Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 16

< August 15	August 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PC Club[edit]

1) The article is nothing more than a compilation of press releases that dilutes the value of Wikipedia overall. For instance, it starts out with an 86-word direct quotation from its founder based on an uncited June 2002 interview. It later goes on in exhaustive detail about the founder's varied background, his religion, health, and even includes a quotation about his views on life in general ("Happiness, Love, Harmony, Cleanse, Execution."). None of this approaches merit for inclusion in Wikipedia.

2) The business, which has been a very small, if negligible, player in the computer industry by any measure, has gone out of business due to poor management. In fact, it's gone out of business twice, the first time being in early 2008. The company was irrelevant during its lifetime and it is even more irrelevant today.

Constructive comments welcomed. John (talk) 06:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - much of the nomination reasons are not issues for deletion, but are rather issues for cleanup. The only deletion criterion appears to be that the company is not relevant which I assume is asserting that the company is not notable. However, a review of a Google new search that addition to the current coverage, there is stuff like this LA Times article, which meets the primary criterion for for notability in that there are multiple reliable sources writing about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 14:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This store was an important part of the computer industry in Southern California for quite a while (early 90's??) The article can be improved, but it should stay. Mike.Hartfield (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Green (UK musician)[edit]

OK, I could be well wrong here. He does seem to be a guitarist of some web presence, and he does seem to have played with Suzi Quatro, which /might/ make him notable. However, aside from a lot of self promotion and the odd mention here and there as a bit-player, I can't find any real independent sources for this. Troikoalogo (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without coverage in reliable sources session musicians are not really notable. --neon white talk 01:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the guy has obviously been around the music scene for years. However, being a session musician is not sufficient. There is is no significant coverage of him nor awards. A somewhat reluctant delete but a delete nonetheless. Smile a While (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 14:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sportspeople by nickname[edit]

Unmaintainable list that seems based mainly on original research and has little verifibility. Could potentially be a list of every athlete that has an article. --Jimbo^[online] 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note related Afd by nominator: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of football (soccer) players by nickname. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep based on the replies made in the related Afd about sourcing/verifiability/inclusion criteria. MickMacNee (talk) 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC) Delete. The nominator is a comlete hypocritical cunt who has zero understanding of the deletion policy. MickMacNee (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, now why do you gotta do that stuff here? Everybody said keep... except for the nominator, and now you. Looks like you two guys are on the losing side of this argument. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. I have no problem with the referenced entries, but the unreferenced claims are probably in breach of WP:BLP. IF this article survives, someone needs to take responsibility for sourcing citations, otherwise all the uncited entries must be removed. WWGB (talk) 11:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but split, the unmaintainable bit as the nominator is in my opinion, the size of this list, even my 5 year old laptop is struggling to cope with it being that big. Breaking this list into several lists for various sports will make it easier for older computers as they won't have to put up with having to download the page for several minutes. Jay Pegg (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the main there is a lot of verified information and I get the impression if you went through that list 90% who do not have verification, would get verification.

Completely helpful to researchers, who may be researching an athlete for example.--82.39.72.45 (talk) 23:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article with 298 footnotes is not "original research". Mandsford (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you freaking kidding me Keep. OR? Lacks verifiability? 301 footnotes ring a bell? Unmaintainable? Really? On an online encyclopedia ANYONE can edit? Like every other valid article, edit to remove crap. This nomination should never have happened. Minkythecat (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Shriver[edit]

State senate candidate with no real claim in article of meeting WP:BIO. Sources in article are not independent; gsearch and gnews not turning up reliable, independent sources outside of his local area. Speedy request was turned down with the comment that the article asserts sufficient notability, so I think this needs more discussion than a prod affords. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Google returns 2,580 results--Puttyschool (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have to scroll to the end to really see how many results (google-flaw), and it's only 177. A random sample of pages are largely blogs and passing mentions. If you can find an independent, reliable source in there that shows notability, I encourage you to add it to the article because I sure couldn't find them.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - political candidate with no other notability. Also, the article reads like a campaign ad. -- Whpq (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If an editor could demostrate notability for his term as county commissioner (aside from the campaign puffery in the article now) then at least there would be the potential for a keep. But with no sourcing to demonstrate notability per WP:BIO, its got to be a delete. Montco (talk) 05:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. RS attention comes from running for office. Just barely escapes G11/G12. The article is a campaign ad. What isn't straight copyvio from his website[1] is close paraphrasing. • Gene93k (talk) 09:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strensham services[edit]

This article has previously been deleted after a previous AfD discussion. I say that this article has no value to the encyclopedia, since the subject of the article does not have sufficient notability to warrant inclusion. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete criteria G4 --neon white talk 01:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donington Park services might also be of interest, even if this particular station was not part of the group nomination at the time. --Amalthea^Talk 11:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not share the opinion of the AfD I quoted that motorway service stations are inherently notable, comparable with train stations. It fails WP:NOTE lacking significant coverage. Probably candidate for G4 since it was previously deleted on grounds of notability, too. --Amalthea^Talk 11:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely this has been discussed many times and we have a standard policy. Even the smallest UK motorway service station receives far more visitors per day than many railway stations and railway stations are deemed automatically notable. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not aware of any policy that states that a building is automatically notable if it receives a certain number of people. If I am wrong, please could someone link me to a place which states such a policy. I have not been able to determine that the services are given non-trivial coverage by "multiple, independent reliable sources" . As a result, I believe the article does not meet WP:N, and I believe it should be deleted because of this. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 16:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawn). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Westfield Eastridge[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article has previously been deleted at its previous AfD discussion. I say that the article still reads too much like an advertisement and contributes nothing to wikipedia in its present form. Richard Cavell (talk) 23:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been improved far beyond its previous form, and I thank Dravecky for that. I withdraw my nomination. - Richard Cavell (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - rather obviously notable. A 1-million square foot, 150-shop mall is a of major regional economic importance, and is certain to have plenty of significant mentions in reliable sources if one bothers to look. In a quick google search I find this article[2] devoted entirely to the history of the mall, another complete article[3] devoted entirely to the mall, this fairly significant mention[4] - it was one of nine malls that sold for $750 million total in a 2001 deal, and several dozen less significant mentions[5] - you'd have to look at some of the sources. With a little more searching you can probably find many more. I fail to see how mentioning the mall is in any way an advertising. The article is a mini-stub, and unsourced, but it contains a kernel of encyclopedic content, we improve rather than delete short articles. The effort spend in discussions on an AfD could easily have gone to fixing the article. Wikidemo (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per Wikidemo. There seem to be multiple reliable sources present. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 11:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the article, which I have significantly expanded and sourced, now easily clears notability and verifiability. - Dravecky (talk) 10:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 19:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcy Cody[edit]

I am (once again) going to put myself and my poor Google searching ability on the line once again for this one. I believe this to be a hoax, as I could not find any information on a "Marcy Cody" that has any of the characteristics that are listed in this article. Surely if she "became a household name throughout Europe" there should be something on the Internet about her. There are just as many irrelevant results for her in French as there are in English, so I do not believe that language is the problem here. The Google newspaper archive search reveals nothing and, while I fully admit that it has flaws, surely it would turn up at least a few results if she were truly as notable as the article claims. Furthermore, I'm a bit confused as to what her actual claim is. It is heavily implied that she is a singer, but the final sentence state that "her best works were lost in the Great Warehouse Fire of 1943 during a raid on London." If she is a singer, how can her best works be lost in a fire? True, her recordings could be destroyed, but that's a very odd way of putting that. If she is real, then I don't see anything verifiable here. Cheers, CP 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "rumoured that a streetwalker was her mother" is close enough to libelous to wail WP:BIO. We need sources for that sort of thing. Pirate^Argh!!1! 22:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax. Did many searches, got nothing relevant. Especially under her supposed stage name "madame marcella", should have gotten hits if she existed.John Z (talk) 01:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - hoax. I too can find no confirmation. If she was a "close friend" of all those celebrities there would surely be some trace. I note the author Purplejetta (talk · contribs) has made no other contributions. JohnCD (talk) 21:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete And even if recordings were 'lost' as described, presumably master copies would have been stored at a safe location: protection of potentially expensive copyright and 'ownership' claims being the consideration. Anyway, the Nom has summed up the article's myriad problems. Plutonium27 (talk) 10:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the prevailing opinion is that it not appropriate content. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of football (soccer) players by nickname[edit]

Unmaintainable list that seems based totally on original research and has little verifibility. --Jimbo^[online] 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note related Afd by nominator: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sportspeople by nickname (3rd nomination). MickMacNee (talk) 01:26, 17 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I am dissappointed you didn't start off the discussion page of this article before bringing it to Afd, as you knew I was online and had created the list per this discussion, started by me tonight and posted in by yourself. I was monitoring the discussion but you managed to list it for Afd before I could even reply there. But I will attempt to argue the article's case here at Afd. Had you opened the talk page with the above concerns, I could have demonstrated verifiability very quickly, for example with sources I found just tonight:

Vincenzo Montella "the aeroplane" [6][7][8]
Julio Ricardo Cruz "the gardener" [9][10]
Peter Hutton "Pizza" [11][12]
Marco Materazzi "Matrix" [13][14]
Georgi Hagi "Maradona of the Carpathians" [15][16]

And I deliberately picked players I wasn't sure of, obviously I could have done the easy ones aswell such as "goldenballs" and "the special one". Thoughts? MickMacNee (talk) 00:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you add the references to the list, and add the easy ones too. It's still unmaintainable. --Jimbo^[online] 00:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless this gets WP:SNOWED, I have five days to add them, so if I feel it has to be done because their presentation above is insufficient to answer your nomination reasons about sourcing/OR/verifiability enough to garner a withdrawal or change of nomination reason, then I probably, (but grudgingly as I was doing other stuff), do it.

As for being unmaintainable, I don't see the problem, perhaps you can expand what you mean. The article history to date [17] doesn't show any edit wars suggesting it is a frequent target of vandalism or controversy over content, it has never required protection or outside opinion, and we already know the talk page has never been started with any issue about the article, least of all its accuracy or an inability to maintain it, so what is the problem?

The worse that ever seems to have happened to it quality concern wise until now is that it was tagged as unreferenced (when in actual fact it had references, just not many), which I think I've shown above is not an insurmountable problem that moves it into the candidates for deletion ball park. Not being maintainable, whatever that might mean, is also not an explicit reason for deletion in the deletion policy. The onus I believe is on not feeding the trolls/vandals by deleting articles they mess with, and improving articles that can be improved. Deletion is a last resort for articles that have no hope of ever being improved. MickMacNee (talk) 01:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. If the maintenance issue is about the possibility of ending up listing every footballer's nickname, as you seem to indicate in the related Afd noted above ("Could potentially be a list of every athlete that has an article"), then I would point you to the reply made to Peanut [18] about inclusion criteria and long lists. MickMacNee (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no inclusion criteria, strictly this list could be 33,000 entries long if every footballer with a wikipedia entry was included; unreferenced; many nicknames aren't even relevant; and most of all unencyclopedic. Peanut4 (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria are:

Does a player have a nickname?
Is it verifiable in reliable sources?

The criteria for inclusion in this list is no different to any other list on wikipedia. If the issue is not to include all 33,000 players, I would say that:

Just because a list could get long is not a valid reason to delete a list (not that this list would probably get that long, see next points). Wikipedia has some extremely long lists.
I doubt very much that reliable independant sources (i.e. not forums, blogs, fanzines, his best mate etc) could actually be found for the nicknames for all 33,000 players, hence failing the inclusion criteria above. And if they can, see point 1.
If it was decided on the talk page that this possible problem could be an issue in the future, a third point could be added to the inclusion criteria, for example, must have played in a top flight division.

MickMacNee (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a far enough argument, however, your response "Is it verifiable in reliable sources?" isn't true. There are only three players on that list whose nickname is verified by a source. Peanut4 (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the list of sources I found just tonight, in reply to the nom above. MickMacNee (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. -- Alexf⁴² 23:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please expand your rationale per the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions: "It is unencyclopedic"
  - As in "does not belong in a serious encyclopedia". Totally subjective list, players can have many nicknames, applied by their family, childhood friends, teammates or media. It is not needed to define who they are, and definitely not needed in a list. -- Alexf⁴² 02:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Have you got any evidence to show that any nickname in this list has been added subjectively or because it was "applied by their family, childhood friends, teammates", rather than because, as is supported by policy, it has been used by, and is verifiable in, multiple reliable sources? (or more crucially, it is possible to be shown such, as demonstrated above) If you have, you are entirely free to tag it as requiring a source, and remove it if one is not found. To me, this just looks like a personal opinion of worthiness, and not really an explanation of the term "unencyclopoedic" to bring it out of a subjective basis itself, a position discouraged at Afd per the above essay.
    - On the idea that nicknames are not defining information needed in an encyclopoedia, I find it strange that terms like 'Goldenballs' would become so universally reported as to generate over 30,000 Google (.com mind, not even .co.uk) hits for David Beckham "Golden balls" -wikipedia if it is an irrelevance to what defines him such as listing his favourite colour or other such truly trivial information (2,600 hits, top result a kids website).
    - As for nicknames certainly not being needed in a list, other sportsperson nickname lists have survived Afd's a collective 7 times now (see the talk page), so, with due regard to WP:OTHERSTUFF, but lacking any demonstration of how this list is any different from those with regard the deletion measure of not being "encyclopoedic", I can't be persuaded by this argument at all. MickMacNee (talk) 03:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep It is a verifiable and real world topic. Lacking sources when sources could clearly be found and added to the article is not a valid reason for deletion, per WP:PROBLEM. The article has some sources, it is not as alleged, unsourced original research, or not verifiable. MickMacNee (talk) 23:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As AlexF said, Unencyclopedic. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, I have to request expansion per my reply to Alexf, as "unencyclopoedic" is a very subjective term, it can mean different things to different people, and as such, I or anybody else can't possibly know by what measure you determine what information is or isn't encyclopoedic, or what if anything in your eyes could be done to make this list "encyclopoedic". Personally, I see it as being factual, verifiable information pertaining to notable subjects, therefore it is encyclopoedic (although I explicitly try to avoid this term as explained). It is hardly trivial information that would not find it's way into a paper encyclopoedia, and I wager that if I had a copy to hand to check, that in addition to wikipedia, they would also include a player's nickname in their paper pages. At wikipedia, we have the advantage of being able to group related information into lists as has been done here, so I don't see what is not worthy either about hosting this information, or it's presentation in a list. MickMacNee (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unencyclopaedic, in the sense of being childish and meaningless: lacking value, as it can never be considered complete. Is every "Danno", "Smudge", and "Jonesy" to be included? Is one journalist coining an epithet once, or a manager's light-hearted reference to one of his players in the programme notes, to be considered verifiable. There might be a case for a list of players whose "shirt name" is not their legal/family name, or a part of it, but not for a doomed attempt to collate all nicknames. Kevin McE (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Every "Danno" and "Jonesy" need not be included, I went to actually remove any simle ones like this in response to show they don't, but I actually found very few entries of this type of simple contraction currently in the list. I have no problem if you remove them, the two 'Keano's for example, and I'm sure nobody else would. Deleting the list based on their presence however I would object to, as throwing the baby out with the bath water. I would argue Smudger is a valid entry as not everyone is probably aware this is a common nickname for people called Smith, and is thus part of 'football culture'. If the argument is about criteria for inclusion, what is wrong with the inclusion criteria I posted above? Collating all nicknames is clearly not going to be the aim of the list, per the standard requirements of satisfying notability and verifiability MickMacNee (talk) 01:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A quick search on google shows a lot of other people other than Alan Smith to be nickname Smudge, including at least two cricketers. So it's certainly not unique to Alan Smith. Per my note below, I would expect, if kept, this list should include nicknames that are either unique or as good as unique. Smudge is a common nickname in England for people called Smith. Peanut4 (talk) 01:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - though I hate to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason, it's worth noting that the equivalent list for cricketers was resoundingly kept at AfD. This list, if properly referenced, can be just as encyclopedic, and there's certainly something which seems arbitrary about keeping one but deleting the other. I would, however, suggest some limiting factor (only listing players who have played full internationals, for instance). Grutness...wha? 00:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That cricket list should partly serve as a guide what not to do, if we do keep this list. Most are unreferenced. Who is to say which are right or not? And picking out one poor example is Stuart MacGill. Nicknamed "Stuey" and "Macca". Now there's a surprise. If the result is keep, it should be given a proper inclusion criteria not to make the list unwieldy, but also limit it to nicknames that are commonly known and/or football-relevant. Peanut4 (talk) 01:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument for improvement, not deletion, and to stress again, the idea that this even needed improvement was not raised until this Afd, barring the no refs tag applied to an article with some refs. Even 'insufficient refs' tags are meant to prompt improvement, not to act as a catalyst for nomination for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - effectively trivia, not encyclopaedic content. Sorry. - fchd (talk) 01:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: About this type of "nickname list" article in general (see this AfD's talk page): 1) There are so many fake entries in them generally that it is unbelievable (even if that is not the case with this list right now, it will be eventually, since no one can own an article, and it will inevitably be edited by people with silly (or worse) notions. 2) Practically nothing is sourced in them. 3) All of the arguments the nominator summarizes are accurate, as are those of many other commentators here (unencyclopedic, trivia, etc.). 4) Many (most?) of the "nicknames" in these lists are not nicknames at all (i.e. monickers used by the person or commonly applied to the person), but rather are random journalists' one-off turns of phrase that an editor here or and editor there personally decided was a "nickname" (WP:OR). 5. Nothing valid and of encyclopedic value will be lost, since the verifiable nicknames can/should be added to the infoboxes (or elsewhere, if no infobox) of the articles to whom they apply; and if the person is not notable enough for an article they aren't really notable enough to be in a list article either. If someone out there on the Net wants to find out the real name of "Slasher" Cockburn, some minor-league sports figure that would fail WP:N (or vice versa, looking for so-and-so's nick), that is what Google is for. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. 6. Articles like this are absolute magnets for subtle (and sometimes blatant) vandalism. I know this from direct experience with List of snooker player nicknames. It's hard enough to police the infoboxes of notable players, but keeping clever personal attacks on living subjects out of a list like this is simply impossible. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 13:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be quite happy to cowardly suggest that wikipedia content should be dictated by vandals, some of us have more backbone. Your arguments about indiscriminate information are quite obviously irrlelvant, and your arguments about notability are also addressed above. MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC) MickMacNee (talk) 17:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.If you think there is an entry in the list of the form "Slasher" Cockburn, then why don't you highlight it with a {citation needed tag}, rather than making stuff up to create a completely false argument. After all, Afd is meant to debate the content of articles, not what you think is the content of articles. 17:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for group nomination See talk page section. MickMacNee (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with spite I have changed my vote. In the face of such stupidity in this Afd, I find that I frankly do not care whether this list survives or not. The nominator/deleters/closer will have to reconcile their idiot reasoning with the resulting stupidity of having no list for footballers despite several lists for other sportspeople existing (see talk page), and their cowardice of not creating a group nomination when their supposed arguments apply to all nickname lists (if you can call "unencyclopoedic" an argument). This is despite the fact that obviously their arguments were complete horseshit, from people who have quite clearly never read the deletion policy. There was the distant hope that the closer would take this into consideration and only count the valid arguments, but I doubt even that to be honest enough to not even wait the mandatory 5 days. So fuck it, let the morons rule the roost, the deletion policy can get fucked. Frankly, I doubt these people have ever read it, if they can even read at all. MickMacNee (talk) 18:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about a bit of civility here. Just because another editor nominates an article for deletion, doesn't mean you have to resort to thinly disguised personal attacks. Peanut4 (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Lists like this generally can be sourced; I can't speak for world players, but in American sports nicknames can usually be sourced quite satisfactorily. Given proper time and effort to do sourcing, this would hardly qualify as original research. matt91486 (talk) 21:19, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but prepare for the possibility that it will get deleted. It's a valid enough topic, but I recommend that MickMacNee take this to a user page and retool it. I can appreciate your frustration... a lot of people seem to be typing the word "unencyclopaedic". I disagree with the first person who argued that as a reason for deletion, and I wouldn't worry about the three persons after that. That aside, however, it's still unsourced. Another nominated article had 298 sources, which appears to be about 295 more than this one has. Besides being unsourced, the arrangement (some nicknames arranged in alphabetical order, some not, but that seems optional) makes it useless. Anyway, take it down, work on it. It's no less encyclopedic than any of the other articles about association football. Mandsford (talk) 02:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What I had planned to do is to propose a transfer of list from list of sportspeople by nicknames, this because that list is becoming too big, therefore it bogs down older computers. Much of the source can be taken from that list. Jay Pegg (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, terrible idea for a list, and very hard to source properly. Stifle (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A player's nickname is not a defining characteristic, as they are rarely unique to that one person. In fact, I can't think of a single player who is better known by a nickname than their proper name (I'm discounting Brazilian players here, as their common names are usually nicknames). Ultimately, this is not an encyclopaedic topic. – Pee Jay 10:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is a quality research point for someone who wants to research at a future date, nicknames can be easily referrenced too, if say someone doesn't have a reference on the list. This list has a lot of potential and would greatly improve any encyclopedia with reference points to research.

What is the point of a wiki if you take down points of validated reference?--77.97.70.74 (talk) 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paganus[edit]

I believe that the article breaks WP:MUSIC. The band doesn't seem to have had a notable amount of success, nor does it seem to have been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple reliable sources. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, I am not refering to a Finish band called Paganus, which is a musical group that does seem to be notable. The article I have nominated for deletion covers a Swedish band. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They have a website which leads onto a myspace page which claims numerous independent "reviews" of their self published albums (Earth Records is apparently their own label). Annette46 (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source cannot be used to establish notability if it isn't, according to WP:MUSIC, "independent from the musician/ensemble itself". Their own website, and their own MySpace page, are not independent. Plus, unless these reviews can be verified as independent and reliable, they cannot establish notability either. In my opinion, if the reviews are shown to be independent and reliable, I believe that the band has still not attained a sufficient amount of notability. It would appear they have only ever released one full-length album, and that was published by their own record label, and that album does not seem to have done well in any major charts. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gough (sailor)[edit]

Weak claims for notability, "youngest weapon director in the Royal Navy" seemingly the strongest of the bunch. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom unless a third-party source can be provided - the only source is his autobiography which was self-published (Authors On Line Ltd is a self publishing company according to their website). Nick Dowling (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One cannot "self-publish" oneself into notability. Edison (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have been unable to find any independent and reliable sources covering Gough, and thus I believe the article does not meet WP:N. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The House that Lives[edit]

WP:NOTDIRECTORY Mattie ^TK 21:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Webshow[edit]

Basically a prosified directory. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 21:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems like a neologism. --neon white talk 01:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Many Google hits but there is no evidence of consistent usage. The definition in the article is unsourced and fails WP:V. Finally, I see no prospect of there ever being enough material to produce a worthwhile page. Smile a While (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sheet Harbour Cap Site[edit]

Tagged as WP:CSD#A7 but doesn't really quite fit. Created by a WP:SPA whose username matches the subject, there is no obvious claim to notability and no proper independent sourcing. Guy (Help!) 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non notable community internet cafe. Nuttah (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Nsk92 (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't been mentioned yet, but one of the sources is listed as "ALL information above is first hand knowledge from the elders in Sheet Harbour"... which would be Original Research, which isn't permitted. Given the lack of indication of notability, coupled with the lack of independent sources, I don't think this article meets our criteria for inclusion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yogeshwar Dutt[edit]

Tagged A7 but claims notability. No sources, and Google was not helpful in finding non-trivial sources. Probably systemic bias, being Indian, but WP:BLP is pretty clear about the need for proper independent sourcing and Wikipedia is not a directory of medal winners or anything else. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Dutt is representing India at Beijing currently, and was also a member of the Olympic team in 2004; precedent has been to keep Olympic athletes' articles. Found some decent sources: 1 2 3 4. I should note for the record that these are from the first two pages of a Google search that took 0.14 seconds. GlassCobra 21:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ATHLETE and add sources. I had no trouble finding WP:RS (2008 Olympics and 2006 Asian Games). He represents his country in international competition and he's a verifiable Olympian. • Gene93k (talk) 22:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Like it or not (I don't) every one who has ever been in the Olympics gets an article per WP:ATHLETE. It seems he's a bit more notable than the average one though, to be fair, given his medals in other notable competitions. Cheers, CP 23:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:ATHLETE] Annette46 (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the other Olympians are here, what reason is there to single out this one for deletion? (Incidentally, somebody has removed the AFD link from the article; somebody needs to either restore it or speedy-close this debate.) *Dan T.* (talk) 18:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD tag restored. GlassCobra 04:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:ATHLETE. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete by Neutrality as A7(bio). --Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaizba[edit]

I don't know if the subject of the article is real. Neutrality^talk 21:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No search results for "Kaizba" and "Marco Polo". May be a hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, almost certainly a hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no content at all and probably a hoax. JuJube (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Lack of reliable sources to write a bio. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karly Greene[edit]

An article whose sources do not match the claim of notability. IMDB records no awards, despite implied claims of award status. IMDB is not a reliable source, of course, but only lists three appearances. It looks to me as if this was created by the subject's PR, but could be wrong. Guy (Help!) 20:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:BIO by a mile. Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Borderline, I think. She apparently has played two significant roles: she was one of 6 leads in Wilderness (film), and seems to have had a significant role in the academy award nominated short Everything in This Country Must. WP:ENTERTAINER calls for "significant roles in multiple notable films", and by that guideline she is indeed notable.
Weak Keep. Amalthea^Talk 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not quite there yet. Looks pretty certain to me that she will merit a page in due course but at present there are not the awards nor favourable coverage to cross the bar. Smile a While (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sourcing. The article lacks the needed reliable sources and a quick google search didn't turn up any either, just directory entries and the like. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was found enough on google to show that this was a copyvio and that the article was probably written by the subject. Have deleted as G12. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Eyers[edit]

Tagged db-bio but notability is asserted. Said claim is, however, entirely unsourced. Not much on Google, and none of them appear to be biographical sources. Guy (Help!) 20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computational trust[edit]

This was tagged for speedy deletion when first created, but I gave the original editor a chance to fix the article. Some time has passed and the importance has not been asserted. He recently removed a prod template. It is also mostly OR (look at the author of two sources and how the original editor signs his posts at his talk page. Ndenison ^talk 23:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge. The topic of the article seems to be a real concept in current use. Google gives 4000+ hits for the exact phrase "computational trust", and Citeseer lists 12 papers containing this phrase. Consider removing the apparent original research element from this article, and see if what remains is still article-worthy.
Perhaps this should be merged into the trust metric article? -- The Anome (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 19:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - it's a central feature of Web 2.0 and online social network systems. Lots of popular, trade, and academic literature on the subject. It's related to (but different, so probably shouldn't be merged) a concept called Reputation systems. Some other articles in the space include Reputation management, Trust metric, and Trust (social sciences). It seems the whole field should be fleshed out and reorganized. It's fairly technical so it would take someone who knows what they are doing yet is familiar without style and content guidelines. It ought to be distinct from the psychology, social science, and network theory articles because the adaptation of these old theories to the emerging field of social media is a distinct phenomenon, and they play out much differently on the Internet than they do in academia.... Wikidemo (talk) 00:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Trust is a valid concept in computing nowadays for example in closed anonymity P2p encrypting networks. Agree with Wikidemo Annette46 (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Not OR in the slightest. The name is perhaps unfortunate and the prose reads like an essay, but the idea is notable and sound. Protonk (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that some of the article claims made are true (like Steve Marsh writing the formative paper in the field, whcih only shows 10 cites). Other claims seem superfluous (lots of the history section) and yet more sections of the article appear fluid (Does the defining trust section ever define trust?). But there is hope for this article. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 wants to recreate a redirect they could, I just don't see a point due to the disambiguation and the substub status. Wizardman 12:52, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Night (Disturbed song)[edit]

Fail WP:MUSIC#Songs, no notability established. And no references to back any information up. dude527 (talk) 07:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:45, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect To Indestructible (Disturbed album). Non-charting singles should be redirects to the album, per this. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not a single, there are no references stating it is, and it was created by pure speculation that it is. And re-directing would not help the cause, because all the information in the article is already at Indestructible. dude527 (talk) 18:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my mistake on the single thing, but I don't understand your point about redirecting. If the content is already there, there's no point in a merger, but a redirect is just to help users find the content they are looking for. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well what's the point of a re-direct, though? There's arguably little verifiable content about the song for people to search it here, rather than the entire album. And even if they did search just the song, their search would turn up nothing and they would next search the artist or the album, it's likely. dude527 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MUSIC#Songs: "Most songs do not merit an article and should redirect to another relevant article, such as for a prominent album or for the artist who wrote or prominently performed the song. Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album."

This song has not charted, this song has not won an award, this song has not been performed by several notable artists, and the article currently bears an amount of information insufficient to merit an individual article. I would say if we want to re-direct it, we should create articles for all the other songs on the album, too, to re-direct, just for consistency. The Guy _complain ^edits 03:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Opinions are divided, but enough sources given to keep this in line with our guidelines and policies. Minor comment: Google News lists a number of other ones, including the LA Times: "PING PONG BITCHES. Their crude, hard-hitting electro-punk may be only slightly above karaoke quality", which is perfectly in line with Sparklism description... Fram (talk) 08:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Pong Bitches[edit]

Doesn't appear to satisfy WP:MUSIC. Connection to The Prodigy is tenuous at best, and even if it were not, it's not (IMO) a sufficient criterion for notability. — flamingspinach | (talk) 08:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Group is unnotable at present. No reliable references or top 40 hits are given. Artene50 (talk) 09:12, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, cant find anything that would pass any of the 12 criteria of WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 13:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I saw these girls supporting Har Mar Superstar in Brighton years ago - they truly were unbelievably shite. In fact they were so bad that I broke the habit of a lifetime and barracked them throughout their set, at the end of which some guy wandered up to me and shook my hand. "Couldn't agree more mate," he said, "this is just bad karaoke". That aside, I've found this, this, this and even this. So, even though I'd like to see them forever erased from the face of the planet by a team of twenty-foot aliens with haemorrhoids and some kind of really big thermonuclear laser device, they easily meet WP:MUSIC by passing criterion #1. Keep. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Sparklism. Bondegezou (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was in the process of closing this as delete. Sparkism will be pleased to know the sources cited do not meet WP:RS as they are not from published sources and do not appear to have sufficient peer review to be accepted as reliable on-line sources. This group do not therefore meet MUSIC. Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Allmusic is just about the most reliable online source about music of them all, so since there is a reasonable amount of information about the band on that website it surely deserves an article in wikipedia.DubZog (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Edison (talk) 02:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are too many band articles, but I found another link and I wasn't even trying hard. www.independent.co.uk, doesn't that not fail "It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable." in WP:MUSIC? Pirate^Argh!!1! 03:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to clarify: if it's non-trivial mentions in reliable sources we're looking for then we have a biog at Allmusic, an album review from The Independent and a live review from The Guardian, not to mention a few others mentioned above (which I agree may or may not be reliable). I'm sure that should satisfy WP:MUSIC. sparkl_!sm ^hey! 20:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. Sandstein 19:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre Picault[edit]

Entirely speculative article on an individual who may or may not be a World War I veteran. Sole available sources are a blog entry that cites Wikipedia and Robert Young's World's Oldest People group, which is not only not an acceptable source for Wikipedia, but even itself admits that there is no media coverage of the individual. This person may indeed be one of France's last surviving World War I veterans but, until he gets coverage in third-party, independent, published reliable sources, this is original research. Cheers, CP 20:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:BIO at the moment, per nomination. Even if he is officially one of the last WWI survivors and gets news coverage he might still fail due to WP:ONEEVENT. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since Fernand Goux asserts notability in the same way, I extend this nomination by this article. He was mentioned in [19], which is far less than significant coverage. --Amalthea^Talk 11:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Paul, if you want to talk about verifibility, fine, but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth", and anyway, it's obviously true and not 'entirely' speculative. Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh? All the veterans are notable for 1 event so why don't you nominate all of them? It was quite a big event though, you know? 78.145.35.67 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
- Comment For Goux, the burden of citations and verifiability ALWAYS lies on the individual who added the material, so please do not be uncivil to another editor as you were above. I noticed that you !voted Keep. On what criteria do you base that on? Cheers, CP 19:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment As I said, I base it on it being perfectly verifiable, but presumably the burden you mention is why so many people prefer to destruct rather than construct. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
- None of the veterans are notable alone by having fought in WWI, according to the notability criteria. The "one event" I was referring to was them being among the last living WWI veterans, which I am convinced is by itself also not enough to establish notability - WP:ONEVENT. Keeping lists (Surviving veterans of World War I, Last surviving World War I veteran by country) is not covered by this of course.
  That being said, I do expect that a great number of those "last survining veterans" will be otherwise notable due to "significant coverage in reliable sources" - see Frank Buckles and Erich Kästner. I do not see it at the moment with the initially nominated article, and I do not see it with Fernand Goux. All I can find are unreliable sources (blogs, ...) and/or trivial coverage.
  In particular, Bart Versieck aka Extremly Sexy being "told by Laurent Toussaint" does not comply with WP:V I'm afraid, and I still highly doubt that the fact makes him notable in the first place.
  I have no prejudice against recreating these articles once they pass the criteria of course, but at the moment I'm convinced that they don't.
  --Amalthea^Talk 13:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from Wikipedia entries, Robert Young's group, and the blog that has been cited in the article, I have not been able to find any source that mentions Picault. A blog is not a reliable source, especially considering it cites its reference to Picault to a Wikipedia article. Considering the flaw with Robert Young's record of this person, as noted by CP, and the fact that the relevant Wikipedia entries do not provide appropriate sources to back up their mention of him, I suspect that the article on Picault could be a hoax. I could be wrong, but the evidence does suggest this. Re-iterating what CP said, 78.145.35.67, you were acting in an uncivil manner towards Amalthea when you said "Amalthea, there are other sources about Fernand Goux. You've had months to add some, but much better to delete someone else's contributions, eh?". That type of behaviour will not do. Plus, .67, you said the "it's obviously true". How is it obviously true? Also, I would like to address "but don't speculate about whether it's a true case or not, since the mantra is "verifibility not truth"." That mantra is true, and the fact that we can't verify that this person exists is the reason why I believe this article should be deleted. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 19:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Firstly, I know the mantra is the rules, that's why I repeated it, and I know that's why you want to delete the article. The point which you haven't understood is that if you say "I only care about the rules" and there is nothing in the rules about truth, then why would you discuss whether it is true or a 'hoax'? Because you're trying to have it both ways. And in doing so, you're implying that another editor is a liar (which is more uncivil than my sarcasm). Because Bart Versieck has said that he was told by Laurent Toussaint that this is a true case. And since Mr Toussaint is one of the leading experts I said it was obviously true. But you don't know any of this because you haven't taken a few minutes to look into it. You've just jumped to conclusions like every other Jonny come lately out of the woodwork and insulted other people's efforts and intelligence. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 21:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
Comment Captain celery, a hoax is not allowed under Wikipedia guidelines. Accusing an article of being a hoax can be seen as an uncivil act if there is no evidence to back up that assertion. In this case, the lack of any reliable information regarding the existence of Picault does give some ground, imo, to the idea that the article is a hoax. If I have offended anyone with my suggestion that this article might be a hoax, I would like to apologise for that. I do not wish to start an argument, but I feel I must address the following; I am not happy that I have been accused of having "jumped to conclusions". I have conducted an expected level of research into this case, imo. I am aware of what Laurent Toussaint told Bart Versieck, since I found out about them when I was looking at the talk page of Surviving veterans of World War I, and from the comment I have recently made on the talk page, you can see that I did look at that article before you mentioned these two people. Toussaint may be right about Picault, but until his information is backed up by accessible and reliable sources, the Wikipedia community can't simply take his word, as stated by Wikipedia guidelines. This is not because I believe he is a liar, but because his information needs to be verified, as the mantra you have put forth states.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I accept that you researched it, and that if you had known who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are, then you would have come to a different conclusion. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 22:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
Comment I do not mean to sound rude, but it is the verifiability of Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck's opinion that counts, as opposed to knowing "who Laurent Toussaint and Bart Versieck are". JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JEdgarFreeman. If some reliable source/s can be found the article can be easily recovered. For the moment both fail WP:RS and WP:V. Moondyne 02:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sideline text collapsed

Collapsing material not directly to articles nominated for deletion. Cheers, CP 05:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here's my problem with you folks. Last night someone evidently went on the main article and changed Fernand Goux's name to 'Barthezz' and it took 45 minutes before one of the regulars reverted it. Where were you then? But if I make a change, it's reverted within seconds. So much for being guardians of the rules. Delete Picault's article. Fine. But why delete Goux's when there's a perfectly reasonable source? Only because he's a newly discovered French veteran. What rule is that, the law of the bandwagon? It's so hypocritical. One of the other articles has the same level of citation. You won't delete that, either because it's been on so long, or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
- Comment Some edits on Wikipedia are responded to more quickly than others. I believe this is not generally due to prejudice, but because it can take time for an editor to notice an edit that needs to be addressed. I happened to check the article in question soon after you had made the edit I proceeded to reverse. The fact that I reverted your change, 78.145.35.67, within "seconds", was a coincidence as a result. You may not believe me, but it is the truth. The source cited in Goux's article is reliable, imo, but I believe its coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. 78.145.35.67, you said "One of the other articles has the same level of citation". Please could you tell me which article that is? I ask because I would like to investigate it, to see if it deserves to be on Wikipedia. You also said "or just because you don't know about it. That's because you know nothing about this article." I do not see how my knowledge of the article on Goux has anything to do with my knowledge of another article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Celery, I'm going to warn you again not to be uncivil. It's not tolerated here and, frankly, it's not helping your argument any. If there is another article with the same level of citation, then you should point it out. I will note that I have successfully nominated several poorly-cited veteran articles and also plan to nominate Battista Serioli for a second time in due course. Cheers, CP 23:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think it's obvious to anyone that my last comment wasn't the slightest bit uncivil. 78.145.35.67 (talk) 00:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)Captain celery[reply]
Comment I found it uncivil that you suggested that I "know nothing about this article". I advise you to follow what CP and I have said about being civil. Being uncivil in Wikipedia will not help your cause, and if you are uncivil in the future, you will find yourself in trouble. I hope that you will be civil at all times from now on, and I hope that you will be a valuable Wikipedian into the future. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You implied that we were either incompetent or biased against you ("So much for being guardians of the rules") depending on how one takes that statement, called us hypocrites (actions being "so hypocritical") and told us that we "know nothing about this article". That's a far cry from commenting on the contributions, not the contributors. I think that all three of us have said enough about our opinions on whether or not this page should stay and this long sideline is becoming somewhat irrelevant and disruptive to the deletion debate. Let's take a break from this page, cool down, and let others comment on this deletion. I am going to collapse the part of this discussion that begins after Moondyne's !vote to delete, in hopes that it will end; it is not appropriate on this page.Cheers, CP 05:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. There should have been a separate AFD for it, since unlike the Picault case there is some verifiable information. Extremely sexy (talk) 11:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that the article on Goux does contain information that can be cited to a reliable source (specifically, the website that is cited on the article). However, I believe the cited website's coverage of him is trivial. According to WP:Notability (people), "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What I have quoted is a guideline, but I believe trivial coverage in one reliable source is not enough to establish notability for Goux. If more reliable sources can be shown that mention Goux, I will consider advising that the article on Goux is kept. Until that time, I believe Goux's article should be deleted because WP:N has not been met, imo.JEdgarFreeman (talk) 11:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Economic Analysis and Business Facilitation Unit[edit]

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Keep http://news.google.com/archivesearch?tab=sn&sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&oe=UTF-8&um=1&resnum=0&hl=en&q=%22Economic+Analysis+and+Business+Facilitation+Unit&ie=UTF-8

There are lots of very solid primary sources (from gov.hk), but secondary sources are weak, at least in english. Hobit (talk) 13:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - trivial coverage in secondary sources. PhilKnight (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a government department and as such can be regarded as notable. It would also be acceptable to merge this article into the page for a parent department. Smile a While (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. Fram (talk) 08:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialists from Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands[edit]

Per consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialists from Eastern Europe we do not have any references for these lists and they appear to be a potential BLP nightmare. The lack of proper inclusion criteria and total absence of sourcing make them useless. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also bundling the following as they all have the same faults. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:53, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. There are very few independent references to support these "claims" of being a socialist. Therefore a definite breach of WP:BLP. WWGB (talk) 01:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per BLP issues and also the fact that it doesn't seem to be a notable unifier. TravellingCari 03:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —SimonLyall (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - IS this going to list every left wing politician in all those countries? - SimonLyall (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, some of these people are socialists alright, but the complete lack of references makes the whole thing a BLP nightmare. Not to mention that the definition of "socialist" is fuzzy enough that inclusions on such a list is inherently subjective (ie: is Julia Gillard a socialist?). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete all It would be a rather long list if it were completed!!! It's like "list of Anglicans" or "list of Australian republic supporters", except even less encyclopaedic as "Are you a socialist?" was never a question asked at a census or referendum. Orderinchaos 23:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to do this after the first "test case" AFD that I submitted closed, but forgot. Delete all as a serious BLP risk. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, where's the BLP problem? socialism is a rather well-defined concept. The articles could need some copyediting, specifying that only notable socialists are included, but generally these list are of good quality. --Soman (talk) 15:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. This is mostly my work. I can definitely see the flaws, but I can also see the uses. We have categories now so this might make the lists redundant. This list is useful to me personally, so I might create a cut-down version in my user space. —Sesel (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. can see the use of the list, can't think of a good reason to keep it; might be better as a category? you know, so as to avoid proliferation of lists of "conservatives from ANZ&TPI" and list of "marxists from", etc, etc and the ensuing AFD-fest that ensues. plan 8 (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Soman. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - obviously articles should have categories, but creating lists for random intersections is just weird. PhilKnight (talk) 20:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, quickly Am I not a socialist if I'm not on the list? This is a useless bit of WikiSpace BMW(drive) 22:39, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Love[edit]

Only notable because of Objective-C. Should be mentioned in the Objective-C article, but does not deserve his own article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 20:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete could be notable [20], [21] but I can't find adequate evidence of that. JJL (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Note that I interpreted !votes for userfy as delete. If any editor is interested in a userfied version of this article, I am certainly willing to provide same. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of high schools in Washington by WIAA league alignment[edit]

Wikipedia already has a List of high schools in Washington, but why do we need to get even more specific with a list by WIAA league? WP:SALAT says that even though the possibilities of stand-alone lists are infinite, we should also limit the amount of lists. Besides, the article consists of just headings and templates so it really isn't that encyclopedic. Tavix (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems the templates do the same job, and the reference is a page under construction. Ndenison ^talk 21:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 21:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.S_RX 22:16, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move - this is just a poorly named and organized list at this point. The subject is very valid. The article should be moved to List of high school athletics conferences in Washington and focus on the unique aspect of the article, the conference alignments.
Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userify per Orlady. This may be useful in the future. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userify - Article is too undeveloped for article space, but topic may be worthwhile. Move to the primary contributor's sandbox for additional development (assuming, of course, that the user has additional WP:RS content to add and is interested in building this). --Orlady (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 08:35, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Towson University Athletic Hall of Fame inductees[edit]

A list of college athletes, but only two are bluelinks. One of the bluelinks leads to a disambig page. There are no sources to support the notability of the individuals, the hall of fame, or the university's athletic programs. Most importantly, nothing suggests that the Athletic Hall of Fame of Towson University is in any way notable, and even if it were, Wikipedia is not a directory of its rolls. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the honour roll of athletes from a university is not particularly notable -- Whpq (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice list, good athletes... but Wikipedia is not a web hosting service. This is an example of the kind of list that belongs on the school's website, not here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Although probably a neologism, the majority of the respondents here opined that the term has been the subject of significant non-trivial coverage in independent sources, and note that such sources are cited in the article. As well, the content of the article appears to be verifiable in reliable secondary sources. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 00:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Encore career[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Prod contested by author. --Finngall ^talk 22:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a term that refers to a generational move. I have used citations from various sources, please let me know how i can better improve the article so it will not be deleted. AccountStaff (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article's sources establish that the term and concept are notable. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard of the term before, but I've also heard the concept called several other things. As of right now, it seems to be a WP:NEO Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PeterSymonds (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia can have articles about neologisms if there are "reliable sources specifically about the term", and there are at least those:[22] [23]. I think it has widespread use [24] [25], widespread enough [26] to warrant an article. I'm more worried that the article is a WP:DICDEF at the moment, but think that it can be expanded to a useful article.
Keep. --Amalthea^Talk 19:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El-Ouachouacha[edit]

Google search turns up very few hits, mostly mirrors of Wikipedia, with one or two references to this location on a map. No evidence of anything historical or notable about this place. DeleteMr. Vernon (talk) 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only found a few hits on Google as well, and no reliable sources. But is it really from the Arabic Wikipedia? That's what the tag says, but I couldn't find anything... Lady Galaxy 19:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Astronauts (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. The original band might be worth an article, but not this incarnation. Corvus cornix_talk 19:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you. I can't find any reliable sources. Lady Galaxy 19:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 13:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emirates Lounge[edit]

As a stand-alone article in mainspace articles have to fulfill certain policies, such as WP:V. As an unsourced article, with no references which discuss Emirates Lounge in an in-depth, non-promotional manner, this article fails WP:V. If an article split is required due to cruft in the main article, options that editors have include editing the article to make it more encyclopaedic, and removing cruft, not creating a separate article for it, particularly when it does include a single reference that gives it an ounce of notability in an encyclopaedic context. An additional reason that can used for this article is WP:NOT#GUIDE. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looks to be a WP:ADVERT case. Nsk92 (talk) 00:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of songs from Sesame Street . (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 23:23, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Synergy 07:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC-DEF-GHI[edit]

Even though I love this song, article doesn`t establish notability in reliable sources as a google search doesn`t yield anything useful. If there`s something that makes these songs notable besides being on the show, I`ll withdraw as I love this song. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 18:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can't find a lot of sources for this song -- although that may have something to do with the fact that its title is not prominent. (I never knew the proper title of the song before I saw the Wikipedia article about it.) In the song's favor are the fact that it seems to be reasonably notable as Sesame Street songs go -- having appeared on at least 14 different albums over the last four decades -- and the fact that this article has been on Wikipedia for over five years. I have made some improvements to the article since the AfD began. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, but if it was in 14 albums, wouldn't the track listing list it as ABC-DEF-GHI, therefore making the title more widely-known? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 21:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would help. But just from watching the original segment of the Sesame Street television show that featured this song, neither a child nor an adult would be likely to figure out the exact title. If you asked them the title of the song Big Bird sang in that segment, they would probably call it "Abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz", pronounced something like \æbkədεfgidʒəkəlmənapkwərstuvwəksəz\. They would have to see the album track listing to know the proper title. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, song by notable composer Joe Raposo. Apparently it was performed on Evening at Pops in 1971 (per Muppet Wikia, which isn't a reliable source, but I'm still looking). NawlinWiki (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep being on the show makes it notable enough. I'd say WP:Ignore is in order here, as sources cannot be found for something that almost no one would know how to refer to (and as it is notable, it's likely that somehow, sources will be found). DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep highly notable, and as above, difficult to fit into notability criteria as they stand. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Synergy 07:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our Last Summer[edit]

Song is nothing more than an album track. Its only claim to fame is that it is by ABBA. Several cover versions by obscure artists and its inclusion in the Mamma Mia! stage show and movie are not justification for its own entry. Should be deleted or merged Paul75 (talk) 18:23, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Trouper (album). Corvus cornix_talk 19:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Single songs on an album of ABBA, which has been purchased many million times, are much more relevant than most albums which meet the criteria for inclusion. The article offers enough information about the song so that its own article is justified. --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an ABBA fansite. Being performed by ABBA is not a reason for an article Paul75 (talk) 21:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#Songs; "performed independently by several notable artists". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. - McCart42 (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Super Trouper (album). Waggers (talk) 08:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me and I[edit]

Subject is an album track by ABBA - has no notable features that warrant its own article Paul75 (talk) 18:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep same reasons as above --Novil Ariandis (talk) 08:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to Super Trouper (album) as a plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Hasn't charted, hasn't won an award, hasn't been cover by notable artists. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn after discovery of new sources establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 07:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Young Ones (video game)[edit]

Contested WP:PROD. Restating the rationale from the prod, "Non-notable video game. Lone reference only shows the existence of the game and does not indicate any notability." MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see magazine reviews in world of spectrum's archive here. According to the full page advert it was released on all the major computers at the time, there'll be more reviews either in magazines or archives. Someone another 18:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shazbot! I keep forgetting about that blasted Amiga magazine rack! MuZemike (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So have I and so have others and so it will continue, WoS and the AMR often don't come up easily, and 'World of Spectrum' sounds like one of the numerous useless fansites you trawl through looking for sources, unless you know what it is. If you're satisfied with those reviews, and IMO they're as good as you'll get for an 8-bit game, would you consider withdrawing the AFD? Someone another 21:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. My apologies. MuZemike (talk) 07:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - no consensus. Waggers (talk) 12:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in North Korea[edit]

Pointless list for only two newspapers, one of which is a red link. Article has seen no real development since it's creation over two years ago, and is redundant to Category:Newspapers published in North Korea. Contested prod. PC78 (talk) 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being incomplete is not a reason for deletion. As one might expect, there are several other newspapers published in North Korea. See ko:분류:조선민주주의인민공화국의 신문 for several names. Perhaps someone could add English transliterations for the newspapers listed there to the English list. --Eastmain (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, you linked to a category on the Korean Wiki, and not a heavily populated one at that. "Being incomplete" was not the reason for the nomination; being of limited use and having limited scope for expansion was. If expanding this list simply means adding a few more red links and external links, then that's all the more reason to get rid. Though perhaps it might be an idea to merge it into a single List of newspapers in Korea?. PC78 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by Exploding Boy. Non-admin closure by PC78 (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six degrees of richard herring[edit]

Not notable. It's a game made up by some apparently "national known comedian" in a podcast. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Per consensus below and nom suggestion. Protonk (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sims 2 store[edit]

Not notable enough for it's own article; this should be merged into Sims 2. NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An AFD is not necessary for a merge. But I think a merge would be appropriate. Randomran (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and do a merger proposal per WP:MERGE instead. MuZemike (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and propose merge per both above suggestions, AFD isn't for merge candidates. Someone another 19:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since deletion is not even suggested by the nominator.DGG (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator does not suggest deletion. Maxa megalon 2000 00:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Unsourced and keep vote was by assertion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Velvet Eden[edit]

No reliable sources found. Note that the Castle Records linked to in the article is not the right label. Reads like a fansite. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Albums & single added too. Will the closing admin please see that the albums' and single's cover art, and the categories Category:Velvet Eden songs and Category:Velvet Eden albums are deleted too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I usually support keeping most Asian celebrities and food articles, but this one doesn't have any reliable sources even if they have put out a few songs (I found them on YouTube; you can go see for yourself). Also, the Castle Records linked to in the article really isn't the right label... Lady Galaxy 18:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't have enough music background or Japanese to evaulate the website of the Castle Records they were signed with to tell whether they pass WP:MUSIC #5. It looks like it might be an important enough indie label that I can't dismiss the band's notability out of hand. Can we get an assist here? —Quasirandom (talk) 00:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note btw that that second link (which was on the main article), along with its subpages, does verify at least the discography portion of the article. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Velvet Eden - no opinion on album articles. The band has sufficient notability to warrant a page on wikipedia --T-rex 15:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rafael Flores[edit]

I don't see any evidence of WP:N or WP:RS being met. Wizardman 16:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't comply with the general notability guideline.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo morris[edit]

A photographer with a website, a blog and a MySpace address but with no independent sources (or compelling evidence of notability). Prodded, prod removed, so here we are. Hoary (talk) 16:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No compelling assertion of notability. A MySpace site, a blog and a mostly "under construction" homepage don't add up to WP:N, and Google turns up little besides some promotional material and some photo credits. I couldn't find the claimed recognition in The Guardian, The Telegraph or The Times, so this may just mean that they've used his photos once or twice (and not credited him online). Also per Geogre's Law. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 16:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Couldn't find claimed notability via his own website (under construction) link or via other searches. Jenafalt (talk) 20:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Protest Deletion Jenafalt, please explain what part of WP:BIO fails, furthermore, a website which is under construction does not remove notability but just makes it more difficult to find, the simple process of matching images from website and album covers on the artists websites verifies images, and few results on a google search also does not limit notability. Additionally, using non-internet sources such as checking the photo credits on the album artwork verifies notability. Jenafalt's claim of notability through own website goes against the basic principle of WP:BIO Author 22:13 19 August 2008 (BST) —Preceding undated comment was added at 21:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should have worded thmy comment better I meant that I could find no claims to notability through either his own site or other searches. The relevant part of his website called clippings was under construction so I could find nothing there to help. Fails WP:BIO because of lack of notability. So I think this article is a Delete. Jenafalt (talk) 06:18, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no credible evidence of notability. Thus fails WP:BIO in general and WP:CREATIVE in particular. nancy ^talk 09:58, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Cases like this are good examples of why access to print references can be beneficial. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mister C's[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Mister C's

Local steakhouse. Only news hits are related to the closing or trivial mentions of events held at the restaurant. Seems to be only marginally notable locally, and non-notable beyond that. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per Freechild's sources. Good work. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 13:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added information and citations to the article, proving its notability. Google News fails as a meter of newsworthiness, particularly for a 50-plus-year-old restaurant that is closed. More than marginally notable, the restaurant was widely regarded as the best steakhouse in Omaha, and the national sources cited in the article prove its non-local notability. • Freechild'sup? 17:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above poster. Google hits may be misleading now as the joint has been closed for almost a year. Lady Galaxy 19:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ahl al-Kisa. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadith of The Cloak[edit]

Because The Article contains incorrect information, and articles regarding it alredy exist the page should be deleted DaDexter (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Article is a stub.The person who wrote the article does not have sufficient knowledge.No offense!

Firstly an article related to the Hadith of Cloak and the event already exists on wikipedia!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadith_of_the_Event_of_the_Cloak

Secondly,The person confused two distinct events into a single event! The Hadis of Cloak and The Event of Mubahila.

The Hadis of clock occured on 3rd Hijra acording to some records, while some people say its 5 Hijra...However, I believe the correct is about 7 or 8 Hijra, as both Imam Hussan (AS) and Imam Hussain (AS) came walking to Their mother Fatima (AS) and Imam Hassan (AS) was born on 2nd Hijra, while Imam Hussain (AS) was born on 3rd Hijra, Thus they time can not 3rd or 5th Hijra.

Irrespective of the date when it occured,the two events are separate and different.

The second event of Mubahila occured on 2nd Zil Hajja, 10 Hijra. An article for this event also already exists. See the page on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mubahila

DaDexter (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia should have one article on this subject; currently, we have Hadith of The Cloak and Hadith of the Event of the Cloak, both of which have existed on Wikipedia for years. I am insufficiently versed in the nuances of Muslim theology to form an opinion about which of these articles has the more appropriate title, or about which contains the best neutral, verifiable content. I have left a note at WP:WikiProject Islam's talk page requesting input from users familiar with this subject. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and Hadith of the Event of the Cloak into Ahl al-Kisa. In the past a consensus was developed that most of the "Hadith of..." articles on Wikipedia were unencyclopedic and unnecessary forks of other articles (after which many more have been prodded and deleted). The article is about a report (hadith) - it has little significance outside the context of the topic of Ahl al-Kisa (and as such is not inherently notable in and of itself). The latter is currently a stub and could do with more discussion of the underlying reports in the article itself. Similarly, other such "Hadith of..." articles should be implemented into the general topics they are considered significant to. ITAQALLAH 22:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Although I disagree with Itaqallah about Hadith article and I think we can have encyclopedic Hadith articles, but in this case Hadith of the Event of the Cloak and Ahl al-Kisa refer to the same thing.--Seyyed(t-c) 14:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 12:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thad Ackel[edit]

Some racehorses are notable. Does training a racehorse also meet the notability criteria? I found his name in a handful of articles about the horse in question, but am not sure that he meets WP:BIO. This article is an apparent autobiography; prod removed by creator/subject without comment or improvement. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article definitely needs some basic clean up work, but being the trainer of a Grade I winning racehorse makes you notable...especially when one of the Grade I's was in the Breeders' Cup. Here's 79 google news hits as well. --Smashville^BONK! 21:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a wash-and-brush-up but yes, training racehorses is indeed an occupation worthy of notability - a pedigree foal wouldn't necessarily mature into seaside donkey material without one but the ability of the trainer is probably the crucial human factor in its ultimate success - and the subject here has had some noteworthy achievements. Plutonium27 (talk) 11:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's also a Horse Trainer category with about 2-300 articles attached to it. In the past, we've generally considered a Grade One winning horse to be automatically notable. Since the BC Turf is the most important turf race in North America and winning a grade one should mean definite notability, winning the BC Turf should be the utmost notability. --Smashville^BONK! 13:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A successful trainer whose sudden departure from the field only makes him that much more interesting. This is an article that needs to be expanded, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs a bit of lengthening, and as Plutonium said, a good wash and brush up, but is well within notability criteria. Thad Ackel was a well known trainer. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Kjær Sørensen[edit]

Fails WP:PROF, in fact not even a prof. Punkmorten (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable independent coverage available to build a verifiable article, or show notability. EJF (talk) 19:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No scholarly publications and no coverage by reliable sources. Fails both WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Also, note that the article's creator had removed the AfD notice from the page, which I have restored. Nsk92 (talk) 20:28, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article mentions that Mr. Sorensen predicted the events with the housing market. If he was the first to do so (which the article does not suggest), he may be notable under Criterion 5 of WP:PROF. If not, Delete. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single paper in RePEc, the standard for the field. ~~
Delete for all the arguments given by the above editors. --Crusio (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of male boxers[edit]

As one of the most active member of the Boxing Project I dont like to see boxing articles deleted but this article is too big, of no real use and there is already a category which does the same job. Vintagekits (talk) 14:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith ^talk 18:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, serves no particular purpose. Like the nom said. Punkmorten (talk) 15:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, if the Boxing Project doesn't even want it then, I'm guessing no one will. --T-rex 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List that is extremely long and erroneous. It's extremely common for men to be boxers but I guess someone wanted to be PC after seeing List of female boxers. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 20:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category and sub-categories do a much better and job. The list is impossible to maintain and update. --Jimbo^[online] 22:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the previous editor. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 01:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Insane, you need the list to track fighters, duh, only on wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddyboytoy (talk • contribs) 00:13, 28 October 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. Sandstein 20:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norm Ellefson[edit]

Reads like one huge copy-vio (although I can find no evidence). I think this page needs to be restarted from scratch.

(All the images in the article claim to be "not copyrighted" even though some are from newspapers. ~~Presently unsure how to approach removing the images, which are both here and at commons.)~~ Eventually all listed for deletion. Ian¹³ /t 09:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I vote delete despite the transformation to a stub, now for notability. (The 2 significant races he entered for he didn't qualify.) Ian¹³ /t 09:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - I know nothing about car racing so the bloke may well be very notable but most of the article is a huge rambling stream of consciousness written in an extremely unencyclopedic style and in the first person (pretty much everything bar the first paragraph was added in one edit by User:Nellefson so it is likely an autobiography) and illustrated with pics which claim to be free use but almost certainly aren't. Suggest that all of this be removed as completely unencylopedic, remaining stub might then be OK...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So are you saying delete then restore stub, because that sounds sensible to me. Ian¹³ /t 10:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon just delete everything from "it all began for me" onwards, then the resultant stub should be OK to keep as is...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me like a perfect remedy. Keep the biographical facts, delete the novella.--Slashme (talk) 11:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have done as suggested and changed page to a stub. Now I'm wondering if it fails WP:N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpmuk (talk • contribs) 13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 move to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 18:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Parliamentary Caucuses from Manitoba[edit]

This information can be found in the category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba NorthernThunder (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think such a list is notable in and of itself, and if the information is already included elsewhere, all the more reason to delete it. It's also not named correctly; if it is not deleted, it should be moved to List of Canadian Parliamentary Caucuses from Manitoba. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this article, but I don't have particularly strong feelings about this afd one way or the other. If people believe the article is not terribly useful, I won't try to prevent its deletion. CJCurrie (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and question: Does this mean anything other than "the list of all the MP's from that province and party"? Is the caucus an organization that does anything? If so, we can keep it, on analogy to Congressional Progressive Caucus. JamesMLane t c 03:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would almost certainly be worthwhile to compile lists of past and present federal MPs organized by province (current lists organize them only alphabetically, whereas senators already have both alphabetical and by-province lists), but as currently constituted this does simply duplicate information that's already present in other places. (The category isn't that place, though; lists and categories serve different purposes and aren't redundant with each other — for one thing, the category can't annotate people's party affiliation, term in office or electoral district.) Keep, but (a) move to List of Members of the Canadian House of Commons from Manitoba, (b) add past MPs to it, too, and (c) compile similar lists for all other provinces and territories. Bearcat (talk) 21:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Bearcat. Keep; move to List etc.; add past MPS with dates; do other provinces. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. Article's problems can be fixed without outright deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena[edit]

The article Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena is at best a collection of less than serious newspaper clippings. This type of whacky article probably reduces the credibility of Wikipedia. I looked at the image of Mother Teresa supposedly seen on a piece of food in a store. It is just hopeless. What if someone notices the face of Einstein on a piece of fruit? Will there be an article on that in Wikipedia? There is more material on this topic than on some serious works of art or some scientific or serious religious topics. If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously, this type of semi-sane articles need to be deleted. History2007 (talk) 04:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the AFD nomination, it had not been formatted correctly or listed. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although some content does not cite its sources, and may be original research, the article meets the notability guideline. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and probably consider renaming Acheropite. Weird and wacky it may be, but Acheropites are a recognised and fairly commonly occuring class of phenomena, and have been for centuries. The word comes from the Greek for "not by human hand" and the most famous is probably the Turin Shroud (although I guess that depends on your view about its true origins). The Nun Bun (Mother Teresa in a small snack food item) made headlines all around the world. See the Italian Wikipedia's treatment of the term - it's a stub, but it does explain itself - and a few easily accessed examples: [27], [28], [29] to demonstrate its reporting in the media. Whether we change the title or not (and I'll suggest it on the talk page), this subject meets WP:N and WP:V as a description of a social phenomenon, whatever your views on those who ascribe supernatural origins to the items. It just needs to be written descriptively from a NPOV. I'll have a go. Ka renjc 20:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete If these are sample opinions on reasons for keeping, then how about renaming the entire system "Wierdpedia". Inviting wacky content is not serious. But then if most of the planet wants to read about the Nun Bun, their brains will probably find this page interesting too... sigh... History2007 (talk) 20:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Wikipedia:Unusual articles. Are you raising the question of limits for the inclusion of material? -- Alan Liefting (talk)

Ummm.... Does the nominator get a second chance to say delete? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and probably divide. The relationships to other articles needs to be osiered on the article talk pages, not here. DGG (talk) 22:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The material is referenced and is of interest. It may not fit in with what has been traditionally incorporated into other encyclopedias. Need to bear in mind that WP tells it like it is - warts and all. OTHER encyclopaedia's are influenced by the prevailing religious climate and they are therefore biased against articles that show religion in a poor light. -- Alan Liefting talk) - 23:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got that right Alan. This article is an embarrassment to religion. I wonder if a Cardinal would eat the NunBun if offered... History2007 (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An embarrassing article is not a justification for deletion. WP is not censored. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:07, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, censored it is not. Respectable? I guess it is not either. Let m eleave it at that. I guess I expected too much from Wikipedia. I give up. History2007 (talk) 12:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that this phenomenon does not show religious belief in a flattering light. That, however, is not Wikipedia's job. Ka renjc 20:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Respectable" is not a word that should be used to describe WP. Respectable is to some degree a loaded term. WP should on the whole attain a degree of authority and thoroughness. Adding an article such as this one gives WP an added increment of thoroughness. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A reasonably well-defined topic with substantial coverage. It'd be good, however, to find a better title. Nsk92 (talk) 00:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both your points. How about Religious pareidolia as a title? It is currently a redir to this page. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article is not about a single citing or a handful of citings -- it is about the general phenomenon that there have been and will be continued sightings that are perceived by some (however ludicrous in my opinion) as a message from God or one of His prophets or messengers. As this perception has been widely covered over a considerable amount of time, the phenomenon of this perception is notable. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 13:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As it stands, the article is a handful of sightings throughout modern history. However, the possiblity of sourcing the article from material in here, here, here, here, or even here exists. Article should be improved but the capacity for improvement is what keeps it from deletion. Protonk (talk) 23:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep and then shoot me, please. "Less than serious newspaper" coverage. We look at verifiability, not seriousness. "This type of whacky article probably reduces the credibility of Wikipedia." If it's verifiable and reliably sourced, your assertion fails. "What if someone notices the face of Einstein on a piece of fruit? Will there be an article on that in Wikipedia?" If there's significant discussion of such a phenomena in the media, it just might be included in this article. "If Wikipedia is to be taken seriously [then we must delete this article]..." Sorry, I missed that particular criteria for deletion. Funny enough, I did find this, and I think that might be what you're asking for here. user:j (aka justen) 18:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and Cheney Action Squad[edit]

Not notable enough for inclusion, one of many parodising YouTubers. StaticGull Talk 14:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete - nn youtube video --T-rex 16:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete I was about to say speedy delete, unfortunately it doesn't meet the criteria. But it should still be deleted as it doesn't meet notability at all. Lady Galaxy 18:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted. Likely hoax about a living person. I am going to be proposing The Bugle for deletion also. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The American Botham[edit]

Can't find anything about this, could be a hoax. StaticGull Talk 14:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Should have been a speedy delete for being nonsense. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NO results when doing a Google search except for this article. I'm nominating for speedy delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nana S. Achampong[edit]

Declined speedy, appears to fail WP:BIO. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Article claims at least eight books but nothing by this author appears in OCLC's Open WorldCat. Article also states This eighth addition to his catalog establishes Achampong firmly as a fixture in the Maryland literary system. No libraries in Maryland own anything by this author. Furthermore, article cites (not linked) www.lulu.com as a source - that site is a self-publishing (i.e., vanity press) site. Nothing wrong with lulu.com, everything wrong with this article. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Claims in the article don't stand up given the lack of sources. Fails WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Self-published authors are seldom notable and there no idication that this one is. Edward321 (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lazerblast[edit]

Declined A7, but still fails WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was already deleted once, recreated by a different user (though with a striking resemblance to the original article, usernames are very similar too). Was deemed to be blatent advertisement/promotion instead of an encyclopedic entry. The new article is heading the same direction, and using much of the same copy as the old one. There is very little information in this article, or that could be written into the article, that hasn't already been stated at Darien Lake and List of attractions at Darien Lake. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 15:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it fails WP:N and WP:ADVERT. —Cyclonenim^T@lk? 16:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per above. This is a light show at an amusement park ... although we already have a whopping WP:UNDUE involving this park, which doesn't merely have its own article, but a List of attractions at Darien Lake, a number of which have their own articles. No doubt there's an editor or three who think that this park is the greatest place ever, but not even its own website goes into that much detail. RGTraynor 23:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, not notable, spam. Sswonk (talk) 13:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. It would perhaps be appropriate to re-nominate this if the OR issues have not been addressed in due time. Sandstein 20:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yowani Choctaws[edit]

Someone uploaded their essay. StaticGull Talk 13:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Yowani Choctaws and their Cherokee cousins still have a bright future, if they are willing to grab it and run." - not good enough. Punkmorten (talk) 15:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sorry, Wikipedia is not your LiveJournal or a repository for your personal essays. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wouldn't it simply be better, if this is a real Native American group, to ask the author to rewrite the article from scratch? Badagnani (talk) 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article went to AfD 10 minutes after creation. Tone/POV/OR are cleanup issues. This tribe checks out as real with substantial coverage. The article includes references. The basic history is independently verifiable through Google Books. Unless this is copyvio (which I am checking), there is at least something to salvage. AfD is not cleanup. • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Let's do that, then. Badagnani (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As notable, and deal with the cleanup somewhere else, such as the article talk page . Perhaps we should have a formal rule against nominating article here except copyvio and BLP until 24 hours after their creation. DGG (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs tagging for wikifying, and other issues. It also needs the (redlink) categories replaced by legitimate ones. Nevertheless, provided it is not duplicating an existing article that it ought to be merged with (or vice versa), I see no reason why this should not be treated as a legitimate WP article, even if it did start life as a student essay. I would agree with the comment about over-rapid AFD nomination, which is liable to put off inexperienced editors from improving their own articles, but this is not the place for such discussion. Mind you: I know nothing of the subject, but assume it meets WP:V since it cites so many sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Delete this is a very odd case. It certainly represents jumping the gun on the nomination. I disagree with some of the above comments that WP:OR is a solely editorial manner. In the case that the article itself represents a situation where wikipedia is a publisher of first instance, it may be a matter for deletion as well. As I read the sources I come across some familiar terms in genealogical and tribal research: "unpublished manuscript", "letters", "personal communications". These primary sources (especially the inaccessible ones) should send alarm bells ringing for editors viewing the content. We allow sourcing like this in published material because the reputation of the author is staked upon the accuracy and foundation of her claims. Wikipedia doesn't allow for such an exception so we should be very leery of building articles from those sorts of sources. To be sure, it is likely to be a verifiable fact that the Yowani Choctaws exist and live in Mount Tabor. Other verifiable facts are sure to exist in the article. But we have little chance of fully disentangling those facts from what may be new claims published on wikipedia. This is an unfortunate result in local (and especially tribal) history. Look carefully at the article sourcing and at the claims made in the articles before coming to your own decision, but it seems to me that this article consists largely of material where wikipedia is the first publisher, as such we should delete it per WP:OR. Protonk (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So a historical entry about a group that has documented existence and continues to exist should be deleted? Didn't think Wikipedia was about whitewashing history. The fact that so many changes have been made to make the original unrecognizable, does not take away from the importance of having a record of the Yowani people. As to the Yowani being a part of Mount Tabor I refer you to the State of Texas recognition this year which mentions the Yowani https://legiscan.com/TX/text/SCR25/id/1603789/Texas-2017-SCR25-Enrolled.html. To remove sources that are considered incomplete is certainly understandable, but to delete is not.Terran57 (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nostradamus predicts redirect (non-admin closure) - even though by chiming in this may be a WP:COI. This user's other miscellanea additions have been redirected by a variety of other editors; no reason this shouldn't also go through that venue. Yes, this user has undone redirects from previous miscellanea he's created; if that happens, they should all go through AfD en masse. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotta The Huttlett[edit]

Belongs on Wookiepedia, not notable enough here. StaticGull Talk 13:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request withdrawal so this, along with all the other miscellanea User:Satipo has created/restored, can have a proper redirect -- in this case, to Star Wars: The Clone Wars (film). --EEMIV (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Redirecting to the film could have taken care of this. I must note that AfD 4 minutes after creation is awfully fast. • Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to the film as a plausible search term. -- saberwyn 00:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deering and Down[edit]

Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. I've found no actual evidence of their being on PRI, and besides that, notability requires multiple sources, nor do I find any evidence that this matches the other criteria for inclusion on that page. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..., nor do I find any source that shows that "Coupe Devilla was a top 10 Album of the Year in Belgium". There are reviews of the band, like [30], but none that I'd consider reliable enough to establish notability. Since the original author didn't add the PRI references like he said on the talk page I'm afraid that I agree, the group fails WP:MUSIC.
Delete. --Amalthea^Talk 20:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't comply with the general notability guideline.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost Hotel[edit]

Disputed prod. Non-notable film. Six minutes long and filmed in a single day. No reliable sources. No notable participants. nancy ^talk 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy, if i can improve this article, can you remove the tag you have set on it. --MKV2 (talk) 13:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can show that the films meets the notability criteria for films then the article will be kept. This debate will run for five days and I encourage you participate in it. The most helpful thing you could do with the article is to provide independent reliable secondary sources to verify Ghost Hotel's notability, the problem at the moment is that all the references both cited in the article and otherwise available on the web are self-published. nancy ^talk 15:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Completely fails WP:MOVIE. Hqb (talk) 14:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 18:14, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of any notability whatsoever. Only references are YouTube, and there are no google hits outside wikipedia [31]. PC78 (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Youtube profiles are not reliable sources. Keep looking... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lohman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The subject of the article engaged in harassment leading to coverage in a tabloid and (unnamed) local television channels. I do not think this is enough to establish notability (see Wikipedia:Notability (people)) especially in the light of the "People notable only for one event" section (see also WP:BLP1E).

The previous AfD ended in "no consensus", but I think that the fact that the new perspective allowed because the events have now receded a bit in the past as well as the strengthening of WP:BLP warrant a renewed discussion about the matter. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in fact, a speedy delete as BLP. This is the sort of thing one event properly applies to. The previous afd took place in 2005, before our rules on these were properly understood. I think BLP should be applied very narrowly, only where there is not possible public interest, and this is one of those cases where it is relevant. DGG (talk) 22:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:BLP1E for an event of short term interest. Not-notable. No trace of RS or even blog interest found after 2005. Not much to base a balanced article on. • Gene93k (talk) 23:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also nominated as an attack page, since the subject is a WP:NPF and the page looks like a WP:COATRACK to criticize the subject. Protonk (talk) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Watt[edit]

This looks like a referenced biography for a notable writer, but look a little closer. The "prize-winning" claim refers to a university poetry competition with no independent coverage cited. Half the supposed sources do not mention the subject, and those that do are not about the subject at all, the only one which is more than a namecheck is the univeristy student newspaper article on the undergraduate poetry prize. The creator is a single purpose account. The four or five previous deletions have eben for another non-notable Richard Watt, but I think this is a combination of vanity and resume padding. The publications are by the Unreasonable Press, which is run by one Richard Watt, i.e. self-published (and a very amateurish website at that). Of the 450 or so Google hits (including duplicates), for "Richard Watt" +poet, most are not about this person. I can't actually find any non-trivial independent sources about him. So: vanispamcruftisement, I think. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. In addition, I tried but was unable to verify the claim in the "He has been shortlisted for two of 2009's top bursaries for Scottish fiction" contained in the opening paragraph. The reference given there is to the main webpage of the Scottish Book Trust[32]. I did several searches on that website and could not find any info there related to the above claim. A self-published book, to be released in 2009, does not inspire more confidence in the notability of this case. Also, the article says "His time-travel suicide novel Why Be Blue? is under consideration for the Dundee Book Prize 2009". The reference given is this link [33] which does not mention Watt at all, but is a general description of the prize. So apart from notability concerns, there are WP:V issues here as well. Nsk92 (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N and WP:V. I too failed to verify the Scottish Book Trust claim, and when you search the database of Scottish writers on that website he is not listed. Gold Dust and Riverrun have nothing to do with poetry or him; shortlisting for a minor prize (even if verified, which this isn't) is not noteworthy. An appearance as part of a group of "new writers" at a small literary festival doth not notability make, and namedropping the headliners at that festival doesn't confer notability by association. May merit an article at some point, once his work is properly published and independently covered. Ka renjc 18:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Lady Galaxy 19:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Asante[edit]

Young footballer who plays for the Ghanaian under-17 team and for a Ghanaian football academy supported by the Dutch club Feyenoord; but this is not enough for notability per WP:ATHLETE. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Junior athlete, does not pass WP:ATHLETE for now. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I see nothing that indicates notability. Punkmorten (talk) 15:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. JohnCD (talk) 18:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet notability. Lady Galaxy 18:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO. --Jimbo^[online] 22:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialists from the Middle East and North Africa. I'm glad the opinions here are going in the same direction, or we would have a problem... Fram (talk) 08:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialists from the Middle East and North Africa[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy and generates WP:BLP issues by ascribing the label "socialist" to people without verifying it. Also see items 2, 3, 7 and 9 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another randomly assembled, non-encyclopedic, non-referenced list. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously articles should have categories, but creating lists for random intersections is just weird. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of socialists from the Middle East and North Africa. I'm glad the opinions here are going in the same direction, or we would have a problem... Fram (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of socialists from Sub-Saharan Africa[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy and generates WP:BLP issues by ascribing the label "socialist" to people without verifying it. Also see items 2, 3, 7 and 9 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another randomly assembled, non-encyclopedic, non-referenced list. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obviously articles should have categories, but creating lists for random intersections is just weird. PhilKnight (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fortescue, 7th Earl Fortescue[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Also does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems fairly likely that the source used for this article is the following book: Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990. This book is listed as the source for the main Earl Fortescue article, so it seems most likely that the info for the present article was taken from there as well. The info agrees with what is given at www.geneall.net[34](although this site probably does not pass WP:RS). In terms of notability the case does look pretty thin and there seems to be no claim to notability other than his title. However, I don't know how the issue of notability is usually dealt with for members of the British peerage. Nsk92 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a British Peer, he was a member of the House of Lords, and was thus inherently notable, per Wikipedia:Notability (people), which lists "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." just as any U.S. member of a state legislature or the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives. All that is required is a reliable source for verification, which the peerage book seems to be. Edison (talk) 03:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earls are notable. Baronets, not if they have no other distinction. In the middle there's some unsettled territory.DGG (talk) 04:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Status as Earl is a rather strong claim of inherent notability. While the article would benefit greatly from the addition of sources, that's a great reason to tag as "refimprove", but an extremely poor argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shinichi Kitaoka[edit]

~~Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)~~ Withdrawn in the light of the level of sources available in Japanese, which I do not speak or understand. Note that all other delete "voters" will have to withdraw for this to be closed as speedy keep. Stifle (talk) 15:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not good enough as it stands, but could be notable. Punkmorten (talk) 15:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability, unreferenced. Lady Galaxy 19:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A search for his name in Japanese gets about 27,000 hits. Also the United Nations web site and his U. Tokyo web site should be enough to satisfy the minimal claims of the article, that he is associated with both of those two institutions, satisfying the nominator's objections to keeping the article. What this article really needs, though, is a Japanese speaker to dig through all the potential Japanese-language sources from that search and add some more detail to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly. UN ambassador and Todai professor, wrote many books see google translation of ja wiki page, here's a Foreign Policy review of one. 117 gnews hits, this on appointment as ambassador. John Z (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the various sources found by David Eppstein and John Z clearly indicate notability. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, needs expansion but clearly notable. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep ambassadors of any country to the UN are unquestionably notable. Assuming hat the nom was unaware of the practice here, a quick G or GN search would have found the references. It's time we stopped even accepting such afd nominations, unless they at least assert a search that failed to find refs. This is a particularly obvious example of wasting the time of the community; considering that the nom is an admin, and is therefore assumed to know the rules here, I would judge it as disruptive.. If others agree with me and wants to start further action, I will support it. DGG (talk) 04:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just because the subject is notable doesn't mean we should keep this article. On a sidenote, Speedy Keep is not an option when a delete vote has been voiced, isn't that so? __meco (talk) 08:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To say that a subject with notability is not necessarily something that should be kept is unintelligble. The guidelines ( WP:STUB and WP:IMPERFECT ) are probably what should be consulted here.
- Also no such absolute exits here. Wikipedia is not a beuaracracy. Sorry if u or the nominator want a special speedy keep procedural absolute, I suggest looking elsewhere. Perhaps Conservapedia?
- Comment: As long as an article doesn't run afoul of WP:NOT then any subject that meets WP:NOTE should have articles. That is the stated goal of Wikipedia. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL A major international figure who is mentioned in books, journals, and the general media. This article should never have been nominated. The nom deserves a WP:TROUT. --Firefly322 (talk) 10:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Knorre[edit]

Unreferenced for over 2 years, fails verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, done. Please keep. --DaQuirin (talk) 13:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The links that have been added make the article fully verifiable now. SyG (talk) 14:42, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added several more references now, including a detailed 1 page biography (orbituary )from the 'Astronomische Nachrichten' 1919. Voorlandt (talk) 16:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvement efforts. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, he is in ChessGames.com database. Lab-oratory (talk) 17:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Found a little more cited info to help support notability. Ka renjc 17:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The improved version looks OK. Normally, I would have wanted to see more substantive coverage but for someone who died in 1919 the amount of coverage available is reasonable. In particular, ref no. 1 contains substantive biographical data[35]. There also seemed to have been an obituary of him in Popular Astronomy[36]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the improvements made by Voorlandt. Edward321 (talk) 01:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor of Astronomy at Berlin . Another nomination made without any apparent effort to check for sources. DGG (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting factiod about the knight's defense, too. :) He's notable. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voorlandt and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

No apparent notability of this topic. The content is also unsourced. Moreover, I don't think that there is too much that one can say about user pages that does not amount to a dicdef. "A user page is a web-page that displays information about a user" - who'd have thought it? Sandstein 11:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No apparent notability, and an exercise in original research. PC78 (talk) 12:58, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, navel-gazing, etc. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs expansion, with some discussion, oriented towards things other than WP. They';re not a unique concept of our own. There should be some appropriate references in general discussion of how to use the web. DGG (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MediaMob (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Sydius (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete all three. Two by Gazimoff and one by PeterSymonds.Synergy 11:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Distant healing[edit]

Unsourced fringe theory essay presented as fact. Fails WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR etc. Sandstein 10:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec with Blowdart below) Also nominating for the same reasons by the same author:

Remedy for mental stress (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Heal distant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sandstein 10:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go further, the author is creating the same article under numerous titles, with a link to a web site. It's spam in my eyes. --Blowdart | ^talk 10:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It's a close-run thing, but the 6music tracklistings are enough to convince me. Only just. Waggers (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Cronenberg's Wife[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

Fails WP:MUSIC. Unable to find secondary sources ( did find 2 trivial mentions ) Pirate^Argh!!1! 10:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link to 1rst Afd Pirate^Argh!!1! 14:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, passes WP:MUSIC on 'Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable' - Ian Button of Death in Vegas / Thrashing Doves etc etc Musicfanman5 (talk) 02:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, passes WP:MUSIC on criteria of being notable representative of genre or scene. Band are considered at forefront of UK antifolk movement and have appeared in magazine interviews (inc. those quoted at bottom of article) and on national radio (BBC 6 Music - 18 August 2008) as representatives of said movement. Also believe single "Runaway Pram" has been in rotation on same national station. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrokapi (talk • contribs) 09:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "have appeared in magazine interviews" does not pass WP:N - they're just mentioned in them, and aren't the sole subject of. Smells of WP:SPAs to me, too... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 09:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete, passes WP:MUSIC on 'Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. ' - Radio 6 Mark Riley Session & Q Radio current Band of the Week - always includes 30 min of live session recordings —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.36.38.241 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 20:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tranny Dogg[edit]

Non-notable cocktail. Asserted to be popular in Sydney and Melbourne but the only sources are related to the Wikipedia page. Quite likely a hoax. nancy ^talk 09:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single mention can be found on the internet for this supposed drink popular in Australia and New Zealand. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of sourcing some supporting references from either bar websites, bar menus, university/student union websites or university publications. Tranny Doggs are not held out to be globally popular, but they are popular in Sydney and Melbourne CBDs and parts of New Zealand. The article is inoffensive and informative. I believe it should be allowed to remain on Wikipedia subject to some verification from bars/universities in the coming days. Obviously the aforementioned published material which will be available, as it is rare that peer reviewed academic papers are produced on basic cocktails/mixer drinks. I find it curious that the article is repeatedly referred to as a 'hoax'. I've never heard of a hoax being perpetrated where the goal was to inform an audience of the ingredients to a drink. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dken5953 (talk • contribs) 09:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC) — Dken953 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete unless enough reliable sources are produced to establish notability. Note to author - these are not uncommon on Wikipedia; though the "hoax" is not usually in the ingredients themselves but in the pretence that a drink the author has made up one day is widely known and the latest trendy thing. JohnCD (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely non-notable, no independent references can be found. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think a tag or two on the article is too extreme; other articles for deletion don't have all that and I've seen worse. I also don't believe it to be a hoax: why would anyone make something up like that? It seems pretty believable, but it just doesn't meet notability as there's no reliable sources for it. People everywhere have their own version of drinks they enjoy particular to that city/area, and we don't have Wikipedia articles for that. Lady Galaxy 19:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was unable to find any references to verify that this is real or notable. Would appear to be unverifiable. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment - three "references" have now been provided, but the first gives a "not found" error, the second is for a "Snoop Dogg recipe", and the third is for a "Gin & Juice Drink Recipe - Snoop Dogg Style." So still absolutely no source for the "Tranny Dogg" of the article. JohnCD (talk) 21:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - i have updated the "reference" to clubsuntory - unfortunatly as a members only webpage it required a login to access the martin miller gin section, now the link will take you to the forepage and you can click through to the product (although you may still be required to login?!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.22.139 (talk) 13:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unverifiable item. --Roisterer (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it appears that the first link does indeed (after signing up to the webpage) take you to a list of Suntory(tm) approved Cocktails, where the 'Tranny Dogg' does indeed feature - it would therefore be in my opinion referenced, and thereby not necessary to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.247.160 (talk) 12:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Your doggedness is to be applauded however the link merely proves that Tranny Dogg exists and thus deals only with allegation that the entire article is made-up. It does not show that the drink has any notability - a lot of things can be shown to exist but that is not in itself a justification for inclusion. nancy ^talk 12:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- your tenacity to prove this author wrong seems in my mind like an ostentatious attempt to draw attention towards the unnecessary deletion of this article. Excuse me if i am reading the situation wrong however, from reading the article - and as mentioned above by the author, they are only presenting the information available. As a member of the hospitality profession, i know that everyone has their own 'drink' that someone created somewhere - and everyone has their own name for a variety of beverages. However in this instance, a cocktail - which appears to have been entertained by a major linchpin in the liquor industry and subsequently 'named' appears in my view, to be joining the ranks of the cocktail chronicles. If you feel the notability of this specific beverage is in question - then perhaps we should look at other recently noted beverages like the 'matador' ^[1] only coming to popularity in the last 2 or 3 years, named after a specific tequila variety, and yet - entitled to its own page. Or the Jagerbomb, ^[2] only coming to popularity after a wide drive by the same beverage company heavily promoted it as part of their drive to ascertain market share in the RTD culture of Asia Pacific. As a patron of the hospitality industry (and a very regular drinker) i feel it would be a shame to loose the inclusion of this 'new beverage' into a reformed cocktail list - if it is only satisfying the inkling of doubt in certain editors minds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.247.160 (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unverified. I take that to mean the drink is not widespread, therefore should have no article.--Lester 21:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This whole thing reeks like a bad marketing ploy or traffic booster. Wikipedia isn't a recipe book. Italydiplo (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This drink is wide-spread. It is consumed all over Australia and New Zealand. The reason it doesn't often feature in 'cocktail menus' all over the internet is the same reason a 'gin and tonic' doesn't feature in cocktail menus all over the internet. They are not expensive drinks priced like a traditional 'cocktail' and they are not complex to make. This article only serves to inform of a name which is very commonplace in at least two relatively large countries to describe a gin variety. The idea this is a marketing ploy is absurd. It is not a 'ready to drink' product, just a gin mixer drink. Note to editors - I am the original author of this article, but have not contributed the majority of the comments or discussion points in favour of retaining the article. I also note that other readers are responsible for some of the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dken5953 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability not established. Jenafalt (talk) 18:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admir Salihovic[edit]

Fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully pro league. bneidror (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The competition Vancouver Whitecaps (USL) plays in is professional, and plus it's a first division competition, so keep. Daniel (talk) 14:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The player have only appearances with Vancouver Whitecaps Residency in PDL, an amateur league. bneidror (talk) 16:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. bneidror (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Made an appearance for Vancouver Whitecaps first team August 5th - his profile that is linked on Admir Salihovic shows this, and the match report is here. Nfitz (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment is the USL a fully-professional league? If it is then he'd pass WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo^[online] 22:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- USL-1 is fully professional, level of play is just below MLS (and based on the results of this years US Open cup, the Canadian Championship, and various friendlies, one could argue that there is very little between the two leagues). In the past, we've accepted USL-1 and USL-2 players, and drawn the line there. Nfitz (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you have a reliable source, I couldn't find anything on the league structure's website. --Jimbo^[online] 16:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he (and his appearance) shows up in several google news searches: this definitely corroborates. USL-1 and USL-2 players are notable as fully professional leagues. matt91486 (talk) 21:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the league is fully professional. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - are you kidding. hes on the roster of a professional team in a professional league User:morbital ^t 16:53, 18 August 2008 (PDT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.17.173.9 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. Waggers (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muziboo[edit]

nn website Hoow1232 (talk) 08:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I came close to call it an A7 speedy, but apparently it is more notable than the article led to belive. There is one news article I found, and a huge amount of blog & forum noise—but still not enough to pass WP:WEB, lacking the "historical significance" that it demands.
Delete. --Amalthea^Talk 19:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (CSD A7). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 08:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoowalk[edit]

nn website Hoow1232 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very few number of linked articles, little-to-no media attention. --gsk - talk - 04:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Figures Online[edit]

Keep. The site gets tons of people every day looking at it and has its own fanfic-style comic series - Timeslip - which is very popular among readers. The forum is growing fast and acts as one of only a few places to discuss the topic of action figures and merchandise in the Doctor Who universe. a64 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.152.78 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nn website Hoow1232 (talk) 08:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a major site on Doctor Who figures, and Doctor Who itself. Its forum is also very busy and popular. If 4chan warrants a page why can't this? It's just as important, especially to Character Options' line of Doctor Who figures.--Sec (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Sec on legs (talk)[reply]
Weak Keep.it appears strongly on Google with many websites promoting and linking to it by their own choice. This page contains much information about a website used by thousands. It may be non-commercial but remains an important part of Doctor Who on the internet.--Seb! (talk) 08:56, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Lumic (talk)[reply]
Delete due to lack of third-party references. Stifle (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The entry is clearly one big advertisement for the website. Its content and tone lack neutrality and the subject isn't notable. Jack Garfield (talk) 09:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self-published references. MediaMob (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not establish notability. Renata (talk) 00:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NN. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 12:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deth Mäsk[edit]

Contested PRODs. Non notable local band having just self-released their first EP. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC by a considerable margin. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. It is week, but it's a keep as there are sources (although more are needed) Waggers (talk) 10:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Unruh[edit]

Retired local news anchor and former Miss Oregon. Search for third-party sources turned up nothing much beyond a press release announcing retirement and a link to a PDF file documenting a local journalism award. Creating editor has been unresponsive in response to attempts to discuss the article and has removed tags without discussion. Lack of third-party sources make it unlikely that this subject meets WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 06:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO. Outside of that retirement notice, and a few news articles written by her, she doesn't appear to have any visibility at all. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to have been successful in a number of areas. Sources for her awards exist [37] but are behind a pay wall. Clearly can source article from the press release and pdf file mentioned above (and third party reports of both that seem to be behind said pay walls). Hobit (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Issues of sockpuppetry and shenanigans aside, consensus on the notability issue seems clear. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:06, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vince Palamara[edit]

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

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

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

Exceptionally overwrought biography of a non-notable author/researcher, which appears to have been largely if not entirely written by the subject himself. He does not seem to have actually written and published any books of his own (one is "being published") and he apparently played in some non-notable rock bands. Nearly all of of the text is unverifiable through reliable sources, and the references section is a lengthy compendium of lists of books written by other people (which may or may not mention him), names, and citations to fringe sites, blogs, YouTube, etc. Delete. --MCB (talk) 06:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete With the exception of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article, the subject lacks third-party coverage. Even if claims that other authors were referring to him when they talked about "a Secret Service expert" were verified, that wouldn't be enough to confer notability. Movingboxes (talk) 06:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A Google search for his name turns up primarily self-promotional material. While he claims to be an expert, there is precious little that turns up proving that he is referenced by others as an expert. As he appears to be one of the only - perhaps the only - person who contributed content to his article, it doesn't appear that he is even notable in the JFK conspiracy community. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He is an author of some minor note in the conspiracy community, so this could go either way, but I'd say his constant efforts to use his article as a self-promotional device and reverting edits by others as "unauthorized" is enough to push it to delete for me. Gamaliel (talk) 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE The text is very much verifiable: if one has two eyes (or even one) and access to either the internet, a library/ bookstore, or both, it is extremely easy for anyone in the world to verify all my numerous claims and references; nothing but the facts contained herein. THIS ENTRY HAS EXISTED FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS IN ITS PRESENT FORM AND ALMOST ***TEN*** YEARS IN ITS ENTIRETY (IT WAS ORIGINALLY A WRITER'S "SNUB" [SMALL ENTRY]. I make zero money from my research, so what am I gaining by alleged "self promotion"? I AM in over 45 other author's books (often times mentioning my UNIQUE qualifications as a Secret Service authority), including a GOVERNMENT REPORT (The Final Report of the ARRB) and "The Secret Service: The Hidden History Of An Enigmatic Agency" by Prof. Philip Melanson. Vincent Bugliosi states that i am a Secret Service expert in his 2008 book "Four Days In November" and I was on THE HISTORY CHANNEL four times (including VHS/ DVD; still shown in the UK and YouTube), in newspapers, radio, nationwide lectures, YouTube, all over the internet, print articles, and countless journal articles; that's the facts. As the (or at least "a") civilian Secret Service expert, what more credentials does one need??? I mean, at the VERY least, don't do something as drastic as deleting this entry (which is very popular for search engine hits and inquiries), but take it down to its original form as follows, if need be (!): "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vince Palamara, a.k.a. vincebethel 8/16/08 4:39 p.m. EST —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincebethel (talk • contribs) 20:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the first revision of this article is four years old, not ten. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect criticisms of Vince Palamara entry The original edition of this article originated from person (s) unknown, NOT by Vince Palamara, back in 1998-1999, and read as follows: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over [45; 32 back then] books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) vince palamara[reply]

Further note: According to some edit summaries User:Vincebethel is the subject of this article himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunnar Hendrich (talk • contribs) 09:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

suggestion for revision to make everyone happy Bring the areticle back to its original form: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:36, 17 August 2008 (UTC) important note of self-editing To make the entry factually correct, updated information needed to be inserted AND ALSO THE NEED AROSE TO REMOVE INCORRECT ADDITIONS BY PERSON (S) UNKNOWN. Isn't the whole purpose of Wikipedia to be factually correct? The entry IS factually correct. Again, if need be, just replace the current version with the original entry: ""Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel."Vincebethel (talk) 10:38, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentWP:COI outlines courses of action for subjects who feel that their article is incorrect that do not involve becoming involved in editing their own article. You could have used the talk page to discuss the proposed edits with other editors and see if they agreed that the changes were a good idea. Your edits went beyond correcting factual inaccuracies and your edit summaries accused "unauthorized" editors of making changes. Per Wikipedia policies, you don't own the article just because you're the subject. You don't have to "know" the people who are editing the article for the edits to be acceptable. What is up for discussion is the notability of an article about the subject itself and the verifiability of any information that such an article might contain. In my opinion, your proposed revisions don't solve the problem--the subject isn't notable just because his opinions have appeared in works by others. The subject doesn't meet WP:BIO. Movingboxes (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PERFECT WAY TO RESOLVE THIS WHOLE MATTER: VERY SIMPLE Since someone NOT Vince Palamara originally wrote the following, and it was up for a number of years with no problems whatsoever, why not simply delete the current entry AND replace with the following as originally written (and, as such, was acceptable under Wikipedia standards): "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vincebethel (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC) alsoVince Palamara wrote two entire chapters in the best-selling book "Murder In Dealey Plaza" (2000), edited by Prof. James Fetzer, which was subsequently favorably reviewed by Publisher's Weekly, mentioning, by name, Vince Palamara himself. In addition, Vince Palamara appeared on the History Channel 4 times in 2003 (as a "Secret Service expert"). Finally, Palamara is noted in an official government report, "The Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board." These facts alone merit the entry's inclusion, at least in its ORIGINAL (short) format: "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Vincebethel (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC) update-importantI had a total of eight different people look at the entry in dispute and they AGREE that it is indeed "overwrought". However, they all unanimously agreed that my original entry (NOT written by me)is fine and should REPLACE the current entry: "Vince Palamara is a civilian authority on the United States Secret Service, especially with regards to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Palamara's work has appeared in over 45 books by other authors, numerous articles, countless internet articles, radio, and The History Channel." Also, I am a published author many times over: in addition to my two whole chapters in a major over the counter best-selling book favorably reviewed by Publisher's Weekly (that also mentions my name), "Murder In Dealey Plaza", Edited by Prof. James Fetzer, I have had many articles published in leading research journals (see footnotes of original entry in dispute; overwrought or not, the facts are the facts). So, once again so it sinks in, DELETE the current entry but also REPLACE it with the aforementioned short substitution (this was originally entitled a Writer's Snub: I guess myself and others made the "mistake" of adding to it; never again for me; too much hassle from editors on here LOL)Vincebethel (talk) 18:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm unsure of the genuine notability of this extremely fringe character; the sources seem generally unreliable, but it is possible others could be found. However, there is a clear conflict of interest and the bulk of the article would have to be excised anyway. As a side note, the subject needs to realise that they should not excessively contribute to their own AfD. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. --MCB (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. --70.181.45.138 (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Key issue for me is the lack of reliable third-party sources about this person: mentions-in-passing don't count much toward notability, especially as the conspiracy-theory circuit seems to be a small walled garden where the same names keep getting circulated. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE As an informed observer, I think it is pretty petty, at this juncture, to remove this entry in its entirety; after all, the entry has been up for many a year. What's the problem? Fame and notability are all relative: there are many, many people listed on Wikipedia I haven't a clue as to who they are, etc. I concede that Mr. Palamara has a huge ego, and he shouldn't have added to his entry, but that, in and of itself, is not enough to justify removal. I believe that the current abridged entry is more than fair. And, if this is a contest, I can come up with a slew of persons to counter the delete bandwagon. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE PART DUEX Mr. Palamara is a published author and has two online books, to boot; Mr. Palamara was featured on the program "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" in 2003 on The History Channel and BBC (UK); Mr. Palamara contributed to a slew of books, most notably, as he notes above, two entire lengthy chapters in Prof. James Fetzer's 2000 tome "Murder In Dealey Plaza". In sum, Mr. Palamara is very well known, indeed: between the books, radio, television, journal articles, internet articles, etc., he has been seen and heard by literally millions. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DON'T DELETE Do the editors of Wikipedia even CHECK the sources??? Mr. Palamara is noted prominently in many third-party sources: books, radio programs, and the aforementioned tv program. Just go on Amazon or check the links. I know it takes work but the evidence is overwhelming. Dave Jenkins, a fan of the man, not his egoDavejz (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO At the risk of sounding like a shill for the man, do Vince Bugliosi (author of FOUR DAYS IN NOVEMBER), former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden, and the late and esteemed Professor Philip Melanson (author of THE SECRET SERVICE) count as reliable third party sources? Because, if they do (and they do), they all quote from and endorse Mr. Palamara.Davejz (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC) — Davejz (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment At the risk of pointing out the incredibly, painfully obvious, Davejz's only edits have been to Vince Palamara (removing the AfD template) and this AfD discussion. Movingboxes (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd also note that Davejz made changes to the article that Vince himself was proposing to make. A coincidence, I'm sure. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect Baseball Player Jerry Reuss, more to followDavejz (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That was done after I made my comment, so it was correct at the time it was made. Movingboxes (talk) 01:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davejz, also note the template at the top of the page. Astroturfing doesn't work here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

popularity of entry/ years online I guess I just cannot comprehend Wikipedia. If this entry was here for several years and had alot of internet traffic, why pull the plug now (throwing the baby out with the bathwater)? Mr. Palamara has it right above: short and sweet. Commence sarcastic editor comments now ;-) Davejz (talk) 22:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Amazon shows a book by Vince Palamara, The Third Alternative (spiral bound), dated to 1993, self-published and currently unavailable. (The book lacks an ISBN). That book has one single review by an Amazon customer, awarding it five stars. Curiously enough the favorable review is written by Vince Palamara. I join the editors above who argue that the case for notability has not been made. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Disregarding the self-promotion, sources seem weak or unreliable. Stronger sources need to be cited (and listed in a more standard, readable format) as in the articles for James_H._Fetzer, Philip_Melanson, Vincent_Bugliosi (these articles are referenced in the Palamara article). As it stands I don't think notability has yet been established. As Gordonofcartoon says, "mentions-in-passing don't count much toward notability". Can any other (notable) sources be provided (eg. newspaper, magazine articles, reliable websites)? I'll have to see if I can find the History Channel footage, but I am unsure if that in itself would prove notability, just that the person in question was on TV. More sources? Mojowibble (talk) 16:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

do not delete Boy, you people need to brush up on your reference checking! I mean, the issue isn't whether Palamara has an ego (many people do), but the notability of his pedigree and so forth. Well, a very simple check of You Tube found his History Channel appearance [see The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 7, segement one: The Smoking Guns; Palamara is called a "Secret Service expert" with a label on the screen saying the same thing, to boot] and a Google books search found several notable books he is referenced in, including basically being a co-author of Fetzer's remarkable Murder In Dealey Plaza with his two chapters, as Fetzer was merely the editor, not to mention many other over-the-counter books he is prominently noted in, lioke the Final Report of the ARRB he mentioned before (also: a quick check of Amazon shows Palamara actually has TWO books, not one: the other is listed as JFK: The Medical Evidence Reference, while both of his current books are available as online e-books). Palamara is indeed in BOTH of Bugliosi's JFK works (in Four Days In November, he is listed as, and I quote, a "Secret Service expert") and, while he curiously is not in Agent Bolden's book, he is on Bolden's website in the "reviews" section (html, not a blog by Palamara). I have seen quite a number of Wikipedia entrees of dubious quality, authenticity, etc. Compared to those, Palamara, warts and all, comes out shining. I say keep the entry as it appears now and move on.Jessica120 (talk) 17:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- — Jessica120 (talk contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Hi Jessica120, could you reference these books you found on Google Books and Amazon in the article? It would better prove notability. Also the reference section on the article as it currently stands is very messy which makes proving notability harder for human beings to deal with. Mojowibble (talk) 17:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'notability-and ego-proven My pleasure, Mojowibble :) ;-) Here they are: [38] is a general Google link to many, but not all, of the books Palmara has either authored or appeared in. [39]Is the official U.S. Government Report entitled Final Report of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal panel that existed from roughly 1994-1998 and charged, by Presidents Bush (the first, not ole W) and Clinton to uncover all the Kennedy facts and papers.[40] is Murder In Dealey Plaza, including two complete chapters authored by Palamara (I saw this book at Borders, so it is over the counter!).[41] Is "Brothers" by Salon.Com founder (and MSNBC guest-friend of Chris Matthews?) David Talbot, yet another major over the counter volume I saw at my local Borders Books.[42] Is another over the counter book that I even own (!), "Ultimate Sacrifice"-Palmara is noted on at least 30 pages, maybe more (his Amazon.Com review here lists himself as a "proud contributor"). [43] is Palamara's History Channel appearance, which was also a DVD-I saw it at Best Buy-I did my homework ;-)[44] is a non-Palmara website based in the UK (meaning, he did not out it up himself! The man knows self promotion, as he goes on forever in search engines-wow!). [45] is another non-Palamara website that appears to be run by anti-conspiracy advocate John McAdams.[46] is a major non-Palamara website, JFK Lancer out of TX and CA' he has at least 3 articles online. Everyone knows who Vince Bugliosi is (world famous crime fighter and author)-well, not only is Palamara in both of his JFK books, he is called a "Secret Service expert" in Four Days In November and on Bugliosi's own website: [47]. [48] is a lengthy 1998 article on Palmara from the major newspaper of record in Pittsburgh, PA. Finally, [49] is former Secret Service agent Abraham Bolden's official book website-Palamara is called a leading civilian authority on the Secret Service. Ego and self promotion aside, and the ill-chosen decision to edit his own entry (no doubt due to ego and self promotional concerns), his story indeed checks out. I say punish him by keeping the entry in it short form, as is, and BANNING ANYONE-INCLUDING HIM-FROM BEING ABLE TO UPDATE IT FURTHER. Good idea, huh? ;-)!Jessica120 (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

editing complete-no need to delete ;-) I fixed his entry. It is now a nice, no frills entry. His musical career is not notable, so I didn't mention it LOL ;-)Jessica120 (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the claims that Palamara is an expert - the Bugliosi book and "Echo from Dealey Plaza" - are actually on the dust jacket. Not the book. I doubt those count as primary sources. The only book I saw that referenced him as an expert is "The Great Zapruder Film Hoax." While he is occasionally referenced, it is briefly. Last, I find it strange that two new Wikipedia members are involved in this discussion, editing the article in the same way that Palamara earlier suggested, citing lists of the same references, and only contributing to Vince Palamara and the AfD. (Ok, User:Davejz did make a small edit to another page, but that hardly counts.) I'd also note that User:Jessica120 made an edit to this article using "her" raw IP address, 216.183.185.133, which nslookup indicates comes from the Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania library. This city is a suburb in the south of Pittsburg, which - oddly enough - happens to be near where Mr. Palamara lives, according to his [MySpace page.] (Bethel Park, Pennsylvania is a mere 5 miles away.) This is almost certainly a sockpuppet. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I have opened up a sock puppet case on vincebethel: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Vincebethel Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per non notable, COI, and obvious self promotion attempt from the socks above. Writing two books non published books and being mentioned on TV a few times is not grounds for being notable. --MattWT 12:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

newsflash: I no longer care: I command you to do my bidding -delete this entry pronto There are, quite frankly, much (much!) better online encyclopedias nowadays(and I have a mountain of information online already: can you say redundant LOL). I had a nice 8+ year run on Wikipedia; it served its purposes...but it got old. So, I give you my permission---in fact, I COMMAND YOU: deleting my entry is tantamount to respecting my wishes and acknowledging my genius (to leave it up serves the opposite purpose LOL)---to delete my entry pronto. You editors need to get a life big time: you guys crack me up! :)Vincebethel (talk) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you aren't the only contributer to the article, it isn't your choice. The article will most probably be deleted after this AfD due to its notability issues, so don't worry. In future, whatever online encyclopedia (and i'd like to see you find a better one than Wikipedia) you go to, try and act a little more mature and cut the insults. Thanks for your contributions and I hope you stick around. --MattWT 05:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't You Put It In Your Mouth[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Don't You Put It In Your Mouth

Unbelievable. It took 29 edits by 24 people to come up with this gem. It says nothing more than what is in Concerned Children's Advertisers. 650l2520 (talk) 05:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. It's already in Concerned Children's Advertisers#Child Safety where it properly belongs. WWGB (talk) 06:41, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless someone can boost its deficiency regarding WP:RS, I am unable to support its inclusion. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article doesn't really say anything --T-rex 16:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Lady Galaxy 19:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WMYX-FM, I chose this target becauseit already had most of the info. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Packarena[edit]

Only claim is that the song was played on the space shuttle Discovery. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wow, this really takes me back, I have the song back in my head, gah! Pretty much a novelty song popular in Wisconsin at that time which didn't reach Super Bowl Shuffle levels by any means and remained stuck with only popularity in Green Bay, Milwaukee and Madison, despite being transmitted up to space for a wake-up call. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Favre be it from me to pass judgement.... Though just barely a "hit" it seems to be remembered pretty well. There are many more results in Google News Archive for "Packerena" than for "Packarena", which seems to be the official name. There are even a couple of minor Google Books mentions. At worst, merge with 1997 Green Bay Packers season. --Dhartung | Talk 05:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article on the Packarena seems to have as much value as say, The Super Bowl Shuffle. I hope I'm participating correctly by editing this page... Winkinblinkinnod 15:17 16 August 2008 (UTC)— Winkinblinkinnod (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Though short-lived, it was a phenomenon in the Midwest, and beyond (into space). I think it absolutely ranks as high as the Super Bowl Shuffle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.239.120.133 (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 00:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got people saying it's notable, but nobody's proving it. No sources still. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not to mention a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 04:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:RS. Also, I have filed a request for checkuser for the ip and redlink user above. Undead Warrior (talk) 05:11, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 08:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to WMYX-FM. Although a lot of the content is already there. As they are the originators of the parody, the content sits better there than it would in the Packers season article. RMHED (talk) 16:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect per RMHED. - McCart42 (talk) 16:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has more to so with the Packers than the radio station. Don't think a redirect to 1997 Green Bay Packers season is a great idea because its more that just one season. A better idea might be a merge to the general Green Bay Packers or to History of the Green Bay Packers. The Merge is not really the issue because it can be merged into multiple articles. The issue is the redirect. The priority for a redirect should be (1) History of the Green Bay Packers (2) Green Bay Packers (3) WMYX-FM.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to History of the Green Bay Packers, as noted above. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete AGF does not trump V, RS and N. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carrom Association of Maldives[edit]

Has one non-Wikipedia Google hit. Deprodded. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for no reliable sources of notability. DreamGuy (talk) 20:26, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verifiable national organisation representing real sport. Notablity established. --Gene_poole (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Representing where? Anyway, with one Google hit, I'm not even sure WP:V has been met. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:38, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Suggest you actually read both the article and external links, as these address your concerns in a manner that is clear, concise and unequivocal. You might also want to revisit your Google search, as when I tried it I found closer to 1600 non-WP results, including numerous references to the organisation on sites published by the Government of the Maldives. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I read the article the and now, and remain unimpressed by the links, which are non-independent of the association. The government also has a page on the installation of internet kiosks. Would that make Internet kiosks in the Maldives notable? As for your claim that you found 1600 Google hits, I say prove it. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You claimed that there were no independent sources. I proved you wrong by providing links to 2 different Maldive Government websites. You claimed that only 1 Google result was returned. Again, I proved that to be an incorrect assertion by linking to 3 additional sources returned by a Google search. If you now wish to assert that official government websites demonstrating that the association in question exists, and explicitly establishing its notability are "non-independent of the association" then you're the one that needs to "prove it", because frankly, such a suggestion is fruitloop material. --Gene_poole (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Source one is the official website
        
        Source two is a directory listing.
        
        Source three is an event listing.
        
        Source four is a listing for the Carrom Federation of Maldives.
        
        None of the sources advances any claim of notability for this or the other association. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Source 2 is the official government website of the Maldives Ministry of Youth and Sports. Source 3 is the official government website of the Maldives Ministry of Education. Source 4 is the website of the International Carrom Federation. Kindly do us the courtesy of rejoining us here on planet Earth if you intend to continue attempting to make a meaningful - or indeed even vaguely comprehensible - contribution to this discussion. --Gene_poole (talk) 06:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I fail to see how insulting me shows the notability of this association. The fact that a government website or two lists an organization doesn't make it official, nor does it show notability. Here is a brief description of a "Mrs Poole" on a US government website. Is Mrs Poole notable? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't understand why the listing of a national sporting representative body on websites published by multiple national government ministries indicates both verifiability and "notability" then I'm afraid you're way beyond any help that I'm capable of offering. Given your non-standard interpretation of "notability" and "verifiability", can I suggest you open an AfD for the Australian Baseball Federation while you're at it, because that's obviously yet another one of the "non-notable" sporting organisations cluttering up WP that you appear to have such an issue with. --Gene_poole (talk) 01:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, reveals 125 Google news hits, 32 Books hits and 13 Scholar hits. Do you see the difference? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've already shown you multiple sources. They're in the article. Go read it. --Gene_poole (talk) 02:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not the one that must be convinced by those paltry "sources". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right. Thankfully there are many other contributors to WP who have a better understanding of our content policy that you evidently do. --Gene_poole (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your continued incivility is unpleasant. The only other comment so far has been to delete. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Carrom Federation along with all other such articles in the category. They are not notable enough to sustain independent articles (yet), but the material is verifiable and should not simply be deleted. PS with regard to Google stats: Everyone knows that football/soccer is more popular than carrom, by a long shot, so of course the Australian governing football body is going to return more G-hits than any carrom body in the world. Let's not be silly. PPS: The other national carrom org articles that have been deleted recently need to be restored to userspace (I would suggest User:Hpt lucky, since that is the principal author of most of these articles, and we have discussed the matter on his and my talk page) so that their content can also be merged into International Carrom Federation under a national/regional affiliates section. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Psst... relisting means you're supposed to talk about it more. ;-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG. Nsk92 (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's points are well-taken, but we are talking about a national association in the Maldives (not exactly a media hot spot). Thus, doing Google searches for Maldives-related news will inevitably come up lacking. In this case, WP:AGF should trump WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, isn't notable just because it's from the Maldives. WP:BIAS does not trump WP:V. Punkmorten (talk) 15:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:V isn't an issue, plenty of (primary) sources seem to exist. Given the nature of the group and the potential for bias (wouldn't an equivalent group in a better known location have easy-to-find media sources?) I'll go weak keep. Hobit (talk) 03:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regrettable merge. I'm all for reducing the bias on wikipedia, and I understand that media sources are lacking. However, this association (as well as all of the other "Carrom Association of"s seem to be minor organizations for a minor (as in being not-well-known) sport. If evidence can be shown that this association is large and popular amongst Maldivians, I will happily change my vote to keep. --I'm an Editor of the wiki^{[citation needed]} 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete that the sport is worth an article doesn't mean that this association is. Again, willing to change if anything encyclopedic can be found. DGG (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Here, I think that WP:AGF trumps WP:V and WP:RS. According to our article, the .mv domain is used mostly by the government and large businesses. It isn't surprising that there aren't many sources. Also, how is the sport's being not well-known reason for deletion? I understand the argument that WP:BIAS isn't, alone, sufficient ground for keeping, but deleting the article because Carrom isn't a well-known sport seems pretty biased to me. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 21:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AGF is a behavioral guideline, WP:V is a policy, and WP:RS and WP:N are guidelines. That's 3:1, even if your bizarre interpretation of AGF is accepted. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:RS says nothing about knee-jerk deletions of all articles with no secondary sources. There's not really evidence that sources do not exist, so WP:ORG can't really be applied. WP:V doesn't apply, as the material is unlikely to be challenged. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 16:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, since a Google search leads directly to the association's website which tells all there is know about it, the average user will not be deprived of valuable knowledge. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 21:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A Google search for Microsoft leads directly to the organisation's web site. As do searches for FIDE, the International Olympic Committee, and Major League Baseball You seem to be asserting that the possession of a web site makes an article non-notable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And for contrast, the defunct Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL has two orders of magnitude more G-hits. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - A lack of Google hits does not make something non-notable. Bart133 ^{t c @ How's my driving?} 15:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In this case, it does. Even the hits here are just an address and phone number. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See WP:Articles for deletion/Durga Maa Telefilms on what worrying about WP:BIAS leads to. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Carrom Federation, not notable enough to warrant a seperate article. RMHED (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Early delete, on the grounds of WP:SNOW and being an obvious hoax. Maxim (☎) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Murgolo[edit]

This appears to be a hoax, can't find any mention of him as a professional footballer and he is only 15. Grahame (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 04:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not evident, nothing on Google, seems to be a vanity article. WWGB (talk) 04:11, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete vanity tripping —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A 15-year old playing for a top-level soccer team? Clearly a hoax. Fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 04:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. No apparent notability, Google search found zilch, appears to be a vanity article. -Shoemoney2night (talk) 06:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An autobiographical article, probably by young Michael himself, the little rascal! This sort of article belongs on www.facebook.com or similar. Fails notability as specified at WP:BIO. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was created by Joshuaisfat (talk • contribs) . This user has made only twenty contributions to Wikipedia; all of them to this article. Dolphin51 (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn. --Jimbo^[online] 22:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nfitz (talk) 23:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, player does not appear on Marconi's Squad Listing. I suppose its possible he plays for one of their youth teams instead, but then youth footballers generally do not pass WP:ATHLETE anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete nn Jonathan How's the weather? - talk about me ~~behind my back~~ 18:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhao Changjun[edit]

This page has more or less been orphaned by the original author since Jan 2007 and there has been no significant content added to the page, also this page seems to be an advertisement for the "Zhao Changjun Wushu Institute" since that is the only notable sentence of the article Abstrakt (talk) 03:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per reasons above. Abstrakt (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep there is a reference to his holding 10 world wu shu championships. Otherwise its a hoax / self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs) 04:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless someone finds a reference verifying the claim in the article that he had 10 wushu world championship titles. I checked the website of the International Wushu Federation. They list there the results of all the world championships (which started in 1991)[50]. I looked up the results for several years, checking all weight categories, and did not find his name there. For some of the first championships they only give the names in mandarin so it is concievable that he might be somewhere in there (they lists the names in English from at least 1994 on). However, given the fact there were only 9 world wushu championships altogether, it is hard to imagine how one can hold 10 world titles. For the moment certainly fails WP:V. Nsk92 (talk) 04:48, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten world championship titles does sound impressive but there are no references to verify this claim. -650l2520 (talk) 05:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. There's no references for any of the claims in the article, so it's just original research and he doesn't meet notability. Lady Galaxy 19:22, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Capputeano[edit]

As far as I can tell, various people have independently concocted and posted various drink recipes under this moderately clever name. But there's no sign of any kind of widespread acceptance of the name, no agreement on what it is, and no reliable sources beyond recipe websites and the like. FreplySpang 02:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources can be found to better document this creation. Movingboxes (talk) 07:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NN. -- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{The mess I've made} 14:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as withdrawn. Synergy 03:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinoy[edit]

dicdef. The dicdef portion already exists on Wiktionary, and anything further than that has been unsourced for over a year. The term is common, but there's absolutely nothing in the way of reliable sources to support any encyclopedic information on it. MSJapan (talk) 02:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's used in the names of organizations to show their pride in their heritage. If it went from being an informal term of endearment to a politically useful name, it seems there must be something encyclopedic to say about the history of its uses. FreplySpang 02:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep.as per FreplySpang. Abstrakt (talk) 03:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources available indicating the term goes back to 19th century emigrants and there is a significant political-cultural history surrounding its rise as a concept of national identity. The term remains under debate within the Filipino community and some of that can be reflected in a larger article. --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this article needs some sources, stat. However, the sourcing exists to ensure WP:N is met and to expand the entry beyond WP:DICDEF. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep. Over 900 Google books hits including 140 with Pinoy in the title and 350 Google scholar hits certainly looks like sources address this subject. Banjeboi 06:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:N without a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability is certainly there, but it does resemble a dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 13:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Lenticel ^(talk) 09:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to filipino people. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 12:24, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With 11.6 million hits, I choose to keep. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 12:30, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think we should provide the historical context of the word Pinoy, as well as how it is applied to popular Filipino culture (for instance, it has been used in a variety of TV shows like Pinoy Idol, Pinoy Records, Pinoy Big Brother, and Pinoy Dream Academy). Starczamora (talk) 15:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Starczamora. Kitty53 (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article rewritten. Banjeboi 02:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Was going to be kept anyway, but as is usual, AfD causes rewrites. The article is many magnitudes better now, and addresses the issues raised. I'll withdraw the AfD, or it can be closed early as keep. MSJapan (talk) 02:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close. Ongoing harassment. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:09, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Eppstein[edit]

This article is irrelevant and does not deserve an encyclopedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hebozhong (talk • contribs)

Speedy close and keep. Appears to be a bad faith nom by an SPA with only 2 edits whose very first edit was to list this article for an AfD. No valid policy-based reason for deletion given. Nsk92 (talk) 01:28, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appears likely to be a sockpuppet of two other SPAs User:Theanimalstyle86 and User:Electricsoupie who in the last couple of days harassed the article[51][52][53]. None of these SPAs have made any other edits outside this topic. Based on this edit[54] whomever this is appears to be upset about some action of the David Eppstein as a Wikipedia admin. Probably deserves a sockpuppetry report and further investigation. Nsk92 (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. No policy-based reason for deletion given, even ignoring the fact that the user's first edit was to nominate this for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Simpson[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Declined speedy. The article claims he was a well-known scientist, the sources say he impersonated a zoo employee for unknown reasons. As he was known for one fairly minor thing, article should be deleted. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

despite the declined speedy, it has been speedily deleted before, see above link to previous AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:35, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the hoaxing surrounding this article and the previous AfD, I am also asking that this article be creation protected. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, all the information i have on this poor young fellow came from a Zoo journal, and an Animal entrichment site, so i assumed it is for real. I have rang around and i have been informed that he was a rather good scientist, he studied in america some were. A talented young man he was but that seems a bit pointless now. I will have to agree with the deletion, as i dont believe the article can contribute anymore to wikipedia 122.129.17.239 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update The article's creator has consented to deletion, now tagged as G7 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 01:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The impersonation of a scientist was not a one-time thing but something that extended over a number of years. The article should now focus on him as an impersonator and as someone with a disorder that led to his death. There should be enough information from reliable sources (and from the coroner's inquest, if one takes place) to put together a good article. He had achieved notability as a fraud before his death, so this is not a matter of someone being made notable only by the manner of his death. --Eastmain (talk) 01:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I disagree that he had achieved any real notability as an impersonator before his death. He fooled some people at retail establishments with his fake business cards and uniforms, but there is no evidence he was ever taken seriously as a scientist by actual scientists or zoologists.I suppose we will find out over the next few days what the repercussions of his death might be... Beeblbrox (talk) 01:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest Possible Delete - Impersonating a scientist does not make one a scientist, and lying about a scientific accomplishment does not make one notable for that accomplishment, as the article claimed (with no sources for it). Also, how did he impersonate a scientist for "years" when he was only 19 at the time of his death? He's a nn con artist who got a day of news coverage, and therefore fails every possible criterion of WP:N. MSJapan (talk) 02:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. people can be notable as impostors but there is too little evidence of past coverage to demonstrate the notability of this one. In terms of the coverage from the last few days it also seems to be limited, and for the moment WP:NOT#NEWS certainly still applies. If it turns out that there is substantial coverage beyond around the time of his death, the article might deserve to be recreated then. I'd want to see if the story is forgotten about 6 months from now. Nsk92 (talk) 03:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not even convinced he's dead, I've not been able to find any evidence of that online. As pointed out below, the facts just do not add up with this article, and the whole thing smells fishy. However, even if we take it at face value, WP:BLP1E would seem to apply, impersonating a zookeeper is hardly criminal mastermind material. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]

That is a recurring problem with articles related to hoaxes and hoaxers, it very difficult sometimes to separate the fact from the fiction. Luckily we have WP:V and WP:RS to help us in such situations. Beeblbrox (talk) 04:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some interesting new remarks on the articles talk page that suggest he isn't dead at all and has been editing his MySpace. This whole thing is stinking more all the time. Ironic quote on the MySpace profile "Never Be Afraid To Be Who You Really Are". Beeblbrox (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a scientist, not dead, and not notable. He claimed to be a "big cat" expert working for an Aussie zoo to big-note himself, and then tried to get a job in another zoo claiming his experience. But hardly notable. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment It now seems highly likely that in fact CheetahKeeper and the IP who have edited this article and provided information on his "death" were both actually Adrian Simpson himself, continuing his foolish hoaxes here on Wikipedia now that he's been caught in the real world. CheetahKeeper has even "impersonated" a Wikipedia administrator diff. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect would require something at the target article that reflects the title of the redirect - since there are no sources, there's no such content to include. Waggers (talk) 12:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Happy Life[edit]

Apparent WP:CRYSTAL. No sources cited, and all Google turns up is a couple of myspace entries and copies of this article from other Wikis. As far as I can tell, this article has been completely made up. Kww (talk) 00:24, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question to people voting redirect or merge: You seem to be having better luck than I did finding some kind of sources if you think that My Happy Life is a plausible search term or that there is information in this article to be merged. Can you point me at it? My initial description says the article is essentially a fraud, and I'm willing to redact that with a bit of evidence to the contrary.Kww (talk) 15:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - i'm somewhat skeptical about this album "released in 2009" without any concrete sources --T-rex 00:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Keke Palmer#Discography. WP:BAND#Albums and WP:CRYSTAL are pretty clear about this type of thing. Future album articles should not exist until there are sources and something to actually say other than "it will exist sometime in the future". Beeblbrox (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is limited reliable third party resources. As Beeblbrox said, it should be deleted until more reliable sources appear. – Jerry^teps 02:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Keke Palmer#Discography as a plausible search term until such time as ref's appear and notability is established. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no indication that this is real. I have looked at all non-myspace google hits of "My Happy Life" "Keke Palmer", and all that linked the two were wikipedia mirrors. Keke Palmer's website doesn't mention it. I'll go ahead and remove the "next album" mention at So Uncool right away. --Amalthea^Talk 20:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Under the Radar[edit]

Subject is unencyclopedic. Nonnotable neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Evb-wiki (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The military aspects of this term would be better covered elsewhere, so there isn't really an option to develop this into an article on something other than the neologism. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - a well used and notable term, but nothing beyond a dictionary definition --T-rex 00:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This phrase is quite common, used in Vietnam, and is ubiquitous. Pernambuco Boy (talk) 01:34, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: User blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of Wiki brah/JeanLatore. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:50, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete So, today, it's an insult? There was a time when it was considered as praise. The first meaning might be the way it's used in the msnbc article that's cited as a source, but I agree that this is a dictionary definition, and not an entirely accurate one. Mandsford (talk) 01:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a site for articles like these. It's called Wiktionary. – Jerry^teps 02:33, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, we have Wiktionary for that reason. Abstrakt (talk) 03:31, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable neologism Annette46 (talk) 04:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a pretty hackneyed and obvious phrase of no obvious notability. The only source pertains to an idiosyncratic use in a single context. --Dhartung | Talk 05:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic dicdef, I'm afraid - Alison ^❤ 10:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, this is not a dictionary. As an aside, I never heard the expression used as an insult -- I've always seen it used to comment on worthy work that goes unnoticed, not inept work. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where I am (in the UK) at least it is, it's dodgy stuff people are doing without being noticed. Not looked at all of these to see if all of them use it unflatteringly, but there's lots of refs where it's with the word "criminal".[55]

Sticky Parkin 21:19, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable neologism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationales provided are not totally robust, but the consensus here is very clear. Anthøny 03:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Ter Horst[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Pefpw9691 (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 15:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 10 playboy covers amount to "coverage" in my opinion. Renata (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. *Very* notable according to WP:PORNBIO, has been featured multiple times in a dozen magazines. I have trouble finding online reliable sources for the appearance claims since those appearances were 10 years ago, but I see no reason to doubt it based on the google hits out there. --Amalthea^Talk 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just a note though that the term "mainstream" was meant to apply to non-pornographic media. Is Playboy considered a mainstream magazine in the Netherlands? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is? I hadn't realized that it might mean non-pronograhic media, but in fact I think Playboy is considered a mainstream magazine in most countries. In fact I would imagine that being featured multiple times in notable *any* media estabilshes notability right away, by WP:BIO. In any case, the bit that reads that "I was Playmate Of The Month, Playmate Of The Year and had five front covers on Dutch Playboy. They also voted me Sexiest Girl Of The Century" is only referenced via an offline source, but is in my eyes also enough to establish notability.
    Thanks for the heads-up WRT WP:PORNBIO. --Amalthea^Talk 21:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:51, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert von Trapp[edit]

Does not establish notability. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 20:13, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I can't even see an assertion of notability but I am pretty sure that this is about the real person who was the basis of one of the characters in The Sound of Music. If so, there may well be notability there. If kept, the article needs a complete rewrite. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep*I've been working on the article, I suspect it was created by someone to whom English is not their native language. There is a clear assertion of notability as their chorus toured the United States for several years, so that gets them past notabilty for musicians. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It still needs work but it is getting better. The lead section needs to state notability clearly. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

done. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article now establishes notability, thanks for working on it Beeblbrox. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 21:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_(cocktail)
^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4gerbomb

[1] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matador_(cocktail)

[2] ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%A4gerbomb

[1]

[2]