄Zahakiel► 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm quite familiar with what's been going on with the D&D pages. While I don't necessarily agree with how that's being handled, some of it is merited and worthwhile. Upon further looking, I agree that the Book of Nod seems to have some references available, but obviously needs to be dealt with. --Craw-daddy | T | 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So where's the references that would demonstrate notability of each of these factions? The articles have been in existence for about a year and a half (for most of them anyway I think), yet no references have been added outside of the original source material, or a trivial one. Just because V:TM is a major RPG world, that doesn't mean that each of the vampiric sects, secret rituals, and other things are notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 09:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if any of these are used in any non-WoD material, except fan fiction and reviews. But I guess that goes with many of the other RPG materials. As for the sources from the game material, given time I could extract some references and generally clean up the articles, but it will take a lot of time, as I'm already quite busy with other projects. --Jhattara (Talk · Contrib) 09:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or at least Merge under Sects in Vampire the Masquerade or something similar. I agree with Jhattara. The infor mation on the Anarchs, Camerilla, & the Sabbat should either be kept, and edited or merged together as they are very important to the Old World of Darkness.Noremon (talk) 10:02, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the various vampires. The usual compromise. why not do these things away from AfD. DGG (talk) 23:33, 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 keep per unanimity of responses (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 01:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life of da Party[edit]

Life of da Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N, its the third single, not really notable for its own article. TrUCo-X 16:13, 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 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

B & W Engineering Corporation[edit]

AfDs for this article:
B & W Engineering Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN company (confirmed by article), already prodded, but prod removed so here it is for discussion. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:05, 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 00:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom Of Speech (mixtape)[edit]

Freedom Of Speech (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can only presume at this point that this is a contested prod, as the author twice edited to break the prod template and an anon (probably the same person) deleted the rest. Completely non-notable, also perhaps either WP:HOAX or WP:CRYSTAL, based on the date the article was created and the "expected release date" of the mixtape. Gromlakh (talk) 15:46, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alice in Genderland[edit]

Alice in Genderland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity-published book. Nominated for minor award. Article creator appears to be author, judging from contribs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:43, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard J. Novic, M.D.[edit]

Richard J. Novic, M.D. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Psychiatrist/author/blogger. One vanity-published book, which was nominated (but did not win) award. Very likely autobio, judging from creator's other contribs. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a non-notable person failing WP:BIO. Of course, the self-promotional angle helps things not at all. Bfigura (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. These vanity-press authors pay for publication then they come here and write vanity articles about their vanity books. I'm sick of it. No notability whatsoever, nothing but WP:SPAM. Get rid of it. Qworty (talk) 20:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam comment. He/she also went all around WP posting spam to the vanity-press book and now I'm going to have spend the next hour cleaning it up. God I hate the people who spam us! Example: [9]
    • Comment Shouldn't you "assume good faith" and wait to see how the AfDs close? Links to a notable author or book may be relevant to the articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • With all due respect, I sadly don't know if there's ever "good faith" behind WP:SPAM. Qworty (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 23:32, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it cartainly comes up a lot on google when serched for and not just from spam but genuine reviews some of them... Wikipedia:Search_engine_test might explain why a transgender book does not get the massive notable hits you would expect from book about computers???Flutterdance (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC) QWORDTY you make me want to weep for your poor soul having to do all that tidying up Flutterdance (talk) 16:36, 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 (withdrawn by nom.). (non-admin close) JJL (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Wade[edit]

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

Non-notable disc jockey from Syracuse who seems to have very little history. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 15:31, 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, due to the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 19:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Call of Combat[edit]

Call of Combat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely unreferenced (WP:V), no assertion of notability (WP:N), history section appears to be original research (WP:OR) Marasmusine (talk) 14:51, 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 and retitle to STARFLEET Command (fan group). - Philippe 14:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STARFLEET Command[edit]

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

Unreferenced and no assertion of notability/significant third-party coverage. --EEMIV (talk) 14:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't seem very notable at all, I say delete it. I've never herd of it myself anyway, though I'm not into star trek...--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's the kind of topic that could be notable if there were reliable sources for it, but the lack of them in the article (and in a cursory search by me) suggests to me that this is not a notable organization. ~ mazca talk 16:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, does not seem worthy of note and can confuse links to Starfleet#Starfleet Command, which discusses starfleet command in the Star Trek series. Wiz9999 (talk) 23:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say keep. The claim that it was started in 1974 appears to be true. Check out this search, and some of the results there-in. Notable enough for me. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 00:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if kept, the article needs to be retitled to something like STARFLEET Command (fan group) because there is already an existing redirect called Starfleet Command which in turn leads to Starfleet. 23skidoo (talk) 14:48, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some coverage in reliable secondary sources (see [10]) sufficient for notability concerns, I strongly agree that the article needs to be retitled as per 23skidoo. - Dravecky (talk) 01:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but retitle I believe that enough has been said. It is notable enough as it on the first page of Google when you search "Starfleet Command" but on the present article name it will hardly be found as it is too similar to Starfleet#Starfleet Command. Jhfireboy Talk 20:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coatrack article's primary purpose is to present a list of the fan club's presidents. No independent sources cited as of this posting. Delete but leave open the possibility of an unbiased, well-sourced article of the club (instead of its officers) that demonstrates compliance with WP:ORG. B.Wind (talk) 03:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete for failing WP:BIO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliano Klevanskis[edit]

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

Delete. Vanity/COI article, notability not established, author of one published book, no independent references. WWGB (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Written by an editor with a single purpose account. No independent services. Wikipedia is not a resumé service. B.Wind (talk) 03:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast[edit]

List of bus terminals in Moscow Oblast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was decided in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kolomna Bus Terminal to merge a number of stubs into this list. While such mergers sometimes result in a decent article, I don't think that has been the case here. What purpose does this list fulfill? We're not supposed to be a tour planner or travel guide. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No we're not supposed to be a tour planer or travel guide, but this provides information to people who are planning tours or making travel guides. Just because the information will be looked for by a certain type of people doesn't make it any less important. I say keep it, because it will matter to some people, even if you or I don't give a damn about these bus terminals.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or keep: Since all the listed terminals are operated by Mostransavto, it might make sense to merge this content into that article. If other Moscow bus operators have terminals, it might make sense to keep a combined list. Either way, the list is finite, non-judgmental, useful, and verifiable, so it should stay in one form or another. —C.Fred (talk) 14:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Mostransavto. Although Wikipedia tends to favor articles about train stations and bus terminals and even the dinkiest place on the map, this list is not terribly useful. "Moscow oblast" is along the lines of one of the provinces of Russia, and Mostrasavto operates the bus lines there. As is, the article is nothing more than a list of cities, followed by the word "bus terminal". A map, or some other information (distance from Moscow, perhaps) would be useful, and maybe an article about the bus line would be the place for that. Mandsford (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as Mandsford suggested. This is entirely valid information, but I don't think this list actually serves much of a purpose on its own. It would do better as part of another article. ~ mazca talk 16:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per pretty much everyone else. this is valid information, it just isn't in the right place. Celarnor Talk to me 18:44, 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 00:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ceiling server[edit]

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

Evidently this is a slang term to describe an illegitimate gaming server run within a school, thought up by a few people. It's clearly not notable here. Its' only references are a forum post and a Digg link. Almost all of it reads like an instruction manual. Much as I love the concept itself (stealthy rebellion?), a term thought up among a few friends is not worthy of a Wikipedia article. SMC (talk) 13:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a genius idea and should be kept. It is something he has invented, and I feel his invention should be noted whether common or rare.

I think the article should stay, this is a serious project We will constantly add new information about ceiling servers. Please give us sometime since the article is very new!

/Jaomi

  • Yes, perhaps you are serious about it Jaomi, but it is not notable enough for inclusion. To be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia, it has to have recieved coverage by reliable, third party sources such as newspapers, large websites, books, television. This hasn't. Have a read over Wikipedia:Notability.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment: I agree with Jaeger123 here, I really don't find it notable enough for the Wiki. But great idea, though. THE KC (talk) 14:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. I do like the idea very much, but unfortunately cool ideas that haven't been reported on by independent sources pretty much fall foul of WP:NOR. If you can give us some sources that show this term/concept being used by reliable sources I will happily vote keep, but right now it doesn't look that way. ~ mazca talk 16:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Jaomi´s Comment- Okay, It seems that you want proof that it really exist. If i can give you those proofs, can the article stay?

I also understand there might not be anykind if common intresst in what I did. But also, it´s a pretty cool thing i don´t think many others done before me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaomi (talk • contribs) 17:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a perfect example of non-notable things that were made-up in school one day. Bfigura (talk) 22:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a perfect example of human ingenuity. There's no information on these because there's no central place for said information. — 86.3.234.71 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete. Clever, resourceful, and absolutely non-notable. --Craw-daddy | T | 23:18, 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) 08:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Flykkiller Second Album[edit]

Untitled Flykkiller Second Album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested PROD. Future album that doesn't even have a name yet. Uploading user was actually advised here not to create the article yet, but they went ahead and did it anyway. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Roleplayer (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, delete, we have no information about it whatsoever apart from the fact that it will be released sometime in the future. We don't know exactly when, the name of the album, what tracks it will contain or anything like that.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources exist on the album yet. And "(artist)'s (nth) studio album" is usually a red flag anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • don't delete, check band's myspace blog to check about new album being announced and containing the track "timebomb" at a gig i was at on 10th April 2008 after speaking to both stephen hilton and pati yang, they confirmed another song off the new record was called "human" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themutantcow (talk • contribs) 13:58, 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 Delete --JForget 00:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific Explanation for the Event of Miraj[edit]

Scientific Explanation for the Event of Miraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Prophet Muhammad's Journey of Miraj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (nearly the same content)

This article appears to be presenting some original research on the part of the author (Hafiz Owais-ur-rehman Khan) on an attempt to unify Islamic tradition with modern science. Note that we already have a perfectly good article on the legend of Isra and Mi'raj, so nothing's being lost. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, I think it's what you call a point of view fork, where someoen creates a related article to emphasise on one point of view.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, original research. Note that the text of the article closely mirrors this blog post, both of which presume to be written by the same person. (I'm comfortable enough that it's the same author that, rather than deleting as copyvio, I'm deeming the blog post to have been licensed into the GFDL by its posting on Wikipedia.) —C.Fred (talk) 14:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Complete OR, per above. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would we keep an article about a "scientific explanation" for loaves and fishes? Perhaps, if someone were to have published sources for it. However, I agree that this is original research that started with a website, and whose author continues to enjoy the anonymity of Wikipedia (and I hope and pray that the screen name isn't anyone's real name). If you want to compare the "Miraj" to a "mirage", do it at your own risk. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — looks like WP:OR to me. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 18:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all of the excellent reasons given above. Qworty (talk) 01:54, 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. Veinor (talk to me) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dianetics 55![edit]

Dianetics 55! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At present the only things that could be considered references in this article are links to external websites affiliated with the Church of Scientology. I searched in two separate news archives for "Dianetics 55!" - and both came up with zero results. Also zero results in an archive of book reviews. I found one hit in a scholarly article by John Weldon, titled Scientology: From Science Fiction to Space-age Religion - but even in this article the book itself is not analyzed or discussed at all, merely used twice as a cite. In a search of books I was unable to find any books that discuss/analyze "Dianetics 55!" in any detail - those that mention the book simply include it in passing in a list of Scientology books by L. Ron Hubbard. The only book that seems to mention anything other than a mention in passing of "Dianetics 55!" is a later reprint of Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources not affiliated with the publisher of the book itself that significantly discuss/analyze/review "Dianetics 55!". A search for "Dianetics 55!" doesn't even return very many Google hits to anything other than Scientology-affiliated websites. Suggest deletion, redirect isn't necessary as it is not likely that people will be searching for this specific term. Cirt (talk) 11:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only thing in this article that attempts to give context outside of the book itself is the Varrient text section, which could be murged into the main article, however it lacks any citations and appears to be origional Reacerch. Otherwise I too couldn't find anything that indicated notablility for this article, the only thing I could find where advertisements from book publishers.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:38, 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) 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Bradshaw[edit]

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

Fictional character which appears in one feature length film and one short film (slightly different character, different actress). Does not meet notability guidelines or the propsed fiction notability guideline. I can't see any significant coverage of the character on google or google books, and think it is unlikely that there will be any. BelovedFreak 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —BelovedFreak 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per nom. I didn't find sources either, and there aren't any in the article. If I thought there was any intrinsic notability for this fictional character, I would argue to keep and improve. But I don't. And the article has been abandoned since it was created in July 2007 without references or improvement. It doesn't assert importance, and some of the content seems to be in the DEBS movie article anyway, and the rest is IMDB stuff, more or less. I'm surprised this wasn't speedied or prodded some time ago. — Becksguy (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There are unlikely to be any significant sources about the character beyond the movie itself and the short film on which it was based. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Aleta Sing 21:32, 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. Notability and verifiability are ensured. Reasons given for deletion are the tone being to promotional, and the original purpose of creation of the article being to promote the subject. Neither are grounds for deletion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:36, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ChinesePod[edit]

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

Chinesepod is commercial site. Visitors need to pay to get most of services. Some famous VC and investment companies have plan to invest this company. When you search 'learn Chinese' in google, you can see a lot of AD of Chinesepod. Chinesepod is a language training company in Shanghai. [Subscription Price] The article was written only for advertising and SEO (Search Engine Optimize). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yesjaneiss (talk • contribs) 10:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article clearly states notability and verifiability. The fact that it's commercial is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - I cannot agree with you. Chinesepod is a business service, not a academic site. Any commercial sites all offer some free trial contents. Visitors need to pay to get most of services. [Subscription Price]. For 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post', in China, if you hope to promote your business, you can bribe a newspaper reporter easily. Generally after a reporter gets $100-200, he will report your business. If you hope to do more promotion, you also need to bribe editors and related people. So 'been mentioned on NPR and the Shanghai Morning Post'. For 'ranked highly by Yahoo', SEO or another online promotion business service can help. For 'has in excess of 10,000 downloads a day', Which authority or neutral statistical agencies can give out the data? In China, there is no such body. I guess most of the description are from the operators for the promotion. For 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China', in my opinion, it is not convincing. In China, the most popular podcast services are related to music. It is the same as in the other countries. Moreover, China's lack of copyright protection, and free music podcast is of course the most popular. BTW, any Chinese people need to learn Chinese through downloading podcast? If only foreign people in China use it, how we can say 'the 3rd most popular podcast in China'. So the article is written only for Advertising and SEO. Yesjaneiss —Preceding comment was added at 16:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That entire paragraph is irrelevant. The subject is notable and verifiable. The nature of the subject doesn't matter in the least. Celarnor Talk to me 18:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any commercial sites should not be included in wiki for promotion. At least, all of links to the commercial site Chinesepod.com and Praxis Languages Ltd should be removed. The article is very clear to introduce commercial services and product features including Presenters and related company site. The article is also clear to encourage people to order or subscribe their services --Operacenter (talk) 16:53, 12 April 008 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesn't include commercial sites for promotion. It includes them because they are of note and verifiable sources exist regarding them. Would you suggest we delete Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco, and all of the other hundreds of elements of the businesses category? Celarnor Talk to me 21:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft, Red Hat, Cisco are well-known public companies. Promotion and traffic from Wiki is not important for the 3 companies. But Chinesepod is only small website and private company. Wiki traffic and pagerank is important for Chinesepod. How can you make sure the article was not written by Chinesepod? So I think at least the external links should be removed. --Operacenter (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While there are a few bits that could be reworded, most of this page is pretty NPOV already, and doesn't read like an advertisement. As an encyclopedia, we are SUPPOSED to have articles on notable topics, which includes any and all notable businesses. If you have a problem with the way the article is written, edit it to sound better. But there's no reason to delete this.--Aervanath (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was only thinking that it's a bit strange that an editor with less than 10 edits has entered AfD... If it's legit, then sorry for the intrusion, but if it's not just coincidence....Undeath (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, six edits, all having to do with this AfD. Single-purpose account?--Aervanath (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But that isnt illegal, is it? Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 22:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, not illegal. But it gives the impression of a) sockpuppetry or b) conflict of interest, or c) both. I don't know about you, but I highly doubt there are many editors whose very first edit is proposing an AfD. I think my first edit was reverting vandalism to the Doughnut article. It took me a while before I found out about AfD. But then, maybe I'm just slow. :) --Aervanath (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • This conversation might help to explain how a new editor nominated an article for WP:AFD with their first edit - I think it highly probable that Yesjaneiss and Yesjaneis are one and the same person & forgot how they had spelled their username. Still somewhat of an WP:SPA but not quite as odd as it looks on the surface. nancy (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Possible, but the other account also has only 6 edits. Still looking like a single-purpose account, or that both of them are sockpuppets for someone else.--Aervanath (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is well-referenced, appears quite notable. If we couldn't have commercial sites, we couldn't even have an article on Google. Nyttend (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article is not without its problems but none of them are reasons to delete. It is a perfectly adequately referenced article about a notable website. nancy (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's good to have info on Chinesepod. I just came here because I was looking for info on the hosts. You can't remove something because it's commercial, almost everything on Wikipedia are commercial enterprises (Books, Movies, Companies of every kind, pretty much every organization if it's not a non-profit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.25.199 (talk • contribs) — 74.66.25.199 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep It's a fairly popular site and I've seen it around a few times. It shouldn't be too difficult to find even more references in addition to the ones that are already there. Gary King (talk) 20:10, 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 Merge. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depa Billaba[edit]

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

Way too much detail for such a minor character. Should be merged to a minor characters section. JuJube (talk) 10:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a sec, you want to delete and merge becuase the article has too much detail? The fact that so much can be written on something so small makes it worthy of its own article.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancruft, no evidence of outside notability. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak merge to a list of minor characters section. Subject is actually a fairly major character in several books and comics; in the field of lightsaber combat, she is especially notable as one of a handful of users of the Vaapad lightsaber form, but there isn't much in the way of real-world notability. Celarnor Talk to me 18:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, but preferably merge. She's just not notable enough for her own article. Since she is a Padawan of Mace Windu, a Jedi Master from Coruscant, a member of the species of "Chalactan" people, and a Jedi who falls to the Dark Side, I'm sure there's plenty of places to properly fit her in. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 00:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Celarnor. As it was written, this article cannot stand on its own as cleanup would not really be an option here. B.Wind (talk) 03:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete due to lack of notability. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marry Me (comic)[edit]

Marry Me (comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this web comic notable? One independent source is given, a review at Broken Frontier (not quite clear to me whether it's user-generated), but others have not been found in almost one year (article was tagged with {{notability}} in June 2007). Notability seems controversial by the talk page, thus it may warrant a wider discussion. B. Wolterding (talk) 10:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I tagged this back in June last year and pursued the notability question on the talk page and got no where. I had hoped that this would be a temporary thing and someone more knowledgeable would have come along and addressed the problems by now but they haven't and I don't know how long we are expected to wait for it. I say delete it but with no prejudice on re-creating it at some point when someone can come up with some actual reliable sources (Broken Frontier is handy for reviews and often interviews but isn't that great on its own for proving notability). If it gets deleted and anyone wants to bring it back to life they can drop me a note and I can bring the current version back to life but I'd need to be happy about the sources. (Emperor (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 12:49, 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 00:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian schools admission policies[edit]

Hawaiian schools admission policies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks notability; this article doesn't contain much information, and what it does discuss is probably better handled on the pages for each school individually. Musashi1600 (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For each school individually? I don't think that's appropriate, it would open a whole directory can of worms - Wikipedia is not the repository of such information, as outlined here. WilliamH (talk) 10:15, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes I say delete and have a section for each school's individual article. I would, however, like to make the point that such articles can be well written and encyclopediodic despite what you might think from the title, and it isn't all trivia.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to what the title ("Hawaiian schools") implies, this has nothing to do with the State of Hawaii or how it administers education. It's about three private schools that happen to be in Hawaii. The information about admission at a particular school can go in that school's article, if the school has an article. If you're wanting to enroll your kid at one of the three schools, don't check Wikipedia, check with the school you're interested in. Mandsford (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mandsford. Leftfoot69 (talk) 18:49, 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 --JForget 00:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies[edit]

Hankuk Academy of Foreign Studies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not an encyclopaedic article (does not meet the basic Wiki standards as well). USERNAME REDACTED 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


  • Keep. Although the article should be heavily cut down; I'd say it's just about as notable as any high school. Jobjörn (talk) 09:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like crap at the moment, itneeds a complete rewrite, but that's no reason to delete. It could be a good article sometime.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup It is a notable school specializing in foreign languages. However, the article needs to be cleaned up. --Appletrees (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator's name is very disturbing me because it is a slur! I suspect what intention he has. ("nom" simply refers to "chad" BUT the user name means something inappropriate in Korean. Korean calls himself as such the name?). I should report his violation on Wiki naming policy. I feel like I know this seemingly new Korean editor due to his great interest in DAB articles and Korean educational institutions.--Appletrees (talk) 16:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as the subject is probably notable, but the article at present has some pretty severe COI and OR issues. I would suggest reverting, but earlier revisions of the article don't appear to be much (if at all) better. Perhaps stub it and start over with information that can actually be verified? PC78 (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be okay with PC78's solution. But it just would be a plain stub, as nearly no information can be verified... --USERNAME REDACTED 17:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Of course, Keep. It's a well-known school. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject itself clearly deserves an article. Also, I share Appletree's suspicion of the nomination given the nature of the nominator's name, which is about as harsh and vulgar a swear-word as there is in the Korean language. Dekkappai (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & cleanup*I think it should be kept but cleaned up. WHile it is considered a prestigious high school and now has a good reputation, keeping it in this condition is not a good idea. It lacks key information. It should be revised so that it should accurately reflect the school's reputation, backed by some FACTS. Idoversuperego (talk) 09:53, 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 --JForget 00:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The project Management in Infosys[edit]

The project Management in Infosys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

disputed prod. non-notable process and quite likely copyright infringement. Parts read like an ad. Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The level of literacy shown suggests more that this is some kind of paper submitted to some sort of business seminar (hopefully not an MBA program). It's basically an essay. Many corporations have internal project management templates, but only some of them are notable outside the company. --Dhartung | Talk 09:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The comment on this revision may be helpful in establishing the status of this article. Essay. [11] --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable, and OR. --moof (talk) 10:36, 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. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers[edit]

2010 FIFA World Cup Qualifying Goalscorers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Since FIFA does not officially publish the chart combine together from different confederations. Per Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information not previously published. So, this should be consider as "own analysis". Aleenf1 09:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes the article is currently OR, but just because FIFA doesn't publish the lists doesn't mean it can't be backed up by third party sources. I've read at least 2 newspapers that listed top goalscorers for the 2010 qualifiers, and there must be plenty of websites out there that do so as well. They can record it themselves simply by watching matches.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification, perhaps cropping the list to top 10 only.  ARTYOM  15:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Artyom. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as the data is published I don't see that it's OR simply because it's tabulated. I agree that a merge into 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification is appropriate to avoid accusations of cruft. This is the case for the individual federations (see 2010 FIFA World Cup qualification (CAF)#Goalscorers). --Deadly∀ssassin 20:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge - I suggest reading the first line of WP:OR#Sources which encourages organizing material from existing sources, in direct contradiction to the claim of the original nominator. Neier (talk) 22:59, 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 --JForget 00:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federico Crescentini[edit]

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

No assertion of notability, possible BLP1E/NOT Memorial. Prodded for nn, prod removed based on WP:FOOTYN guideline. There is no way to fill this article out, because subject has no career references to find other than what I have already found, none of which make anything but a passing reference to him. He made six (or eight, sources differ) appearances for San Marino as a defender, only one of which appears to be as a starter. There's this link which shows him subbed in at minute 72 vs. Ireland, and this one which shows him subbed out at minute 46. He is basically notable for his death, as shown here where he is at that time listed as a former player, not a current one. Therefore, I believe that this is semantically stretching WP:ATHLETE a little too much - Crescentini should have at least 6 years of professional career info available as a 24-year old player for a national team, and it's not locatable AFAIK. Almost all his coverage is based on his death. MSJapan (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have thousands of articles like this, and it's a "stub" that gives some details. It gives the details to anyone who wants them, so I say keep.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep His national appearances for San Marino make him notable, regardless of whether the article can be expanded or not. Eddie6705 (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as original prod contester, per meeting WP:FOOTYN guidelines as well as additional coverage due to his death. Jfire (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - international footballer therefore notable. GiantSnowman (talk) 18:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep International footballer not notable??? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:22, 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 per WP:SNOW/WP:IAR. Article was improved greatly since nomination, and nominator has been indef blocked for incivility, so this was possibly a bad faith nom in the first place. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:47, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hattie Gossett[edit]

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

Delete as non-notable. Mr. P. S. Phillips † Talk to me 07:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. (Thanks for bringing this to AFD as in its nominated state it is borderline A7.) Her linked biography does show claims to notability. Google News Archive shows numerous [reviews] of her works in the New York Times, Village Voice, and other publications, dating back to the 1980s. She appears in numerous Google Books including biographies of Alice Walker and others. --Dhartung | Talk 09:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Dhartung on this one, there is plenty indication that she can be considered notable. --Apis 11:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the nominator of this AfD has been indef-banned for racism. Black Kite 11:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article has a way to go but its subject is certainly notable and sufficient evidence seems to have been provided for its current stub format. Black Kite's note also raises the possibility that this was a bad-faith nomination in the first place. ~ mazca talk 16:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above, WP:SNOW please. I would do it myself but I've been pulled into wider discussions linked with this. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per above. Jfire (talk) 17:23, 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. Nomination was withdrawn after cleanup of the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Epistemics of Divine Reality[edit]

Epistemics of Divine Reality (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Essay, original research Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 07:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an excellent article on one of the greatest questions of human religion: Can God be known? If yes, then how, by recourse to natural theology or to divine revelation? If God doesn't reveal Himself, can man know God? But most importantly, can man establish the existence of God with reference to either reason or experience alone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdsmarb (talk • contribs) 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Don't let this discourage you from editing Rdsmarb (there are a shed load of religion/philosophy articles where your contributions with verifiable, reliable sources would be welcomed), but you have inadvertantly touched on why this article should be deleted. Wikipedia is not the publisher of original thought. WilliamH (talk) 10:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has lots of sources.
  • Keep or Merge to Existence of God. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been updated and gives information on the field of knowledge-theory. It relates to philosophy of religion and is on a topic that is of chief concern to philosophers of religion and philosophical theologians alike.117.98.4.214 (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am updating my opinion to add the Keep option since the direct sourcing has been improved. The issue now seems to be whether this is a separate topic from the article Existence of God. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Parts look like they could be WP:OR but not all of it, so the topic is a keep. SunCreator (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit. I removed the part that seems to be an advertisement for the views of R. Domenic Savio Marbaniang, professor of Philosophy of Religions at CITS, Itarsi & associate evangelist with Jesus Saves Jesus Heals Ministries, India. I can not identify the university, and none of the material seems to be published. Possibly the improved article will now stand. Otherwise, it's the publication of his OR. DGG (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I bow to the knowledge of people who know the subject matter better than me and have withdrawn the nom, especially now that the lengthy OR has been removed. I would still suggest that this needs to be merged with Existence of God. --Deadly∀ssassin 01:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The sourcing issue has not been addressed, since a significant number of them are from this website, R. Domenic S. Marbaniang is Rdsmarb. From what I can construe, this article is seemingly entirely his own self-citing essayist commentary, and should be deleted. WilliamH (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and edit or Merge: The subject is a branch of epistemology of religion, branch of the philosophy of religion. It may be merged under Philosophy of Religion; however, philosophy of religion is a wider subject and can't afford much space for this topic in an encyclopedia. The topic, however, is an important theme in apologetics, philosophical theology, philosophy of religion, and theology. I have removed much of the article-matter and given only an introductory statement.Rdsmarb (talk) 06:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced original research.--Sting au Buzz Me... 10:58, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attila wind[edit]

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

Non notable person and not referenced. Probably an autobiography. Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 07:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete under CSD Articles #1, it has no context, it doesn't say what the person did to be notable, or who the person really was, just a load of garbage. I don't know how to tag it myself though...--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not really a candidate for WP:CSD#A1 in my opinion, it has far too much information for that. It's not really an A7 either. It does offer some context and it kinda asserts that the subject is notable as a musician - though I doubt he's actually notable. ~ mazca talk 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an unreferenced non-notable autobiography. ~ mazca talk 16:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and MazcaCaissa's DeathAngel (talk) 20:48, 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 without prejudice to renomination if further work doesn't happen on the article.. - Philippe 14:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spots (cannabis)[edit]

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

Already been merged once at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spots. Same reasoning applies (that is, it reads like a how-to guide and doesn't have citations). Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 07:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - As it reads, this article has met all the stipulated requests of the Nomination for Deletion, note the dates below.Barfnz (talk) 06:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --moof (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, great majority of the article is a how-to guide and the only other content, three sentences at the start, are pretty much a slang dicdef. If it warrants a mention anywhere, a line in Cannabis smoking would be sufficient (though that article itself needs work). -- Mithent (talk) 02:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Do these reasons still apply? Article still needs work but has been cleaned up a lot. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 05:39, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


its a work in progress - give it time, as the article matures it will become more refined. if you hadn't deleted the old page, which was far superior, we wouldn't be in this position.

just because you find a particular behavior or topic offensive, does not give you the right to declare it not worthy of a wikipedia entry. this "encyclopedia" has the entries on the most trite of throw-away pop-culture, yet somehow spotting is not deserving of a page?

the how-to section has been removed and there is now multiple references. this negates the reasoning behind the AfD and therefore this article should be saved.

i think your efforts would be best directed elsewhere. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The issue is not the quantity or "offensiveness" of the content, but the content itself. This is to say, the subject is not notable by the standards of WP:N(Wikipedia's guide to notability), and that the majority of the article reads like a "how-to guide"(See: WP:NOT#HOWTO). (But I hope you do not feel as if we're singling you out. There are few editors on Wikipedia who haven't had articles deleted. I, myself, have had a few of my created articles deleted, so I can understand why you so strongly object.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 03:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a one-line mention in Cannabis smoking (I think it used to be there but I deleted it as part of a massive overhaul of that article, which incidentally still needs a lot more overhaul if there are any volunteers... ;p ) As far as I can tell, this is a real but very rare practice, certainly not notable enough for a separate article. And definitely, please no how-to guides. Oh, and also, it would be really fantastic if we could find a source, even if it's from High Times or something like that... --Jaysweet (talk) 20:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP this method of smoking is extremely popular here in NZ, even added some citations. 60.234.220.175 (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This method of smoking is NOT rare. Try looking in countries other than the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.98.31.34 (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It looks like all three of those IPs are regestered to the same place in New Zealand. I'm not saying they're the same person(though they very well could be), but it appears that "Spotting" is a local thing. All of the Google searches I've done confirm this. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP you obviously have some petty vendetta against this article so you're stooping to insinuations that these edits are fraudulent. i find this offensive and pathetic. just because you are blissfully ignorant of things outside of your country's borders does not mean they do not exist. please feel free to IMPROVE the article, note that this does not mean deleting large sections of information! If bongs, joints and pipes get their own articles I cannot see a good reason why spots is not deserving of one as well. while the article needs work, it is definitely notable, how people expect to get quality articles when all they want to do is delete content i dont know. how many wiki articles started their existence complete with references and a 100% neutral point of view? - stuff-all i'm sure! Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're making it difficult to assume good faith, person behind the IP address 210.86.28.21. But I think you missed my point. I'll copy and paste my previous point in bold: it appears that "Spotting" is a local thing. In hindsight, I also believe that I was in error in only Googling it under the name of "Spots". Still, I do not believe that there is a lot to say about spotting that wouldn't easily fit under Cannabis smoking. To be honest, I don't believe there is any method of consuming cannabis that wouldn't fit in that article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my reply below. Now that I have an account I would thank you to cease these attempts to discredit my edits. Ars666 (talk) 01:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hypothetically, if I ever did any crazy things in college, not that I would, or would know anything about this... But a certain very responsible and drug-free adult might have once encountered this practice many years ago as a crazy college kid in the northeastern US, only it was introduced to him as "Hot Knives." (Gee, does that count as a reliable source? heh) So I'm pretty sure the practice exists the world over, although it's definitely not common in the US.
Anyway, even if we have reliable citations that it's a common practice in NZ, I still don't see it as meriting more than a sentence or two in Cannabis smoking. What else would you say about it, except to briefly describe it (takes one sentence) and say that it is popular in NZ? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Simply because spotting is mainly an australasian activity is no reason to delete it. Spotting is an important part of australasian cannabis culture, and many other regional activities have their own articles. 60.234.220.175 (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete word-of-mouth lore. . No reputable references to prove notability. `'Míkka>t 06:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
reply: there are plenty of articles on topics that are undeniably notable that have weaker references than this one and no one is clamoring for their deletion, for example Black ops. one of the references on the Spots (cannabis) article is from a medical journal, how can you claim that is not reputable with a straight face? the reference that gives a rock song is also highly indicative of this activity being prevalent in society, a band is hardly likely to indirectly refer to a method of drug consumption that is not popular or does not exist. Ars666 (talk) 01:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop smoking pot then we shall talk reason. Obviously you don't understand how wikipedia works. `'Míkka>t 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever points Mikka has made should be disregarded. Based on Wikipedia:NPA Wikipedia:CIVIL
uhh.. excuse me? so what was your opinion regarding the notability of medical journals? are you too rude to address the points i raised or just unable? your comments suggest you are quite out of touch with marijuana-related culture, what makes you qualified to judge whether a particular activity occurs within a community that you obviously have no contact with and appear to treat with disdain? i suggest you find another article on which to act out your petty power struggles as you have no business here. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The medical journal ref -- if we assume it's accurate, I don't really want to pay to get the article, but we'll assume good faith and assume it backs up your assertion -- will be very useful when you add a sentence or two to the Cannabis smoking article. I just don't see enough valid material here to warrant an article. If I were to delete everything in the article that fails WP:HOWTO, WP:UNDUE, WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR, and other policies, we'd be left with no more than two sentences, tops. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I went ahead and did just that. For every single piece of content I removed, I referenced the appropriate Wikipedia policy in the edit summary, so no whining. The article is now three sentences long and basically covers the entire topic from an encyclopedic standpoint. Good merge candidate, you think? --Jaysweet (talk) 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i am against the merge as the content will only be deleted like before, it is quite obvious that you are not at all interested in keeping this information available on wikipedia. i am reverting the article because the previous content is a WORK IN PROGRESS - the discussion page openly states this, readily acknowledges the articles shortcomings and asks for others to contribute. as i have pointed out before, other wikipedia articles are allowed to exist without references to allow the article to develop; and as stated before, if Joints and Bongs are worthy of articles separate from Cannabis smoking then spotting is entitled to its own page too. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I am skeptical about the joint and bong article too. Please see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Maybe those articles should be merged/deleted too. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
since you arent actually involved in marijuana culture, i fail to see why you should be the one to determine whether these methods (that play a large role in the culture surrounding cannabis) deserve pages or not? you should stick to commenting on and editing articles that you are actually knowledgeable about, rather than using wikipedia as a vehicle for you to attempt to marginalize drug culture. if you are a regular editor on the cannabis smoking article, no wonder its in such a poor state. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These IPs are making unfounded assumptions and I am effing sick of it. They just assume that people who disagree with them don't know anything about the topic. What gave you that idea?! Hey, I know: Since these IPs aren't involved in the marijuana culture (just as valid for me to assume that about them as for them to assume that about me) and since they also are actually trained cats (hey, why not, since we are making things up about people that we don't know, they might as well be trained cats!), they should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia. After all, Wikipedia does have a strict "No Trained Cats" policy. --Jaysweet (talk) 02:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfounded assumptions? taken from the discussion above: "Hypothetically, if I ever did any crazy things in college, not that I would, or would know anything about this... But a certain very responsible and drug-free adult might have once encountered this practice many years ago as a crazy college kid in the northeastern US, only it was introduced to him as "Hot Knives.. To any reasonable person you have just said that while you may have dabbled with weed many years ago, you are now 'responsible and drug free'. From this I infer you have little-to-no contact with drug culture, and definitely no contact with the culture surrounding spotting in New Zealand. Ars666 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never met a weed smoker in new zealand who is not completely aware and accustomed to having spots. The practice is also known the world over by various names such as 'hot knives', 'blades' etc. This is hardly an obscure method of consumption. Even if spotting was practiced by a VERY limited number of people, according to WP:UNDUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". Going by this guideline, spots sound like a perfect candidate for their own page. Ars666 (talk) 01:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge insufficient amount of encyclopedic information to warrant a separate article. Mukadderat (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Massively popular within New Zealand. Definatly is "worthly of notice."
  • Delete, nn drugcruft. Stifle (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having read the previous incarnation of this article, there is definitely enough "encyclopedic content" available to make this article good if given the chance. Wakandas_black_panther, Jaysweet & Míkka seem determined to gut this article of any content and are clearly acting in bad faith Dirtyfilthy (talk) 17:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We already have a redirect for Hot knife (smoking). Spots and spotting should also redirect to a separate section within the Cannabis smoking article. This information is perfectly encyclopaedic. Karenjc 22:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DEFINATELY KEEP This article has existed in various forms for years and been deleted over the years for frivilous reasons each time. Now the article is consice, lists references and is free from opinionation. It is also culturally significant in New Zealand, seen in the media and in widespread colloqueal use in New Zealand vocabulary. It is absurd that people with no knowledge of New Zealand culture can be considered authoritarian enough to vouch for deletion of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.28.159.215 (talk) 18:57, April 20, 2008 (UTC)

Comment Does anyone else get that "sockpuppet/meatpuppet" feeling? If you don't, you should run though all of these IPs' and a few of these usernames' contribution lists. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 23:12, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: While that is a valid query, are you going to re-evaluate the quality of the article now? I have put a significant amount of work into this.Dirtyfilthy (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I will, indeed. You may read it below. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply-to: Black Panther: I am ABSOLUTELY FED UP with you insinuating my edits are fraudulent because I have (previously) chosen to not sign up for an account and thus use my IP address as an identifier. In my opinion, using my static IP address as an identifier is actually more honest than hiding behind some anonymous alias. Now I have an account so you can shove those accusations up your rear entrance. Cheers. Ars666 (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Chill. This is a discussion, not a boxing match. I believe that some of these opinions should be taken with a grain of salt because the IPs and users posting them have made very little to no edits in articles other than this page and Spots (cannabis). This makes it look like they are here only to defend this article. If any of them are you behind other IPs or usernames, and I'm not saying for sure they are, that would make them sockpuppets. If they are other people that you brought here simply to protest, that would make them meatpuppets. If they are neither, that would make them unbelievable coincidences. Either way, my purpose isn't to upset you, or anyone else, and I apologize if I have. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I feel that if this article is merged it will just get destroyed/gutted again, as happened last time (see "I think it used to be there but I deleted it as part of a massive overhaul of that article" - Jaysweet above ). Left alone this article has the potential to improve even further. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as per WP:N, (including actual books!) see article refs. Dirtyfilthy (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reevaluation The article has been edited extensively, and many changes have taken place. Because of this, I will reevaluate it based on its three previous issues: WP:HOWTO, WP:CITE, and WP:N.
  • First off, the article no longer reads like a how-to guide. This problem is solved.
  • Secondly, the citations. They're there, but are they reliable, and how do they handle the subject of Spotting? I will review them, one-by-one:
    • One is a website about being spiritual and mental pleasure. It is a general article about consuming cannabis, where Spotting is given one paragraph under what would be a level three header.
    • Two, three, four, and five are from drug-centered books which I do not have current access to. I will assume they are one-to-two page descriptions on the subject, at most.
    • Six looks like some sort of dictionary. It gives this definition of Spotting two sentences.
    • Three Looks like some sort of NZ travel guide. It gives Spotting about a paragraph under a level three header.
    • Eight is the exact same citation as four.
    • Nine is a health website article about cannabis in general. It gives spotting a two sentence mention, as well, under no particular headers.
    • Ten Is a NZ government article. It say this about spotting: "Possession of instruments (Found with a pipe, bong, needles, syringes, spotting knife); 1 year and/or $500 fine."
    • Eleven is a lyrics site that appears to reference spotting in the lyrics.
    • Twelve is a particularly un-notable-looking health-related website, with a general cannabis article. Spotting is mentioned in one bullet, because it may be slightly more unhealthy than other methods(?).
    • Thirteen Looks like a New Zealand pro-cannabis website. The article is about using vaporizers and spotting, because it's more healthy. (Wait, I thought it was LESS healthy, according to Twelve?) Most of the already-small article is about the vaporizers.
    • Fourteen is another magazine which I do not have access to. It appears to be about bongs, though.
    • Fifteen and Sixteen are referencing the dangers of inhaling burned plastic vapors.
  • Thirdly, the notability. Wikipedia usually treats a subject with the same level of importance that its citations give it. Going by these references, Spotting is worthy of mention in a larger article about consuming cannabis, and possibly also in the New Zealand article. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think that the fact there ARE multiple references, from multiple sources both online and off, is plenty of proof that the activity is widespread when you consider its underground nature. The NZ Police website refers to a 'spotting knife' this implies that, at the very least, all trained NZ Police officers are aware of the activity among marijuana users. While there should definitely be a mention of spotting on the cannabis smoking article, having it as the sole location of information regarding spotting will have a stifling effect on any future content, as detailed information would be considered extraneous in the context of that article. Also according to WP:UNDUE, "Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them". Ars666 (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All of the sources give it a very brief mention, most of them in larger articles about consuming cannabis. I believe Wikipedia should follow the same guideline. And your quote from WP:UNDUE is taken out of context. WP:UNDUE is about not presenting a minority idea or activity with the same weight as much larger ideas. (To give both joints and spots four paragraphs would be undue, because joints are far more popular an idea.) By this, it is a perfect candidate to be in a larger article. Once this discussion is closed, I plan to improve the Cannabis smoking article to show this. (As well as Spots, if it isn't deleted or merged.) ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you who is having difficulty interpreting WP:UNDUE. It clearly states that minority viewpoints are entitled to their own articles. If we were instead trying to take over the Cannabis smoking article and claim that spotting was the most prominent and popular method of consumption, then your point would be valid. Ars666 (talk) 05:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand "But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant", so it is perfectly appropriate for spots to have it's own article, and go into great depth on the subject, as long as it's relative popularity is mentioned Dirtyfilthy (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does what you just quoted have to do with a less-notable subject having its own article? ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply while I realise this is a bit WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I think you are trying to hold this article to a far higher standard than other marijuana articles.. The Cannabis smoking article itself only has four references, many of which are only tangential to the main subject. As said before article will improve given half the chance, I've only had a day. Nonetheless I will head to the library tonight and try and find some better references. I think it is pretty harsh to discount the book references out of hand. - Dirtyfilthy (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hold all articles to the same standards: The standards of Wikipedia. I don't discredit the paper citations, but none of them have a title including "Spotting". It makes me believe("believe", not "know") that the books only give Spotting a small mention, much like in the web-based citations. If you can find a book at the library called "Spotting" or "Hot Knives" or the like that is more than 300 pages, I will withdraw my nomination, and leave it to the other editors to decide. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You gotta be kidding me. Theres got to be hundreds (if not thousands) of articles whose notability is totally unquestioned that don't have a 300+ page book dedicated to the topic. Since when did the rules of wikipedia require a 300 page book to be written about a topic for it to have its own page? While I am aware of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I would like to know why you decided to single out the spotting article when there are 3 separate articles on marijuana pipes (Bowl (smoking), Chillum (pipe) and Dugout (smoking), all of which have less (and weaker, in my opinion) references than this spotting article. If you truly hold all articles to the same standards, why have you not nominated these articles for deletion or even commented on their discussion page as to their innappropriateness(in your opinion)? You have had plenty of time to do so, as they have been up on wikipedia for some time now, and each one is linked from the Cannabis smoking article. It seems as though you are only really interested in seeing that this new article (actually an old one that you have killed off before) is deleted. How do you reconcile this behavior with your claim to hold all pages to the same standard? If this was truly the case shouldn't you now be leaving the spotting page alone and taking up your beef with the other pages mentioned above? This suggests to me that you have lost objectivity and that getting this spotting page deleted has become a personal crusade for you. Ars666 (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probable last reply You're making it impossibly hard to remain civil, Arse666. I've made my side of the argument very clear, and do not intent to play "Uh-huh!" "Uh-uh!" all day with you. If you've any more boo-hoo complains, file them with the administrator who closes this discussion. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦

---

Clarification on my previous entry dated 04:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC). I would just like to make it clear that I was not trying to say that this article should be kept because the Bowl (smoking), Chillum (pipe) and Dugout (smoking) articles exist. My intention was to highlight what I feel are inconsistencies between what Wakandas black panther is saying and what their past actions (or lack of) suggest. Ars666 (talk) 07:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see the article's talk page for full comments from me. I strongly stand by my original gutting of the article, as I think the new post-gutting article is a major improvement, and I doubt it would have ever happened without cutting all the crap from the original. As it stands now, the article is no longer harmful to Wikipedia. I am still skeptical whether the topic is noteworthy enough for a whole separate article, but I don't feel strongly about it anymore since the improvements. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Gilmour[edit]

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

Um...non notable vomiter? The individual is clearly not notable, and there's a little vandalism going on here too for some reason, but it asserts notability, so here it is. UsaSatsui (talk) 07:09, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete love the nom UsaSatsui. References are to articles written by the subject, but don't show notability of the subject himself. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 10:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. fails WP:BIO.--Sting au Buzz Me... 12:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, please delete it. Somebody thought it would be amusing to make one for me but i do not find it so. (EugeneHutz (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. Leftfoot69 (talk) 18:40, 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 Keep per withdrawn. Non admin closure CenariumTalk 17:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pay for placement[edit]

Pay for placement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant advertising. The two external links on the article are to Pay per click marketing companies offering this service under this new name P4P. I Googled and could not find sources for this article. Igor Berger (talk) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Seems like blatant advertising.--RyRy5 Got something to say? 06:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's numerous articles on pay for placement shown by a quick google search. Suggest an edit may be in order. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you find some articles for us? I Googled for P4P and could not find anything but SEO Websites offering Adwards and other PPC program offerings. So unless we can source it per WP:RS it should be deleted. It is not Google Adwards or Yahoo Overture, which are both PPC not P4P. So I hope whatever you find is not promoting the company's SEO services. Igor Berger (talk) 09:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You need to read these articles. Only two breafly discuss P$P and it is not totally legal. It is not Adwords like the article states. It is about by a place in organic search results. It is cloaking and illegal. Adword say it is a sponsored advertising next to the served link. P4P display the results without saying it is sposored advertising. If this article is kept it needs to be completly rewritten. Read this [18] and this A bit vague but you will get the drift that it is not Adwords PPC model. Igor Berger (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - what's wrong with the sources in the article - look like third-party reliable sources to me, so satisfies WP:V Fritzpoll (talk) 12:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article has been fixed to reflect my main consern. It has been rewritten and is now notable per WP:RS. At this point of time I would like to withdraw my nomination for deletion, and let Wikipedia editors improve the article even more. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 15:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable and looks like nominator retracted Afd. SunCreator (talk) 23:03, 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 Keep (non admin closure). Consensus forms that licensed radio stations satisfy notability criteria by virtue, and comments in good faith on the desirability for users (in particular, new users) to contribute in a manner where they can avoid being misconstrued as a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account that edits in a manner not aligned with neutrality. WilliamH (talk) 11:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KCAL-FM[edit]

KCAL-FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable radio station, article does not meet Wikipedia requirements and standards to remain on site— Robbin' hood (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep. Meets notability criteria for radio broadcasters, and as automatically noted above, the nominator appears to have no Wikipedia edits beyond this AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 06:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Of course it's notable and licensed, but it needs more sourcing and less boosterism. I don't want to seem suspicious of the nominator's intentions, but they might be working at another station in the market or a fan of the station, and have been peturbed that their article about their morning show is being put up for deletion. Why do I feel like I'm watching WKRP and WPIG's mascots about to fight in a bathroom stall? Nate • (chatter) 06:43, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I will WP:assume good faith on this nom. WCAL is a satisfactory stub that could use (yet another) copyedit for a more neutral tone. A Google News search shows sustained non-trivial interest by 3rd-party WP:reliable sources, satisfying general WP:notability guidelines for inclusion. Besides, the established editor consensus is licensed radio stations are inherently notable. WCAL needs a WP:neutral point of view expansion, not deletion. • Gene93k (talk) 08:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there's no reason for the nom as it is clearly notable. --Deadly∀ssassin(talk) 09:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the nom has to be joking. JuJube (talk) 09:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The text there leaves much to be desired, admittedly. --moof (talk) 10:43, 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 delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac OS X Lion[edit]

Mac OS X Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wild speculation. Delete per WP:FUTURE. nneonneo (talk) 05:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. From a quick Google search it appears that there are rumours that this will be the next name for the OS X line, because the lion is the king of the feline family. Rumours are a bad starting point for articles. SMC (talk) 05:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedied A1 - the author has evidently looked over the guidelines and has replaced the page with "Apologies for this". SMC (talk) 05:12, 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 00:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Mitchell[edit]

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

Person appears to be non-notable, content is largely copied from the three websites listed. Very few Ghits specifically about this person. nneonneo (talk) 04:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — per Sting au. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 13:10, 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. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foshan Hotel[edit]

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

Another non-notable Chinese hotel article, similar to the Sunshine Hotel, Shenzhen article. User:Eastmain "denied" my CSD, so I'm bringing it to AFD - it's a non-notable business whose only "claim to fame" is that it's located in a historic town (notice that the hotel itself is never mentioned as being historic). Completely unreferenced, too. SMC (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, however it appears from the author's contributions that this hotel has no notability whatsoever - the author is desperately attempting to show notability by describing the hotel's locale as being historic in some manner. Whether the town is notable or not is not being discussed here; rather the notability of the hotel is. If there are Chinese references to establish some form of notability then yes, the hotel is worthy of an article, but I think the chances of good references to establish notability existing are pretty slim. SMC (talk) 05:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The creator of the article has added a few references since it was nominated for deletion. Apparently it's located "right beside the historical scenic spots, with convenient land, water and air transportation" [19], which is a bit more notable than just the fact that it's in Foshan. Apparently it's also the only five-star hotel in Foshan (the official website says "first", yet another website says it's the "only" five-star hotel) - i.e., the best hotel in a quite popular tourist site in Guangdong. That's some notability. I think it deserves to be kept for the moment. Herunar (talk) 07:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but with generous improvement: It does look somewhat notable, judging by the websites. Judging by the article only, however, it looks very non-notable. Perhaps if someone with a better knowledge of the area could improve it? Wakanda's Black Panther! (contribs) 07:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now meets WP:N. Quality of article has nothing to do with Afd process. SunCreator (talk) 23:05, 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 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunshine Hotel, Shenzhen[edit]

Sunshine Hotel, Shenzhen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails general notability guidelines - and in my opinion it's very spammy. There is no justification for this hotel having an article, it's just written as a hotel in China. As I'm hesitant to misuse CSD's (it could be argued by some that it has minor notability, I'm not entirely sure), I'm bringing it here. SMC (talk) 03:42, 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. Punkmorten (talk) 07:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carter's Chord (album)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Carter's Chord (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTAL; album isn't due out for a while yet and doesn't seem to be the subject of any sources yet. Can't verify the track listing for one, and there's also no cover art available yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:38, 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 to merge. Nom doesnt express deletion either. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BDO Kendalls[edit]

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

Non-notable accounting firm. No reliable, independent sources. Basically an example of blatant advertising and promotion Fattyjwoods (Push my button) 03:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep While merely "one of the largest" is not a very meaningful statement--in fact it's 6th out of 100, and that is meaningful. DGG (talk) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BDOKAtran. Hello! This page has been rewriten and updated to make it more factual. Many notable references have been included. It has been rewritten to basically contain only the general background facts relating to the firm. The best reference it the BRW Top Accounting Firms survey showing BDO Kendalls as one the largest accounting firms. http://www.forsythes.com.au/res/pdfs/hom/Top100accounting2007.pdf Have a look if think BDO Kendalls is "not a notable firm"....... Thanks! Andrew 124.169.103.112 (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDOKatran (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 00:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ejaz Fiaz[edit]

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

    Ejaz Fiaz and his brother Naveed were questioned by police in the wake of the 7 July 2005 London bombings and received a flurry of publicity. It later turned out neither Ejaz nor Naveed was an object of the investigation, and neither was ever charged with anything. I believe that WP:BLP requires we remove these articles at this time despite their obvious appearance in media. Dhartung | Talk 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 03:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per nom. Neither is notable, and privacy is an issue. Anturiaethwr (talk) 03:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. This really doesn't fall under speedy, but this does need to go away ASAP. Dhartung's analysis of the article is spot-on. Cover the event, not the person, etc etc. -- ShinmaWa(talk) 06:18, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as a BLP concern; speedy aside, they basically fall under WP:BLP1E. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete per nom; they are pretty clearly not notable. --Deadly∀ssassin 00:46, 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 deleted. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 05:24, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DefaultIT: Default Settings for IT Products[edit]

    DefaultIT: Default Settings for IT Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not really sure what this article is. I would put a speedy tag on it if there was one that fit. Placed my concerns on the talk page with no response. The posting of an IP address with login(?) details is concerning, if not confusing. I'm assuming good faith but frankly I'm confused as to the intent. Beach drifter (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, that is the proper tag. While I could force myself to glean some context out of the article, there really is none. Beach drifter (talk) 03:25, 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. Wizardman 03:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Dakotas[edit]

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

    Delete per same concept as The Carolinas...there's no need for an article on a "collective term". There is nothing said here which couldn't/shouldn't be/isn't said in the individual North Dakota and South Dakota articles. In addition, I am of the opinion that "the Dakotas" comprise a region. That would be like saying that California and Oregon constitute a region, or Tennessee and Georgia. They don't. They're part of larger regions (the Pacific West and the South, respectively), as the Dakotas are part of the Midwest. There is nothing unique to North and South Dakota which sets them apart from the rest of the Midwest/Interior North/other defined regions. To arbitrarily make up new regions would be original research, which isn't allowed here. Also, there is nothing made by the combination of North and South Dakota which isn't the exact sum of its parts -- in other words, there's nothing unique about them as a pair which shouldn't be/isn't covered by the individual North Dakota and South Dakota articles. The only thing the two states share is half a name, and that doesn't justify an article; again, it's both arbitrary, and original research.Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per my reasoning below. Unless anyone can point out some fundamental differences between the two, I'm recommend regarding this discussion and the Carolinas discussion below as the same. (This article has far less in it, but the principles remain the same.) Anturiaethwr (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fndamental differences are that "the dakotas" is an actual phrase in common usage. Google turns up 1480000 restults for the carolinas, which I have never heard used, and 3830000 for the dakotas. The term is used a lot--Phoenix-wiki 15:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per my reasoning on The Carolinas, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Dakotas, and per Dakota Territory. Corvus cornixtalk 03:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Make redirect to Dakota Territory; this seems like a decent search term, but there isn't anything in the article worth being separated from Dakota Territory. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 05:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Definitly keep. Supposing I didn't know what "the dakotas" reffered to? The phrase is in common usage, and is used a lot when talking about native americans such as the sioux, najavo etc. We should have an article about it if it's in common usage.--Phoenix-wiki 15:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wow, people loved this article the first time around, and I still can't figure out why. I think that on the page The Dakotas (disambiguation), the line that currently directs to this article should instead say "The Dakotas" may refer to "North Dakota" and South Dakota". The article has no more content now that when it started (there was a period when someone altered it to be about the 1960s group headed by Billy Kramer. The whole thing is original research, premised on someone's notion that residents of North Dakota and South Dakota actually think that the two states should be thought of as one. North Dakota struggles to get tourists, while South Dakota gets plenty of visitors for Mount Rushmore and Spearfish, and from what I can tell, there's more resentment than cameraderie there. Mandsford (talk) 16:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Dakotas has quite a few incoming links to it; see Special:WhatLinksHere/The Dakotas. If this article is deleted, those links will need to be addressed. I'm tempted to say that the presence of those links implies that the article should be kept, but it might be possible to replace "The Dakotas" with North and South Dakota. (Seeing it linked that way doesn't look right, though.) --Elkman (Elkspeak) 15:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Commonly used term per. Spiesr (talk) 20:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (1) 282 incoming links in the article space! (2) Commonly used term. Michael Hardy (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per Phoenix-wiki, Spiesr, and Michael Hardy, along with around 400,000 hits that Google turns up. This term is often used (probably at least every other day) by the national media, usually when giving national weather forecasts. It is a commonly-used grouping of the two states, and therefore useful in describing exactly what is meant by the term. There are a lot of people who honestly think that this is one state, which is one of the differences with the California and Oregon example used in the nom. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I bet those are probably some of the same people who think New Mexico isn't part of the United States, but a part of Mexico instead. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I reside in Eastern Canada (a similarly named region) and even I have heard of the term. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:09, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I can justify this term as being used often by radio/television stations in the border area between North and South to describe their region, along with weather forecasts (many from the National Weather Service) which commonly refer to "The Dakotas" as a region where the big weather systems sweep in to affect the eastern portion of the country. I understand the whole regionality argument, but they did claim statehood in the same way and have a shared history, and the use of the term is perfectly consistent with regional names. We also shouldn't begrude smaller divisions of larger regions to have their own regional descriptors. Nate • (chatter) 05:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I added a boatload of citations to prove notability. This is a commonly used, commonly accepted reference for this region that is used historically, currently, locally, nationally and internationally as a reference point. • Freechild'sup? 05:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While the article certainly could use some fleshing out, the fact is that the Dakotas have a shared history that probably needs to be told here. Sure, sure, much of it can be covered at Dakota Territory, but even post-statehood they are often thought of and referred to as a unit. I think that this is a little different than the Carolinas, which historically were never united (were they? actually, I'm just saying that off the top of my head), but more importantly, the Carolinas have little shared culturally, demographically, or politically. It's hard to imagine two states from the deep American South that have less in common. I think that the motion to delete this article is not without merit—this is worth discussing—I just fall on the side for "keep". Just my 2¢. Unschool (talk) 07:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Self-correction (minor). Okay, I was wrong about the Carolinas not being united, but it's still hardly the same thing.
    1. The Province of Carolina included not only North Carolina and South Carolina, but also Georgia. It was a very broad territory, drawn on a map by Englishmen with pretty much no English on the scene. It had no time before separation to develop a unified cultural identity.
    2. The Carolinas were separated and existed separately for more than 50 years before Yorktown and thus statehood. Contrarily, the Dakotas were united literally until the very moment of statehood.
    • Keep but remove stub tags. The article should be retained essentially as a disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:40, 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. Wizardman 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Carolinas[edit]

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

    Completely original research, largely based on stereotypes and assumptions. Nothing here which isn't/shouldn't be said in the specific North Carolina and South Carolina articles. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Completely faills WP:VERIFY, it is not very notable. This is not a neutral article. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 02:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment - I disagree that "the Carolinas" comprise a region. That would be like saying that California and Oregon constitute a region, or Missouri and Oklahoma. They don't. They're part of larger regions (the Pacific West and the Midwest, respectively), as the Carolinas are part of the South. There is nothing unique to North and South Carolina which sets them apart from the rest of the South/Mid-Atlantic/Southeast/other defined regions. To arbitrarily make up new regions would be original research, which isn't allowed here. Also, there is nothing made by the combination of North and South Carolina which isn't the exact sum of its parts -- in other words, there's nothing unique about them as a pair which shouldn't be/isn't covered by the individual North Carolina and South Carolina articles. The only thing the two states share is half a name, and that doesn't justify an article; again, it's both arbitrary, and original research. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at this Google search. Although I'm not saying that a Google search per se proves anything (though there are over 2 million hits for the term), just look at what the hits are - "Everything you could ever want to know about life in the Carolinas", "FirstHealth of the Carolinas", "LifeShare Of The Carolinas", "Foundation For The Carolinas", there are a few people who think that there is such a thing as a region called "The Carolinas". And your claim that it's the same as California and Oregon, or Missouri and Oklahoma, is a straw man, because there's no regional term for those combinations of state names. But there is a regional term for the Carolinas, because it's used. And see this. Over 1200 hits for the term in news.google, alone. Somebody seems to think it's a real term. Corvus cornixtalk 02:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not saying that it's not a "real term". I'm saying it doesn't belong here. The fact that the term "the Carolinas" is used as a term of convenience doesn't mean that it deserves an article here. Let's say that the media, utility companies, and the tourism industry decide to start using the term "funky cold semi-Western interior northern Midwest thingy" to collectively refer to Montana and Wyoming. Does that mean that we write an article about it? Of course not. Because North and South Carolina share half a name, it's a term of convenience to collectively refer to them as "the Carolinas" when what you're exclusively referring to is those two states. That doesn't make it a region of the nation. The region to which both North and South Carolina belong is the South. Let's say that we have a reason to collectively refer to only Georgia and Florida...let's say there's a major natural disaster there, or we run a company which does business there and only there, or something else similar...does that mean that that's now a region of the county? Of course not. Hurricane Katrina hit Louisiana and Mississippi...and I'm sure you can find eighty billion pages on Google about Katrina which solely mention "Louisiana and Mississippi"...does that mean that those two states now comprise a region? No. Even if there were a convenient name by which to refer to the two of them, they don't comprise a region. This nation has long been divided into its constituent regions: the South, the Midwest, the northeast, the mid-Atlantic, New England, etc. Mr. P. S. Phillips (talk) 03:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would really depend upon whether it's enough of a common term to warrant a separate disambig. My thinking was, since the province article explains in the intro that it is the former area that is now two states, that someone looking for collective information on both would be best served there. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 20:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep "This article does not cite any references or sources". It's been up for nearly five years, and it is about a valid topic-- yes, a lot of people do refer to "the Carolinas", and refer to "Western Carolina" mountains and "East Carolina" seashores as well. That's why this article deserves more than the "Cheerwine is our favorite soft drink" or "They shore love barbecue and cole slaw sandwiches" comments that are added by every NC or SC editor who happens to stop by. My favorite part of the history was where one editor made a change with the summary "Replaced page with 'hi'". It was followed by someone else who fixed it and added "Reverting possible vandalism...." Them Carolinians is sharp as tacks, that's for sure. Mandsford (talk) 16:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The Carolina Hurricanes, the Carolina Panthers. Named so, because they are representative of the region, and not just one state or the other. Grsz11 19:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • .... or because "Charlotte Panthers" doesn't sound masculine enough. Mandsford (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Or that too. Grsz11 23:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the reason for the choosing the first name "Carolina" was expressed very openly during the NFL expansion derby in the early 1990s. I remember Jerry Richardson talking about how Charlotte's central location in "the Carolinas" would benefit the NFL, because unlike a coastal city (Jacksonville) or a city split by major waterways (St. Louis, Memphis, and Baltimore), fans from the Carolinas would be drawn from a 360° radius around Charlotte. And, as this article points out, only the NFL was fooled; in the eyes of Carolinians, the idea was stillborn. Another reason to DELETE this article, methinks. Unschool (talk) 08:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I reside in Eastern Canada (a similarly named region) and even I have heard of the term. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 11:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wow, reading the article, the thought that hit me was that maybe this article should be moved to "Differences between North Carolina and South Carolina". I mean, the article undercuts itself at almost every turn. The only argument that I can see for arguing that the Carolinas constitute an entity is the naming of all the region's sports teams the "Carolina Whosits". That's just not enough for me. My proposal would be that Carolinas redirects to a dab page, listing the states, the sports teams, and the province. Unschool (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or redirect to Province of Carolina. The Carolinas differ from merely adjacent US states in having their origin in a single political entity which was later divided into two. --SJK (talk) 13:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but primarily as a disambiguation page, which should explain the name and list uses for Province of Carolina, North Carolina and South Carolina, but see comment under the Dakotas AFD that Georgia (US State should also be listed. DElete everythign else, or distribute it to the articles on the individual states. The term was used historically, so that there should be a short article. When pruned, the "unreferenced" tags will be redundant. Any "stub" tags should alos be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 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 Speedy Keep per Wikipedia:SNOW (non admin closure). Consensus forms that AfD is not the place for sorting NPOV issues. WilliamH (talk) 09:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bhumihar[edit]

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

    There are whole sections devoted to propaganda nonsense and POV. Satisfies criteria for speedy deletion under Blatant advertising (G11) and Recreation of deleted material(G4). Also see WP:NOT#SOAP. I also suspect the involvement of banned user (User:Ranvir Sena in the guise of an anonymous IP (59.96.9.190)-Ravichandar 02:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment This article also looks nothing like the version that got nuked in February. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, this version looks nothing like the previous version which was deleted but it is being used for the same purpose and intent i.e. to glorify the Bhumihar community. Have a look at this: Bhumihar#Contributions. This section contains short biographies of "certain Bhumihars". While there might be adequate references to vouch for the contributions of these individuals, there arent any to establish that they are Bhumihars in the first place. Besides, it should be kept in mind that the Bhumihar community is behind the establishment of the Ranvir Sena and hence such articles used for the glofication of Bhumihars are highly controversial. I wouldnt be surprised if this article is this article evolves into a piece of Bhumihar propaganda and is cited in online forums or in articles in Bhumihar websites praising the "greatness of the Bhumihar race".-Ravichandar 02:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep per Ten Pound Hammer (and his otters). Anturiaethwr (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep This AfD appears to be the result of a content dispute between the nom and the IP user. Notice these edit summaries: [20] [21] especially [22]. I'm not taking sides as to who's right or wrong in it, but content disputes shouldn't be settled by deleting the article. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not indulging in any disputes but anyone from India would agree to the fact that these anonymous IPs have been indulging in POV-pushing. This is also a highly sensitive topic that is being covered here. As I said earlier, Wikipedia's standards should be maintained. Wikipedia articles should be downgraded to the level of providing content for propaganda pamphlets of terrorist organizations.-Ravichandar 07:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. This is not the place to sort out NPOV issues. Read WP:AfD#Beforenominating_an_AfD: "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." utcursch | talk 08:31, 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 per WP:SNOW. Canley (talk) 13:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lepeth[edit]

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

    Hoax or made up one day. Jfire (talk) 01:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete It seems like a hoax to me.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Nonsense made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:52, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete Appears to be closer to a joke than anything- "Lepeth is a language from the fake country Lepen. This was made up by a bunch of kids". Speedy delete this one. Steve Crossin (talk) (anon talk) 01:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete. I think the author makes a better case for deletion than I can. Anyone else think WP:SNOW applies? Anturiaethwr (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete All that needs to be said about deleting this has been said. MalwareSmarts (talk) 02:12, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Personally, I think it meets speedy deletion criteria. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:21, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete: An obviously fake page from a user whose only contributions have been vandalism
    • Speedy delete: It's nonsense, form an editor who just vandalizes here... Blake Gripling (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete as G1; "This was made up by a bunch of kids in North Dakota" As others have made mention of, creator was indef-blocked as a vandalism only-account. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 06:28, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete Absolute and complete horse shit. JuJube (talk) 09:59, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete Utter nonsense. --moof (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete — per above. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 13:20, 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.

    Josh Acut[edit]

    The result was Speedy Delete perWP:CSD#A7. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Only claim to notability (founded the Church of Feel Good) appears to be hoax. AFD tag removed, recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Itwas tagged as A7 earlier - BpEps - t@lk 02:06, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete per above. Probably a hoax, and not notable regardless. I've hit three edit conflicts now, so I suspect WP:SNOW may come into play here. Anturiaethwr (talk) 01:59, 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) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jealousy (Paris Hilton song)[edit]

    Jealousy (Paris Hilton song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable song by Paris Hilton. Not released as a single, no music video or chart action - simply a song Hilton was most likely questioned about during promotion for her album (see the "sources", mostly Hollywood gossip types). Supposedly somewhat autobiographical pertaining to Hilton's relationship with Nicole Ritchie but there is no reason why this cannot be placed neatly into the album's article. A merge debate on the article's talk page went nowhere a few months ago and this article has not been expanded since. - eo (talk) 01:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I agree. There's no reason why this should not just be merged in to the album's main article. TheNobleSith (talk) 02:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Non-Notable.--RyRy5 Talk to RyRy 02:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to album. This single might be notable itself, but I doubt it. SunCreator (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per SunCreator. Vernon (Versus22) (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Murder, pillage, burn, draw and quarter, stick in the Iron Maiden, suffocate, drown and delete. Non-notable. Though, as you may have noticed, I'm biased. +Hexagon1 (t) 04:15, 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. Wizardman 02:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Michael Henson[edit]

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

    Non-notable author. A Small Room with Trouble on My Mind doesn't appear to be sold at amazon.com, and a google search for "A Small Room with Trouble on My Mind" +"Michael Henson" only comes up with 10 Google hits if you remove Wikipedia. Ransack comes up as the 2,801,827th most purchased book at amazon. Crow Call is the 1,270,830th most purchased book. There is another author, Michael P. Henson, who sells at amazon who might be the same author, since his metier seems to be Kentucky and the Ohio Valley, but they're listed as separate authors, so it's hard to tell, and none of that author's works are included in the Wikipedia article. Corvus cornixtalk 01:19, 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) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Meriwether (band)[edit]

    Meriwether (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Make Your Move (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    No evidence of notability; fails WP:MUSIC. Recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:16, 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 Delete under criteria G12; Blatant Copyright Infringement. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    West Covina Christian Church[edit]

    West Covina Christian Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable Church, POV Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:36, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Also a copyvio, Speedy Delete. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:07, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Article fails, WP:NPV, WP:RS, WP:ADS, WP:ORG AND WP:JNN. There are no independant sources in the article that state why it is notable. It reads like and advertisement for the church and doesn't meet standards for entry into WP--Adamfinmo (talk) 00:59, 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) 15:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Maranatha Chapel[edit]

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

    Non-notable Church Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm pretty sure that article is worthy of inclusion here on wikipedia. People living nearby, or anywhere, might want to know about it and if it's a church it most certainly will have recieved coverage in the local papers. I'm sure you could find it on the internet too if you looked hard enough--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Notability not established per WP:N or WP:RS. Google hits result in many false positives for towns with the same name. Little to no evidence of third-party coverage that would meet guidelines. WP:ITSUSEFUL is not a valid rationale for keeping. DarkAudit (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable organization. While it is probable that there's been some local coverage (as it is a church and does, in fact, exist), it doesn't appear that WP:ORG has been met here. Bfigura (talk) 22:47, 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) 14:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chinese Independent Baptist Church[edit]

    Chinese Independent Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable church, fails WP:ORG, no assertion of notability Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • If it's a church, I'm fairly sure it will have recieved coverage in local papers, and papers are classified as reliable, third party sources, so it's notable enough for inclusion in my opinion.--Jaeger123 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and WP:ORG. Most individual local churches are non-notable. No independent reliable sources have been provided. A Google search reveals basically that the church exists but does not indicate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:34, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 07:56, 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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh[edit]

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

    Non-notable single, only released as promo, no RS ukexpat (talk) 00:31, 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) 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Westchester Lutheran Church and School[edit]

    Westchester Lutheran Church and School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable church. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as a non-notable church failing WP:ORG. No evidence of notability in the article, and google desn't seem to turn up anything either. Bfigura (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Punkmorten (talk) 07:56, 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 keep. Presumed notability as a single by a notable artist. No prejudice against renomination in the future. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    High Price[edit]

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

    Non-notable single, no RS. ukexpat (talk) 00:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep This is a notable song, but the article is just a stub. It needs to be expanded. Meldshal42Comments and SuggestionsMy Contributions 02:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep for independent sources and expand - singles of top-selling and -charting artists are notable upon release (and both Ciara and Ludacris had singles hit #1 on the Billboard Hot 100 in the past two years). If the song fails to chart (an unlikely event), the article can be redirected to the article of the new album containing the song. B.Wind (talk) 04:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 07:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eagle Rock Baptist Church[edit]

    Eagle Rock Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable church, no sources Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 00:29, 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. If someone would like to merge it, let me know and I'll userfy for you.. - Philippe 14:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Hundred (Star Trek)[edit]

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

    A plot element in Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Not a character, not an episode: a plot element. As we have articles on ALL Deep Space Nine episodes, an article on Changeling (Star Trek) (the race) and an article on Odo (Star Trek) (one of three known Changelings, and the only one shown more than in one episode), the topic of this article is adequately addressed elsewhere. Prodded on April 8, removed by 76.111.31.190 on April 11 without explanation (that is the only edit so far by that IP).

    (Text above in text messaging style: "nn plot element")

    Jobjörn (talk) 00:07, 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 Redirect to Selena y Los Dinos#Group members --JForget 00:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suzette Quintanilla[edit]

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

    This is a horribly written stub of someone who is only semi-notable because of her sister. I am not sure what to do with the article, so I'll stick it here. Tavix (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete — per Ten Pound Hammer. &#151;paranomia (formerly tim.bounceback)a door? 19:28, 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 delete A7 by User:Nyttend, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ClockCrew.cc[edit]

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

    Well i found another article which isnt really notable.--Pookeo9 (talk) 23:42, 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_12&oldid=1081102287"