Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 17 August 19 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:42, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (Artist)[edit]

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

i don't believe this artist is notable. he hasn't released any albums and the article was created by the User:Corner_Office_Projects, who describes themselves as the 'PR department from the record label' Theserialcomma (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I used Twinkle to do the whole AfD thing, so please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flawless (Artist) (2nd nomination)... if someone can delete this page and fix everything, please?

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Francoism (Gaming)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Neologism which lacks any verifiable, third-party sources establishing any notability. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 23:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As a Cybernations player, I can say for certain that it is notable...in CN. Certainly not notable enough in the real-world to merit an article. Paragon12321 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Comment There is a huge war in CN going on right now. One of the (many) sides of it is Vox Populi (one of the alliances in the article) accusing the New Pacific Order (also mentioned) of being a completely tyrannical government. The fact that this article was created now leads me to believe that it is a propaganda piece, merely an other attempt to use Wikipedia for soapboxing. Paragon12321 04:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have found no reliable sources that suggest this term is established outside of NationStates, and CyberNations. As a result, I have concluded it is a neologism, and I believe that this article should be deleted as a result. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Completely irrelevant to, well, anything. Atheist Haircut (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what the heck is this nonsense? JuJube (talk) 06:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I am all for this, as I prodded the article a few days ago. The creator contested the prod, and if you look at the article's talk page, seriously suggested that the Francoism redirect be turned into a disambiguation page Spain Under Franco to give this nonsense more billing (and, in point of fact, actually did so). Wikipedia is not for something made up in an online game one day.  RGTraynor  11:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:39, 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, it's snowing in August. TravellingCari 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Late Victorian Holocaust[edit]

Late Victorian Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Late Victorian Holocaust" appears to be a non-notable neologism. Apart from being used as a title to one book, I have found no reliable sources that use "Late Victorian Holocaust" to describe the events in India that the quote pertains to. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 23:13, 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, now has dab targets.  Sandstein  19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Rogers House[edit]

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

This is an unneeded disambiguation page as there is currently no articles of this name. This was originally prodded but was removed with a message saying that the John Rogers House is notable. I am not here arguing whether these houses are notable, but that if there are no Wikipedia articles for a certain disambiguation, then there is no need to disambiguate it. Note: This can always be recreated if there is a need for it in the future, but right now its not needed. Tavix (talk) 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete—clearly not currently required.--Grahame (talk) 00:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Delete, obviously. As Tavix says, if articles about more than one John Rogers House are created, this dab page can be recreated. Dab pages are not list pages, where redlinks can be included to signal the need for specific articles. Deor (talk) 01:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that I've taken a closer look at the Manual of Style, I see that WP:MOSDAB#Red links would allow (I think) the appearance of entries of the form "John Rogers House (Branford, Connecticut), a Registered Historic Place in New Haven County, Connecticut" in dab pages. But I still think that a dab page in which all the entries are of this sort is unnecessary. Deor (talk) 01:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to keep now that articles have been created, but reiterating my opinion that dab pages consisting entirely of redlinked entries are deletable. According to WP:DAB, "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles" (my emphasis); and whereas redlinks in list articles can serve the purpose of indicating articles in need of creation, such use of them in disambiguation pages is to be discouraged. Deor (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The dab page is actually very informative. One searching for "John Rogers House" now knows that there are four different places with that name, and knows the States where they are situated. In addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis (I know, I patrol new pages). It won't be long before there are articles on atleast two of the listed places. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But you can also find that information if you go to List of National Register of Historic Places entries and search for Knox County Courthouse. This is a disambiguation and not a list, and therefore goes against what a disambiguation is used for. "n addition, articles on National Historic Registered Places are created by the dozens on a daily basis" This disambig was created several months ago and there still isn't any signs that any of the articles are going to be created. If any of the articles are created, wouldn't it make logical sense just to recreate it? Right now, however, this "disambiguation" goes against policies. Disambiguation pages are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages." This doesn't refer to any pages. THERE ARE NONE! There are plenty more points I can bring up, but hopefully you get the point. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I took a few minutes and wrote one of the articles, addressing your objection. This particular AfD now appears to be moot. Alansohn (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:MOSDAB#Red links states that "A link to a non-existent article (a "red link") should only be included on a disambiguation page when another article also includes that red link." All of these red-linked articles listed here appear to have inbound links from historic article lists by various geographic criteria. I see no reason, certainly on a policy basis, that would require deletion of this article. Alansohn (talk) 05:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Yes, but if you read carefully you will see that is for links that are included within other blue links. An entire page of redlinks is not what a disambiguation is for. They are "non-article pages that serve only to refer users to other Wikipedia pages" and this one doesn't do that. Tavix (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note What are "links that are included within other blue links"? I assume you mean with? If so, note that the example given in the "redlink" section ("Flibbygibby") contains two entries, both of which are non-existant. That's implicit acceptance that a page containing non-existant articles is appropriate (and in any case, see my comments below). Andrew Jameson (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 1. For a reader of the encyclopedia, the disambiguation page itself provides information on the location of the property, AND serves notice that there are multiple properties with the same name. Those are pertinent pieces of information when using Wikipedia as a starting reference point. Minimal information, yes, but hardly unuseful. 2. As for style rules, note WP:MOSDAB#Break rules: "For every style suggestion above, there is some page which has a good reason to do something else. These guidelines are intended for consistency, but usefulness to the reader is the principal goal. So ignore these guidelines if you have a good reason." Utilty to the reader here trumps other style requirements. 3. For an editor of the encyclopedia, it's nice to know up front that an article should be unambiguously named; disambiguation pages are useful to flag repeated property names. For example, there are (at least) two Park Avenue Historic District, as I found when I wrote the Detroit article (and moved the Talahassee article, and edited links thereto). It's not a disaster to have to rename and relink, but it needn't be necessary, either. Andrew Jameson (talk) 12:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Cart before horse: disambiguation pages are internal navigation tools and so far here there's nothing TO disambiguate. Write the articles first - or at least one.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep One article has been written, and as inherently notable buildings it's highly likely that the others will be written. Since none of them has a better reason to be called "John Rogers House" (without geographical disambiguation) than the other two, we need to have a disambiguation page here. Nyttend (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think that Tavix's nomination of this disambiguation was more or less in good faith, but, as I explain in User talk:Tavix#Lewis House and other disambig pages, there is considerable value provided in disambiguation of NRHP pages. It saves considerable amounts of work later, if the first NRHP page created under a common name is the disambiguation page pointing out all the NRHP sites, rather than a page for just one of the NRHPs (see that user talk page for expansion on this point). I also ask that Tavix withdraw this AfD nomination. doncram (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It now has two blue linked article and the third has a bluelink to the article that refers to it. The nominator should immediately withdraw this. clariosophic (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and a barnstar to Alansohn, for implementing WP:SOFIXIT.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 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 12:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla de Castro[edit]

Camilla de Castro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hasn't won any notable awards, has not started any new trends or done any groundbreaking work, and the only Tv media she appeared in was an obscure show, and not mainstream, and thefore fails to meet WP:PORNBIO criteria. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 23:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She was a very notable Brazilian porn actress and her death was mentioned in various papers. Callelinea (talk) 04:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not meet WP:PORNBIO. No sources to show she was "mentioned in various papers." and even if there was she, this doesn't automatically mean she's notable, there are lots of people who kill themselves and are mentioned in newspapers, who do not have Wikipedia articles. Xeron220 (talk) 16:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources apparent. Epbr123 (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a stub (on sources). She was noteworthy in her genre, and country. Baga34 (talk) 01:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nothing notable here. Even if her death was notable WP:BLP1E applies --T-rex 19:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources appear to be blogs and obits. Without better sourcing, there is no evidence that the subject meets any notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 26 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, Eastmain (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, failing WP:PORNBIO. There's a lot of noise on filesharing sites and blogs, but I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources about her. News about her death isn't enough, and I can't see that she was noteworthy enough in her genre & country to warrant an encyclopaedic entry. --AmaltheaTalk 11:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although some people may not have liked who she was, what she represented, or even what she did in the porn arena, she was the most repected Transsexual of her generation, and a notable TV personality in her native Brazil. I just don't quite understand the desire to "Delete" this person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heathendude (talk • contribs) 12:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why delete? She was quite well known.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Sams[edit]

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

Blatant autobiography by someone who cannot even be bothered to format the article decently. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:04, 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 - while it may involve members of a notable band, at present it doesn't merit its own article; I'd suggest a mention on the page of the notable band instead. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Destination Void (band)[edit]

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

Article on an unnotable band which was likely created by a member of the band itself (username same as band name). I originally prodded this and the author removed it without a reason so taking it up here. Tavix (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment-It has no sources/citations whatsoever. --frogger3140 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OBJECTION: hello this is georg wilfinger and yes i am a member of this band. i strongly object against being deleted for following reason:

i think the band destination void meets the demands outlined at WP:BAND- at least at point six where it says:

6) Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable; note that it is often most appropriate to use redirects in place of articles on side projects, early bands and such, and that common sense exceptions always apply.

Destination Voids drummer Gregor Schmidt ["Capral Adorator"] has done 2 CDs ("Changes" - full CD, "Love Songs" - EP) with the original band "Miasma" which both are still available worldwide and distributed by Napalm Records [after buying the rights from Lethal Records].This is notable. Go to the Page Miasma (band) -> there you´ll find the links

Even all other members of the band Destination Void have been part of Miasma ( I myself 1995/1996 and 2008; Fischer and Patrascu 2007/2008)before and have performed numerous shows with Miasma. The latest show was in Austria and had a good press, see also the link at the stormbringer-zine:

Link to the Live-Report (german)[1]

Yes and the guy depicted is me - that is noteable, too.

I hope by now that all questions are answered, as I put "Redirects" to the original band´s page - as it is proposed in your guidelines. Thus I suppose Wiki should be able to delete the "this page may be deleted"-notification. If not please let me know what else i have to do..... thx a lot


QUESTION: How long does a discussion usually last? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Destination void (talk • contribs) 08:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A discussion usually lasts between 2-8 days depending on how long it takes for consensus, although I've had a AfD last 4 weeks before. Tavix (talk) 23:37, 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 Tony Fox (arf!) 04:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parent-centred parenting[edit]

Parent-centred parenting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A disputed speedy deletion. The original tagger noted that the article contains no reliable sources that establish any usage outside the author's own work (and the author cited has the same name as the creator of the article) -- and comments that there are no Google hits that are not self-referential (I may have paraphrased incorrectly). This seems to me to be a form of self-advertising of a self-created neologism but people with more expertise in this area than I may have more insight. At any rate, this AfD may provide some closure. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I was the person who tagged it originally. A clearly self-promotional piece with no evidence whatever of notability. andy (talk) 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - the author states on the talk page that "no commercial activities are on offer on the linked website, it is purely for information". This is untrue - this page which is titled "What We Offer" offers commercial services and also links to this site. Both sites state that they are run by FUNdamentals which is owned by... guess who? Here's the Nominet record. QED. andy (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails with respect to notability. Author is hunting for exposure. --Blehfu (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly self-advertising. Title is the name of author's commercial web site. Ningauble (talk) 19:14, 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 (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tabitha's Secret[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Appears to fail WP:MUSIC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 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 Delete. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HQ Media[edit]

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

Lacks notability per WP:CORP Advocate (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited - working with someone notable does not automatically confer that notability onto the other party. The more pressing problem here is that this is currently unverifiable - not even HQ Media's own website, never mind the wider web, mentions the Osmonds in connection with the company. Gr1st (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 7 (Adobe Design Achievement Awards) is the only one which hints at notability and has reliable third-party status. Even there I'm unsure how significant the awards scheme is. Gr1st (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete(for now) -The main issue here is lack of notability that can be readily verified by reliable third-party sources. There is currently not a sufficient amount of evidence to verify notability and warrant the article's place in Wikipedia's main namespace. I am not opposed to this article being closed for now, but I certainly would like to submit the article again at a later time, once I am sufficiently able to verify notability. I welcome suggestions from any useful users who can help out. (There is no need to userfy this article; I already have all the material from this article on the workspace on my user page.) KEZIA TAXT 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 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. If other articleshave similar problems, you can always nominate them as well (but please avoid WP:POINT of course). Fram (talk) 09:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan Jacobsen[edit]

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

Unremarkable, possibly fictitious, drink. Sole reference is a website that is open for editing (but still does not list this drink). Disputed prod. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is my defense for the article, which I have also included on the talk page for Stan Jacobsen:
In response to Delicious carbuncle's proposed deletion for Stan Jacobsen, I have removed the WP:PROD template for a number of reasons. Listed among reasons for its deletion was "Reference has no listing by that name (and appears open to editing)". It is important to note that many of the cocktail articles on Wikipedia source DrinkSwap.com as their only source. The website does allow anonymous users to add their own drink receipes, and as such, there are bound to be many entries which do not exist outside a submitter's group of friends. If the article for Stan Jacobsen is to be deleted on grounds that it sources only DrinkSwap.com, then I would motion that all cocktail articles on Wikipedia with only that website as their reference be deleted for the same reason. I have contacted DrinkSwap.com and have learned that the Stan Jacobsen is not yet listed on the website, but is in the reviewing process, which can take days or weeks to complete. While not yet listed, the Stan Jacobsen has been served in Northwestern Ontario pubs and restaurants as a variation on the Tom Collins for well over 20 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Swamilive (talk • contribs) 22:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OSE. Then see WP:NOTE, and WP:RS. You may wish to read WP:AFD as well. Regards. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 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 delete. Wizardman 12:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QutIM[edit]

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

Non-notable software, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 21:47, 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) 09:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Queirolo B.[edit]

Jorge Queirolo B. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
moved to
Jorge Queirolo Bravo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Was tagged for CSD per Wikipedia:ANI#Article_Jorge_Queirolo_B.. I declined to speedy because the article appears sourced and author meets minimal notability requirements with two books in a national library, see Fiebre amarilla en Zanzíbar in Chile's National Library, and Cambodia in same. That was before I saw the WP:AN/I reference. I'd feel better if we had more discussion before deciding one way or the other. I did not find any Google News or Google Scholar references. Nothing helpful on Galenet. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC) Dlohcierekim 21:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very Strong Keep, I looked on Amazon.com and two of his books are listed there. He is obviously notable in my book. Callelinea (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Please take a look here for the full rationale. This article has been created against COI policies and is a cross wiki placed vanity article. --Herby talk thyme 06:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear vanity spam to several wikipedia projects. Mayalld (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Multi project vanity spam. His sole publishing company Ediciones Altovolta is owned by Queirolo himself. --jergen (talk) 07:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per m:Multilingual_speedy_deletions#Jorge_Queiolo_Bravo_and_related_articles. —Giggy 08:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per ANI, Jergen and Giggy. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Confimation that he is the owner of the editorial publishing his works: on the blog for ediciones altovolta he is the only poster, a web publishing a short history of him claims he is the owner of the editorial [2], on this web he is listed as the contact for the editorial [3]. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Being listed on Amazon does not convey notability. Having two books in a national library is a minimum requirement. Forgot to check for an ISBN number-- that's another. Having books in a national library is not sufficient. My reasons for bringing it here instead of Speedying the article are my lack of resources for researching Spanish language authors, my reluctance to delete unless I am certain, and the long-standing nature of the article. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Enric. The most I could get on the one link was that it said "Contemporary Authors" in Spanish, which sounded like the "Contemporary Authors" publication I use to resource articles about English language authors. Dlohcierekim 14:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of es support I would expect Kved to be along at some stage (he was the one who alerted me to the issue). As an es admin he should be able to give a valid view. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI above notes it was deleted from es:. Perhaps their COI restrictions are stronger than ours, but I can't find the reasons for the deletion over there. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at es:Usuario_Discusión:Jorge_Queirolo_Bravo#Sobre_tu_articulo, it was speedied by an admin because: a) a AfD on 2007 had closed as delete and b) a discussion between several admins determined that the article was self-promotion (WP:COI) and not relevant enough to stay on the wikipedia. Additionally, a checkuser determined that most of the IPs creating the article were from the same ISP as the subject. Also, link to deletion log[4] and link to the 2007 AfD [5], which was cut short by an admin who speedied for self-promotion two days after it was opened. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If a subject is notable and the tone is neutral, the motivations of the article creator are really irrelevant. The question in my mind is whether or not the subject meets WP:BIO on the English Wikipedia. I have seen nothing that demonstrates that he does, but I cannot read Spanish. Placing the article on multi Wikipedias is concerning if the intent was to promote his work. However, judging by his WorldCat results here and in my nomination statement, I would say such an effort has been unsuccessful.] Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong Delete, as said above, Ediciones Altovolta is in fact owned by Jorge Queirolo Bravo. The first time the article es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo was created in es.wiki was by the user es:Usuario:Altovolta: He said that he was Jorge Queirolo Bravo and he was the owner of Ediciones Altovolta. Second, searching the National Library of Chile we found a couple of articles written by Jorge Queirolo Bravo and only 3 of them available to public ("Antología cultural : recopilacion de artículos y ensayos periodísticos sobre temas culturales, literarios y artísticos", "Cuentos indecentes" and "Pasándola bien"). All of them, published by Ediciones Altovolta. Google throws up references about Jorge Queirolo Bravo, but mainly blogs and opinion articles in literary web pages, curiously all of them signed by him. The deleted article in es.wiki was a flagrant violation to neutral point of view policies, and please let me quote you from es:Jorge Queirolo Bravo:

El oficio de escribir llevó a Jorge Queirolo a autoeditar sus propios libros, ante las múltiples dificultades que tuvo con las casas editoriales establecidas en Chile, las que prácticamente le imposibilitaron la publicación de su obra cuando todavía era relativamente anónimo. [...] De a poco se convirtió en un renombrado editor, creando su propia empresa especializada en el tema, conocida con el nombre de Ediciones Altovolta, la que ha crecido hasta ser una de las más grandes de Chile. A Queirolo se le considera un editor de primera clase y muy profesional en todo sentido.

Which in a fast and rough translation approximately means:

The writing business took Jorge Queirolo to self-publish his own books, because of the multiple difficulties he had to deal with the publishing houses in Chile, which practically make him impossible to publish his work when he was still anonymous. [...] Slowly he became a well known editor, [citation needed] creating his own publishing house known by the name of Ediciones Altovolta, who grown into one of the biggest in Chile.[citation needed] Queirolo is known as a first class editor and a professional in all sense.[citation needed]

Between other paragraphs in which he ennoble his writings and books and grumble about the publishing houses in Chile and how they despise his work. To me, it's a clear case of self promotion and cross-wiki spamming and should be speedy deleted from all involved wikis per WP:V, WP:POV, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Hope this helps, and I will be around if any other es.wiki POV is needed. :D Cheers, KveD (talk) 18:03, 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) 16:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twirking[edit]

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

Contested prod. Promotional neologism. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:40, 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.  Sandstein  17:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amaryllis Knight[edit]

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

Procedural listing for User:Fatbat who made a malformed listing with an edit summary of "Amaryllis Knight in no way a TV personality, nor did she "co-star" with Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally - she appeared on screen for no more than 5 minutes". No opinion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Plenty of references in the article, inline citations. Seams notable to me. Callelinea (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete despite the references/inline citations in the article. The references are either trivial, primary source, and/or unreliable. I say weak because I did find one item in the LA Times which deal somewhat more with her than with the motorcycles but, I don't think that with or without the stuff in the article means she meets the threshold for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO Notability established through mentions in multiple reliable independent sources. I note that users have deleted things in her page such as Norman Foster being her step father. Her mother and Step-father divorcing does not change the nature of her relationship with him. Galliano7 | talk 21:19, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:BIO I created this article as Amaryllis Knight is of interest to countless people. Her notability is documented in multiple third-party sources, including the The Financial Times, the Los Angeles Times, and the San Francisco Chronicle. She is the owner and co-builder (as per these articles and others) of what has been awarded the "best custom motorcycle company, 2008" by Esquire Magazine UK. The recent motorcycle she built along with her fiancee Ian Barry won "Best Custom Motorcycle" at the only International motorcycle Concours Legend Of The Motorcycle, where she was awarded the prize by Jesse James, along with Ian Barry. Knight has done notable and high profile charity work, as well as appearing along-side Jack Osbourne in the Mongol Rally and Jack Osbourne: Adrenaline Junkie series in three episodes according to IMDB. Knights family are of interest too. Although this is not reason for inclusion, it is of additional interest to many. Agreed with User:Galliano7, that although Knights notable mother divorced her step-father Norman Foster, Baron Foster of Thames Bank, this does not change the fact that Foster was and is indeed, independently her step-father.- Ash773 | talk 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments notability is not inherited so who her parents or step-parents are/may be etc is not remotely relevant to this conversation. Nor is her being the fiancee of anyone (as this also falls under notability is not inherited. The company has won an award (good for them, that still doesn't make her notable), IMDB isn't a reliable source. Being of "interest to countless people" does't make one notable either. It seems to me that all her supposed notabiliy is based on who she is related to, who she knows, or to the company that she co-founded (none of which make her notable in her own right). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notability established-several independent and reliable sources. Not just the co-founder of the company, but a celebrated custom bike builder who is of public interest to the motorcycle community. Her family/who she is engaged to is not Notable but is interesting. Being a character that has appeared on multiple seasons/episodes of a prime time television show that has aired worldwide is also of public interest, as is her humanitarian work, as seen on Prime time Tv, Oprah and various magazine publications. LAmusic3 | talk 06:47, 21 August (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO Multiple references - notability and public interest authenticated through independently verifiable and reliable sources.JzoJames | talk 07:17, 21 August (UTC)
Please can you show me where the subject of this article (not her company, or a motorcycle, or her fiancee, etc) has been covered in a significant, non-trivial manner in reliable 3rd party sources. The ones present in the article at the moment don't show this so instead of just saying they exist over and over again, please show them to us. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a handful - the motorcycle is a motorcycle she built, that won the most important motorcycle concours in the world this year, and it is in this context that she is mentioned, as well as being mentioned as the owner/ co-founder of the company, a rally car driver, an entrepreneur and having starred in the Mongol Rally with Jack Osbourne.

JzoJames | talk 09:42, 21 August (UTC)

Okay. Falconmotorcycles nor IMDB are reliable 3rd party sources. Your ITV and Oprah links still don't work, Press Releases don't normally qualify as reliable 3rd party sourcing, the LAtimes thing you provide isn't about HER and barely mentions her name, please give me something new that I haven't already commented on above that actually meets our criteria for inclusion. Just saying something meets a criteria doesn't cut it. Just saying she is notable doesn't make it so. And just having a group of people that have all worked on the same extremely small group of articles repeat the exact same rationale over and over again doesn't make the subject actually meet said criteria. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Falcon Motorcycles is not quoted in the links, an independent article written by Intersection Magazine is available from their site, and that is what the falconmotorcycles link downloads. Oprah link is now working. ITV is still working on this end. 1st LA Times article mentions her multiple times, second LA Times article is about her and the company she started with Ian Barry, the rest of the article pertains to the bike she built and won a show for (as per the San Francisco Chronicle article and others). The Press release is from the site of the largest and most well respected International motorcycle concours in the world, which was attended by 7000 people, and where knight was awarded the prize for "best custom motorcycle" this year for the Bullet Falcon. (refer to San Francisco Chronicle article). People being interested in the same sets of things or people makes sense to me. Are you in the motorcycle world? If you are not a fan or this subject is not your expertise, maybe this is why you are not aware of her and it would be best to leave the subject to be edited by the people in the know. JzoJames | talk 09:26, 22 August (UTC)
  • Keep. Meets WP:BIO Notable figure in the motorcycle world and culture. Independent refs and citations. Halfmoon3 | talk 18:51, 21 August (UTC)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:02, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sport utility convertible[edit]

Sport utility convertible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is original research and has no references. See also related AfDs: Sport utility coupe and Sport utility coupe (2nd nomination). swaq 21:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article contains 100% original research, the phenomenon is not confirmed to actually exist under that name by reliable sources. I don't think we'd want to merge imaginary stuff, we delete it. PrinceGloria (talk) 08:39, 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Priscila Sol[edit]

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

Only claim to notability is being a nominee for 2 awards, but has never actually won anything, doesn't appear to meet notability criteria, for WP:PORNBIO JoshuaD1991 (talk) 21:15, 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 and I have moved the other article here per Esrakaden. Black Kite 11:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heartland (song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, sources are only trivial. Song didn't chart and was just an album cut. Delete and move Heartland (George Strait song) to this title if deleted, as that song did chart and was indeed notable (not that simply charting makes a song notable). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:08, 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 (non-admin closure), as notability has been confirmed by this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Rudolf Steiner's exercises for spiritual development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

These exercises have not received notice outside of the anthroposophy community. Therefore they can not be independently sourced and that calls their notability into question. The entire article seems to be an explicit violation of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Waldorf_education#Waldorf education and related articles placed on probation since it does not have any outside sources and only contains anthroposophy propaganda. See WP:SOAP and WP:ADVERT. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: there are 6 reliable sources referenced in this article which are published in non-anthroposophy related publications in accordance with the arbitration ruling. Therefore it is properly sourced and notable. The article factually describes meditative exercises but doesn't mention, let alone promote, any practitioner, teacher or group who could gain from this description, so it is not an advertisement or WP:SPAM. It describes the exercises in a neutral way as presented in the cited sources; the descriptions are not detailed enough to put into practice, so it is not self-promotion or advertisement. --EPadmirateur (talk) 22:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is accurate; all of the references are to independent sources. Hgilbert (talk) 00:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons described by EPadmirateur. Thebee (talk) 07:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above - ill-founded nomination.HeartofaDog (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep (updated per below) The Hemleben source is not independent of anthroposophy. It looks fine as a resource for the views of followers, but does not establish real-world notability. The other, less credulous, Steiner biography at my local library, ISBN 978-1-58542-543-3, is half again as long but barely mentions these exercises as part of Steiner's more general philosophy that "supersensory consciousness" is attainable by anyone. The Hammer (ISBN 900413638X), though, does appear sufficiently independent and to provide sufficient depth of coverage to argue for notability within the wider spiritualist community. If the Faivre (ISBN 0824514440) or some other independent resource provides a similar depth of coverage (viz. not a mere passing mention), I think this article should certainly be kept. If not, I am not sure that a single description is sufficient to warrant a full article on this aspect of anthroposophy, and would lean towards delete. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The original, German edition of the Hemleben book is published by one of the largest and most respected presses in Germany, Rowohlt; thus it both satisfies the requirement of the arbitration, that the publishers are independent and include a review process, and establishes notability. There are six independent sources here. The article might require clean-up, but satisfies the notability requirement. (It could be merged back into the Rudolf Steiner article, but this is already excessively long.) Hgilbert (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Faivre article has slightly more than five pages essentially dedicated to the subject. Hgilbert (talk) 22:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a sufficient treatment, I have updated my comments to favor keeping. Thank you for checking this. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:10, 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 merge to Teledildonics. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bluedildonics[edit]

Bluedildonics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Comment Not sure I agree with a merge but Teledildonics doesn't seem to be the best target as that's about computer use whereas this is a similar but different technology. Banjeboi 00:25, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Bluedildonics are not the same as Teledildonics. For a start, they are controlled by bluetooth: you send a text message (SMS) to your lover, who is wearing the bluedildonic inside her vagina all day. Her mobile phone sends a message via Bluetooth to her bluedildonic. Each letter of the alphabet creates a different sensation/vibration. Only text messages received from your phone will activate the bluedildonic (although you can set it so that any text message will activate it). These are gaining popularity in the UK where they are mainly sold, and the product features regularly on TV. So of course it should neither be merged nor anything like that.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tris2000 (talk • contribs)

But if you do try to merge it, please read the instruction manual first. Bluedildonics is not responsible for any discomfort that comes from wearing the product inside your vagina all day. Mandsford (talk) 00:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Teledildonics and name page Dildonics which is what it was once called anyway. There is currently simply not enough material to justify 2 pages. --Simon Speed (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge - not notable on its own --T-rex 19:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Teledildonics, not notable enough on its own yet, and not sufficiently differentYobmod (talk) 10:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Yobmod. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:09, 26 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. We now agree that the fact that there once was an inhabited village of that name is verifiable, in particular thanks to the print source cited by Ezhiki. A more general discussion about whether the inclusion in certain geographical databases is sufficient for verifiability should probably be held elsewhere.  Sandstein  18:00, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Əngəlan[edit]

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

I am nominating this stub on a purported village in Azerbaijan for deletion because I believe it fails WP:Verifiability. I hope that the usual arguments about all populated places being notable or not can be put aside here.

  • Wikipedia's verifiability policy says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."
  • The article has a wikilink to GEOnet Names Server and no other sources. The questions here are; did the government workers who key in data on millions of placenames ever make mistakes? If they do make mistakes, how are we to know?
  • I did a Google search for this place; it returns one website, a computer-generated page typical of sites that use GNS data to sell product. A search by the alternate spelling--and it should be noted here that the United States Board on Geographic Names mandate is to provide the correct spelling--Angelan, is contaminated by hits for the personal name Angela. I searched by both names of the rayon Angelan supposedly lies within, and got only the usual computer-generated hits by the commercial websites, but nothing by a human being. There are no News Books or Scholar hits for this place. I did a number of other Google searches and, tellingly, there is not one website in Azeri that mentions this word. I also looked on maps.
  • As can be seen, this is quite unusual; most places listed by GNS have easily found evidence of their existence.
  • For those that worry that deleting this one stub because it cannot be verified might unleash a wave of AfDs, let me just say that I am not contemplating such a disruptive move. A look at the articles I have created or worked on should show that I am not against articles on obscure places. My goal or agenda (Option 3) is to make Wikipedia better than TravelingLuck, FallingRain and their ilk by having encyclopedic treatments of populated places.
  • Thank you for carefully considering this nomination. Again, please confine the arguments to WP:V (and maybe WP:PSTS), not WP:N. If anybody can find the slimmest evidence this populated place exists, I'll withdraw this nomination. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:Carlossuarez46 is an editor of longstanding, so I trust the verity of his articles. I'll agree, however, that Əngəlan is unlikely as a name for a village, since we don't use the schwa except for showing a pronunciation (you know, the "Ə", the upside-down "e", the "uh sound"). Using an Ə is not an acceptable substitute for showing that a Cyrillic spelling could be rendered in different ways. The title should be moved to whatever is reflected in English language descriptions of the place. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All I can say is "WhƏt thƏ fƏck??" How is anyone supposed to search for a town that begins with "Ə"? I don't recall seeing that on my keyboard. Don't know that Carlos has made all of those messes, but I see about 100 articles that should be moved to English Wikipedia type titles. Mandsford (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If that were the only problem, a move or redirect would be appropriate. But if something doesn't exist, a move or redirect is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the existence of this village cannot be verified by a source other than a Geonet database or any other database that uses it without modification. If verifiable, Redirect to article on containing district, which itself is in dire need of content, until more information about the village is found. A list of villages should be created in the rayon article that encompasses this village. --Polaron | Talk 22:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It can, as there are 2 cites now, the nominator has been too lazy to search for them in order to push his WP:POINT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Falling Rain gets its information from the same database. Still, these need to be redirected until we can say more than their location. These should not really have been created in the first place. --Polaron | Talk 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. I searched assiduously. Furthermore, my point is that you, the article creator, are required to provide sources, by Wikipedia:Verifiability#Burden of evidence, a policy. Instead, you have created thousands of stubs with only one primary source, and you just wikilinked to GEOnet Names Server. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, as a Google search with the Anglicized name, which is Angalan, comes up with lots of entries. I agree with Mandsford that this is English Wikipedia, most of us in the English-speaking world don't have keyboards that can type the Latin Azerbaijani alphabet, and that the town should be listed as it would be written in English, which is Angalan. --Friejose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if the town can't be verified to exist? Those Angalan Google hits are mere artifacts. There are people in India by the name, and a place in the Philippines. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Angalan" in Azerbaijan does in fact exist: Falling Rain Data. Compare the coordinates there with Carlos' article and you will see that they coincide. Keep and place a redirect. De728631 (talk) 20:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Failing Rain gets their data from GNS, how does that help verify the place? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this is a WP:POINT nomination. I have had a long conversation (see our talk pages) with the nominator and his problems with GeoNet Names Server are the same problems we have with any other reliable source. I told him how to find sources, but rather than do so, he prefers drama here and wastes everybody's time. A simple google search on the alternate name "Angalan" shows 2760 hits, including maplandia, fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost. Under Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names), if there is a Widely accepted English name for a place, it is used, if not the local form. Given that the nominator is not even convinced that the place exists (his WP:OR vs. reliable sources) it seems hardly fit to assume that there is a widely accepted English form. Hence, the local one is used for the title of the article. If we don't like that result, perhaps we should revisit the naming convention and move the article to one of the alternative names. Deletion is wholly unwarranted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please assume good faith. My concerns are warranted; there is not one Azerbaijani website that so much as uses the words Əngəlan, Angelan or Angalan. Maplandia, Fallingrain, Yet Another Atlas, and Travelpost all use GEOnet Names Server data to populate their websites, and therefore cannot be considered independent of GNS. How does it benefit Wikipedia to become a mirror of GNS? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication." The mandate of GNIS and GNS is to provide correct spelling for consistency within the US government's own agencies. Using this database as the sole source for a Wikipedia article is inappropriate. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • FallingRain gives populations and elevations - getting those from the GNS database? Where, how? That data isn't in there, so they must be getting it elsewhere. The problem you have is that people make mistakes, hence all sources that have humans are unreliable, that's a WP:POINT. After Dewey Defeats Truman, we cannot trust newspapers or at least the Chicago Tribune, right? Your insistance to delete a existing place because of possible error by humans working at GeoNet combined with a schwa in the initial position stretches good faith. I (and another editor) have provided verification with reliable sources - sufficient to show the place exists; you now have the burden to show that these sources are both wrong. Another google search, for "Angelan" and "Azerbaijan" but excluding "Merkel" (the "Angela" most contaminating the results, no offense to the German premier), finds plenty of other links to the place, including the USGS which seems to be interested in mining the region. [6] But of course, the USGS, and everyone else could be in error - then let's not have any articles referenced to fallible sources, like newspapers, books (lots of errors in books), magazines (Hitler's diaries showed up there), the web (notorious for mis- & dis-information), or basically anything other than Holy Writ (and even that requires faith). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • FallingRain get the elevations elsewhere, based on the coordinates. They estimate the population very crudely, using the general population density of the area. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The USGS says "...the Angelan, the Kebadzhar, the Kedabak and the Tauz regions of Azerbaijan." This USGS document makes several errors right in that sentence. First, Kebadzhar is a probable misspelling of Kelbadzhar, which has been destroyed. Kebadzhar does not appear in GNS! Neither does Kedabak, which is a probable misspelling of Kedabek, which is Gadabay Rayon. Tauz is an alternative spelling of Tovuz Rayon. GNS says all but Angelan are rayons (regions). So the USGS document is not reliable, according to GNS, or GNS is not reliable, according to the USGS document. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Errors occur, so they way Wikipedia deals with it is to require multiple reliable secondary sources. By using only GNS, (which may or may not be reliable, but is primary) and no others you may have introduced errors into Wikipedia. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because of the fallingrain source: as the nominator says that he (assuming that roosters are "he" :-) isn't questioning the idea of this being notable, and as we've gotten a good source for its existence, I don't see why not to keep it, whether or not we can type ə very easily. Nyttend (talk) 01:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read above as why FallingRain is not reliable. Polaron is a major authority here on Wikipedia on geographic places and particularly on population. (Although I see you have experience on US places.) Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand -Falling rain is a pretty awful source in terms of reliability of data and I've even gone so far as to propose that the site is blacklisted. However I believe it verifies the existence of the place as do any other of the maps or auto generated NGIS site. My only concern is it does not give information on the status of the site, e.g it could be hamlet or little significance. Initially I think the article is fine, providing it can be expanded later once information becomes avilable. The Bald One White cat 12:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does one know whether it can be expanded or not? Why do these need stand-alone articles? Is it inappropriate to make a table of them in the containing municipality/district where one can list name, coordinates, population? Put them in a list first then expand once information about the culture and history is found. --Polaron | Talk 17:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Based on Verifiability - which was the criteria cited for AfD nomination) and Expand.
The U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence GEOnet Names server is a reliable/verifiable source. NGA receives their information from aerial and satellite photogrammetric (spelling?) analysis, and corroborates it by local field investigations or reports from foreign intelligence. According to NGA, "Əngəlan" is the current foreign official spelling, and "Angalan" is the Anglicized version.
If you Google "site:.az", you receive the various Azerbaijan web sites of which Google is aware.
NOTE: the language is "Azerbaijani" a.k.a. Azeri which is a Turkic/Altaic language. Over time "Azeri" has been written in Arabic, Cyrillic (Russian) and Latin alphabetic scripts, so there are lots of transliterations, especially for Place Names.
"Əngəlan" can be "Əнгəлан" and "Angalan" can be "ангалан" (from http://www.russianlessons.net/dictionary/transliterate.php).
If you Google "site:.az ангалан" you receive: http://www.day.az/forum/index.php?showtopic=33738&st=40&p=864568&#entry864568, the entry:
Aligeydar
Рейтинг: 5
Просмотр профиля
	
сообщение Aug 1 2006, 14:21
Сообщение #58

Забугорник
******

Группа: Members
Сообщений: 1,551
Регистрация: 2-April 05
Из: Kiel, Deutschland
Пользователь №: 3,881

Фаррух, извини за оффтоп, а почему нету села Ангилан или же Ангалан Хызинского района в твоем списке.
На месте этого села сейчас голые холмы. Её ликвидировали как не рентабельную в советское время.
Это село есть в списке даглинских сёл в книге "Даглыларын китабы" Фирудина Гурбансоя.
Я родом из Хызинского района, отец из села Хызы, мать из села Ангилан (Ангалан).
Буду рад за ответ в ЛС.

П.С. Ещё раз приношу извинения за оффтоп. Прошу не удалять этот пост.

Сообщение отредактировал Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22"
Translated:
Aligeydar
Rating: 5
View Profile

message Aug 1 2006, 14:21
Message # 58

Zabugornik
******

Group: Members
Posts: 1.551
Registration: 2-April 05
From: Kiel, Deutschland
User №: 3,881

Farrukh, apologized for offtop, but why not Angilan village or district Angalan Hyzinskogo in your list.
At the site of the village now bare hills.
Her eliminated as a cost-effective than in Soviet times.
This village is on the list daglinskih villages in the book "Daglylaryn Book" Firudina Gurbansoya.
I come from Hyzinskogo area of the village Hyzy father, mother from the village Angilan (Angalan).
I would be glad for the response in the LS.

PS Once again I apologize for offtop. Please do not delete this post.

Message edited Aligeydar - Aug 1 2006, 14:22
So there are various alternative transliterations (switching vowels "AaƏəEeIi" or "ааƏəээии").
If you Google "site:.az +Ангилан" you get some more hits:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:.az+%2B%D0%90%D0%BD%D0%B3%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD&hl=en&filter=0

... much of the on-line or published texts you are going to find mentioning the "Əngəlan" village (in its various transliterations) are going to be in Russian Cyrillic scripts, in you figure out what the name is in Azeri Arabic/Turkish script ... then you can probably find some more (older "pre-Russian" ) references. LeheckaG (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rebuttal; what is gone (from when it was under Soviet jurisdiction) was a separate Soviet local administration which was likely incorporated into the City-Town of Khizi which is reportedly about 3 miles (4.8 km) away. It is still an officially recognized populated place (in a relatively unpopulated region). I believe the U.S. Department of Defense National Geospatial Intelligence Agency (NGA) qualifies as a reliable non-primary source. In addition, the populated place/village is apparently cited in several foreign (non-English) language texts. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete -
    1. As has been discussed ad nauseum, Falling Rain, GEOnames, etc. are not reliable secondary sources. Thus it is OK to use them for data, but it is not OK to base an entire article solely on those sources, per WP:OR.
    2. The village doesn't exist anymore, so it is extremely unlikely that reliable secondary sources will ever be available for it. Do we really want an article that will say only "Angelan is or was a village (or some other kind of settlement) in the Khizi Rayon of Azerbaijan." in perpetuity?
    3. If this village really is notable, why not just mention it the Khizi Rayon article? I can't see any reason why it has to be separated out to its own article.
    4. "All places that have ever existed are notable" is not a policy (or even a good idea).
  • Kaldari (talk) 18:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal - Are you seriously questioning the U.S. government (NGA.Mil GEOnet names) as a reliable/verifiable source with regard to WP:V? THAT IS NOT WHAT WP:OR says at all - please re-read and cite a specific complete sentence if you sincerely believe it does? Again, what is apparently "gone" is just the former Soviet administration, the populated place/people still exist there. There are many "notable" North American "city" articles based on U.S. Census Bureau Census Designated Place estimates/statistics which have similar or smaller populations. Yes, a proper article requires people searching for, translating, and citing Azeri texts from either Arabic or Cyrillic scripts into English - language translation is NOT WP:OR. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Doesn't quite cross the threshold of verifiability, which leaves it way short of notability. Even if we verified the existence of this village, there isn't any reason to believe that we could ever create a properly sourced article about it.
    Kww (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuttal Are you seriously questioning the U.S. DoD Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18 at GEOnet Names Server which pretty much has all of current information in the article? LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From [7] it appears that it may be a mining district. --NE2 18:12, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep! Luckily for all of you, I have a few reference books in my library dealing with the administrative divisions and inhabited localities of Azerbaijan SSR. The 1961 book lists the village of Angelan (Ангелан) under jurisdiction of Sumqayit (which borders Khizi Rayon), so the place definitely existed then. The 1977 book, however, no longer lists this place, so it is safe to assume it disappeared between 1961 and 1977. A definite keep, in my opinion.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 18:52, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't address why it needs a stand-alone article if this is all that can be said. What's wrong with treating the topic within the containing district article, which itself is in need of content. Doesn't your book say anything more than what is already in the article? --Polaron | Talk 18:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who said this is all that can be said?! If you read LeheckaG's excerpt above, you'll see that the village is also mentioned in the "Даглыларын китабы" book by Firudin Gurbansoy. Now, I don't have a copy of this book and I don't suppose you do, but I see nothing wrong with keeping a stub until someone who has one shows up and expands the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:03, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And why can't that content be put in the district article where you can have a blurb of few sentences for each settlement point? Also, unless that book is about this village (rather than just a passing mention), the information is likely insufficient to write a full article. --Polaron | Talk 19:13, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In response to that, my rationale is that we normally create separate articles for separate inhabited localities, no matter how small they are. If WikiProject:Azerbaijan members decide that merging blurbs such as this one into the articles about raions or elsewhere is a better solution, I certainly ain't gonna be the one arguing with that decision. It is, however, out of scope of this AfD.
On an unrelated note, I've just added my references to the article.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Key word; "inhabited". Thank you for your references, though. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome. As for "inhabited", in my book an "inhabited locality" is a locality that is or was at some point of time officially recognized as populated by the government of the country in which it is/was located. Whether a locality is currently inhabited or not has nothing to do with verifiability (or notability, for that matter). Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to NGA (as of their 1999 country review/update) it is an "inhabited" village (populated place). Keep in mind this is a foreign place where English has not been the primary language. So a 1991 DoD NGA database review/update ("Census") is a "reasonable" date for a source. The United States census only occurs every 10 years, and although the U.S. Census Bureau publishes annual "estimates", they are exactly that - estimates based on historical trends of population demographics, age, birth and death rates. LeheckaG (talk) 00:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's an actual village confirmed by many of the sources listed above and in the article. There's no such thing as a "non-notable" village. An AfD is not a place for a meta-discussion on the inherent notability of population centers.--Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's confirmed it was a village (sorry for the use of tense that could've lead to confusion). That it's a historic village doesn't change the fact that it existed. I created the article Midland, California which is just rubble now, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a population center. --Oakshade (talk) 23:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So now people shouldn't dare question concepts like inherent notability for villages? It's a concept that has no place whatsoever in an AFD, as it is not contained in any policy or guideline. The closing admin of an AFD should always discount arguments that are not based in policies or guidelines. As for whether this is an appropriate place, it has to be: people that believe in it and use it in AFDs have never succeeded in getting it incorporated anywhere, so it has to be refuted on an individual basis.Kww (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on a AfD nomination of WP:V, the primary rebuttal requirement is that U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 18 at GEOnet Names Server, which is an "official publication" of the Unites States government, be accepted as a reliable source. Specifically, see GEOnet Names Server "The GEOnet Names Server (GNS) provides access to the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency's (NGA) and the U.S. Board on Geographic Names' (BGN) database of geographic feature names and locations for locations outside the United States. The database is the official repository of foreign place-name decisions approved by the US BGN. Approximately 20,000 of the database's features are updated monthly." and http://earth-info.nga.mil/gns/html/. The GEOnet Names server is NOT to be confused with other similarly-named commercial/non-official services which attempt to receive higher search engine rankings and "mislead" people by using similar web site names. If people do not accept official publications of the U.S. government within the scope of their particular organizational expertise, then I have thousands of "U.S. Census Bureau"-based Wiki articles to nominate for AfD (making a point by "proof by contradiction" see Reductio ad absurdum "reduction to the absurd").
"Bare hills" is a bit of an exaggeration, comparing a smaller population with a relatively larger previous population. Overall the country is supposed to be the most populous in the region (compared with its neighbors) but the particular administrative region (rayon) the village is in is the least populated one in the country, overall the country has very few heavily-populate cities (only about 11), mostly composed of many relatively smaller villages.
In the Wikipedia sense, "Primary" refers to "self-publication" about "oneself" not corroborated by an "independent" third-party, which mostly applies to celebrities, bands, and the like. In a formal reference citation sense, "primary" refers to using an authoritative "normative" source (going to the horse's mouth) rather than "hearsay", second-hand reports, a.k.a. secondary "informative" sources.
The corresponding DoD NGA GNS record was updated in 1999, so the "populated place" still existed at that time (1999) - which puts it (the populated place) as more recent than the various speculation that the "village is gone" - again what is gone is the former Soviet administation. The country achieved its current independence with the 1991 collapse of the Soviet Union. The significance of the "1999" date (for DoD NGA) is that is when the last "significant" international activity occured for the country (specifically an international "arms" treaty which probably triggered a corresponding DoD NGA database review).
What the article needs is contributors taking the time to read Azeri texts in Arabic or Cyrillic alphabet scripts (which are not going to be that "common" on the "English" sites. If do not have the resources available to go through such, but I can provide a "how-to" or pointers for someone else who wants to update the various Azerbaijan/Azeri-related articles. The Az: Wikipedia has limited contributions. LeheckaG (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, according to this 2007 USGS meeting, the GNS database is never purged of a placename. The exact quote is; "Also the GEONet Names Server, like the GNIS, is cumulative, i.e., name listings are not deleted except in cases of obvious duplication." So having an entry in the GNS database after an update means only that the village was entered into the database an no duplication was discovered.
Did you notice that there are now 4,552 stubs in the Category:Cities, towns and villages in Azerbaijan, nearly all based on an entry in GNS? more than a 1000 have been created since the beginning of this AfD. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ëzhiki and others have enough sources to prove that the village existed at some point. That is enough to satisfy WP:V requirements. Notability should not be an issue for settlements considering that this is the kind of subject which is traditionally covered in encyclopedias, commercial paper encyclopedias often cover settlements which are very small. The fact that a village is abandoned is no more relevant to notability than the death of a subject is to his/her notability. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:08, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the AfD nomination based on WP:V, the article's cited source U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet Names server meets/exceeds Wiki's WP:V criteria for the facts included in the article - expansion of the stub article with additional facts would require citing additional references.
With regards to whether 4552+ AZ stub articles should exist or a better way to do things going forward is a discussion outside of the scope of the AfD. What you probably should have done is posted your issues on the WP AZ discussion rather than nominating the article for AfD based on an extremely weak argument whether a U.S. government officially-published source (DoD NGA GEOnet Names) meets WP:V criteria. I am guessing you more likely confused GEOnet Names with other similarly-named commercial/non-official sources which try to "sell" something? Personally, my two points are:
  • If GIS/GNIS/GNS or other databases are going to be used as sources for Wiki articles, they should be bulk downloaded into a Wiki MySQL table rather than being manually incorporated into articles' WikiText source by contributors or bots assisting them. The same argument goes for the many articles incorporating U.S. Census Bureau statistics - which creates an annual and 10-year update "problem", and for other "bulk" data sources.
  • Wiki needs better language translation and name transliteration tools, like these "pairs" should be one source page for each pair:
Administrative sub-division En: Az:
Country Azerbaijan Az:Azərbaycan Respublikası
Rayon or Region/State Khizi Rayon Az:Xızı
City, Town, or Village Angelan ?
The author's original post on the article creator's talk page was: "Əngəlan gets one Google hit. Could be some sort of error by GNS--it is listed there exactly as spelled. Perhaps it would be best to db-author it? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)"
So gee, if Google does not find it, then it must not exist? As an American, I prefer to "bury my head in the sand" and "play ostrich" but not always. I am interested in International events when they can affect overall global stability and cross international borders. Google only "finds" what it can get paid to find, more an more top search results are "sponsored" i.e. paid for, or those "gaming" the search engines to try to get higher rankings in order to promote whatever commercial product they are promoting. While "Əngəlan" is the U.S. "official" name and "Angelan" the Anglicized name for the village, they are most probably not names used locally. Exactly how much English text does one expect to find about places using "Azeri" (similar to Turkish, historically written in an Arabic alphabet script, and under Soviet rule, in a Cyrillic alphabet script)? I know how to search for the Cyrillic texts (see above), I am not as familiar with searching for Perso-Arabic, see Azerbaijani alphabet. Apparently, Arabic script typically drops "unimportant" vowels from words leaving only the consonants - so either Regular expression searches need to be done, or several variations need to be searched for excluding or including various vowels until the proper names are located.
At the "root" of the issue: Should "foreign" (non-English) language places exist in the "English" Wikipedia? What criteria determines inclusion versus exclusion?
With regard to the 1st., Wiki should have some "babelfish", see Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, mechanism where there is (1) "official native language" source WikiText for an article (possibly including some "foreign" language translations), and "assisted" translations back an forth between the "native" language (like Azeri) and others (like English, and the various Azeri transliterations - Arabic, Cyrillic, Latin). The current Wiki model where each language is "siloed" into independent separate encyclopedias is "broken". Language separation does have some advantages, but is largely broken/flawed. So personally, I believe an "Əngəlan" article should exist, that its source WikiText should be primarily in Azeri, possibly with assisted-translations (similar to the Commons: language template tag mechanism.
The heart of the issue is that Azerbaijan has about 10 million people (similar to the population of Ohio and likewise a similar geographic area 30,000-40,000 sq.mi.), and is similar to Ohio with several dozen "rayons" similar to List of counties in Ohio, and villages similar to the 691 incorporated List of villages in Ohio, and many more "towns" (a.k.a. GIS/GNIS/GNS "populated places" or U.S. Census Bureau CDPs). Ohio has about 1362 "townships" 5 to 6 by 5 to 6 mile "square" platted/surveyed subdivisions. If you divide 10 million by 5000, you get 2000 people per "city-town-village". I do not know whether all of the 4552+ stub articles in the category are really populated places (versus other geographic features)? or how many are actually alternate names for the same place (like Əngəlan, also Angelan, Angalan or Ангилан, and they missed two spellings which I had cited "Angilan" and the other Cyrillic one)? The country is still catching up to more developed countries in the Americas and Europe, so one cannot expect the degree of on-line information which is available for similar U.S. entities (like Ohio counties, townships, populated places), especially when one is searching in English where Azeri in its variants is most commonly used.
So the article is within the WP:V guidelines/policy by citing U.S. DoD NGA GEOnet names for a reference source, so its content should not be deleted, but there has to be a better way to provide the multi-lingual encyclopedic coverage. And exactly where does one "set the bar" as to what content to exclude or include? I believe the Wikipedia precedence has been set that any "officially-recognized populated place" (i.e. "semi-permanent geographic gathering of people, cited from a U.S. or foreign government source) is significant enough to meet WP:N inclusion criteria (otherwise there are an awful lot of U.S. Census-designated places to delete). Places which are not listed by a governmental source as a populated place or other significant (a.k.a. "named" feature) need to justify another criteria to meet WP:N guidelines, for instance being "historic" or of "current events" significance - like being listed on an official historic register or "making the news" for instance bridge collapses, floods, or other "disasters". LeheckaG (talk) 09:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your considered response. However, I can say with no uncertainty; GEOnet Names Server fails to distinguish between formerly inhabited places and currently inhabited ones. Therefore, if an editor is using GNS to create articles, s/he should still have a second source to verify that the place is inhabited or has been abandoned. There are a number of other stubs created in the last few days which claim an inhabited village where none is today, possibly hundreds. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 09:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Pointed Nomination forcing the issue of "GEOnet Names Server" and "FallingRain". If you wish them BlackListed, this is not the forum to shop for/gauge support. Quoted sources above (esp, Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky)) are good enough for me that it did exist and with WP:RS's supporting WP:V. The fact that is does not now is not reason to delete. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 12:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Every nomination has a point. I nominated an article that differs a lot from the current one. Given how short the article was, it could not have been more incorrect. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 17:21, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The point of AFD is not to promote a "goal or agenda (Option 3)". Nor is it to force a wider discussion about the reliability of Gov't Reference sources. Build a concensus at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion if you wish to confirm your feeling that a source should be blacklisted. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I said Option Three was my goal because I had been accused of trying to get all the stubs deleted. Perhaps I should have made that clearer. If you suspected somebody was entering incorrect information onto Wikipedia, stub after stub after stub, what would you do? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into next larger geographic grouping (and tag the redirect as {{R with possibilities}}). There is no question that a place with this name (or something resembling the name after transliteration) existed. At present, I don't think there is enough to warrant leaving this as a likely perma-stub. There might be some possibility it can be expanded further, but it seems unlikely. For similar situations with unincorporated communities in Michigan where all that is available is the location and a sentence or two of history, I add the available information to the appropriate township article (or occasionally a city, village or county article) and create a redirect for the place name. But I do think this nomination is a little pointy -- and if it comes down to either keeping or deleting, then there's no question this should be kept. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does it matter that it's a ghost town now? We generally assume that "Cities and villages are acceptable, regardless of size, so long as their existence can be verified through a reliable source." I can't give you a link, but I've seen it said all over the place that notability isn't temporary: if it were a village once (even if that were only when there was no Wikipedia), it was notable then, and thus it is notable today, as long as we can verify that it existed. Nyttend (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am persuaded that there is sufficient verification here to establish that an inhabited village did exist. As notability is permament and I believe (and plentiful precedent supports) that all verifiable villages merit articles we should keep this article. Davewild (talk) 16:13, 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 03:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll On (Kid Rock song)[edit]

Roll On (Kid Rock song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Song has yet to chart. "All Summer Long" isn't even close to done (at least on the country charts), so I doubt that this will be made into a sourced page anytime soon. Given the qualifier at the end of the title, I don't think that it would be a viable redirect either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:14, 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. GlassCobra 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern kung fu[edit]

Modern kung fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable new art; minimal (relevant) ghits, no verifiable sources. JJL (talk) 20:04, 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) 16:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sim City's Next Top Model[edit]

Sim City's Next Top Model (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No claims to notability, no references, no independant coverage or sources to indicate it is anything more than someone's Youtube postings. Canterbury Tail talk 19:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - lack of notability. (Full disclosure: I originally proposed the article for deletion.) The claim to notability seems to be that it's "popular", which is unfortunately not enough. ... discospinster talk 20:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 22:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it fails both notability and verifiability. It has not been covered in a non-trivial manner in any reliable 3rd party sources that I can find. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:53, 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) 16:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Cunningham[edit]

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

Non notable reality show contestant. DCEdwards1966 18:41, 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 Withdrawn. GlassCobra 17:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Sawyer[edit]

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

Article on young footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he's never played a first team game. The article made the claim that he has, but the reference provided did not state so, so I prodded the article. It was then deprodded and a new link to a BBC story claiming one first team apperance was added. However, I believe the BBC are mistaken. Their own statistics page claims zero apperances, as does soccerbase. The match report from the game that he supposedly played in also confirms that he did not play. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until and unless he plays in the first team. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Obviously people are misinterpreting "made a substitute appearance" as meaning he came on as a substitute, when it actually means that he was named on the bench but did not play. – PeeJay 20:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The man is under contract and has been with the team since the age of 9. It's probably only a matter of time before an official and substantiable game appearance occurs. --Mr Accountable (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like WP:CRYSTAL balling to me. For all we know, he may break his leg in training and never play professionally. We have WP:ATHLETE for a reason. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ESPN Soccernet also doesn't list any league appearances, [9] meaning he fails WP:ATHLETE. When he plays an official match for Chelsea Southend United or another pro club, this can be recreated. Giants2008 (17-14) 21:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Has played in one professional game, so he now satisfies the notability guideline. Giants2008 (17-14) 23:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRYSTAL. doktorb wordsdeeds 21:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Player was only sent to a 3rd tier team a few hours ago. Surely before spending the time to involve everyone in an AfD one should assume good faith rather than being pointy and see if he is going to be playing. Let's evaluate based on Friday's game and then worry if it should be deleted or not. There is little point removing content that we are likely going to have to restore. Nfitz (talk) 07:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The AfD won't close until the day of Southend's next game, and obviously I will withdraw the AfD if he plays. I'm getting quite tired of your attacks on my motivations for AfDs - there is no WP:POINT-making here. As I've said many times before, the real problems are (a) editors creating articles before people meet the critiera, and (even worse), editors deprodding articles that clearly fail the criteria (as you have done at least 15 times in the last month - 11 articles from which have already been deleted after AfDs). Restoring is no effort at all compared to having an AfD forced upon us all. I'm not going to add tens of articles to my watchlist and then check back in a week/fortnight/month to see if they have played or not. If they haven't played, then there shouldn't be an article. пﮟოьεԻ 57 08:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails both WP:ATHLETE and the general notability criteria. There is little point creating content which fails the most basic of the criteria for inclusion. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes a fully-pro appearance. --Jimbo[online] 09:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - he has now played for Southend[10], so most of the delete 'votes' are no longer applicable. PhilKnight (talk) 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's played for Southend now. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 01:45, 25 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 list of characters article. Black Kite 23:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa (Dead or Alive)[edit]

Lisa (Dead or Alive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:37, 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) 16:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Burke[edit]

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

Prod removed so procedural AFD. However, not sure how this chap meets WP:BIO. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I see no assertion of notability. Speedy per A7, possibly advertising too Computerjoe's talk 22:56, 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) 16:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rajvee[edit]

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

No Notable references. Request delete. Youtube video and program schedule are hardly what could be called references. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:32, 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. Any merger is best discussed here (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Armstrong[edit]

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

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You claiming her to be "flagship" doesn't mean anything. Give credible outside sources to prove that she is notable. Shrine Maiden (talk) 01:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, want to avoid being a Richard here, Sparky. Tina Armstrong was, as the article states, present in every DOA iteration and used frequently in merchandising. Cleanup would involve finding those sources. I'm gonna invoke WP:SOFIXIT and say that that's what should be done, instead of taking the lazy way and just deleting it. But I'm not gonna be the one to do it since I neither know nor care all that much about the franchise. JuJube (talk) 03:04, 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 Merge to Halton Catholic District School Board (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa Catholic Elementary School[edit]

Mother Teresa Catholic Elementary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable school, peacock terms, non-sourced & non-encyclopedic facts GoLeafsGo 19:16, 12 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 or (only) redirect to List of Dead or Alive characters#Kokoro. I'm redirecting now. It's left to editorial judgment what, if anything, is worthy of merging from the history.  Sandstein  22:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro (Dead or Alive)[edit]

Kokoro (Dead or Alive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This video game character has no Wikipedia:Notability,same as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina, this one should be deleted or merged as well. There is already a "list of character" article for this game series. And "other game characters also have their own articles" isn't a valid argument for this one to pass the Wikipedia:Notability requirement. Shrine Maiden (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean this should. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean it shouldn't either. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Countering an 'other stuff exists' argument with an other 'other stuff exists' argument doesn't strike me as the best strategy. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 02:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sources provided and changes made to the article since nomination, it is good enough. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:10, 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) 16:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British-India Holocaust[edit]

British-India Holocaust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Biased violation of WP:SOAP; use of words "holocaust" and "genocide" and comparisons to Nazi Germany and Stalin's Russia evince the biased approach of the editor. Also, duplicate (refers to the same topic) of Great Famine of 1876–78, a far longer, more detailed, more balanced article. LordAmeth (talk) 17:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Oppression of Indian people during colonial era is definitely worthy topic to have an article, an encyclopedic article without soapboxing like in this case. We have enough "Allegations of apartheid" non-sense already, and there is need to start "Allegations of Holocaust" tradition M0RD00R (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, inherent violation of WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 19:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article's title is not compatible with WP:NPOV. The contents are also non-neutrally written. Apart from the references, which might be added to a different article covering this period of Indian history, there's nothing encyclopaedic that can really be rescued from this article. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Great Famine of 1876–78. The article itself is too emotional, and not enough sourced, to be kept. Mandsford (talk) 21:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is best covered in Great Famine of 1876–78. I've said before and I will say again it's bad to have 2+ versions of an article, one with a neutral title for an event and another that is a POV. Every time the neutral title version has a shot at neutrality while the POV titled one exists for POV purposes. Let's just have one article, and improve it. --Rividian (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As the article is a POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78 Nick Dowling (talk) 02:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete: Let see , clearly fails WP:NPOV; relies on a single source hence, fails WP:RS; title itself is blatantly WP:OR. gcount for "British-India Holocaust" gives only 7 links(1 to this AFD; 1to this article:Late Victorian Holocaust also under AFDWikipedia:Articles for deletion/Late Victorian Holocaust; rest are videos). --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per D'Souza, everyone else. Edward321 (talk) 14:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. Violation of WP:NPOV. Lehoiberri (talk) 20:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete and Salt -- the topic is adequately covered in Great Famine of 1876–78. It is possible that British governors were misguided in their policies, and may have adopted harsh policies on famine relief for finacnial reasons, but I cannot believe that they deliberately cause a famine, let alone a genocide or holocaust. This is a POV article, lacking the NPOV required by WP. Modern newspaper articles are virually useless as a historical source for events of a century or more before, and must be disregarded. This leaves one source cited as University of Wisconsin, but it is not clear if this is a book, a research paper or a student essay. On an emotive issue such as this reliable sources ought to be from peer-reviewed journals or books from academic publihsers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.--Yopie 03:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-neutral, neologism, POV fork of Great Famine of 1876–78.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:44, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article uses a source identified as "How Britain Denies its Holocausts, Why do so few people know about the atrocities of empire? By George Monbiot. Published in the Guardian 27th December 2005". I have looked for this article, including in the Guardian's archive, and I have determined that it does not exist. George Monbiot only published one article in the Guardian that day, and it was called "The Turks haven't learned the British way of denying past atrocities" [11]. It does argue the famine in India was caused by the British, but nowhere does it assert that the famine was a "Holocaust". I say this because the creator of the British-India Holocaust article is using this Guardian piece to try and ensure the British-India article is kept up, and I don't want people to be mislead by a source that has been manipulated, it would seem, by the creator to push his POV. As a result, I have tried to remove the mentioning of the false Guardian piece in the British-India article. However, the creator of the B-I article has reversed my removal on the two occassions I have tried to do so, and the creator has not offered any reasonable explanation why. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 22:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I believe the article should be deleted for several reasons. Firstly, 'British-India Holocaust' is a neologism that breaks WP:NPOV. One could argue that the sources used by the article mean that 'British-India Holocaust' isn't a neologism. They do look reliable, but the fact that one source that was listed has been shown to not exist, does make me cast doubt over the rest of the sources listed. Unfortunately, the user who added the sources has not added enough information for me to check the sources, and thus I feel this article does not yet meet WP:V, and as a result does not also meet, imo, WP:N. If someone could verify the rest of the sources listed, that would be excellent. Another reason why I believe this article should not exist is the fact that there is already an article covering the Great Famine of 1876–78, and duplicates of the same subject should not be allowed. I believe the Great Famine of 1876–78 article should be kept at the expense of the British-India Holocaust article, because the Great Famine of 1876–78 one is much more balanced. If the sources used in the B-I article can be verified, I will consider advocating a merge between the B-I and the Great Famine of 1876–78 article. Until that happens, I believe Delete is the appropriate action to be taken against the B-I article. JEdgarFreeman (talk) 10:50, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sree sankara vidyapeetam[edit]

Sree sankara vidyapeetam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable organization. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - It is a notable institution. But article still needs to be improved. --Avinesh Jose  T  06:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Do you know of any reliable sources that discuss this information? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 11:33, 14 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, Chet B. Long // talk // ark // 17:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The site above says that the school is recognized by the government, but I dont think that this alone offers it notability. If reliable sources existed that stated how this school is notable, then this issue would be more clear. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claims of notability or evidence of why it should have an article. In general all schools are recognised by governments, so that doesn't confer notability. Canterbury Tail talk 20:08, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no sources which assert its notability. I don't even see enrolment information which would be used to help to assertain a school's notability usually Computerjoe's talk 23:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with priyanath's comments above. If there is a criterion for inclusion of school then it should be applied equally to California or Kerala. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - senior secondary schools are notable. Indian schools are poorly represented on the Web and we need to be aware of, and avoid, systemic bias. Time should be given for references to be identified from local sources. TerriersFan (talk) 22:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Priyanath. Looks a valid Indian school stub. Expand rather than delete.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Consensus is that all secondary schools, even those without any particular notability or sources, should be kept. Further, I'm concerned about systemic bias here: would these 'delete' !votes happen for a UK high school? But I would like to see those 192 California elementary schools come up on AfD. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    These 'votes' would occur for a UK secondary school where reliable secondary sources aren't available nor is any enrolment information. For all we know, there may only be 100 students in which case it would be deleted (even if it were in the UK or US!). So perhaps it is 'systematic bias', but we can't prove its notability like we could for a Western school. Computerjoe's talk 12:26, 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.  Sandstein  19:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Garvie[edit]

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

non-notable figure. This is someone who aspires to be a racing driver Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 17:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete An autobiography and/or Made-up gibberish. A random earlier version of this page even uses itself as a reference. It seems to mostly be madeup nonsense/an attempt at a sandbox page because of its creator's several unreferenced, random edits to the page which change the subject from a race car driver to a pornographic actor and back again. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Reading the edit history makes me think this article is primarily a coatrack for an attack page. David in DC (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Interestingly, it started out as a puff piece favorable to the subject. So favorable, in fact, that some of its text was a press release with "XXXXX" in several places where important information was not yet filled in. It reads like it might have been self-penned, or penned by the subject's publicist. The editor's user name is similar to the name of the subject's purported team. But it became a place for editors of an opposite opinion to dump unsourced, highly derogatory material. There's an object lesson here somewhere, I'm sure of it. David in DC (talk) 18:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This proposal is sensible and a good interpretation of the facts.
    • Comment This entry in its original form was giving a false impression as to the stature of the subject. On that basis, commerce was conducted and resulted in fraud and could continue to do so. That is the reason why the entry should be a Strong Delete".
  • Speedy delete. Some local feud [13], has no place in Wiki. M0RD00R (talk) 20:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regardless of the motivations of any editors, the article is unsourced and only talks about what he plans to do sometime in the future. If he wins the auto race then maybe write an article on him. Redddogg (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete without all the stupid crap, there is no assertion of notability. JuJube (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing WP:BIO (all counts) and WP:RS (for not having any!) -- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 10:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete vanity--DuckFan88 (talk) 10:22, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe[edit]

Timeline of the Warhammer 40,000 universe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a massive plot repetition with no notability of it's own. It is therefore totally duplicate with the many Warhammer 40,000 articles plot sections, and should therefore be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 18:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Content is not appropriate to Wikipedia but would be appropriate in a specialist wiki. I know there is a W40K one but can't think of it right now. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Due to a large chunk of articles being deleted which had relevant information along the lines of this subject, this needs to stay. Unless of course, you would care to transwiki all this yourself. For a more knowledgeable and relaxed Wikipedia- Nemesis646 (talk) 20:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Synthesis of disparate in-universe sources. Entirely plot summary. Perfect example of what is meant by "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." --EEMIV (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not much I can add to EEMIV's evaluation, except to state that from personal experience GW have freely retconned events in the 40K universe for over twenty years now and that no out-of-universe discussion could possibly be coherent. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 21:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A transiwiki of this stuff would take far less than the 5 days for discussion it will receive here. This article represents plot repetition and information which has no relation to items outside the Warhammer 40K universe. Because of the intellectual property policies of Games workshop, we are unlikely to see significant coverage of this fictional element in sources independent from the subject. The sources cited in the article are wholly owned and published by Games workshop and so cannot be considered independent per the WP:GNG. Delete it. Protonk (talk) 22:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Simply just plot repetition, with no notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to the Warhammer wiki (if it's not already there) and then delete per WP:IINFO Nick Dowling (talk) 10:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for having no real-world context. -- JediLofty UserTalk 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This has been transwikied to the Warhammer 40,000 wikia, thanks to the kind work of Falcorian. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Excessive plot summary arranged in an entirely in-universe way. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Entirely plot summary and in-universe detail with no real-world content. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:30, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no adequate assertion of notability through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. The entire article is pure plot summary and fails WP:NOT#PLOT. sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:33, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orbiter[edit]

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

Article is little more than a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - has potential for expansion. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; article has as Green caterpillar says much potential for expansion. Article is linked by ~70 other articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's concerns are valid about the current incarnation of the article, but I don't think they're valid concerns about the topic; I think there's a lot of room for expansion, which makes this a problem that can be solved through regular editing processes, and thus not a good candidate for deletion. Celarnor Talk to me 17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. massive room for expansion, lots and lots of material available. I'll take a crack tomorrow. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Articles in other Wikipedias show this can be expanded into a long article. That it is now a substub is no reason for deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Valid stub - obviously lots of room for expansion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Exists. Expandable. MediaMob (talk) 21:38, 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 due to notability being asserted in third-party reliable sources (below). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Gibson[edit]

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

Lead singer of a red linked band and writer of one hit for the Dixie Chicks. No other assertations of notability, permanent stub, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if the only role that anyone can find for her is in a redlinked band. Stifle (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She seems to have gotten quite a bit of coverage[14] (including such articles as this, this, this) and has released several albums herself on what appear to be major inde labels. - Icewedge (talk) 20:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a stub. That's how this whole encyclopedia was built, by people starting stubs and others later adding on. Not by fully-developed articles dropping from the sky. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:MUSIC#C1 for the ref's Icewedge supplied.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 02:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as I read it there are no references to the article and as such I say Delete, If someone wishs to put references in the article then I would say to keep, but as the article is now get rid of it. Callelinea (talk) 04:32, 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 Redirect to Short Circuit. Stifle (talk) 17:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny 5[edit]

Johnny 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has no reliable sources and no evidencing notability. Consists wholly of unreferenced trivia and plot reiterated from the Short Circuit and Short Circuit 2 films; this fictional character is protagonist and central plot point for both, and duly covered in each. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No Disassemble!!! Actually, delete redirect to Short Circuit since most of this is covered in the articles on the films. What isn't already covered is trivial and unsourced. DCEdwards1966 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC) - changed to redirect DCEdwards1966 17:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it could actually be entirely possible to create a valid article on this topic. Such an article should contain in-depth information about character development, prop-design, puppetry, voice-acting and impact. This article however, is almost entirely in-universe and adds extremely little beyond plot-points from the two movies. (Still, in an all-out cage match between Johnny 5 and ASIMO, we all know J5 would beat ass.) -Verdatum (talk) 21:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Short Circuit or Short Circuit 2. I fully agree with Verdatum about the possibility of this information suitable for comprising a singular article, but as currently offered the sources fail WP:RS, being rather singular in their content and opinion. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect per MichaelQSchmidt. Sources are not up to snuff. JuJube (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Michael's comments. It's simply plot repetition of the Short Circuit movies, and doesn't need an article to do that. RobJ1981 (talk) 08:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Elabouration. I thought about merging and redirecting the article before bringing to AfD; the problem is that merging the non-trivial information to the film articles will effectively just duplicate the plot already found there. As for redirecting, since this character is the central point of both films, to which would you redirect? Perhaps turn it into a disambiguation page? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 20:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not personally familiar with Johnny 5, but I gather that it's huge in the popular consciousness in the States yet not well-known outside them, so I implore the lot of you to make sure that WP will still be able to tell people what the thing is when this AfD is over.

    Yeah, that's about it. --Kizor 21:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per WP:BEFORE. Neutral on merging; but, such an obvious search term redirecting to the movie seems clear-cut to me. Neier (talk) 16:25, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree with that, but to where should this redirect? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect/delete, don't merge. Or I could say, merge all the encyclopedic content here, which is more or less zero. That's too bad because the subject is notable and would probably make a nice article about a recurring film character with some influence on popular culture and subsequent films. But it's written in-universe without any real content and no sources. So it would be very hard to improve it, and indeed nobody has improved it despite notability and other tags being on it for a long while. It would be easier to start from scratch, which is what someone should do either now or after it gets deleted if they want to help. Wikidemo (talk) 17:37, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I may provide input on behalf of 208.87.54.35 (talk · contribs); I believe that based on the empirical evidence ([15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), she or he !votes to keep the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 23:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per others. This info should be in the film articles, a 3rd article doesn't add anything for wiki readers.Yobmod (talk) 10:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect as so many have explained. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 26 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. Fails WP:CORP. Black Kite 23:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coin-Op Interactive[edit]

Coin-Op Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article has failed to provide verifiable secondary sources to establish notability set forth in WP:CORP. MuZemike (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Kotaku may be the only verifiable secondary source in the bunch, and that could be argued. For the rest, forums are not reliable sources (here), neither are blogs (here, here), neither are articles that mention nothing pertinent about the company itself (http://www.arcadetown.com/panic/game.asp here]), neither are sites which are inaccessible, provided there is no paper equivalent (this one). As far as the numerous non-English sources are concerned, you need a translation of the site into English via Google translator or equivalent (this is the English Wikipedia, of course). Please re-read WP:V for what is generally considered reliable sources. MuZemike (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Due to the fact that marketing of Rocket Riot hasn't started yet, notable media coverage is lacking. Gamespot, for example, also links to the Coin-Op site as official information source of Rocket Riot, just like Kotaku. A company such as Coin-Op which is specialized in concepts and prototypes is something unusual in the games industry, gamesites don't have appropriate spaces reserved for this kind of information. That is the reason why notable and conventional coverage isn't available. Eiersnijer (talk) 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our focus here is on Coin-Op Interactive the company, not Rocket Riot the game (That can be discussed another time), so let's keep on track. The fact is that if there are no verifiable secondary sources available in establishing notability of the company, then the article can be a candidate for deletion. Explaining why reliable sources cannot be found is not an excuse to keep the article. You could certainly transwiki the article to Wikia, which contains information that cannot be necessarily included here. MuZemike (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coin-Op Interactive the company will only be mentioned when Rocket Riot the game is in the news, your point is not a good argument. The information that is currently available about Coin-Op Interactive is true, verifiable and an undeniable addition to Wikipedia. It's sad to see that rules like these exclude the exceptions, as these exceptions are often the more interesting information one is searching for. Eiersnijer (talk) 05:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete So the company's sole claim to noability is a game for which no significant coverage exist because it hasn't yet been released? Doctor, this sounds like a serious case of crystal balling. Montco (talk) 06:21, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Omae[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage and all voice roles listed are minor and secondary parts, with most characters not even notable enough to be listed in their series articles. All ELs links are standard directory links in which almost every voice actor of any licensed series appears. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not not a mirror of ANN, IMBD, or any other voice actor directory listing and this list does nothing more than replicate what those site have. Without reliable sources or significant coverage anywhere about this person, it is likely that this article will never more than it is now. Declined speedy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Zerokitsune. Expansion, not deletion, is the clear remedy... Ranma9617 (talk) 05:06, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judgement Day (album)[edit]

Judgement Day (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not establish notability. Artist does not seem to be notable - there is no entry for "J-Hood". Allmusic's credits for this performer do not suggest notability. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 16:38, 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 keep. Pigman☿ 16:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Washitaw Nation[edit]

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

No notability, its website doesn't exist, it may not even exist Doug Weller (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: See Google:Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah for multiple references across the web. Here is something that might be the group's website. (More mentions include this, this, a Southern Poverty Law Center report on the group, an article about how one of the members of Bela Fleck and the Flecktones was a member, a report on a Beanie Babies scam run by members of the group, a proclamation from the group in support of City University Los Angeles, and a mention in the United Nations Report of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations). That's at least some notability, and evidence of existence. -Moorlock (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Medium Keep. An odd group. A Lexis-Nexis Academic search, excluding blogs, for "Washitaw Nation" turned up 11 articles (Mostly AP, a few Sunday Express and Africa News) around 2000 to 2002. Most of the articles have to do with their involvement in tax fraud in the US. Might be a better Merge to other appropriate(?) articles. Still, enough is out there for others(!) to expand the article. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Based on Quartermaster and Moorlock reasons. If I could verify the claim of the UNited Nations recognition I would say a STRONG KEEP.

Callelinea (talk) 04:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expand rationale. The existence of this group is not in doubt. It has been covered in reliable sources. That is the criteria for inclusion (read those core Wikipedia policies if you don't believe me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 22:02, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fat Resistance Diet[edit]

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

Non-notable diet book that fails WP:BK. Created by and most content by a two WP:SPAs with WP:COI-sounding names (Foodguy (talk · contribs), Fatresistancediet (talk · contribs)) and two others who edit almost exclusively articles related to the author (e.g. his son (who helped with the book) and his other son's film). Precious Roy (talk) 16:24, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marathon training[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:NOTHOWTO. It would require a complete rewrite to not be a manual, but even then any other information can already be found at Marathon. SmashvilleBONK! 15:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOT Mayalld (talk) 15:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Wiki isn't a how-to guide. Calor (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, despite the fact that it is apparently well-researched and cited. It's just not appropriate for this project; Wikibooks might be better.  Frank  |  talk  16:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a how-to. Transwikification to Wikibooks is also an acceptable option, and anyone who wants to do that is welcome to contact me for the text if this is deleted. Stifle (talk) 19:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikibooks. Deleting it without transwikiing it would be a bad idea, since it's well-written and cited, but it doesn't belong here. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:24, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BluePay[edit]

BluePay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete non-notable company per WP:CORP very spammy, and referenced only from press releases Mayalld (talk) 15:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep company page. Per WP:CORP press release are valid secondary sources for references Xastyanax (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Press releases are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. However, weak keep as what's there seems to establish notability. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Press releases do not establish notability, because they are generated in-house. This is a jargon laden article about a non-consumer tech services business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:03, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself isn't written in a terribly spammy fashion. I guess I have seen far worse, but there is nothing to indicate notability. Have any legitimate business or tech publications profiled the firm? I would suspect not. Montco (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 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 a3, no substantive content, just a facebook link. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duh beauty[edit]

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

This would have to be a transinternet to urban dictionary. It's a...neologism, I guess. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:03, 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 speedily deleted (G1) by Angusmclellan. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phelps in a pool[edit]

Phelps in a pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete as a Neologism. NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 14:59, 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 after discounting the various antics of new and anonymous contributors.  Sandstein  19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Salisbury[edit]

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

This person is non-notable. The sporting achievements are minor, the modeling claims are questionable, and the opening claim of being a nutritionist is unsubstantiated other than by an, as yet, unpublished book (also subject to an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet). Poltair (talk) 14:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Thank you, Poltair, for regularising this additional nomination. This person is not notable, the sources aren't reliable, his achievements aren't important, and I don't much care how long his commute is. It all just reads like advertising puffery for his book. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do NOT Delete The harlon Hill finalist is bigger than any all-american list. There are college athletes that have this title and only this title with wikipeida articles.This list alone qualifies him as the ELITE. Again, the sourced article here will tell you where and how long he played pro football. Male Super Model: ***Comment The harlon Hill finalist alone qualifies him:

1. Harlon Hill Finalist: http://www.harlonhill.com/Archives/candidates_by_team.htm 2. Hall of Fame Collegiate Player: http://www.wsc.edu/athletics/football/archives/passing/ 3. All-American Quarterback, Pro-Football Player with Helsinki Giants, and Prague Panthers: http://www.palomar.edu/athletics/football/history/ 4. IMDB Actor for Promise me this: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2086154/ 5. Filands sexiest male and male super model: http://www.paparazzi.fi/ 6. Google Brett Salisbury at the news tab, go to all dates on left...the articles are endless on this guy! TheWizard49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As previously discussed at the Transform Diet nomination: 1) Being a finalist for a comparatively minor college football trophy is not notable. 2) Whose Hall of Fame? If it's just one college, that's not notable. 3) Whose all-American listing? Is that notable? 4) The IMDB entry shows that this film is the only one by its production company, that the director also wrote the screenplay, and that virtually none of the actors even have a photograph online. It looks like a non-notable production. 5) I'm not convinced that's a notable achievement or a reliable source. 6) Oh yeah? AlexTiefling (talk) 15:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Addendum OK, so I forgot to click 'all dates' in Google. This stuff just appears to be local press coverage of his college career, though. 'Brett Salisbury gets passing grade'? Spare me, please. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My final comment on this matter: Many articles are written in finnish and Czech, You need to verify that. Every tab on the bottom (Mormon Missionaries, Wayne State College, Brigham Young Cougars, Nutritionists etc) qualify him as he was a member of each. This cannot be denied. Whether it's big or small in your eyes, the articles written ALL verify this. Again the All-American list of JC Gridwire is an elite group. The male model articles are again in italian and Finnish. Find a way to translate those and go from there. Take care. I'm done with this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't speak a word of Finnish, and my Italian is rusty at best. Simplly having his article listed in a series of Wikipedia categories is neither a claim to verifiability, nor notability. Not every Mormon missionary is notable. He's only regarded as a nutritionist (as noted in the nomination) because of his unpublished book. I belong to a couple of dozen Wikipedia categories, but none of that makes me notable. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No offense Mr.Brit but you havn't quite got the resume as Mr. Salisbury! Don't over due it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe you can dispute the claim or attack the credibility of Brett Salisbury. However, the book the tranform diet needs to be removed. I agree. It's not on shelves. However everything he has done and has been verified is noteworthy. I see he has been on the list for 3 years. The transform diet was recent. Vote to remove transform diet, but leave Brett Salisbury —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin additional deletion discussion regarding this article can be found at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Transform_diet (relocated from the main deletion discussion as being off-topic). -Verdatum (talk) 17:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a fairly signifigant cleanup of the article for WP:BLP. I cannot see establishment of notability either as a sports star or as an author, as per WP:BIO. All I see are runner-up standings and minor awards. -Verdatum (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Concerned about the lack of references for his sporting and modeling achievements - many of them do not link to anything relevant (and the readers poll for a local newspaper is not an appropriate reference). Also concerned about the EFAF Cup. I'm not American, or otherwise have much knowledge of American Football, but Wikipedia says EFAF is only the "... second highest level of club competition ...". This seems way down the ladder of notability: America -> Europe -> Europe 2nd league. This guy has obviously done a lot of things in his life, I'm just not sure how notable (aka Wikipedia notability) they are individually. An article should be able to explain to someone like me (i.e. someone with little knowledge of football, which is his main claim to fame) why the guy is notable (and I should be able to verify the claims). At the moment, it does not do this. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Verdatum. Stifle (talk) 19:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per AlexTiefling. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of football also-rans in the U.S. If this person was notable as major contributors to the article claim, there would be sources to back it up. Movingboxes (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting News On Salisbury: According to International Football Scouting Report online by Professional Scout Ken Robinson, he says "Here are the TOP 10 Paid Players of All Time in Europe: #1 Estrus Crayton #2 Xavier Crawford #3 Tony Rice #4 Brett Salisbury #5 Tom Young #6 Ron Lopez #7 Petrus Pankki #8 Sammi Alalammpi #9 Damon Huard #10 Jeff Loot

Please go to: http://www.leaguelineup.com/guestbook.asp?url=ifs-scouting&sid=859417480 Of this list Tony Rice was Heisman Trophy finalist in college, Sammi Alalammpi played for the NFL Europe Barcelona Dragons and was Salisbury's receiver. The article also says Salisbury was First Team all-Europe in 1995 Quarterback and player of the year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • That link just leads to a forum post from a guy called 'ken', who doesn't sign his posts, and whose email address proclaims that he's a '24/7 sports fan'. No evidence to suggest that the poster is a professional scout; and even if he were, a forum post is not a reliable source. Frankly, American football in Europe is hardly a notable sport at all! AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The NFL Europe was hardly a notable sport in Europe? Wrong! 7 players per team in Europe each played in the NFL of America. What are you talking about AlexTiefling? The EFAF is an affiliate of that league. YOu need to get your facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not true Alextiefling, Ken Robinson is the IFSB Pro Player Personnel director and is a scout for the CFL Ottawa Renegades. And continues to scout for Pro and other colleges. Again, you don't follow through with all your facts Alex. Go to this page, He is the second person listed with all Ken Robinson's creditals: http://www.indoorfootballscoutingbureau.20m.com/custom.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.15 (talk) 17:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another interesting note on Salisbury: he dated the countries most famous beauty queen, Miss Finland of 1991, Tanja Vienonen, who is now known as Tanja Karpela. Who now seems to be a very prominant politican in Finland. They claim she was our equivalent of Cindy Crawford. Every finnish report confirms this as does the magazine (Seitseman Paiva) http://www.seiska.fi/ In my opinion any guy who would date Cindy Crawford of their country is definately notable. Salisbury Confirms this on his site transformdiet.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have no source for that. Ms Karpela appears to have been married twice, and to have a fairly well-documented and public love-life. Can you find any coverage at all in a reliable news source or other independent location - preferably in English, French or Swedish, so I can read it? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incidentally after dating Tanja Karpela. Salisbury was named as Finlands Sexiest Male according to www.seiska.fi/ To put this in perspective. George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Johnny Depp are Americas sexiest males previous winners. Salisbury was the entire country of Finland's in 1996...That is pretty damn notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously - America is not comparable to Finland. To be acclaimed the sexiest man in Finland is not the same magnitude of recognition as to be acclaimed the sexiest man in the USA. (Likewise for 'Tanja Karpela is Finland's Cindy Crawford'.) There are more than twice as many people in Salisbury's home state of Ohio as in the whole of Finland. And the opinion of some website as to who (this week, or month, or whatever) is the Sexiest $Gender in $Location is not in itself notable or reliable. Such sources change their minds at a whim; it's pure promotional puffery. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of AlexTiefling's opinion, he continues to use "promotional puffery" statement. ALEXTIEFLING IS NOT FROM THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and his opinion continues to bash Americans. He cannot be taken seriously. No body on here can deny the success of salisbury regardless of what country he or she is from or AlexTiefling's future opinions on this subject. He has never had a positive thing to say, check out each of his wiki debates. His opinion holds little value and water and in his latest opinion above only proves the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 16:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Salisbury, I agree with the user above. I'm not someone who comments on people but after reading this entire log and looking at the person, Brett Salisbury is a notable person. I would also nominate user ALEXTIEFLING to be removed as an editor from this page. He seems that no matter what is proven, it's not good enough. NOMINATE TO REMOVE ALEXTIEFLING FROM THIS WIKI DISCUSSION —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've travelled extensively in the United States, and no-one who knows me would call me anti-American. But that's not the point. This isn't (or shouldn't be) about my personal attributes. I'm using the expression 'advertising puffery' and its derivatives because I believe it to be a factually accurate characterisation of the claims being made. I don't think that this individual meets Wikipedia's notability criteria, and I don't think your sources are reliable. You can't nominate me for removal from this discussion; if you really think I should be banned from Wikipedia, go right ahead and report me on the Administrators' Noticeboard. I think you might find that course of action counter-productive, though. My argument here remains consistent: Brett Salisbury is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, and here's why:
  1. He didn't win the award he was nominated for. The award is notable, but failing to win it isn't.
  2. I can't find any confirmation that his 'All-American' status was promoted or endorsed above a regional or even college-specific level - which would seem to be a basic point for its acceptance. In any case, it's argued above by a 'keep' supporter that this is less notable than nomination for the Harlon Hill prize, which as I've argued, isn't itself a notable achievement.
  3. His status as 'Finland's sexiest man' is neither verified, nor reliable, nor objective.
  4. His relationship with Ms Karpela is not substantiated.
  5. Second-division American football in Europe is not a notable sporting activity, at least in my opinion; if my expertise on the US is doubted, at least let me comment on Europe.
  6. His book on dietetics is unpublished, and thus ipso facto not (yet) notable. It may very well remain so after publication.
  7. This debate (and the related one on the diet he promotes) has been characterised by ad hominem attacks, apparent conflicts of interest, overstated hype, and the appearance of sockpuppetry.

AlexTiefling (talk) 17:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Brett Salisbury, everything is substantiated. I went on to look up Salisbury and since he was a kid winning in the world series until now. I also went on the sites above and was able to google salisbury in the finnish magazine seistamen paiva. There are clearly over 40 articles and sub articles obtainting to this including his relationship with MS. Karpela as she is quoted as saying 'Brett was a great guy and I wish him all the best" Source: www.seiska.fi/

I too nominate to Remove ALEXTIEFLING from Wikipedia. He is a pest and does not help the wikipedia community. Salisbury has done more than half the male models listed in wikipedia. Go verify that. I just did —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I remind User:168.12.253.66 not to indulge in name-calling? AlexTiefling seems to be being civil in their arguments; there's no call to go making these sort of comments. Pseudomonas(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is not about Salisbury being an Author, ALEXTIEFLING needs to remove that argument. This is about Salisbury being notable. HE IS. It also states in the articles in Europe Salisbury made over $125K per year. THATS NOTABLE AS A PROFESSIONAL ATHLETE. If you can't read finnish, you can't comment on what has been said ALEXTIEFLING, go get a translator!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if an independent Finnish-speaker is willing to give up some time to this matter, I'd love to hear what these Finnish sites say. However, a search of seiska.fi for the name 'Salisbury' produced no hits. '0', at least, is the same in English and in Finnish. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just searched Google for '"Brett Salisbury" Tanja'; I got seven hits. All the relevant ones are Wikipedia and its mirrors. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't think that notability has really been established. Also, the article is rife with weasel words (though this in itself is an argument for cleanup rather than deletion) Pseudomonas(talk) 18:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - It looks like it does need a clean up. However Salisbury is notable. ALEXTIEFLING doesn't seem credible. Remove him —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.238.173.38 (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What process for removing me were you intending to apply? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but that user has not contributed to the past 5 entries! Remove ALEXTIEFLING. Keep Salisbury and his brother they both are celebrities

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk)

    • Has anyone proposed removing Sean Salisbury? As a TV presenter and NFL player, he's clearly notable; I would defend the retention of his article if the question were raised. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will observe the absence of the page Alex Tiefling (also of ALEXTIEFLING). What do you mean "the past 5 entries"? Pseudomonas(talk) 18:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, while I'm at it, should one draw any conclusions from the phenomenon that all the anonymous editors are afflicted with the same curious idiosyncrasy of spelling "ALEXTIEFLING" in upper-case? Pseudomonas(talk) 19:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP -I watched Salisbury play against the London Monarchs in the early 90's in England. He was fabulous and MVP of the game. Keep Salisbury, he is more than notable. Remove the hatr ALEXTIEFLING. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.157.110.11 (talk) 18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is MVP in a single match a claim of notability? Is it a transferable standard? Or is it just more unsourced opinion? Again, what procedure should be followed to remove me? And what is a 'hatr'? AlexTiefling (talk) 18:54, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
teh hatr. HTH Pseudomonas(talk) 18:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sudden onslaught of anonymous IP's voting both to keep and remove "ALEXTIEFLING" always spelled in all caps (removing an editor is not even something that can be done here) and always neglecting to sign their comments strongly suggests either Sockpuppetry or Meatpuppetry. I hope that any all all involved realize that this is a discussion to gauge concensus, not a vote, and that closing administrators are clever enough to notice these sort of patterns and dismiss them when forming conclusions. Those wishing the article be kept would do better to spend their time improving the article or improving their arguments to match policies and guidelines than to spend time attempting an attack on dissenting editors. -Verdatum (talk) 19:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think everyone needs to relax. He is defintely notable. Take into consideration most of the attributes salisbury had were pre-internet days. Therefore many things in English are tough to get, especially if the guy fell out of the spotlight after (it looks) like 1997. Knowing this, one cannot say he is not notable, simply that he HASN'T BEEN notable since 97. But that he did EARN everything up to that point. Call him a one or two hit wonder, but he still made the news in more than one way. For that reason and after everything I have read. KEEP him, but remove Transform Diet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.145.244.77 (talk) 19:59, 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 Merge to Schools of Kansas City#Elementary schools (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banneker Elementary Science and Technology Magnet School[edit]

Banneker Elementary Science and Technology Magnet School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable school, nowhere/nothing to merge. Wizardman 14:47, 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) 16:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tower Grove, St. Louis[edit]

Tower Grove, St. Louis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A "Tower Grove" district does not exist in St. Louis. The two neighborhoods mentioned, Tower Grove East and Tower Grove South do exist, but are not part of a greater district. Attempt to contact author for evidence of the district's existence failed to garner a response. Millbrooky (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources to prove existence are shown. If they are shown, merge to neighborhoods of St. Louis, as the article as it stands is a substub that provides no useful information. Stifle (talk) 19:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The neighborhoods it supposedly encompasses already have stub articles. I doubt anything unique can be said here that is not applicable to the components. Further, if it is indeed not an official neighborhood this article is inappropriate. --Polaron | Talk 18:09, 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 No consensus. Ty 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armando Romero[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:RS. Wizardman 14:34, 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. In the time after the last "delete" opinion was submitted, the article has been substantially expanded. The subsequent discussion has unanimously come to the agreement that the amount of media coverage dedicated to this subject, and the length of the period of time over which that coverage occurred, distinguishes the subject from a typical WP:BLP1E case. The decision to keep this article does not rule out its conversion into an article about the event rather than the person, if editorial consensus exists to support such a renaming and/or rewriting.

With respect to the contribution of Jimbo Wales, who is in the minority in this case, I assume that he meant to express his opinion on the subject in an editorial capacity, rather than in his capacity of founder (in which capacity he could have deleted the article outright or otherwise enforced his appraisal of the situation). I refrain, therefore, from assigning any particular weight to his opinion in the closure of this discussion.  Sandstein  18:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tjandamurra O'Shane[edit]

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

This article appears to violate WP:BLP1E. It is about a private person who is known (and not that widely) only as the victim of a single incident. A Google search on "Tjandamurra O'Shane" gets only 354 hits, and many of those are on WP clones. Donald Albury 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This "private person" gave his most recent media interview just days ago [24]. As I said during the last AfD, "notable and received lots of media coverage at the time. Requires expansion, not deletion." -- Longhair\talk 14:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: "The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry." - so the fact that he was interviewed does not in any way imply that we should have an article about him. He's still notable only for one event.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But also in BLP1E it refers to someone who "essentially remains a low-profile individual". Recent interviews with major news outlets hardly support that. the wub "?!" 14:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Jimmy and Donald rightly identify this is a WP:BLP1E case; we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way. I'd be open to persuasion abut a redirect to an article on racism and aboriginals (apologies if that's not PC, no offence intended), if one exists, that is certainly a valid topic, but this is just tabloid aggregation and we really should be better than that. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP1E. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Possible Merge to an appropriate article on Aborigines. I concur that this is classic WP:BLP1E case - there is no indication of any coverage of this individual other than for this one event. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A quick search using some keywords doesn't really show anything this could be merged into, and per WP:ONEEVENT shouldn't be on the encyclopedia. The 'expected result' of the last AfD per the event newswise obviously hasn't happened.--MattWT 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With great respect to the earlier comments, this was not an ordinary injury victim. People are involved in accidents and injuries all the time, which make the news but are not worthy of remembering. I understand that reasoning. However, most Australian people know of Tjandamurra O'Shane. I'm sure there's racial incidents all the time in every country, but this one struck the Australian populace because it became a poignant example of a racial attack against innocence. The incident touched the nation, and the nation followed Tjandamurra's progress for years. I didn't have anything to do with the article, and just came across it on the AfD list, but still, more than 12 years after the event I remember Tjandamurra O'Shane. It's an event that meant something to Australia, even if it means nothing to the rest of the world. If anything, the article is too short and should be expanded. If you described a Los Angeles guy called Rodney who was a taxi driver and also the victim of a racial attack, on that evidence alone you'd say delete it. But when it means something to a nation, you keep it.--Lester 22:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Then where are the citations to reliable sources explaining and discussing the significance of this incident? While Google searches are poor tools for assessing notability and significance, the paucity of non-Wikipedia derived Google hits about the subject of the article indicates to me that the incident may have made a big splash in the news at the time, but has no enduring encyclopedic merit that justifies the existence of an article about the victim in Wikipedia. -- Donald Albury 23:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • re: Comment - Most of the major Australian media organisations only began putting their content online after 2001. It's actually difficult to search for anything before then. The Courier Mail, the main newspaper for Brisbane and Queensland, keeps a list of the top events to occur in North Queensland during history, and the 1996 event surrounding Tjandamurra O'Shane is listed prominently. (Link: Courier Mail).--Lester 23:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • ARTICLE IMPROVED - Just noting the point where I have made some improvements to the article, with new references.--Lester 01:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I claim some authorship of this article. Tjandamurra's 18th birthday was considered national news - [25]. The Education Department compiled a report into risk and security in schools a month after the incident - [26]. The Law Institute of Victoria had a comment about the compensation available to him - [27]. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep more than just a BLP1E. Most major media outlets in Australia covered his 18th birthday, 12 years after the initial event. This pretty much proves the national significance of the initial event. This isn't some long forgotten crime, this is a crime that horrified a nation and is therefore of encyclopedic value. RMHED (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - But no doubt because of the original event. Follow up stories, birthday wishes, and such do not assert notability.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This goes beyond WP:ONEEVENT. Aside from the horrific attack, Tjandamurra has a famous aunt and was also given the gift of a world title belt by a world champion boxer [28]. WWGB (talk) 00:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Having a famous aunt does not assert notability in the smallest way, and being given the belt is because of the burning. This still applies under WP:ONEEVENT in my view with a stretch, but definitely does not pass notability. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not a WP:ONEEVENT as per Richard Cavell, RMHED and WWGB hsve said. Bidgee (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The random attack on a 6-year old Aboriginal boy is notable through being profoundly significant in Australia, and in the field of indigenous/European relations. The attack and Tjandamurra are indistinguishable. Wikipedia could not carry an article about the attack without it being an article about Tjandamurra. I have added a little extra information with appropriate citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There should not be an individual article on the attack at all, Wikinews is for that. I would support a merge with any article you can find however that deals with Indigenous and European relations.. --MattWT 04:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - This remark makes no sense, Wikinews is for recent news, not historical events.--Grahame (talk) 07:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment As I mentioned in the previous AfD, O'Shane was one of Who Weekly magazine's most beautiful people of 1996. --Canley (talk) 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Per WP:ONEEVENT 'If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted'. Are there any sources that refer to him not because of what happened to him in the fire, or directly related to it? Non trivial coverage would support the articles existance in the long run, not just to save an article that may be deleted in the future. --MattWT 04:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To MattWT, I realise you've only been at Wikipedia for a few days, but it would help if you posted comments in the order that you make them, and not keep changing your comments later. Thanks,--Lester 07:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The amount of attention recieved at the time and continuing to this day makes this a clearly notable event. Where else should it be placed? Perhaps we should go with one of our typically ridiculous titles like 1996 Indigenous Australian child combustion incident? It's all very well saying things like "we should not be hanging millstones round people's necks in this way" - but it's not us who did that. We can't magic away the overwhelming media coverage. the wub "?!" 09:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with due respect to those who are saying "delete because of BLP1E", I'm going to have to disagree. The attack on O'Shane generated truly staggering coverage at the time, and the fact that he's still getting coverage in notable sources only underlines his notability. Saying that the article should be deleted because it all stems from one event is like saying that Phan Thị Kim Phúc should be deleted because all of her notability came from a single event. While it may technically meet the BLP1E definitions, I really don't think that cases like this one were what the community had in mind with that particular policy. As long as the material in the article is well sourced and uncontroversial (which, as far as I can see, it is), I don't see any problem with the retention of this article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Per Lester, Donald Albury, Richard Cavell, RMHED, Dolphin51, the wub, etc. We do have articles on these folks (see Jessica McClure, for instance) and if Janda stops doing interviews and registers concern of privacy we can re-evaluate what needs to be here. One event concerns are valid as most minors don't have a lot of notable things going on. He's apparently a performing indigenous dancer so it could help to add sections to the article to help differentiate and organize the material. The sources are under utilized, IMHO, especially the recent interviews with him. Banjeboi 09:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How did I get on that list? I nominated this article, and still support its deletion. -- Donald Albury 11:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. My bad, zigged when I meant to zag. Banjeboi 12:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I welcome Jimmy's suggestion that the policy be clarified, but not so that "things like this" can be speedy deleted. WP:BIO1E mentions those involved with "a particular relatively unimportant crime" – a pretty wishy-washy statement, and one that I don't think applies here. I don't agree that WP:NOTNEWS applies to an individual known to millions of Australians over twelve years after the event. --Canley (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Yes, he is notable primarily for one event but it was an event that made international attention and the fact that it is still being followed up 14 years later demonstrates the high degree of notability associated with the matter. Moreover, the fact that now as an adult he is giving interviews demonstrates that he doesn't have a large amount of concern or extreme desire for privacy so such arguments do not hold water in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep WP:BLP1E is regularly abused and misinterpreted to mean "delete any article for any person whose notability can be traced backed to a single event, regardless of anything else that has occurred in their life", and this selective misuse of policy is only further perpetuated here. While initial notability stemmed from a single incident, O'Shane's continuing coverage in the media, backed by independent reliable and verifiable sources, clearly meets the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Even for those who believe BLP1E is a valid justification to not have an article for O'Shane, the refusal to follow BLP1E's guidance and renaming the article -- "In such cases, a redirect or merge are usually the better options. Cover the event, not the person." -- is only further evidence that the policy is being abused. Alansohn (talk) 16:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (consider renaming if feasible.) The racially motivated crime here caused a huge outcry, and the attention caused by this makes the event encyclopedic. For other examples, consider the Rodney King case, and the 2005 murder of an African 12-year old at Holmlia which is covered in the general purpose encyclopedia Store norske leksikon. If BLP1E is the concern (I am fairly ambivalent to this, on one hand I can understand the problem of victim->notable, on the other hand this person has been covered for a long time since the event, and given a spot in an Olympic torch relay as well), renaming the article to cover the event is a better option than outright deletion. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. It was never established that this was a racially-motivated attack. Streeton never revealed his motive, only saying that he had been planning to burn someone since Year 2 because he had been bullied at school. [29] WWGB (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The crime perpetrated against Tjandamurra caused a very large public reaction in Australia and was very prominent front page news at the time. Since then there have been regular reports on Tjandamurra's progress in the media. Whether this crime was racially motivated or not it is worthy of keeping simply for its original and continuing significance in Australia and in Queensland in particular. Jenafalt (talk) 11:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. Even if it did apply, BLP1E is not grounds for deletion. It specifically states that we should "cover the event, not the person" if the subject meets other criteria for inclusion. Continuing coverge over more than a decade and events such as the benefit concert clearly demonstrate notability. No policy-based reasons for deletion have been presented or supported. Jim Miller See me | Touch me 13:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to the event per WP:BLP1E. Not sure why so many people (including those who should know better) think BLP1E supports deletion. Jclemens (talk) 03:23, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a number of editors have suggested renaming, which I can see might be a compromise, but so far there have been no suggestions as to a better title than the current one (except my somewhat fatuous suggestion). Any ideas? the wub "?!" 12:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree if there were some great new name a move might seem reasonable but the objections all stemmed from concerns of BLP and much if not most of teh current information would likely be kept. Banjeboi 22:24, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, but the BLP1E and BIO1E concerns are meritless. 11 years later, last week, this guy has major media exposure, with photos, looking back on the event at his 18th birthday. Per WP:NOT#NEWS "Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic." 11 year later followups would not exist without the event, but these articles extend beyond merely recounting the event--they cover his 18th birthday, current state, enduring effects of the injuries, and basically revisit him as a person. All evidence is that this event was suitably notable in Australia that it makes news 11 years later. Fundamentally, I don't care whether it's called an event and includes some info on the gentleman's bio, or his bio and includes info on his event. We have WP:RS for all of it and no compelling reason to not cover it. Jclemens (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Either as an article on the event or on the individual. The extensive coverage over such a period of time persuades me that we should have an article on this and goes beyond a WP:BLP1E for me. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it similar to Crispus Attucks: "Little is known for certain about Attucks other than that he was killed in the Boston Massacre." Or Matthew Shepard. The fact that he was attacked by a bigot is not really notable, but the response that he got is notable and makes him notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:07, 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 redirect to University of Windsor. PhilKnight (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Windsor Students' Alliance[edit]

University of Windsor Students' Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable student organization; these are usually covered in the university article unless they are notable enough for their own article, and certainly this stub does not show notability. A recreation of a previously deleted article. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 18:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, it's inherently notable, otherwise we wouldn't have Categories such as Ontario students' associations, or Canadian students associations. Me-123567-Me (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not saying that student associations can't be notable, just that many aren't. Let's remove the cruft, and then see if we still need the categories. Brianyoumans (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it needs context / some major work. In context its a major university, it can be cited per RS and is generally notable. -- Tawker (talk) 05:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, unless there is something else to say than "it exists", otherwise it is just another student's association as any (?) university has - Nabla (talk) 18:55, 17 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, Wizardman 13:59, 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 any merging is an editorial matter best discussed here (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ojamajo Doremi characters[edit]

List of Ojamajo Doremi characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also listcruft and fancruft concerns. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Munuza[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also has very questionable notability as a historical figure even if verified. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a reference in good faith, based upon the Reference in Pelagius of Asturias. 8th century moorish history is not a terribly common topic of discussion on the web, so proper research should be done in a well stocked university library. I see no reason to doubt this content. The Spanish Wikipedia entry goes into greator detail, but is also woefully unreferenced. -Verdatum (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Verifiability is not the major issue. Yes, someone needs to do the hard work, but most of the material given is verifiable, if carefully expressed. As to notoriety, his historical role is as foil/inspiration to the uprising of Pelayo with significant geo-political implications. The events themselves are notable, but whether Munuza himself merits a page of his own on this basis is more of a judgment call. Agricolae (talk) 19:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The complaint is that it is unverified, not that it is unverifiable (i.e. rubbish). I have no idea whether the subject was or was not notable, but the article reads as if it is based on reliable sources. It needs some one who is familiar with early medieval Spanish history (which I am not) to improve it and supply the necessary references. By all measn tag for attention by an expert, but there are no grounds for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no time limit for cleanup and the article asserts notability and has an independant reference. Edward321 (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has Spanish, Italian and French versions as well strongly suggesting notability. French version is independent and will be linked soon. Tom (talk) 16:25, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lee (Snr)[edit]

Thomas Lee (Snr) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also very close to an A7 speedy as notability is questionable if it even exists. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Lack of references, and possibly non-notable. JoshuaD1991 (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or include the information in a footnote at his sons' articles. Rename Thomas Lee (1756 — 1836), as he is himself the son of a Thomas Lee. The formula NN (dates) is a standard for biographical entries in dictionaries and encyclopedia entries, which only our amateurism dismisses at Wikipedia. I have placed less-than-notable father in footnotes of his sons' articles, as an example of how to deal with such marginal figures. No information will be lost if this article is now deleted.--Wetman (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Wetman's elegant solution. --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no claim to be notable --T-rex 19:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable himself. add ing info to sons articles should be done if important, but that if for the articles editors to decide.Yobmod (talk) 10:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after following Wetman's solution. The article says he's a "minor architect", not major enough to be here.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  19:21, 26 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). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Belle Province (restaurant)[edit]

La Belle Province (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also unclear what, if anything, makes this restaurant notable. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • KeepFor one, it's well known enough to inspire knock-offs. -Oreo Priest talk 15:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 45 locations by 1997, still sifting through sources for a more recent number. It gets 33 results with a very specific query on Lexis-Nexis ("La Bell Province" + fast-food + quebec) and appears to have been part of two major court cases (one of which is alluded to in the article but not covered fully). Sourcing and notability are there, but there is a language barrier and it's hard to search for sources since La Bell Province is an oft-used nickname for Quebec. --Rividian (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Up to 125 locations now, due to confusing ownership. Bonus: The National Post calls the franchise "Montreal's McDonald's". --Rividian (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Unreferenced" does not mean "non-notable". Circeus (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, but verifiability is required as well as notability for inclusion. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has now been verified, unless you're disputing the sources I've added. --Rividian (talk) 17:20, 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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinito[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. References are hard to find due to a lot of irrelevant Google results. Might also be viable to redirect to a relevant article about cannabis. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unsourced and some of the information does not make sense. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge with Cannabis with reliable sources per WP:NEO - article itself calls it a neologism, and doesn't back it up with sources (none could be found via a google search). --MattWT 22:02, 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 on notability per WP:PORNBIO (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 20:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Faith[edit]

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

Non notable porn actress, has done nothing notable, doesn't appear to have won any significant awards, or started any new 'trends' JoshuaD1991 (talk) 13:33, 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 merge/redirect to Argyria#Reports in humans (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Karason[edit]

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

Procedural nom for an IP. Contested prod, rationale for deletion was:

Media coverage seems to be nothing to do with the subject, and everything to do with turning blue - little more than another "man bites dog" story (WP:NOT#NEWS). That the article is verifiable does not by necessity mean that this person is notable. We're not short of an article on people turning blue, and the sources would suggest that historically this was not uncommon (albeit not to this degree). This article does not contribute to "the sum of human knowledge". Closedmouth (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral as nominator, my nomination should not be taken as a vote for deletion. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redirect to Argyria#Reports in humans. He is already mentioned there, as well as several sources including. Adding the additional sourced material should be fine. Turlo Lomon (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Turlo Lomon. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone can do an editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. No scope for a personal article. JFW | T@lk 19:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per Turlo Lomon. When the article is about the condition, write about the condition, not the person. Stifle (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His disease is notable (and already has an entry) but he is not. He's just a by-stander to a notable condition, but otherwise is not involved with it. 216.121.230.246 (talk) 22:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although, in this condition, I would vote for a merge/redirect, I think it actually has a bit of potential for information about the person himself. As for the discussion seeking deletion because the article focuses mostly on his affliction, how often do we delete actors articles for talking too much about filmography... wouldn't that belong on the movie page? Mroduner (talk) 06:03, 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 No consensus to delete. Black Kite 23:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Blair (senior)[edit]

Leo Blair (senior) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability is, by practice and precedent, not automatically conferred on the parents (or spouses, or children etc) of notable people, and Wikipedia is not obliged to describe their largely unremarkable lives. Suggest redirect to Tony Blair, where any useful information herein is already available. Deiz talk 12:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and redirect to Tony Blair. Leo hasn't done anything noteworthy (being the father of someone notable doesn't make you notable). TJ Spyke 17:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. Long-standing consensus is that non-notable relatives of notable people should be mentioned in the notable person's article. Stifle (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable as the father of Tony Blair and a significant influence on his early life. Just the tenuous connection between The Daily Worker and today's Labour Party is noteworthy. Socialism, imagine that! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...he worked as a copy boy on the Communist Party newspaper The Daily Worker". That = notability? You did read the article? So you're suggesting that anyone who has fathered (or even "influenced") a notable person, or who has worked as the most junior of copywriters on a niche publication deserves their own Wikipedia article? Bizarre, certainly the weakest interpretation of notability guidelines I've come across in a long, long time. Deiz talk 04:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you accept that Tony Blair is notable? If he is notable, then the reasons for why he holds his particular set of political viewpoints are notable. The influence of political attitudes within the home during childhood is generally accepted (admittedly probably not on Wikipedia) as being a significant factor in the biographical history of politicians. The fact that Tony was raised by someone who's youthful connection to the Daily Worker (and assumedly an acceptance of its editorial stance, even if they didn't get to write the editorials themselves) changed to the Tory party over time is certainly relevant to the broad picture of Blair. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO has nothing to do with a parent "influencing" their child. If you believe this should be included in WP:BIO, by all means propose an addition in the relevant place. However, as the legislation currently stands, Leo Blair entirely fails the Wikipedia measures of notability. If you don't like WP:BIO, or just flat-out disagree with it, then say so, but please don't continue to make these convoluted, fallacious arguments that completely ignore the very well established measures of notability on Wikipedia. Even if these events in the life of his father were in some way influential in Blair's later years, they can quite properly and adequately be mentioned in the Tony Blair article, a fact to which you seem entirely oblivious. I note from your duplicated "keep" vote below that you may have even less experience with deletion discussions than I previously realized. Deiz talk 14:59, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you're such an expert on policy, I won't have to remind you of WP:NOTAVOTE Andy Dingley (talk) 15:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect Would Leo Blair Snr. deserve an article of his own if Tony had died at birth? Nope. SP-KP (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC) (see revised opinion below) SP-KP (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tony didn't, therefore your argument is a fallacy. Blair is notable, the causes of Blair are notable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How many generations do you propose we go back then? SP-KP (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far back as is relevant. If he'd been raised by great-grandparents on a diet of Marx & Milton, we'd wish to record that. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we would, but in the article about Tony Blair (or if we find enough material, perhaps in an article entitled "family influences on Tony Blair). SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must agree with Andy, his influence on Tony makes him notable. And it's also interesting how despite that, he was a Tory! Computerjoe's talk 23:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urge closing admin to ignore the vague "keep" votes above which make no reference to policy or practice, are unsupported by reliable sources, and rely on vague notions of "influence". Any opinion which starts with "Notable as the father of Tony Blair..." has clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability, and how it is applied on Wikipedia. Deiz talk 23:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"clearly been made by an editor unfamiliar with the concept of notability" I'm also familiar with the concept of an ad hominem. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your response could easily be interpreted as rude, and is quite possibly a breach of WP:NPA and certainly WP:CIVIL. Back onto the point, Leo Blair Sr has news articles about him[30][31], which are reliable sources. I realise these probably don't meet the requirements, but there'll be more which a quick Google didn't reveal. Computerjoe's talk 08:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where we do have articles on Prime Ministerial ancestors, e.g. Daniel MacMillan it seems to be because of notability in their own right. Conversely, there aren't articles about non-notable Prime Minsterial parents - e.g. those of Ted Heath or John Major. SP-KP (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Other stuff doesn't exist" isn't a policy. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Come on, Andy, you can't really think that that was my line of reasoning - re-read what I wrote. I was suggesting that based on which ones we have and which we don't, that editors HAVE actually given some thought to whether a particular prime ministerial ancestor deserves their own article or not, and that they've (without exception?) decided that the notability of the individual themselves is the deciding factor. Your explanation - that this is a coincidence - surely isn't a serious one? SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And which policy are you suggesting supports your opinion? Because it is extremely clear in policy and practice that notability is not genetic, which appears to be the sole argument underpinning your position. Deiz talk 01:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if Tony Blair died at birth, Leo Blair (senior) is notable in his own right. Maybe not interesting enough to make me sit down and create the article personally, but certainly more than would oppose an AfD. Is the encyclopedia project better or worse for the existence of this article? It's better than our usual fancruft. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I struck this keep because you already "voted" above, but you are of course free to make further comments. the wub "?!" 11:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm not sure what "fancruft" is, but reading between the lines (well, the letters then) of it, I agree with Andy. Having searched no end of dictionaries of national biography etc (Oxford, American, etc) for additions to my main project and found about a third of the people in them not allegedly "notable" enough for WP (well they are, but nobody's included them), it's clear that our whole venture is skewed. If this bloke, not to mention each and every idiot who appears on Big Brother, is "notable" enough, then Blair Senior, a law lecturer at Durham and author of the book The Commonwealth Public Service (1958, described by the journal Canadian Public Administration (vol 2 issue 4 p. 255, find it via Wiley Interscience) as "an excellent primer on the Australian Federal Public Service") clearly is. Or are we assuming that people's notability diminishes as time goes on? Oolon (talk) 15:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That's better - NOW we have a reason to keep the article; thanks Oolon. How about we direct our energies now at turning the article into something which majors on the genuine reasons for Blair Snr's notability. Nothing wrong with mentioning the biological trivia too, though, of course. No harm in a bit of padding. SP-KP (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another reliable source specifcally about Leo Blair here [32]. The sources specifically about him together with published book mentioned above is in my opinion enough to establish notability - I suspect if we looked further we could find more published work by him (although possibly difficult to find given how long ago) and more articles written about him (although again difficult to find due to the number of times he's mentioned purley as Tony's father). Dpmuk (talk) 19:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. —Computerjoe's talk 11:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Notability is not inherited. Mr. Blair has no accomplishments of any note except with respect to having fathered his more famous son. If the guideline means anything, he isn't notable enough for an article. Getting human interest articles on him in the context of Tony Blair's family doesn't come close to establishing independent notability. RayAYang (talk) 20:09, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Information: I've now been through (via Nexis UK) just about every English language newspaper pre-1985 (which seemed like a reasonable date), plus Who's Who and various other sources, and can find no mention of Leo Blair in them. So I reluctantly conclude that, if he's notable at all, nobody took much notice of him. Oolon (talk) 08:18, 26 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 Wikibooks. (I'm not doing the merge, this is a drive-by closing :-) Keeper ǀ 76 20:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikijunior[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines for the internet. C.f. Google News which has a whopping two hits. Most Google hits seem to be wikijunior pages themselves, or scrapers. The result of the last AfD was 'no consensus' and I believe many of the 'keep' arguments there were not based on the site's notability so much as the fact that it is part of the Wikimedia Foundation. naerii 12:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Wikibooks. Notability is not inherited but this is a fairly substantial part of one of the WMF projects. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with redirect, as it's not worth mentioning separately. It could have been, had it lived up to its potential, but it isn't nearly close to notable or interesting enough for its own article. -- Zanimum (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect given the lack of external coverage. the wub "?!" 16:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: All I can say is... Oh, no, not again. This is a project that had its origin outside of Wikibooks and has an interesting background all of its own. As far as what is being done with this project at the moment... that certainly is debatable. I do think there is enough interesting information about this project to merit its own article and not risk getting swallowed up by an otherwise poorly written article about Wikibooks... which also needs quite a bit more help in terms of getting something up to even a B-grade article. Merging the articles at the moment would be simply merging two rather poorly written stubs together. Otherwise, the arguments about keeping, merging, or deleting this article rank with doing the same to any Wikimedia sister project article. --Robert Horning (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh. Do you have any references to show notability? Or does your argument rest entirely on the fact that this is a Wikimedia project? Notability is not inherited. We have to evaluate this article solely on its own merits; if you have anything that shows that Wikijunior is notable, by all means please post it, but please don't make arguments for its notability based on the notability of other projects. naerii 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is such a slippery slope that can significantly get you into trouble, and has a funny way of biting you in the back when you aren't ready for it. Non-notability also implies that such a task is insignificant and not worthy of documentation or notation. BTW, no, I'm not resting on the fact that it is a Wikimedia project, but I'm also suggesting that it would do a disservice to both this topic and the Wikibooks article by merging them together. The other huge problem is that to do both article properly, you would have to write what amounts to be original research. The assumption here is that Wikijunior is but a wikiproject of Wikibooks, but I am challenging that assertion and claiming it is much more than that. Another issue: At what point does something become notable? It will be interesting to see what will happen in a couple of years with Wikijunior, and if this AfD will be considered among the more infamous of Wikipedia history or not. Yeah, I see the prevailing consensus. --Robert Horning (talk) 09:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something becomes notable when it has multiple non-trivial sources written by reliable third parties discussing it. We don't keep stuff just in case it becomes notable in a few years. naerii 11:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nomination. NSR77 TC 18:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikibooks for now, unless there's actual demonstrable of notability. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikibooks - only notable as a component --T-rex 19:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Wikibooks with redirect, per above. A website doesn't get special pass to ignore article policy here all because it is wiki-related.Yobmod (talk) 10:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. Only "keep" argument I'm seeing is the invalid "it has such great potential". --Orange Mike | Talk 16:20, 26 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. Let the stubbifying commence. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Campingkirche[edit]

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

There are no reliable sources to say that this is a notable topic. Fails WP:RS and WP:V. JD554 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not only is it not notable, but there's not a lot of info to identify the subject. The article is vague and the context is insufficient.--Boffob (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I prodded the article before and then removed the PROD again to discuss the matter with the creator (see article's talk page). I do not know whether "Campingkirche" in general might be notable enough to justify an article. But as the article is now it gives wrong information (I have strong doubts whether it is an organization, at the very least it was not invented by the archdiocese Paderborn but is just an event held by other German churches as well). This article is actually not about Campingkirche in general (as I said this might be notable - I don't know, haven't done much research on it) but would have to be called "Campingkirche of the archdiocese Paderborn" and this is not notable. Since an article on Camingkirche in general would have to be rewritten from scratch, this article should be deleted. Its creator Weissmann has huge problems with NPOV in that he promotes his hometown and home region throughout WP (I have prodded or speedied at least 10 of his creations) and this article is no exception. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a challenging question. I think the lemma Campingkirche is notable in the context of German pastoral care or spiritual guidance, because it is a commonly used term for church service during the summer holiday and especialy for caravan holiday. Translated it would be church on the campsite. I don't know if there is something else in other countries. Please see these German weblinks: Official website Lutheran Church Thuringia (in German) or official website of confraternity Bahnau (in German).Google translation of the first website:
Even from afar is the tent of the church on "on the campsite to see. Here in the summer vacation volunteer staff every day a varied program for children and adults. To mark the special "church on the" one mind that the team at the campsite lives and the lives of the tourists and holidaymakers shares.
An open offer the church camp during the summer holidays on the camping places, "William" in Allensbach, "Bankenhof on Titisee, in" recreational paradise Rastatt "Plittersdorf, in camp northern Black Forest in Neuhausen south of Pforzheim and the Village Forest Katzenbach in Odenwald.
They offer family worship services, programs for children, tours and campfire, Bastelaktionen circles and talk about faith and life issues.
When children's program alternate biblical stories, puppetry, crafts and games. Adults receive worship, religious services and theme nights impetus for their faith. Highlights include the family of religious services, working closely with the weekly program geared for children.
The volunteer staff gain valuable experience in working with children and adults.
But the article Campingkirche is a complete mess and not worthy to be mentioned anywhere. Maybe somebody can afford time to knit an article. But this article is a complete mess and not worthy to be mentioned anywhere. Maybe somebody can afford time to knit an article. (Sorry I don't have the time) Greetings --Sebastian scha. (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub and keep The talk page stub in the article is on a viable topic. I'm not sure this is the best title, I know of very similar ministries in the U.S. that are not known by a German word (e.g. this one). But I've never dug in to see if there is a common English term for such ministries. GRBerry 13:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If there is an English term, change the article name into it. And add a German section, please. maybe in the Church service article? Sebastian scha. (talk) 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: When the AfD is closed I'll stubbify the article as suggested on the article's talk page by Sebastian scha.. --JD554 (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stubbify to Sebastian's version. After the proposed change this is going to be a sourced article giving neutral information about a notable subject. I will keep it on my watchlist to prevent Weissmann from messing with it. Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 09:12, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Johnston (English Professional Wrestler)[edit]

Robert Johnston (English Professional Wrestler) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Lacks reliable sources per WP:BIO. Notability claims stem from one appearance; even if the info about it could be reliably sourced, it wouldn't be enough to warrant an article. Bringing to AfD because I don't know if people apply WP:ATHLETE to professional wrestlers. gnfnrf (talk) 11:33, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homrrige[edit]

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

Neologism that seems to have no widespread use. No non-Wikipedia Google hits. Article was originally PRODded but original contributor removed tag without editing article. Booglamay (talk) - 09:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Original PROD nomination was "NN neologism, no sources to back up claim, self-confessed 'new terminology'". Booglamay (talk) - 09:51, 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 Delete, hoax. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 13:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Normal[edit]

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

Apparent hoax, no such soap opera. Grahame (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Article claims the subject TV series has been around since 1993 and is now in its 16th season. www.imdb.com shows a TV series of the same name now in the post-production phase. None of the management, actors or characters of the one match those of the other. Notable only as an elaborate hoax! The creator of this article, Dvdplayer312 (talk • contribs) , has contributed only two edits - both edits are to this article! Dolphin51 (talk) 12:17, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gulls Way[edit]

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

This is a minor suburban street and is not notable, despite its connection with Rupert Hamer. Grahame (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. -- nn street. - Longhair\talk 15:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article of this kind could be written about every street in every town and city in the world. The article identifies nothing notable about the street. The fact that a former premier of Victoria lived in the street as a child does not constitute notability for the street. The article is based on numerous claims but none of them is verified by a reference or in-line citation. Dolphin51 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I seriously doubt this is WP:50k-worthy. Grutness...wha? 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article seems to be about both a beach and a road so should probably be two articles. That said neither appears to be notable so delete. Dpmuk (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - possibly some kind of promotional exercise.--Lester 21:04, 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 to Military of Bangladesh as a plausible search term seems appropriate, and I will create such a redirect after deletion.--Kubigula (talk) 03:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Forces[edit]

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

Pretty much a hoax. There's no such thing as a Bangladesh Forces as presented in the article. Bangladesh Army, Bangladesh Navy and Bangladesh Air Force are called Bangladesh Forces, of course, just like any other military force in the world. Also the first of Bangladesh forces, the Mukti Bahini is called by that name, like all other military forces from Bangladesh. A pretty generic name, not an official designation, and obviously not material for an encyclopedic entry. Clearly violates WP:OR and WP:SOAP. Aditya(talk • contribs) 08:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete - this is just a POV fork from the articles Mukti Bahini and List of Sectors in Bangladesh Liberation War. The creator of this fork, Muraad Kahn (and his anon IP 98*), has similarly created other POV forks when he was unable to put his unreferenced/POV info into existing articles. According to Banglapedia and other print encyclopedias, the pro-liberation resistance forces in the 1971 war was known as Mukti Bahini. [33]. --Ragib (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete In addition to the above, the article appeares to be redunted to the Bangladesh Army, Navy, and Air Force articles. We really do not need this article. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After analyzing a bit a Merge with Military of Bangladesh seems to make more sense. Some part of the current article may be retained as a "History" section under Military of Bangladesh. Arman (Talk) 08:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After analyzing the article and its talk page, as well as Help:Merging and moving pages and other policy pages, it looks like a good idea to delete this article and incorporate any redeemable information, as in supported by secondary sources in publication, into relevant articles (which may include the military of Bangladesh article but need not to stick to exclusively). Aditya(talk • contribs) 13:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to merge or redirect. Every last bit of reliable and credible information in the article already is included in the articles you suggest. Threst of the article has not an aorta of credibility, has zero support from published documents and is very much a hoax. On top of that this term, Bangladesh Forces, has no existence as an official/formal boy/term. According to WP:NOTDICDEF, this entry shouldn't even exist as a popular term for Bangladesh Military (in Wiktionary may be, but not here). There's nothing to merge or redirect. Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will concede that there may be nothing to merge. However, "Bangladesh Forces" is a generic term that is used (correctly or incorrectly) to refer to the Bangladeshi military of the present (current Army, Navy, Airforce) and the past (the Mukti Bahini). By redirecting to Military of Bangladesh, people using this generic term (correctly or incorrectly) will be taken to where they can find the information they want. -- saberwyn 11:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmmmmm... good point. Shall I go forward with the last suggestion (redirecting to Bangladesh Military)? Aditya(talk • contribs) 11:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It can wait until the end of the discussion. -- saberwyn 07:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, i'm trusting aditya and ragib on this issue. --Soman (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:HOAX --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 05:24, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article has merits and ample scope for independent expansion and would not constitute a POV fork. The real problem with this article is that it lacks sources. The creator of this article is a long time (and occasionally disruptive) editor with a history of productive edits on this and allied subjects. The Mukti Bahini article itself has the following comment in the intro "Subsequently by mid-April 1971 the former members of East Pakistan armed forces formed the "Bangladesh Armed Forces" and M A G Osmani assumed the command of the same." from which we may infer that the article in question is limiting itself to the EP Armed Forces which were then in a loyalty transition phase, and which were not part of Mukti Bahini which was an irregulars outfit (and had a significant Indian Armed Forces component) as opposed to these forces which were comprised of the regulars. This article is therefore necessary to distinguish the Bangladesh Armed Forces sections from the Mukti Bahini (which was essentially an Indian Armed Forces) operations. A comparable analogue would be between the Indian National Army and the Indian Army during WW-II Annette46 (talk) 11:21, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for quoting from the Mukti Bahini article. But, I am sure that you realize - the armed forces of Bangladesh was never officially called Bangladesh forces. It is just a general term to connote all forms of Bangladesh military forces according to the context. What you perhaps do not realize is that Indian National Army or the Azad Hind Fauz was identified by that name by both the members and command of that Army, as well as numerous other bodies, inclduing their friends and enemies. The same cannot be said of Bangladesh Forces. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have also reviewed the TalkPage of User:Murad_Kahn and most of his edits. He may not play by Wiki rules <understatement> :-) but he knows his subject and his (unsourced) opinions should be taken into account given the hostility of a cabal (events of Sept 2007) formed against him. I also see that nobody is taking offence to the usage of the term Bangladesh Armed Forces on many BD-1971 pages, so this article could be a Rename/Move considering that the term Bangladesh Armed Forces is a generic and not limited only to BD Army/Navy/AF but also paramilitaries like BD Rifles etc. Annette46 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The use of the words cabal and offense are both interesting and worth noting. The former looks like a deliberate slander, the latter may be addressed here. Perhaps you wanted to mean that no one is "objecting" to the use of Bangladesh Armed Forces. But, does that really mean anything? No one is objecting to the use of "US Forces" in various articles (see: Iraq War, Enduring Freedom - Abuses by US Forces in Afghanistan and more), but the article on US military is titled Military of the United States which is pretty much an official designation, and is recognized as so. Try the find the US Forces and you'll be redirected to 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1.
So which article do you want this to redirect to? Mukti bahini? Military of Bangladesh? Bangladesh Army/Navy/Air Force? It can't possibly redirect all of them, and a redirect page would probably be equally useless (unless we plan to create disambiguation pages for every misconception in thw world). Finally, please, note that using inconsistencies in the Wikipedia is really not an argument. It only shows where we need to iron out the inconsistencies. Aditya(talk • contribs) 18:40, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't gone through the user's historical edits but Wikipedia is not a place for giving one's own opinions (whether the editor is knowledgable or not) especially if they are unsourced. → AA (talk) — 09:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - It seems like a creative imagination of someone who even doesn't have enough knowledge on Bangladesh. A pure case of WP:POV. I do agree that this article tries to link back to Mukti Bahini but that is again a violation of WP:NOR. So, overall a WP:HOAX. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 19:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging any sourceable info into the appropriate articles (e.g. Military of Bangladesh, Mukti Bahini, etc.). I have waited a while before commenting in the hope that some (one?) source would be added to justify its existence but in the absence of that would tend to agree with others who suggest it is a hoax. → AA (talk) — 09:29, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I got my dad to read this and the related articles, He confirmed the Indian Army's role in Mukti Bahini and the called this absolute bunkum. But using his word for it would not be allowed, why should it be when the shoe is on the other foot. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is difficult to decide« PuTTYSchOOL 14:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not much difficult when you consider that it's just a common noun that denotes "all" Bangladeshi forces and has no official status as a term. The article in its current form says it's an alternative term for Mukti Bahini, which seemingly is a pure hoax, unsupported by any published source. Aditya(talk • contribs) 14:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete If this document exists, then it can confuse readers to think that there was an org with this title which had crtitical contribution in Indepedence of Bangladesh. As far as my knowledge goes, and since the document does not list any verifiable references, I consider this as a hoax/OR. Also, since this article is practially unreferenced, I do not support merging. --GDibyendu (talk) 19:42, 25 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. The article has no references to reliable sources and does not say what the "Malay attitude" actually is. The "keep" articles do not address the policy-based problems with this article. We don't cover phrases such as American attitude just because that phrase has 99,200 Google hits.  Sandstein  19:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malay Attitude[edit]

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

Neologism. __earth (Talk) 08:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is NOT Neologism.

Malay Attitude is too common in Malaysia with 540 Google hits, not Neologism. The Malay Attitude was discussed many times by former prime minister of Malaysia Mahathir Mohammad and Tun Abdul Razak and Institute of Islam and Science and many more.[34]

Development of Malaysian Malay Race. To carry out studies on Malay-Non Malay relationship and Malay’s thinking, behaviour, habit, practices and culture and to examine their conformance to Islamic values and principles. To study factors especially from the point of view of Malay attitude, custom and culture that has plagued them in their ability to compete with the other races and how these could be realigned in accordance to the Quran and Hadith to produce the desired quality Muslims. (Copyright 2006 Multimedia University)

Sceong naimes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sceong naimes (talk • contribs) 14:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC) {spa||Sceong naimes}}[reply]

    • Keep this article, the reason is because I'm a Malay living in Malaysia and we often discuss about "Malay Attitude" at school or at home with our parents and with our friends. My father talks about "Malay Attitude" all the time because he wants the mindset of Malays to change. Titifah (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: I don't think you could vote, judging by your contribution history. __earth (Talk) 03:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to Comment, to be honest, as a muslim myself, I editted quite some articles without register, because I am in fear of the arrest by the Internal Security Act (Malaysia) and also fear of reprisal such as bombing my house, as there were too many Malaysian being arrested on Islamic issue. Titifah (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the term is currently a hot topic in Malaysia's Multimedia University for the Malays to study. [35] Furthermore, in Sinagapore too, we can see the term "Malay Attitude", excerpt from: The Singapore Dilemma - The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community written by Lily Zubaidah Rahim [36] "articulating the indignant Malay attitude, a Berita Harina editoria noted (cited in ST, 25 September 1988), 'To the Malays, the government is responsible for the progress of citizens who are lagging behind in the fields of economy and education. Hence, to link the support and votes tfor the PAP to the government’s support and assistance for the Malays is not a convincing argument." KCKaySee (talk) 03:02, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tyree Tautogia[edit]

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

Artist has few search results on reliable and independent music sites, and article was created by record company. Violates WP:COI and WP:MUSIC IMHO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Corrected Roc Tha Blocdates and link. Only entered facts]]. -- Move The Crowd "?!" 19 August (UTC)
  • Delete . If there are sufficient sources there could be an article on Smashproof rather than its individual members. dramatic (talk) 04:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable (a meager 10 hits on Google, only half of which pertain to the rapper), and article was badly copy-and-pasted from the Young Sid article and then changing around a few words, rather than actually being written from scratch. Beemer69 chitchat 21:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 04:30, 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 Speedy delete as vandalism. Stifle (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmo syndrome[edit]

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

Obvious hoax about a medical syndrome, named after the author's dog. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as obvious hoax. Movingboxes (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as possible hoax. ghits shows nothing but some blog links, which are far away from this topic.--NAHID 07:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete blatant vandalism. JuJube (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete -silly hoax about "syndrome" made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 11:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete nonsense and vandalism. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:43, 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 redirect as suggested per PaleAqua. Consensus is that this does not need an article of its own.  Sandstein  19:08, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Pink[edit]

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

Orphaned unsourced article for this non-notable alternative name for web color fuchsia, aka magenta. Dicklyon (talk) 06:52, 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) 20:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Merritt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NM, non-notable person with no coverage from third-party publications; source are from person's own MySpace page. DiverseMentality(Discuss it) 06:27, 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 Tagged for speedy deletion by article creator. Non-admin closure. Enigma message 06:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Domingo[edit]

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

No search results for "Shaun Domingo" and "Atari"... Mr. Domingo is not listed on MobyGames which is a definitive resource listing game developers. Possible hoax, but even if not, he's not notable. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:24, 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 Speedy delete as nn-bio/spam. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flawless (Artist)[edit]

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

Not notable (created for Theserialcomma) --Alinnisawest(talk) 06:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i don't believe this artist is notable. he hasn't released any albums and the article was created by the User:Corner_Office_Projects, who describes themselves as the 'PR department from the record label' Theserialcomma (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The creator of the page has admitted to being from a PR department tasked with promoting the artist. Also, the only reference on the page points to an article entitled "McNally Smith Celebrates Student Interns" that does not mention Flawless. It seems the only thing that makes it look remotely like a reference is that it contains Warren Griffin, Jr. in the background of a picture. In short, this article is an advertisement and the only verifiable statement in it is that there exists a musician named Warren Griffin, Jr. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Before they got a spamusername block, the PR guy(s) also blanked the article, except for the AfD notice. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 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 deletion (G7). -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Be Announced (Album)[edit]

To Be Announced (Album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTALBALL for the album, band is not notable. May be a hoax. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the label that is putting this album out so it is notable. Did you check the reference listed? We have some press clippings coming in the next week to also add to the references we just wanted to get a jump on it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corner Office Projects (talk • contribs) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this user started out with totally the wrong idea about what Wikipedia is for. I've tried explaining NPOV and COI on his talk page. Meanwhile, delete the article. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 06:19, 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 per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 03:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brooke Fraser[edit]

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

The subject of the article has requested [37] deletion citing real world problems arising from repeated errors in the article. The subject appears to be only marginally notable so courtesy deletion after an AFD is within guidelines. Spartaz Humbug! 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. Brooke Fraser is huge in New Zealand, as evidenced by almost 400 000 Ghits. Many subjects would prefer that their Wikipedia article did not exist, however, provided the article passes notability guidelines, it should remain in the article space. Ms Fraser or her representatives are welcome to make referenced updates to the article if they wish. Particular concerns should be addressed through WP:BLP, not deletion. WWGB (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 09:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, you are kidding me people. A reminder to the nominators you are actually meant to do a search before nominating an article for AfD. Two #1 NZ albums, #29 in the Aussie charts, and #90 on billboard, and that's from just reading the article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 09:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to point out that Spartaz was nominating this article at the request of the subject. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was aware of that from the intro, but the claims should still have been checked. The fact that the Nom says the "subject appears to be only marginally notable" comes across as that they've not even taken 30 sec to look at the article. IMHO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per major star above. Looking at this history I can only see a couple of edits obviously done my her mngt and that was several months ago. Article doesn't appear to have problem content. - SimonLyall (talk) 19:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WWGB. Stifle (talk) 14:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Too well-known to be deleted upon subject's request. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. Keep! Sorry about the real world errors. We can think about notability, but we can't stop people from being dicks. plan 8 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If there are problems they need fixing (and Wikipedia makes this ridiculously harder than hard for a biographic subject, so I sympathise), but the subject is clearly notable. Webmink (talk) 13:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep one of the most notable individuals to request deletion as far as I'm aware. We should of course work with Fraser to fix any serious problems in the article. However, this is by no means an article we can reasonably remove. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article does not contain one URL or link to independent commentary which demonstrates her notability. If she is notable, there must be some commentary out there. Why is it not in the article? No wonder there are currently errors in the article. At the moment, the article is mostly unreferenced babble taken from fan websites. I will change my stance if some online references to independent commentary are placed in the article. Delete the article now. Bring it back another day if it is rewritten from factual sources. --Lester 21:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Have added ref from New Zealand Herald which confirms her US chart success, clearly satisfying WP:MUSIC. Murtoa (talk) 22:21, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. When I was in New Zeland she was bigger than L&P. --Roisterer (talk) 22:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::Comment: So now there is a reference for the charts. But still no reliable online reference for the commentary. If she's "bigger than L&P", that's even more reason to expect some minimum standards with the article, and more reason to expect reliable sources for the commentary. As the subject complained about the factuality of the article, plus the inclusion of only unreliable references for that commentary, the article should be swiftly deleted, to be returned at a later date if someone puts the work into finding reliable references.--Lester 03:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per WP:ATD, if a page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. To this end, I have added a clean-up tag. However, this article's subject meets a relevant notability guideline viz. WP:MUSIC and I don't think it breaches WP:BLP - therefore I don't believe there is a basis for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 07:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my previous comments, due to added material.--Lester 09:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - how does one access the subject's request to prove that it actually exists? JRG (talk) 10:59, 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 delete. Pigman☿ 17:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Wilcock[edit]

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

Article is about a candidate for the election; she has never held any elected office and belongs to a minor political party. News coverage is limited to lists of who is running in the election, or on Green Party-affiliated websites. I don't think this passes WP:BIO. Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other non-elected candidates such as Rob Oliphant have a Wikipedia entry. I think this entry deserves to stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.32.97 (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that WP:VAX indicates that the 'there are other such' argument is not sufficient to prove that a deletion is not warranted (since other such articles may not yet have been noticed), however, I believe that consistency is nevertheless an ideal held by all, and since other articles on green candidates have indeed been noticed, I believe it is incumbent upon the proposer to state whether all green candidate articles should be deleted, or if only this one, why only this one, and furthermore to state in what respect he/she thinks that the green party is so minor that their candidates should not have wikipedia articles and also to state at what point a party would no longer be so minor that wikipedia articles might be justified. --Paulalexdij (talk) 02:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, WP:POLITICIAN is clear that unelected candidates aren't notable in and of themselves. Second, she fails WP:BIO in general, in that there is little coverage of her in the press - I've only found one article that would be considered a biography, rather than an announcement that she is running - and that was what appears to be a minor newspaper. Third, WP:WAX states that precedent - another Green Party candidate has a page - isn't a reason, as does WP:SEWAGE. Fourth, she is running in a minor political party - one that has yet to win any first or second level government seats as stated in Green Party of Canada. I feel that this impacts her notability - it is very different to be a candidate for a major political party than a minor one that has yet to win federal or provincial office. Do any of these, by themselves, make her not notable and thus the article worthy of deletion? Perhaps not, but all of them - combined - do. As far as I can tell, there is no case to be made that she is notable enough for an article, outside of "so-and-so does" which, as already mentioned, is not a valid argument. In fact, it is all the more reason to delete this article, as letting it stand will mean that the acceptance of this article will mean that every candidate, regardless of notability standards, will deserve one. Do we really want more WP:SEWAGE? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I guess the crux of the matter is how important the Green Party is, and of course we do know that they have never won any seats. On the other hand they are one of only five parties who have polled enough to garner government funding, and they are one of only four parties to have run a complete slate in the last election, so they are clearly in a different league from really minor parties, such as the Libertarians for example, who seem to have only one wikipedia article for all their candidates (which can easily be done seeing as they have never run anything near a full slate). Anyway, imho, fwiw, I think this article should not be deleted. --Paulalexdij (talk) 06:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clear Delete and Merge into article on relevant election as per WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BIO1E. Candidates for office are not notable for that fact alone. RayAYang (talk) 06:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:POLITICIAN as well as the general notability criteria. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't sufficient reason to keep or delete most articles and this is no exception. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:09, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mannoorkavu temple[edit]

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

No search engine hits on 'Mannoorkavu'. Possible hoax. Delete. Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:40, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Song_of_a_Bard_and_Other_Poems[edit]

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

Not notable, original research, weasel words, self promotion. Unrag (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reliable sources, no verifibility, innappropriate tone, weasel words, and clearly either original research or copy/pasting; article created and contributed to by a single person.

--Abusing (talk) 04:58, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • probably delete though a review is supplied. But books are not subject to speedy deletion as non notable ,so the speedy tag as been removed.
  • Delete. Can't see any speedy criterion that this meets, but it's clearly not notable. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly not-notable; Looks like a vanity page; Inappropriate tone for an encyclopedia. Sintihca (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per others, obviously non-notable, spam. Unrag, you don't need to prod the article while the AFD is still in progress. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:02, 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 (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robb Montgomery[edit]

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

This article is full of peacockery and POV, but I still can't see anything that makes him notable. Corvus cornixtalk 04:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. This journo bio is not much different than this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicole_Stockdale —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 04:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC) beside Nicole is a blogger - Montgomery founded a social network four years ago, Visual Editors that brought him global attention within the print and online journalism communities. Suggestions for improving the language and or citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 06:05, August 18, 2008[reply]

  • How this compares to other articles is generally irrelevant, as its quite possible the other article should be deleted: Other Stuff Exists. For the language, have a look at Avoid weasel words and Neutral point of view. The main thing you need to do to avoid deletion is show that Montgomery satisfies the notability criteria for people: Notability_(people). In particular you need either to provide multiple reliable sources, that are independent of him, and provide significant coverage of him, or evidence of awards (the article mentions some, but citations are needed), or other evidence of notability. Note that any such evidence should be specific to him, and not just be that he is associated with other notable events, or organisations. Finally, you should look at Citing sources, as citations should generally be used to support specific claims made in the article, using ref tags, as you should be able to see with my edits. A list of references is then generated automatically at the bottom of the article. Silverfish (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spammish and full of poor-quality external links. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing up links. now. Some had expired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 15:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete User:Kidvibe appears to be a single-purpose account; his only contributions are related to this article, and the only positive contributions to the article are his. This person just doesn't appear notable, and I don't feel the cited sources help. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to start somewhere, right? This is my first Wikipedia entry and the smug reception here by people in this talk queue is certainly cold enough to chill the iced tea on my table. NIce way to treat a newbie. But I digress. All points have been addressed in the critiques - I can't help it if people write DE:ETE and don't follow the links or understand the words.

The ref's are updated - please un-delete this entry -it has been improved to address the chief concerns. Montgomery is notable among professional journalists for his newspaper designs (Chicago Sun-Times and San Francisco Examiner) and the Visual Editors site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidvibe (talk • contribs) 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The new links add enough outside sources to establish notability. And Please do not bite the newcomers :) --Advocate (talk) 00:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who are you addressing that comment to? Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mainly to Kidvibe. But I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. See Wikipedia:Single-purpose account for more info. Evidently, Kidvibe felt slighted, so I put up that little link. Maybe I should have said Please do not nibble KidVibe. I don't think that the edit history has much to do in this case as the weight of the provided sources, it's a threshold determination and I see this one as making it across the doorstep. But as for Kidvibe, "...extended improvement to a specific section of Wikipedia should not disadvantage an expert opinion. As with all Wikipedia articles, users need to cite the relevant verifiably published evidence from reliable sources to support their point of view." I see that kind of care here, and wanted to make the newcomer feel welcome.--Advocate (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's biting when a user with the same name as the website that the article's subject is about writes an article about a non-notable person, and a neutrally-worded deletion nomination and notification on the user's Talk page are added? Corvus cornixtalk 18:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't know how to answer any further than I have.--Advocate (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't understand your definition of biting. Corvus cornixtalk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not my definition, I get it from the articles I referenced. Let me repeat: I know what it is like to start out editing here, and, because there is one area in which you start editing, have folks accuse you of being a single-purpose account. Everyone starts as a single-purpose account; one cannot start editing everywhere. Read this and this for more info. And I wouldn't say that calling an article full of vanity and pompousness is neutrally-worded. Ask KidVibe how he felt, I can't really help you further.--Advocate (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Where did I ever accuse them of being a single-purpose account? I did accuse them of having a conflict of interest, but that's pretty obvious. Corvus cornixtalk 20:10, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Tan[edit]

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

An unnotable poker player. If WP:ATHLETE applies to poker players, he fails it because he has only ever played in the Amateur Poker League. His two claims to notablity outside the APL are "a 2nd place finish at the Bel Eyre, and a 5th place finish at the WCC Regional Finals", but both of those competitions appear to be unnotable to the point where I am not even able to determine what competitions they are.

Finally, there are no in depth reliable sources on this guy. - Icewedge (talk) 04:19, 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. Mangojuicetalk 17:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu[edit]

Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable karate style RogueNinjatalk 05:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This article by a new author has not been through a proper process of criticism. It has enough claims to establish notability: the claims need references. Consider Wikipedia:BITE. jmcw (talk) 09:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are no issues here with WP:BITE, and this is specifically designed to get a proper process of criticism.  Asenine  11:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
The article existed for 1 hour and 10 minutes before it was proposed for deletion. The are no discussion page comments or requests for citations. The author has been at wiki for 1 month. What is WP:BITE? jmcw (talk) 14:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy it, then? JJL (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the relevent maintenance tags, while I would probably not have nominated it on a 1st pass it needs something to assert notability, as with 331 g-hits for Nihon Koden Shindo Ryu -wikipedia it's not looking good. --Nate1481(t/c) 16:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit that it is discouraging that there are not even primary sources linking the founder with the style [39]. jmcw (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment On the fence so far but it's not looking good, reviewed the ref section3 were valid (one was an Amazon link now gives the ISBN) and the 2 reaming are in Spanish or Portuguese, not promising... --Nate1481(t/c) 13:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn new art. JJL (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tag talks about the tone having to be changed, how is the tone wrong and how does it have to be? Concerning all of the explanations about the katas, they are common to many Japanese styles, like shotokan for example. Besides I have seen some Karate articles and not all of them have a lot of references, just a few and they aren't put in the list of articles for deletion. I understand I have to put some references, some of them are there, I'll work on others. Please tell me anything that I would have to change to not have it deleted. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroville7 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are really two issues here. First, in order to not be deleted the article should be about something that is, in Wikipedia's terms, notable. Is this art notable, and if so can that be demonstrated? After that, the tone is a concern. The article reads as though it as written by a proponent of the system--very favorable and not well-documented. For example, a statement like "At this moment when the body hardens and impacts the opponent, it vibrates (like when an arrow hits its target)" should be documented by an in-text reference that is a reliable source (preferably not written by a proponent but by a disinterested observer), and should probably be rephrased as something like "Practitioners believe that...". JJL (talk) 20:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh! now I get what the tone thing is, you're right. I'll see what I can do then to fix it. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retroville7 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I suggest that you write an article on the founder Hiroyuki Hamada? He has written a book : it might be easier to establish notability. jmcw (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Postpone decision an editor is working on improving the article so it needs some time for them to bring it up then reconsideration --Nate1481(t/c) 15:14, 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, --jonny-mt 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait per WP:BITE, but article has too many self published sources for references, Annette46 (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait; give it a chance This article was tagged for deletion an hour after it was created. Let's give it a chance. For future reference, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." (See Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Discussion) The person who tagged this article for deletion did not make any suggestions on how to improve it. This article does not meet deletion policy. --Abusing (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is under construction. I don't know why I said it doesn't meet deletion policy. The point is, the author should have put the 'under construction' template on the page while building the article. The article should have been given at least a few days to be built and referenced. An editor is working on it. This article is being revamped in order to stay online. Let's give it one more week to attempt to fix it's problems and improve. --Abusing (talk) 04:12, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- the article dose not currently meet WP:N so deletion in its current form does meet policy, however an editor has said he will try to improve it so should be given some time do so and to see if the article can demonstrate notability before a derision is made. --Nate1481(t/c) 12:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. This is not a content dispute in any way, and i'm not sure where that came from.
  • ANY dispute about a page should be addressed on the talk page before being tagged for deletion.--Abusing (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[40][reply]
That still dosen't make it a content dispute. While most things should be initially be addressed on the talk page, I'm not sure I agree that all should, blatant advertising & the like, as well as topics that have no possibility of attaining notability should clearly not. In this case while those are not relvent the issues needed a better airing than just a talk page people might not chance upon, my response would have been to tag it and raise it with the MA project but a deletion discussion was not inappropriate esspecially as the nominator notified the relevent wikiproject, proding or speedy deletion whould have been wrong, this is normal. --Nate1481(t/c) 10:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're assuming this article has "no possibility of attaining notability". Let whoever is working on this article have a chance to keep it online. If the editor working on this can't establish notablility, then I'm all for Delete. There is no reason to delete the article before that is confirmed. --Abusing (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that's what I had been saying all along? The article Right NOW dose not show notability and the nominator did not believe it would be able to, so initiated a discussion to see if other agreed that it was unlikely to impossible, which is why we are here... As an editor said he was working on it, various comments have been to postpone the decision until there is more information. However in the week since starting this debate very little secondary sourcing has been added to demonstrate notability so it is still not looking good though far from decisive as yet. --Nate1481 07:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to shortage of third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ok, I fix the first issue (lacks of references) with more references, but mainly from the english main site. One thing I really dressage is the problem of putting English information about the style from the main site (by the way, the ONLY site in english). We aren't suggesting this type of karate or any thing similar, we only give the main information about the style. I don't see any problem here.

About the stances in Karate; first of all, in this style are some particularities in the way of execute those stances. So the article Karate stances results to be to general to be applied to all Karate's styles because in different styles, different stances are practiced and in different manners. For example, you can read this in our article "In the style, Kokutsu dachi, Zenkutsu dachi, and Naihanchi are narrower than in many other styles, and this is to have a faster displacement. For example, the displacement in Zenkutsu dachi isn't done in semi circles but straight forward. In Naihanchi, the practitioners execute the stance with the feet being as wide as the shoulders, then the knees must be exactly on top of the feet so that the stance can be strong and enable the use of the hips while blocking or punching." As you can see, this information, not general, particular for this style, is not given in the Karate stances article. So we think that explanation on the How To do the stances and Which stances are practiced is necessary. The same thing about Kata. The interpretation, translation and form of Kata depends of the style. For example, the Naihanchi kata is the source of Tekki Kata but there are different, the Bassai kata is different from the Bassai Dai Kata and different from the Bassai Kata in other styles. As you can see, once again, is necessary to put in the article Which are the Katas practiced in the syle, and which is the interpretation of those kata that practitioners from the style believe. This issue become more relevant is we note that there are Katas practiced in this style that are unique and of course, are no mentioned in the article of Karate kata, and those that are mentioned in name, are different in manner among styles. Regards. --MarcosAbel (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep for now. Has claims of notability, just needs better references. Tag it, explain problems on talk, give it time to improve.Yobmod (talk) 10:37, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sources establish notability, just needs more and higher quality sources, better prose, etc, all reasons for cleanup, not deletion. It also is not good to delete an article in the middle of a "major revamping". Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is it has been tagged for nearly two weeks and there has been no addition of secondary sources to establish notability. There is no evidence the art is widely known or taught and a dozen articles on martial arts styles are created monthly by well meaning students, but there is nothing to show that this is more than a handful of schools founded by on man, and there has been two weeks of asking for something. There is some MA related notability information here WP:MANOTE --Nate1481 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. There have been no significant changes since the template was added and none at all in the last 4 days, I have removed it. --Nate1481 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is the claim of notability that is made in the article for the style (as opposed to for Felton Messina, who has his own page)? JJL (talk) 14:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - after a long and patient wait, still no solid evidence of notability provided. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:14, 26 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. Keeper ǀ 76 20:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kokoro Kikuchi[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. No significant coverage, no reliable source to back up claim that Air Gear made her "famous" when it was a secondary role, and all otehr voice roles listed appear to be either minor or secondary parts. All links are standard directory links in which almost every voice actor of any licensed series appears. Wikipedia is not a directory and it is not not a mirror of ANN, TV.com, IMBD, or any other voice actor directory listing. That is all this article is, a replica of those same listings, and without reliable sources or significant coverage anywhere, it is all it will be. Declined speedy.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This voice actress play main characters in Air Gear, Coyote Ragtime Show, Digimon Data Squad, Shura no Toki - Age of Chaos. Zero Kitsune (talk) 01:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you cite some reliable sources that verify that? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there's always ANN (http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=25965). Not to mention, you know, the CREDITS of all those shows? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Show credits would not be third-party sources. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But if a seiyu has played main characters in anime, then we can infer that he or she is notable. After all, WP:N and WP:BIO are just guidelines, which means they're more flexible than policies. Policies can have flexibility in a few circumstances, though, such as WP:NOR states that articles whose topics do not have reliable secondary sources should not have their own articles, but if one article about a fictional character suits the situation, and the work and the list of ...... characters are too long (all the content meets WP:NOT and the three core content policies), the character should have an article to avoid verboseness in the articles about the work and character list. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just out of curiosity, what possible source could be more authoritative than a production's credits? Given all other references would be based on those credits anyway, after all. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:27, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep she is notable. --RekishiEJ (talk) 11:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contra Zero Kitsune, those roles all are secondary (though more important than minor/incidental) and not the multiple "significant" roles asked by WP:ENTERTAINER. That leaves the only notability claim being the "famous for," which does not seem to be readily verified. If someone can provide a reliable source for that before the AfD is over, then we've got a keeper. Otherwise, it looks like a delete. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • Delete - nothing outside of minor roles --T-rex 19:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - list of roles is de facto claim of notability. Needs verifying, but i don't think anyone is claiming these are not true. More notable than many tabloid "celebrities" from US or UK. She's never been interviewd anywhere? Tag it for improvment, don't delete.Yobmod (talk) 10:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep yes the article could be improved and edited, but don't delete it--fix it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There aren't that many google hits to look through. There are clearly plenty of mentions of this person as the voice actor for various roles, but nothing I can call I reliable source we can use, apart from various user-edited databases like ANN. If there are reliable sources out there, they aren't showing up on Google, which says to me that we can stop hoping this will improve. Mangojuicetalk 17:58, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ENTERTAINER#ENTERTAINER. It says: Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. She is in multiple films <ref> [http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/people.php?id=25965] </ref> whose notability is proved by the fact they have articles here.  Mm40 (talk | contribs)  18:43, 26 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transform diet[edit]

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

Blatant advertisement. Promoting a diet/book that hasn't been published yet. Article doesn't even define what the diet is, and states "The "big 3" is still a secret and will not be out until the book is on shelves." THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Blatant advertising and fails WP:RS, WP:NN. Annette46 (talk) 04:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Poltair (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT Delete per nom. User:TheWizard49 UCLA Class mates and professor call this a "movement" —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatantly promotional. The article is designed to sell the book, not improve the encyclopedia. Movingboxes (talk) 04:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. All completely unverifiable, given that the book hasn't been released yet. The "references" are completely worthless - several are in fact about the author's brother (who is an American football player) and happen to mention the author in passing. None of them meet any standard of independent sources. Zetawoof(ζ) 05:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information from this article (including the "big 3") has been added to the author's article (Brett Salisbury) by an IP editor. Movingboxes (talk) 06:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Information from this article (including the "big 3") has been removed, the publishing company, Iuniverse confirms book. ATTN:Movingboxes I'm a big contributor to the Salisbury Family and I'm a close personal and business friend. Thank you for taking the time to expose the errors and problems with the Transform diet and Brett Salisbury, and Sean Salisbury. I would like you to please note that EVERYTHING stated on both sean and brett salisbury website including the transform diet are correct. A simple google, clicking on the news tab, dated not recent but back to the 1980's has every article to verify statements. As for the book, you can contact IUniverse themselves that these statements are true and correct. There are (E)copies floating around to various Universities and reporters throughout the country that have copies and proof of these statements. Here is the ISBN number for the Transform Diet:The ISBN of Transform Diet: 0-595-51569-X The ISBN of eBook editions of title is: 0-595-61947-9 The ISBN of Hardcover title is: 0-595-50497-3. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 12:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ISBN number —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 13:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is: 0-595-51569-X The ISBN of eBook editions of title is: 0-595-61947-9 The ISBN of Hardcover editions title is: 0-595-50497-3—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clear advertising puffery. Arguably subject to speedy as spam. I also nominate Brett Salisbury, since aside from the fact that he has a minimally famous brother, and is the author of this unpublished work, I'm not sure what constitutes a claim of notability on his page. It's also completely unsourced, of course, except for the same bits of advertising. AlexTiefling (talk) 13:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anyone who actually know about US football and is unconnected with the various accounts that have built up the Transform diet and Brett Salisbury pages provide some insight here? The whole thing reads like a publicity stunt for an unpublished book still. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe you can dispute the claim or attack the credibility of Brett Salisbury. However, the book the tranform diet needs to be removed. I agree. It's not on shelves. However everything he has done and has been verified is noteworthy. I see he has been on the list for 3 years. The transform diet was recent. Vote to remove transform diet, but leave Brett Salisbury. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sarcasm>Notable? Notable?!! He was the 72nd greatest high school football player of all time in San Diego's north county! How could anybody say he isn't notable?!</sarcasm> Looie496 (talk) 23:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • High School? Who said anything about those days? We were speaking of his all-american college and 3 time MVP pro days... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This nomination is not just about a book "not being on the shelves". The article is about a diet -- not a book. Here the two are inseparable, which is a manifestation of the lack of notability of the diet. Even when the book is released, and even if an article was written from a neutral point of view with no promotional language, one still needs to show the notability of the diet with reliably sourced, verifiable, references. The physical existence and distribution of a book defining/describing the diet does not guarantee that this topic will become appropriate for a Wikipedia article. Best of luck to you and thanks for participating in these discussions, THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No establishment of notability. It's not that hard to come up with a diet, set up a website and get a book published. The question this article fails to answer is, does anyone care about it? -Verdatum (talk) 18:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User:68.223.102.70 is hardly an independent source - that's one of the IPs whose only contributions are to Brett Salisbury and Transform diet. And, of course, AfD is not a vote. AlexTiefling (talk) 19:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, advert. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHO IS ALEXTIEFLING?? AN "EDITOR" FOR WIKIPEDIA? TALK ABOUT NO ESTABLISHMENT OF NOTABLITY. HOW DID HE GET THIS TITLE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.223.102.70 (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An "editor" is simply one who edits Wikipedia--as you just did, for example. You're an editor, I'm an editor, we're all editors. Movingboxes (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Coincidentally, the same way as one gets the title "Nutritionist" :) Pseudomonas(talk) 19:13, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:DELETE: "The discussion lasts at least five days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." Looks like the article was nominated for deletion two days ago. Movingboxes (talk) 21:36, 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 because the subject is unverifiable.  Sandstein  18:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial Gazette[edit]

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

Unless I am mistaken, I am unable to find any evidence supporting a seventeenth century Boston newspaper by this name. The article, as written today, fails WP:RS. If anyone can provide evidence of this publication's existence and notability, I would respectfully request it. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think the article refers to the "American Colonial Gazette" published from Mass. in the late 1600's. See this Link somewhere towards the bottom. Annette46 (talk) 04:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, Annette, but I don't think that is very helpful -- it is just a one-sentence mention of a publication called "American Colonial Gazette" (no history or location) and the link in the article goes to a decidedly non-colonial web site (see for yourself -- don't worry, it is a safe and respected site). Ecoleetage (talk) 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Only sources I can find are for the The Anglo-Saxon, European and Colonial Gazette see here and here, which was a 19th century Boston newspaper. ascidian | talk-to-me 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the total paucity of sources. The Britannica article on newspaper publishing states that the first attempt at a newspaper in America was Publick Occurrences, Both Foreign and Domestick, suppressed by the authorities after just one edition in 1690 (another shining moment in British history...) Nothing else was then recorded until The Boston News-Letter in 1704, but obviously we're into the 18th century by then. Gr1st (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the lack of citations from reliable sources, which are required by the verifiability policy. Even if sources were added, notability would still be in question. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Think it would be notable if it existed - problem is proving the latter.Brammarb (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While I don't think there would be any notability issues if we had sources, I don't think we have any proof that this particular paper existed. Here's what I just researched on my offline sources: scanned index for "Gazette" and "Colonial [Gazette]" - nothing in Middlekauf's Glorious Cause; Borneman's 1812; Fischer's Paul Revere's Ride and Washington's Crossing; McCullough's 1776, or Ellis' His Excellency and Founding Brothers. I did have three books with mentions. Griffith's The War for American Independence has two footnotes citing publications in "The Gazette". McCullough's John Adams and Ellis' American Creation both have more robust and frequent mentions of a publication called "The Gazette of the United States". Clearly, this isn't a publication from the seventeenth century ("United States"), and perhaps referred to Pennsylvania Gazette (newspaper). Tan ǀ 39 16:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a long specific quotation from an official proclamation published in this papar at 1656, appearing in the article on Ann Austin. Anne McDermott (talk) 22:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm missing something here, the reference from which the quote is cited (at mayflowerfamilies.com) doesn't mention an actual newspaper named the Colonial Gazette - isn't that just what that part of the website is called? Gr1st (talk) 22:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, there's nothing on that page - or the entire site - that refers to an actual newspaper from the 1600s. A poorly researched keep vote. Tan ǀ 39 23:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this is so, I concede. The text of the Ann Austin article is certainly misleading and gives the clear impression that it is a quote from an actual newspaper of the time. Anne McDermott (talk) 08:56, 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 per OR/spam concerns. GlassCobra 17:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generic education[edit]

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

An educational concept proposed by Win Straube and written up here by User:Wstraube. If not quite original research, then it is self-promotion and spam for a book. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: As per nom. – Jerryteps 03:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The concept needs to be discussed by others before it is notable for WP. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: it seems the concept has merit, even if the current article lacks any explanation of notability. It may be WP:OR but that can be tidied up and AfD isn't really for cleanup. Essentially: the article requires a heavy clean up and additional sources but isn't a contender for deletion in my view. How about tagging it with {{verify}} and other relevant templates instead? ColdmachineTalk 19:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, nobody has taken notice. Searching for "generic education" +straube gets no Google News hits, and the only Book hit is the book itself. It is safe to conclude that this article is spam. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I was informed that the lead story in the upcoming September issue of "Valvital", a very popular German magazine will talk about Generic Education. I have the draft of the article sent by the editor. User:Wstraube (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have been an advocate for my children’s education and I will continue to be, despite being labeled by some teachers as “the problem parent” of the classroom. If that is what it takes to be involved, then so be it. So what is Quality Generic Education? It is identical quality to “brand name” education that is universally applicable, available to all, and not ideologically directed. In short, it means that an education garnered from a state university would be of equal value to one from Harvard. I can hear the gasps of disbelief at such a notion, but I am all for such a concept to become a reality. (talk) 15:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HFroeschl (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Pucci[edit]

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

This article does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion and is not verifiable by quality sources. Specifically the article fails the test of WP:PORNBIO as Pucci has not been a serious contender for a significant award, made a unique contribution, or established herself in mainstream media. TheMindsEye (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - According to AVN, she's appeared several times in mainstream media. Whether that's "featured" enough for WP:PORNBIO, that's good enough for me. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete not notable, fails WP:PORNBIO, no reliable sources, fails to win or be nominated for any major awards, and is not established in mainstream media. Annette46 (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Has had a small amount of reliable, independant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 08:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep She has an entry on Internet Movie Database. She has her own adult title coming out later. A fairly long career as a glamour model and now moving into adult entertainment. That is noteworthy and news worthy. 71.163.8.65 (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not lost if someone changes professions. This nomination shows the flaws in the whole concept of even having WP:PORNBIO. Five regular movies so notability seems to be there. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:22, 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 all. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Witch Parfait[edit]

Little Witch Parfait (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The game itself hardly seems to be notable as per WP:NOTE. Google hits are kind of sparse and mostly trying to sell me some sort of PVC figurine. This article, along with others related to the game series, also seem largely extraneous. After all, it seems completely senseless for a "stub-class" article to have its own entire category, all related to topics within that of the main article.

Also, they all seem to be edited virtually entirely by a single person, and there is no establishment of notability except for one unsourced statement regarding its success in China/Korea.

These articles have been around for a little while now, and nobody with interest in the subject seems to want to fix them up, so the most sensible thing to do at this point would be to delete them, in my opinion. A merge would make more sense to me, but even the main article seems kind of flimsy with regards to Wikipedia guidelines and policy. G-Flex (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. 地炎風水闇陽 (Talk) 02:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here are the other pages which I am nominating, along with this one, as per my original statement:
Little Witch Parfait 2: Heartful Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flore Milfia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flore in The Flower Garden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Parfait Shucrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shanti Shucrell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Little Witch Parfait (series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Endings in Little Witch Parfait 2: Heartful Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

G-Flex (talk) 02:51, 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 Withdrawn Good Heymann work here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meridian Mall, Dunedin[edit]

Meridian Mall, Dunedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources. Claims to be the largest mall on the "southern south island", but no sources back that up. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Claim has been made for notability. Just needs to be properly cited. lk (talk) 06:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep. Lack of citations is not a reason for deletion. The Meridian Mall is indeed by far the largest mall in the southern South Island, and IIRC the third largest in the South Island as a whole. This makes it highly notable by New Zealand standards, so unless your intention is to increase systemic bias by proposing articles based on standards of only one country, this is not an article which should be deleted. Unfortunately, though the Meridian's size has been used frequently in its own advertising and though I know from visiting all of the island's main malls how it ranks, there seem to be few if any online sources and I can't use my own observations or the mall's own advertising as they would be regarded as "not secondary sources" and OR respectively. I shall attempt to track down news reports from the time of its opening to verify the claims, but that will ned hunting through the microfiche at the Dunedin Public Library, so may take some time. Grutness...wha? 07:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as notability appears to have been reached although more citations and some expansion are certainly needed here. - Dravecky (talk) 09:29, 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; while supporters of the article have pointed out a number of current media uses of the phrase in the media and it use in a number of book titles, the fact is the phrase is semantically transparent. This isn't a New Cold War of set meaning (even as a neologism), but several allusions or parallels drawn to new Cold Wars. As it stands, the article is an interpretation of current usage and unsurmountably runs afoul of WP:OR. — Coren (talk) 14:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Cold War[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. This article is doing a disservice to the history of the 20th Century. Just because some TV pundits and journalists are trowing this expression around trumpeting this expression, this article is certifying that a New Cold War exists between Russia and USA. This term is being used because it is catchy but it is still a undefined and unrecognized neologism.

To call the US-Russia war of words over the South Ossetian conflict as a full blown Cold War is premature at best, Wikipedia is not a WP:NOTCRYSTAL. This article suffers from the same problem as the Second dot-com bubble. Such a serious conflict should be unquestionable, an unanimity among historians and clearly defined. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as neologism. Maybe someday this will be an actual term worthy of an article, but it is hardly in general use. Robert A.West (Talk) 02:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The article is approaching a dozen verifiable and reliable sources (and could easily hold many more) defining the term and addressing the topic, none of which involve television pundits as far as I know. At least two published books carry the same name and discuss the topic. To address your "neologism" concern and concerns of recentism, please define what you personally consider to be "new." Take a look at a Google News Archive search for the term. Prominent coverage of the topic goes back to at least 2003, with a number of notable, verifiable, reliable sourced articles from 1999 and earlier, as well. As to your personal point of view on the topic, it's not a topic for discussion here. And this isn't the particular place for you to bring up any problems you may have with Second dot-com bubble.   user:j    (aka justen)   02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:J is the article's author. "The article states that "'New Cold War' is a term used to describe a perceived rekindling of conflict." That's a clear violation of both WP:NOTCRYSTAL and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well referenced and references come from three nations' news organizations. Problems brought up such as referencing issues have been handled swiftly. Could be a great article if given a chance. LA (T) @ 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable neologism almost exclusively referenced from recent media sources. 04:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annette46 (talk • contribs)
Strong Delete "New Cold War" means too many different things to different people. A strong notable contender for this article would be the book "New Cold War" publ 1970 auth "Edward Crankshaw" (many many google hits, its even on googlebooks) which speaks of a "new" cold war between Moscow and Pekin. I just altered my "vote" to Strong Delete Annette46 (talk) 17:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The neologism does not seem to be notable. However the topic of Russian-American relations in the 21st Century is, and the expression could be mentioned there. (p.s. "World War Four" gets some use too.)Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neologism is not well enough established. Someday, we may all agree that there is a new cold war, but that is by no means certain yet. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NEO. lk (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've seen the term "new cold war" or "revived cold war" in an uncountable number of both western and English-Russian media, as well as on political talk shows etc.. It's well sourced and notable, it should stay. LokiiT (talk) 09:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this term is frequently used to describe a future US-China "cold war", which is completely different from a US-Russia one. 70.51.11.210 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This will be a major article given some time, also per [60] and per [61] clearly notable. Hobartimus (talk) 11:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is clear that, despite a considerable cooling off in international politics over the course of the 90s, the trend has been reversed and a New Cold War is very much alive and well. While the article goes a bit far in suggesting the SCO and CSTO are the red to NATO's blue, there is notable coverage of the "New Cold War". Do a google search. 62.72.110.11 (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You'd have to have had your head in a bucket not to notice the international tension in the past fortnight. But that's not the point. The point is whether there are sufficient reliable sources to suggest that the term 'New Cold War' is an accepted description of that situation. I don't think so, personally. Not that long ago, most usage of the term related to relations between China and various other nations. I'm just not sure that, as presented, the term is notable enough. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - such things as "cold war" are the terms used by historians to label roughly some time periods on the grounds of a consensus among the academicians, usually many years after the period has started. Mass-media labeling does not apply. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's compare:
  • Cold War - Soviet Union by force changes the regimes on the occupied territories to a communist ones. Now: Russia has market economy and Russian forces stationed in Georgia in the days of the Rose Revolution did nothing to prevent the power change.
  • Cold War - Soviet Block citizens are prohibited from leaving the Soviet sphere of influence. Now: Russia witnessed a huge surge in the international tourism of its citizens.
  • Cold War - wars-by-proxy in Korea and Vietnam, with each side trying to drastically change the economic and social ways of the country. Now: no radical changes, no ideological fight. --CopperKettle (talk) 15:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Transwiki and delete This is (as, to its credit, the article says) "term used to describe the perceived..." etc. It belongs on Wiktionary, not here, until it either acquires an actual (non-WP:CRYSTAL) subject, or at a minimum a recognized movement distinct from neoconservatism. The only substance here is two books with this title, heirs to a long-standing tradition of political prophecy. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Much well-sourced encyclopedic information here; plenty of sources to show that it's not "just" a neologism. Maybe would be better renamed or merged into a more comprehensive article at some point in the future, but deletion is way over the top.--Kotniski (talk) 17:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plenty? What? I see two books by MacKinnon and Lucas, and a bunch of headline writers who have found "new Cold War", usually so capped, convenient. There isn't even evidence of common ideas here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This was one of the comments removed by the principal author, j. I would still like an answer.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep It's clearly been called a New Cold War before this, which suggest the article should be redone and possibly modified to include other uses such as that in relation to China or Iran. All in the term does have a lot of usage in relation to Russia, seemingly more than in relation to other countries, and so there is very good reason for keeping it. None of the Wikipedia policies pointed out have any relevance here. This isn't making a prediction of the future and it's not really a neologism. In general this article meets all the needed requirements for an article and I expect, even without consideration of historical mentions of a New Cold War, the current situation will be increasingly called a New Cold War, even if I personally disagree with that characterization. Even if this is later given some different name the fact this term has been so widely used to describe the existing state of affairs is of notable importance to have an article on.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Neologism. And it's been used in multiple other instances, such as to describe the rise of religious nationalism. A wikipedia article about the phrase "new cold war" would have to include multiple instances of its usage, not just the one described here. Besides, this is mostly a WP:SYN violation. csloat (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copied from talk page per comments there: Just looking at google books, I find the following titles:
Those are just books with "New Cold War" in the title. There are hundreds of scholarly articles and books using this phrase going back to the 1970s, and startlingly few of them use the phrase the way it is used in this article. So those advocating "keep" must indicate if they are willing to support an article with radically different content (all the stuff about Georgia shortened to a single paragraph, and all these other uses highlighted as well), or whether they wish to merge whatever content is here into South Ossetian war. csloat (talk) 04:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ill-defined neologism. I actually own both the Mackinnon and Lucas books and while they have the same title they are about very different subjects. Mackinnon's book is about the color revolutions (he wanted to name it "Revolution Inc" but was shot down by his publisher), while Lucas is an "old" Cold War theoretician who never stopped thinking of Russia as an evil empire. And while both books discuss East-West energy politics (and the current conflict with Ossetia also involves East-West energy politics), THAT subject could just as easily fall under the neologism of "new great game" -- ~~ Katsam (talk) 22:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete On above grounds. such a war does not exist, the map is made of Bs alliances with Nato being the only one that truely is realistic. When such a thing as a NCW start up, make the article, until then, its speculation and crystaling. --Jakezing (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Discussion up to this point in the process has been moved to the talk page for this nomination. Please consider consulting and continuing lengthy discussion there.   user:j    (aka justen)   03:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, most, but not all, of the discussion has been restored. The closing admin should read it in full; j has pruned a substantial amount of discussion adverse to his own position. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot more strongly disagree with your statement. I pruned nothing. I moved the entirety of the discussion leading up to the timestamp above to the talk page. The vast majority of that discussion were my own responses to !votes. Discussion has continued there since on other matters. If you feel I have, in any way refactored this discussion to my own benefit, please correct.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A response to this message to j's talk page. I find it very difficult to consider this massive removal as compatible with good faith; but if it is restored, I will attempt to find some way to do so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. The Cat is out of the Bag already with 507,000 Results for "New Cold War" in Google search. I don't see why we shouldn't have a piece about such phenomenon in Wikipedia than. Besides, the concept of Cold War is not a neologism by itself, so adding a new qualifier as per media reports doesn't make for a whole lot of difference. User:J makes a few other, similarly good points in this discussion (see above). --Poeticbent talk 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the fact that there are half a million hits only goes to prove the point -- most of those hits do not refer to the current crisis and in fact refer to many different things. So your vote, based on your rationale, should be "delete" or "merge" with other articles about other "new cold wars." csloat (talk) 03:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Once again an AfD is being flooded with ridiculous delete arguments. There is no crystal-balling in the article and the subject is not speculative or predictive. It's simply noting an idea which is being discussed with increasing frequency in relation to U.S.-Russian relations. Again this satisfies all the necessary criteria for inclusion as an article and does not violate any Wikipedia policy. This is for all intents and purposes an article in need of improvement, not deleting.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 06:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw AfD The evidence presented by csloat proves that this term is plenty notable enough for an article, and should be expanded to include all usages that the term has enjoyed in the past few decades. As I state on the talk page, deletion is clearly not the answer. This AfD should be withdrawn, and collaboration should take place on the talk page to expand this article fully. GlassCobra 06:22, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than willing to work with other editors to expand the article to recognize all verifiably notable uses of the term, and the research that User:Commodore Sloat has brought up will be extremely helpful to that end.   user:j    (aka justen)   06:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys don't get it, do you? First, you can't withdraw an AfD someone else started. Second, the fat that there are so many different and totally incompatible uses for this neologism shows it is not notable as used in this article. If you want to have a short article stating that "new cold war" is a neologism that has occasionally been used for topics as diverse as the sino-soviet split, the sino-US tensions, American imperial ambitions in indochina, US intervention in central America, and religious nationalism in Sri Lanka, then perhaps that would be fine but most of the stuff here would be deleted except for a sentence or two about its current use with regard to Georgia. And then we would AfD it as too vague and non-notable for Wikipedia. Better to kill it off now. csloat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow - GlassCobra, what on earth makes you think you can close someone else's AfD? I propose, though, in light of Commodore Sloat's excellent compilation of sources, that there's some argument for replacing the page with a detailed disambiguation page, pointing people to the various conflicts which this term has been applied to. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A good idea, although most of the links from it may be links to sections of articles, rather than whole ones. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:07, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, pardon? I'm not making anyone do anything; my !vote and suggestion to the nominator was to withdraw this AfD so that proper discussion could take place to improve the article, instead of this pointless bickering here. GlassCobra 17:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having an article on something is not equivalent to asserting its existence (we have articles on unicorns, Santa and so on), so most of the reasons given in the nomination are invalid.--Kotniski (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The preceding comment was moved from above by the nominator.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please take a look at WP:NEO. The two key reasons that guideline (not policy) provides for avoiding articles on neologisms are to avoid "articles simply attempting to define a neologism" and to avoid non-reliable, non-verifiable original research. Respectfully, I think this article goes further than merely sourcing a definition for the term, and I believe there is a significant amount of reliable, verifiable research that address the second concern. Just because you believe a term is a neologism doesn't mean it should be deleted; WP:NEO outlines two key specific reasons for deletion, and New Cold War is not failing under either.   user:j    (aka justen)   12:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Some more research would suggest that it's not just simply neologism as I thought, but my opinion that this term is merely used by media pundits to sell books stands. Many books use the term, but nearly none of them use it the same way, because it's just publicity. I wouldn't be adverse to some information to be merged into other articles, however. I just disagree that this term is notable enough for inclusion. So, I'm changing my reason, but keeping my original vote.--  Darth Mike  (Talk • Contribs) 22:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at the very least, this article should be renamed to a less sensational title. However, even if this is done, it appears to have very little content that does not fit better in the articles about the Georgia/Russia war or Russia–United States relations. It could very easily end up as a POV fork, if it is not already one. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 13:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & move to Post cold war shift in military and trade policy or something like that. Subject notable but too complex to simply name it after a book. The tensions started already before the fall of Soviet Union during Gulf War I and they last until now - conflict in Ossetia, tensions in Georgia are the best example. It's a stub for now but it may expand to 100kB and over. greg park avenue (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article is an aggregation of news sources about a specific conflict, not a generalized discussion of a larger competition between powers. There isn't a "new cold war" as such, in spite of the media's attempts to define it as such. I agree that academics should be the ones to define "New Cold War" and not media sources, since the media's focus is readership, catchy phrases, clever headlines and the like. Academics have less to gain through such tactics, and that isn't their primary goal anyway. Also, the players in the conflict should have some influence in what the conflict is called, as they did in the Cold War. Hires an editor (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide some policy supporting your belief that Wikipedia should place greater value on sources from historians and lesser value on sources from the media? If it's notable, verifiable, and cites reliable sources, our job isn't to determine the accuracy of the assertions from those sources.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Verifiability has a novel phrasing: In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. But the intent remains: journals and university presses are more reliable than textbooks, which are more reliable than other books, which are more reliable than newspapers. As WP:V goes on to explain, As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Op-ed columns score low on the rule of thumb, daily newspaper reporting (by the constraints under which it exists) not much higher. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. The New Cold War article, a really serious dangerous conflict were it true, is based entirely on "daily newspaper reporting", we basically invented this new conflict. Nowhere but in Wikipedia is this conflict official, defined and recognized.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment. While people might not agree with the content of the article, the concept of a New Cold War is widely documented. Concerns are and have been expressed over what could be construed as an existing, impending or inevitable "New Cold War". Wikipedia has articles on issues far more trivial and nonsensical than this one. Like the Hampster Dance for example. "Hampster Dance" gets 78,900 hits on google, and no coverage by peer reviewed sources, while "New Cold War" gets 492,000 hits, including a variety of newspaper and journal articles, books, and an article in Time magazine on how to avoid one. The fact that it is being talked about (especially in Time) surely is worthy of some coverage.
    • The fact that there are so many hits for 'Hampster Dance' doesn't mean that the word is actually spelled that way, instead of Hamster. Erroneous reporting is no guarantee of notability, or even existence. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not widely documented at all, this war only exists in Wikipedia. No history book will mention it. And that's the big problem, we are portraing this "New Cold War" as a certified historical fact, comparable to the first Cold War.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 13:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You guys mostly argue validity of the term (the TITLE of the article), not the SUBJECT of the article, which is thoroughly notable. The proper place to do it is RM though, not AfD. See Talk:New_Cold_War#Requested_move_proposals greg park avenue (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article consists of a summary of some speculative journalism on the 2008 South Ossetia war and a single paragraph on two books, which have little to do with it and (apparently) nothing much to do with each other. If the subject is not the phrase, in which case the article belongs on Wiktionary, what is it? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article isn't representing it as a historical fact. The dispute is real, no doubt about that, and the article is clearly referring to more than the Russia-Georgia conflict. It references other major disputes like the missile defense system, Ukraine, the expulsion of foreign businesses, in addition to the situation in Georgia. Many articles and books are calling this state of affairs between Russia and the U.S. as a New Cold War with countless more suggesting one is on the way. This is clearly a notable enough topic to have an article on it. If anything your arguments suggest there should be tweaking of the article, not outright deletion. You're focusing a lot on the title and some details of the article, ignoring everything else.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not a neologism; it, along with "neo-Cold War" has been in wide international relations scholarly literature for many years. Also, Google currently reports 522,000 hits for "new Cold War". The content of the article as it currently stands may or may not be bad, but that is irrelevant — if the current content is bad, the solution is a rewrite, not a deletion. Deletion is for cases where the topic is inherently non-encyclopedic; in this case, the topic itself is encyclopedic; it is just the current presentation that is questionable, but that is what is great about Wikipedia: presentation can be edited/fixed/improved. Yes, there are many sharply differing scholarly perspectives on what "new Cold War" means — but that applies to lots of terms; Wikipedia addresses this by addressing many perspectives, per the NPOV policy ("democracy" obviously means something very different to, for instance, the governments of the United States and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the term "democracy"), so the fact that there is scholarly disagreement about what "new Cold War" means is not in itself a reason to delete the article. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The claim that it is a concept in international relations scholarly literature is completely false. Please cite a single peer-reviewed study of the concept that treats it as an actual concept (and not as a sensational neologism). The half million google hits are talking about half million different things as I have noted above; that only goes to further establish that there is no real referent to this term. csloat (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. An article more worthy of being listed on AFD than new Cold War is neo Cold War, which is a less commonly used term that most IR scholars use interchangeably with "new Cold War" and should be merged into new Cold War. —Lowellian (reply) 04:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge and then delete both. csloat (talk) 05:49, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL there are good chanses that the curent crysises with the name will be forgotten in a couple of years Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per crystal, neo, and csloat. --Relata refero (disp.) 06:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You cant denie it, this term is widely used. Two countries, same zones of interest, try avoiding a face to face conflict, that's a cold war. And again, the most important: This term is already widely used, it would be realy... weird to delete this article. In modern geopolitical literature, anyway, I meet this term alot.} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kostan1 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 21 August 2008
Comment I thought anon ips were not allowed to participate in AfDs? As well as any account that has not been used for a certain number of edits? csloat (talk) 11:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an anon; it was User:Kostan1; he or she just didn't sign his or her username. —Lowellian (reply) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Csloat, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion." GlassCobra 17:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment[62] - Condoleeza Rice dismisses claims of a new cold war - May 2007 - "New Cold War", therefore, is not a term exclusively pertaining to the current Georgian Conflict. Also, that vote wasn't me. So I removed the tag (I can spell). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.72.110.11 (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per CopperKettle and csloat. — eon, 18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A notable and sourced subject, as clear from the wide coverage in literature (see links by csloat above). If it has several slightly different meanings, this should be simply explained in the article.Biophys (talk) 20:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The several meanings are vastly different. They disagree about the countries involved to the point that no single country is involved in all of the alleged "new cold wars". There is no way to write a single coherent article about all the different meanings. The suggestion to make this a dab page, pointing in some cases to sections of longer articles, has merit. Robert A.West (Talk) 20:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sourced and notable. smooth0707 (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I modified the intro of the article to provide a look at how I think this article should be constructed. I believe deletion is an overreaction and simple editing will suffice. The talk of a new cold war, second cold war, or cold war II is prevalent enough to have an article on it. However, it should also take note of the other uses. As the most significant usage relates to Russia and China with references to other minor or less associated with the term, the intro mentions only Russia and China, but acknowledges some variations on the concept. I think this article should mention some of the thoughts on a cold war between the U.S. and China, but deal mostly with what it is more often used for, the situation between the U.S. and Russia. It is a topic of sufficient scholarly and political interest to have an article, but with some of the changes I've mentioned.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: a good attempt but not good enough to save this article imho... I think if we do wind up having to keep it we need to look at a disambiguation page like that suggested by AlexTiefling above. csloat (talk) 02:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, I support all three proposals as a form of compromise:
  1. -AlexTiefling's proposal to make New Cold War a disambiguation page.
  2. -greg park avenue's proposal to move the page to a less controversial title.
  3. -Septentrionalis' proposal to Transwiki the article.
I wished other editors opined on them. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 13:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
O'K. The subject is notable enough to be described in several articles linked from the proposed disambig. page. Thus, the deletion is out of question. So, let's simply keep this article and discuss what exactly new pages on the subject should be created, including the disambig. one. Perhaps this article should be renamed, but this is unrelated to the AfD procedure.Biophys (talk) 14:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This subject" doesn't exist. There are multiple subjects, and we already have articles about those subjects all over wikipedia. I'm not opposed to a disambiguation page with this title, but there are no "new pages" that need to be created here. csloat (talk) 14:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
@Biophys
This is ridiculous, why do some people see a compromise offer as a sign of weakness? I am open for compromises because I am flexible not because I changed my views.
If the offer of compromise continues to be seen as a sign of weakness I will withdraw it, wait this Russia-US crisis die down and renominate the New Cold War article for deletion.
It would be a mistake if the keepers see a possible "no-consensus" result as a victory, that's why I advise the keepers to look for a compromise and address the concerns of csloat, Septentrionalis, Robert A.West, Darth_Mike, CopperKettle, Annette46 and many others.
⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ 14:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(←) I agree with your assertion here that it does appear that there is no consensus for delete, and if the result of this deletion discussion is that the article should not be deleted, then I would welcome working with you and other editors to improve the article. Once this discussion is closed, if you believe the article should be moved, I would suggest you try to build a consensus on the talk page for the article and request a move once you believe you have found a consensus.   user:j    (aka justen)   15:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the strength of the arguments will carry the day - it's up to an admin, of course, but I think there's enough of a consensus to delete and that the arguments for deletion are strong enough that they will ultimately outweigh the opposition, no matter how shrill. In either case, it should be a disambiguation page rather than what it is now -- I will get started on that right away. csloat (talk) 16:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you are not proposing to delete the article or its content outside of this process.   user:j    (aka justen)   16:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all; just to change it to a disambig page as described above. It is done, please add to it if there are other pages it should point to. Of course, the history is there if the consensus is that it should be something else. csloat (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which other title would be "less controversial"? What other articles this proposed disambig. page should be linked to? Would the current article be one of the links? But this AfD discussion is not an appropriate forum to discuss such content issues. So, the article should be kept and improved.Biophys (talk) 16:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can see what a disambig page would look like if you look at the history of the article; I got things started there but feel free to add links to other appropriate articles. As for a less controversial title for the content that is currently in the article, I suggest 2008 South Ossetia war. csloat (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's been undone; at least we now have the history so we can go back to the disambig page if the article is not deleted. No worries. csloat (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't waste administrators' time with phony reports about non-issues. There is no "situation" requiring administrator intervention here. You are blowing things out of proportion; try to deal with the issues at hand. Thanks! csloat (talk) 17:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to end run this deletion discussion by deleting the content of the article out of process is not acceptable. Listing the facts at the administrators' noticeboard is not "blowing things out of proportion," it's an attempt to make sure things, indeed, do not "blow out of proportion."
Oh please. I was not trying to "end run" anything. My actions were transparent, and I declared clearly what I was doing every step of the way, and did so in a civil manner. You are wasting administrators' time with a phony report; such actions should not be without sanction. csloat (talk) 17:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Csloat, your "at least we now have the history so we can go back to the disambig page if the article is not deleted" comment does indeed seem to strongly suggest that you intend to circumvent the process and gut the article if the discussion does not end in your favor, which is extremely inappropriate. GlassCobra 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what the heck are you talking about? There is nothing inappropriate about creating a disambiguation page when there is ambiguity about which one of multiple topics a title refers to; that is true whether or not there is a discussion about deleting an article. Nobody is talking about "gutting" anything; I find your suggestion (and the implicit chastisement for presumed future actions) to be entirely inappropriate and uncivil. csloat (talk) 20:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe this article should help explain the different circumstances in which the term is used and refer readers to other related topics, nesting and sectioning the article, and utilizing {{main}} is the way to accomplish that, should this discussion result in the article being kept.   user:j    (aka justen)   20:17, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm not interested in your opinion about how to do things on Wikipedia, since you consider AN/I the most appropriate place to begin a discussion of disambiguation. csloat (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly unkind of you to say, csloat, considering you just accused me of being uncivil for some percieved slight that I did not make at all. I completely agree with J's points, though, just as I've been stating since the beginning of this AfD: deletion is not the answer. GlassCobra 20:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was also "highly unkind" of J to run to AN/I and try to get me disciplined based on a twisted misreading of something I wrote. I am trying to be helpful to this discussion; I actually spent a good bit of time researching the term "new cold war" and explaining its various uses, and then I tried to show what we could do in terms of a disambiguity page (as has been supported by several people on both sides of this discussion), and as thanks I find myself reported to administrators for some phony infraction. It's a bit infuriating, as you can imagine, yet I am keeping my cool throughout, while having my motives lambasted by you and J. It is totally uncivil of both of you, and you should frankly be ashamed of yourselves. As for your final point about deletion -- that is your opinion, which is all well and good -- just place your vote of "keep" and stop insulting fellow editors. Thank you. csloat (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Ashamed of ourselves for debating to keep an article that we feel is worthy of inclusion? I think not. I have already placed my !vote in this AfD, and it has not changed: deletion is not the answer, this AfD should be closed, and proper discussion should take place on the talk page. How do you not see that you making the page into a disambiguation is actually furthering that goal? The version of this page that J and I have envisioned is essentially a glorified version of the disambiguation that you created; simply with more detail. I have insulted no one in this discussion, nor have I questioned anyone's motives. Please do not take this personally. GlassCobra 21:00, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be silly. There is nothing wrong with voting "keep" if that's the way you feel. That's not the issue here at all; the issue was personal attacks on my good faith when I trying to collaborate with you, not have a war with you. I am not opposed to "glorifying" the disambiguation page if that is your goal, but we need to start somewhere, and that's what I tried to do. For that I got attacked and J tried to get me blocked. csloat (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:CRYSTAL; discovered AfD via ANI. ColdmachineTalk 17:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, split, and disambiguate probably based on this scheme. The article lead establishes that the term "New Cold War" has been used for multiple different subjects. There is no reason to try to fit different subjects under one title, when we have perfectly good mechanisms in place for covering each topic separately. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Much well-sourced encyclopedic information here; plenty of sources to show that it's not "just" a neologism. Maybe would be better renamed or merged into a more comprehensive article at some point in the future, but deletion is way over the top.-- WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete idiotic Neologism used by right wing alarmist talking heads to amp fears of a second real Cold War. Further, the article's use of weasel words 'perceived as' and so on, betrays the lack of strong footing for the concept. If/when we break diplomatic ties to Russia and its associated former soviet allies, we can revisit the article, but until then there's little reality to the fearmongering. ThuranX (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "Cold War" was itself a neologism in the past, but now is so widely used that it is considered landscape of the 20th century. I'm not all that convinced that the old cold war ever ended, just a cease fire for some shuffling around. Tangurena (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This term is being using by all the major, 'broad sheet' news papers and on radio and TV news reports to describe the cooling in relations between NATO and Russia. Many of us might not like this change in world events, but the term is in wide circulation. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, if it's been used by all the major broadsheet newspapers, can you find me an example from even one of the following, outside an op-ed column? The Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times, the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Dagens Nyheter, or the Straits Times? AlexTiefling (talk) 23:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now, with no prejudice against recreation in a year or so Too early to see if this thing with Georgia is the start of a trend or not. I'd also like to caution users in this AFD to maintain civility-- comments such as 'idiotic Neologism used by right wing alarmist talking heads' do nothing but inflame the debate. Jtrainor (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While a number of newspapers use the term in the negative, 'no new cold war' that is still the term being used. The different meanings could be added to the page. Also google finds hundreds of hits in the World News section, including the newspapers you requested, [64] [65] [66] I could have linked more. Even if mentioned in an Editorial this in no way devalues the wikip page as it shows usage. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 00:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Stupid, yet notable. Stupid isn't a deletion criteria. Notability wins. rootology (T) 02:36, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain how its notable, again? --10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are enough references already to show that this is a notable term, whether it's an appropriate one or not. While I appreciate the neologism concerns, comparisons to the Cold War have been made in the media several times over the last several years, not just in the past two weeks. The article needs to be carefully written to ensure that it makes clear that this is a modern, political term rather than an academic, historical one, and that the comparison is far from universally accepted; but I think the concept of a 'New Cold War' has been referred to enough to justify having an article on the subject. (One possible approach is to keep this article specifically for claims of a 'New Cold War', similar to New antisemitism, and move the more detailed geopolitical analysis to another article, along the lines of Diplomatic tensions between Iran and the United States.) Terraxos (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. How is it a notable term? A notable term has a single, clearly-identifiable meaning. This does not. It is a phrase, which will therefore often be used. Please. --Relata refero (disp.) 10:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just trying to follow your logic here; what would be the rationale for only discussing this particular usage of the neologism and censoring other usages (e.g. US intervention in Central America or religious nationalism) demonstrated above? csloat (talk) 06:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as far as I can see this phrase has not even reached the point of being a "neologism" yet. If it is kept, most of the material in the article needs to be deleted, as it is connected to the phrase "New Cold War" only by "original synthesis." I also notice that the source for the phrase "New Cold War" in the intro actually uses the expression "new Cold War" with the "n" in lower-case type -- not a good sign. 6SJ7 (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Instead of characterising current political situation, the term imposes certain negative sentiments on it. ellol (talk) 10:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ... Please give historians a chance ... it's only been a week since the Ossetian crisis! Anyways, this article seems just like another excuse for wannabe political scientists to go on a massive WP:SYN violation spree. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:13, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always in My Heart (single)[edit]

Always in My Heart (single) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability guidelines. LAAFan 01:51, 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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stan burdman[edit]

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

Article was deleted as A7 but DRV overturned holding that nobility was asserted. However, notability is not demonstrated, and no independent reliable sources are present so deletion is still appropriate unless they can be found. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unless reliable sources can be located and incorporated into the article. I supported overturning the speedy delete when the question went to DRV because process is important, but this is a BLP and no reliable sources are presented in the article at present. DickClarkMises (talk) 01:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, guy with a webpage, a podcast, and some videos on YouTube. No assertion of notability, was a perfectly valid A7 speedy in my opinion. --Stormie (talk) 04:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V Annette46 (talk) 04:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 05:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meets WP:V, but not WP:N. I can't find anything that makes me think he's notable. Hobit (talk) 06:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete zero Google news hits on "Stan Burdman". Fails WP:BIO and WP:V--Rtphokie (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Geogre's law. Stifle (talk) 14:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable, and barely verifiable. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear failure of WP:N and more specifically WP:BIO due to lack of reliable sources. The complete lack of reliable-source coverage as far as I can see renders this apparently unsourceable. ~ mazca t | c 20:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete with a clear forecast of snow, as I suspected all along. (Thanks, Stormie, DickCM, and others on both sides of the DRV.) --Orange Mike | Talk 16:54, 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 as withdrawn. Synergy 16:53, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Good Dog[edit]

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

Original research of an unnotable childrens book, made almost completely up of plot summary. There are no references to verify notability. Tavix (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs improvement, but according to OCLC's Open WorldCat there are 14 different editions (a fuzzier concept than most non-liberrians might think) held by almost 1,500 libraries worldwide. Imprint is Atheneum Books so we're not looking at vanity or other self-published tripe. I get the feeling the editor picked up the book and decided to make a wikipedia article. Good for them! --Quartermaster (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of communal editing niceness (which is why we're all here, right?) I went ahead and added a book infobox to the article. I personally prefer clicking on the OCLC number in the infobox which pulls up the OCLC's Open WorldCat record immediately. I should probably have put this WorldCat link to the book in this Afd in the first place. --Quartermaster (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepanything which encourages reading should be included, plus there's scope for improvement. Annette46 (talk) 04:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it was any other animal besides dogs I would have voted to delete. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per Quartermaster/
The author is a well known award winner. It's a poor article, but it needs to be improved, not deleted.--Abusing (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
  • Looks like a good article [67] (includes "It's a valid question and Avi presents it, from McKinley's point of view, in an interesting mix of adventure and animal rights advocacy. ...")
  • There's a paragraph here.
  • and here
  • a smaller bit here
Most of these are short, but this is a children's book. Plenty of sources show folks are reading it (schools that have assigned it etc.) Hobit (talk) 06:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that you guys are finding a couple sources for notability, but that fails to address two other concerns I have with the article. I will start with the first: Original research. The article is almost entirely composed of a plot summary with no sources to back up the plot. Removing the original research would leave the article with just two lines of text, which isn't what I'm aiming for if you all want to rescue this article. The second is verifiability. WP:V can be summed up with the following text: "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." I see no reliable sources in any of the article so that's why I'm "challenging" the text if you will. Tavix (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SOFIXIT? Seriously, the reviews can be used to make a longer article, or perhaps it can be merged into an article about his works. But the problems you are discussing are for cleanup, not deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I went in and modified the opening paragraph to point out that the author is a Newberry Medalist; added some more info extracted from (and cited in the new References section) the School Library Journal review of the book. I'm in agreement about the problem with this being a lengthy recounting of the plot. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being bold I severely reduced the detailed recounting of the plot with a much shorter summary. The infobox I added now has an image of the cover of the book. I think it is a short, but worthy to live another day article. I entered a comment on the article's discussion page encouraging the original editor to continue to contribute.
  • Cart, Michael et al. "Fiction." Booklist 98, no. 1 (September 2001): 102. Abstract: Reviews several fiction books. 'The Good Dog,' by Avi;....
  • Freeman, Judy. "Amazing Animal Tales." Instructor 111, no. 6 (March 2002): 18. Abstract:Reviews several children's books. ... Reviews several children's books. --Captain-tucker (talk) 01:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and compliments. Excellent work by all participants. This entire Afd goes in my "this is how things should be done on wikipedia" folder. The original Afd prod was perfectly valid, leading to an examination by others regarding the article's notability, followed by improvement of the article to something quite reasonable. We made lemonade, people! --Quartermaster (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Withdraw Nomination This article is severely better than when I nominated it. Before I nominated it, I probably should've done a better search at looking for references, but then we probably wouldn't have this good of an article than if I didn't nominate it. Seriously, you guys are amazing at editing. Tavix (talk) 23:46, 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 Redirect to Calvin and Hobbes#Cardboard boxes. GlassCobra 17:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transmogrifier[edit]

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

Non-notable term, used only in Calvin & Hobbes and a few other unsourced uses. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transmogrify into a redirect to Calvin & Hobbes, where it is a common plot device. The other meanings are barely significant. --Dhartung | Talk 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect honestly, I lean towards delete as this term only has significance in the C&H world. JuJube (talk) 02:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & redir - As a frequent plot device, it would seem to be a viable search term for C&H fans exploring WP. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• aka Spaceman Spiff :D 03:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the term is entering mainstream usage. For example there is the notable Transmogrifier C compiler. I can't think of any other single word offhand which conveys what "Transmogrifier" does. Annette46 (talk) 04:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we assume good faith on the list of other instances at the end of the article, and I don't see any reason why not to, transmogrifiers are catching on. Steve Dufour (talk) 05:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep being used in Calvin and Hobbes makes it notable -- it is/was a nationally syndicated comic strip that was so popular, it was made into books, calendars, shirts, rear-window decals, etc. While this doesn't necessarily justify the transmogrifier's notability, I'd say anyone familiar with C&H is familiar with the transmogrifier, thus supporting its notability. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 12:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Calvin and Hobbes unless it can be shown that Watterson coined the word/usage - which I doubt. Not that the thing isn't notable, but there just isn't enough to say about it that it deserves its own entry separate from the strip. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transmogrify per Dhartung, Spiffy & Alex ↑. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The term is a commonplace that really doesn't need explanation. As a feature of Calvin and Hobbes, it's fanboi stuff. We have no real need to preserve or amplify like that, and Calvin and Hobbes doesn't need this level of detail added to it. Let me put it this way: ask yourself this: "Is anyone hearing 'transmogrifier' and needing to look it up in an encyclopedia to find out about how it's used in Calvin and Hobbes?" If the answer is "no," then we don't need a break out article. For the answer to be "yes," this would have to be something like "zoink" or Zonker. It isn't. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The word "transmogrifier" has been around longer than Calvin and Hobbes. They just made it popular. According to the OED, it is centuries older. Whether or not a subject is notable seems to be a matter of opinion. I have heard the word used several times in common conversation, without refrence to the comics. Bryce Pearson (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The simple existence of a word is not notable. the article, as it stands, is all about Calvin and Hobbes, and should be merged. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki with reformat to Wiktionary. Octane [improve me?] 19.08.08 1723 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep If somebody wants to know what a transmogrifier was this would be a good place to find out. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 04:04, 24 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 as recreation of previously AfDed article: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Route 666 (2009 Film) ... discospinster talk 01:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route 666 (Horror Film)[edit]

Route 666 (Horror Film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At best this film simply fails WP:NFF, as filming is apparently not due to begin for another two months. But I suspect that it is in fact a hoax. Besides a MySpace page and forum with no meaningful content, none of the external links in the article relate to this film. A google search for "Route 666" with the directors name only brings up either Wikipedia [68] or MySpace [69]. A serach for "Route 666" with either Vanessa Lengies [70] or Brittany Snow [71] finds nothing of any relevance, certainly no evidence that either actress is attached to such a production. PC78 (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm why is it going for deletion all I did was remove william herrada and that is because he got fired in the last min so that is why but I have more people to add later on this week no worries.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptwriter2009 (talk • contribs) 01:36, Aug 18, 2008

Srry like 10 min Im the asst. Director I would put that I am on the page but no where does it say asst. so thats why, and I get in contact with the agents because of imdB Pro I have access to all of that information. This is no hoex sir. Anything else? --Scriptwriter2009 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already talked to Vanessa's agent it should show up sometime this week and brittney is rumored I have not yet contacted her agent and yea another 2 months that is why its upcoming.

  • Delete. The "director", Troy M Rodriguez, is 13, according to his self-promotional biography -- no reliable sources to verify any of this, and it's likely to be fantasy. Accounting4Taste:talk 00:57, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow. WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if the comments on this page are any indication, any article would have to involve some WP:OR. If you're having to personally speak to agents to get details about an upcoming film, you've got some WP:RS issues. Note: according to the article, the script was completed YESTERDAY and production began the day before that. Possible hoax. Movingboxes (talk) 01:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Zero evidence of any film in production, or even rumored, by this name. This is almost assuredly a hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes sir want a copy of the script remember it's copyrighted already so yes or no but wait like 30 min I have to go somewhere please and we will talk more on this issue thanks. --Scriptwriter2009 (talk) 01:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I suspect that this film is not an actual production. The article claims that Filming will begin on October 26, 2008 in Texas, and principal photography concluded on August 28, 2008. So they already ended filming eleven days from now, but they aren't going to start filming for more than two months? That would violate the arrow of time. By the way, the copyright on the script is not relevant to whether this article is kept or deleted. What would be relevant is evidence that this film is actually going to be produced with the actors mentioned in the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this user is becoming a prominent hoaxer on Wikipedia, and the latest incarnation is almost certainly a sockpuppet of the indefinitely banned users who have come before. I have blocked the user in question, and the page should be deleted (perhaps speedily). (ESkog)(Talk) 01:15, 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 (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ai Nagano[edit]

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

Unnotable living voice actress that fails WP:BIO. She is not the "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." One voice role in one series does not make her notable. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Cutey Honey is a notable role.Kitty53 (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As Kitty53 said, Ai Nagano played Cutey Honey in the revival series Cutey Honey Flash. JuJube (talk) 00:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Last I checked, she has also starred in the Digimon series, and I'm pretty sure Digimon is a notable type of anime. She has also starred in the Pretty Cure series.Kitty53 (talk) 00:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Appearing in, or in this case having a voice role in, is not the same as starring in. She played a minor character in Pretty Cure and I think in Digimon as well. Also, it is good to note you are the article creator when saying keep. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:54, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • She has voiced Suzie Wong in Digimon. Last I checked, Suzie Wong is a main character in the show.Kitty53 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • She starred as the main role in Cutey Honey Flash, not exactly a minor lead role. 68.81.95.231 (talk) 01:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't question Cutey Honey, but that still doesn't make her notable. No reliable sources, no extensive coverage. The article creator is throwing a bunch of directory listings in the article as "references" but they aren't and they don't meet WP:BIO at all. Again, where is the significant coverage. If her roles in Cutey Honey Flash and Digimon are notable and "made her famous" as the article claims, where is the extensive coverage backing up these claims to fame? Newspaper articles, discussion in books, heck, being mentioned in reviews of the series praising or condemning her work? Even her list of works is totally uncited, with it partially copy/pasted from ANN. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why not look at the JA article, then?Kitty53 (talk) 02:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because it is completely unreferenced, like almost all JA articles, which this just pretty much seems to be a copy of. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's because she is a freelancer!Kitty53 (talk) 02:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I change my vote to redirect to Digimon Tamers, then!Kitty53 (talk) 03:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why? She isn't a series character, so that would not be an appropriate redirect. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, oh, I don't know how to explain this! I worked so hard on that article! You put three of my articles up for deletion, all of which will probably be deleted! I'm having a bad day, and it's all because of you! And worse, I'm not being given very many options!Kitty53 (talk) 03:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it makes you happy, I'll change my vote back to keep!Kitty53 (talk) 03:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a vote, its an opinion and it should be based on your reading of WP:BIO and your view as to whether the article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. If you feel it does, make one Keep comment, explaining why you feel it does meet those guidelines, provide sources and links (as needed) to back up your argument, and leave it at that. Going back and forth and back and forth clutters the AfD and is mildly aggravating. You may want to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to discuss an AfD to learn how to discuss an AfD, and maybe glance over Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, it is not my fault you are having a bad day. You are choosing to be very emotional and dramatic over these deletions. I think you really need to learn to stop internalizing things so much and calm down some. You seem to get very emotional over everyday Wiki occurrences, which does not help anything at all and is only upsetting you. Step back, take some deep breaths, and have a cup of tea or milk. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Like that other random Japanese voice actor's article posted above this AfD, there's no actual given reason to delete this. Just a bunch of forced, boilerplate "non-notable per WP:THIS and WP:THAT" wikilawyering that doesn't have any positive or constructive outcome in mind for the overall project. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hear hear, and firmly agreed. 208.245.87.2 (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no sources discussing these folks (relating to all the voice actor AfDs at the moment), they shouldn't have articles. It doesn't matter whether (we) anime fans think they are notable or important because of the roles they have played in some series, few of which are even considered that relevant/notable in the English speaking world because outside of Japan, anime is still a niche market. In reality, most don't even get that much coverage in Japan because voice actors are like TV actors in bit roles, with only a few exceptional ones out there who achieve claim and fame enough to be widely covered in various sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO is not limited to "the English speaking world". These actors are either notable or they aren't. And, as far as the first criteria for an WP:ENTERTAINER is concerned, they are because the roles they've played are significant.--Nohansen (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These AfD's seem to be related as by the same nom about similar actors and created by the same editor - I linked to them at the top for other editor's ease but nom has now deleted them twice so am adding here: Banjeboi 03:22, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also:

  • Comment. I just did a search of her on the net, and it is true that there is pretty much nothing regarding her at all, except that she has roles in Cutey Honey and Digimon... This leads me to agree with Collectonian on the Notability, however due to a bit of bias on my part to keep such pages, I am undecided. Can someone summarise for me, out of the list of anime roles, which of the roles are lead roles and secondary roles? -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nohansen pretty much covered the lead roles: title role in Cutey Honey Flash and one of the five leads in Yes! PreCure 5; the Digimon role is as a recurring secondary character, and the rest are secondary or bit/single-episode parts. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, I see. Thanks. Think I missed that line. For now, I will also say keep; let's hope some source(s) for notability do appear somewhere. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 01:26, 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 Merge to List of Air Gear terms. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air Trecks[edit]

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

Completely unnotable fictional variant of inline skates from the series Air Gear. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT, WP:PLOT and WP:WAF. Tagged for notability issues since February 2008 with no action taken to address these problems. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Air Gear terms...an article which has its own issues, mind you. But there's basically nothing the Air Trecks article offers that isn't already covered in the list, or that couldn't be covered there equally well. Doceirias (talk) 02:28, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with merge to List of Air Gear terms, for Doceirias's reasoning. I'm not finding much to demonstrate independent notability, so like all fictive things, merge into larger groups. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The merge and redirect would be nifty, but we're talking about item descriptions from a fiction that is far, far, far from cultural currency. This is not Lord of the Rings or Star Trek, and loading up our merge queue to preserve an edit history for something that is unlikely to be sought is kind of overkill. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I said I'd undertake to do the merge myself when the discussion closes, would that change your !vote to merge? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:47, 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 as the nomination was withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0 + 2 = 1[edit]

0 + 2 = 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album covered in no reliable sources. Google reveals many hits, but most are only track listing/lyrics/selling the album.(EDIT)For some reason, the thing below the heading is linking to Article. Can someone with experience in technical stuff fix this? Thanks! Pie is good (Apple is the best) 00:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)Seems that everyone wants to keep it, so I withdraw the nom. I still don't see why its notable, though. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 22:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability for this album. JJL (talk) 00:24, 18 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) 00:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Albums by notable bands are normally considered notable. Also, the allmusic review and the second review count as reliable sources. Undeath (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums; "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia...should include independent coverage". The link to the Allmusic.com review already on the page before it was nom'd for AfD.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Particularly given what is said about the band at Nomeansno ("The band has never had, nor have they seemed to pursue, strong mainstream success, but..."), I think the emphasis must be on the word "may" in that sentence. JJL (talk) 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, couldn't agree with you more. There's also another good one at the top of the page as well, which says "guideline" which commonly gets mistaken for "policy". And it's that flexibility in the discussions I like. All IMHO of course.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as said above, albums by notable artists are usually notable. Has a couple of reviews. Information included is better than no information at all. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: A couple of reviews is insufficient. There is no testimony that this album is, by itself, notable. A notable band can have a discography, but that is not the same thing as an article per record. Alternative Tentacles is a genuine label, but there is a big difference between "band's ok" and "every ep, single, and alternative purple vinyl pressing gets an article." It's the difference between notable and incidental. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, every release by a notable band is considered notable. "if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia...should include independent coverage" Those few reviews make it notable. The allmusic review is good enough by itself.Undeath (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:MUSIC#Albums Advocate (talk) 23:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the first line there is: "All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I see one viable review there, plus the Mark Prindle web page. There should be more sources to indicate notability of this particular album. JJL (talk) 01:35, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above. - McCart42 (talk) 17:00, 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 merge to Last Alliance (band)#Discography. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tears Library[edit]

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

Unremarkable album, does not meet notability guidelines. LAAFan 00:13, 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 per WP:SNOW. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fearn Frist Sr[edit]

Thomas Fearn Frist Sr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns. Ndgp (talk) 07:36, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Highly notable. I added his NYT obit and quote showing high notability.John Z (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "widely regarded as the father of the modern for-profit hospital system" is a pretty strong claim of notability. Co-founder of largest hospital company in the world is also pretty important. It's possible there aren't enough sources to create a large article but I think this is definitely notable. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. "Notability concerns" are quite clearly unfounded. (But probably move it to Thomas Frist.)   user:j    (aka justen)   13:55, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Payne[edit]

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

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Insufficient coverage in secondary sources. Narrow scope of notability. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:17, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_18&oldid=1116722177"