Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 23 August 25 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep.  Sandstein  19:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war[edit]

Disinformation campaign during Russian-Georgian war (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The purpose of this article appears to be to push a certain point of view -- that Russia engaged in a propaganda campaign against Georgia. While the first line has been changed to a more neutral claim, the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda. Perhaps this should be returned to 2008 South Ossetia war, where it would have more context. Editor437 (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. That was a hotly disputed subject in article 2008 South Ossetian war. It was deleted and restored several times. I thought that having this subject as a separate sub-article and removing it from main article was a good compromise solution. Besides, main article 2008 South Ossetian war was too large. Thus removing this segment would facilitate reading in accordance to WP:MOS. There is no question that an extensive propaganda campaign takes place during this war - per sources.Biophys (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename--a clearly notable and well-sourced concept. Article is currently in atrocious shape, however. JJL (talk) 00:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Disinformation campaign during the 2008 South Ossetian war like already offered here before me, and offcaurse Keep. Nice idea Biophys! I 100% Agree that this article is needed. At least for now he presents both sides, all clames. Kostan1 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as POV fork of 2008 South Ossetia War. There would need to be widespread agreement that there was a disinformation campaign, which I don't see from the references. Wikipedia can't draw its own conclusions that 'News reports were unbalanced, therefore there must have been a disinformation campaign.' We can only report reliable sources that specifically comment on the fact of disinformation or improper coverage. It is conceivable there might be enough sources for an article on 'Press coverage of the 2008 South Ossetia War', but it would need to be carefully sourced to coverage of the coverage, not the original reports themselves. The final paragraph of this article, about the Reuters coverage, looks to be pure WP:Synthesis. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were accusations. The Russian minister haven't blamed US in that? Wasn't that clame referenced? There is alot of material here and that's why don't you think that should be a seperate article? I think that was a really nice idea from Biophys. Kostan1 (talk) 01:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this specific paragraph should be deleted, if it has not been already deleted. Yes, this should be coverage about coverage. Yes, this article should be improved a lot.Biophys (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to 2008 South Ossetia War as per EdJohnston, or Delete. A major problem with this article, along with the section in the main article is the naming. Mass media disinformation on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Propaganda on the part of Russia is presented as fact. Bias against Russia in the western media is presented as alleged. It is vehemently anti-Russian in nature, and needs to be deleted as NPOV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 01:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator rationale was the following: "the entire body of the article solely portrays Russian propaganda". Even if it was only about Russian propaganda, that would be a perfectly legitimate subject, as we have Soviet propaganda and many other similar articles. But it also includes other sides. In addition, this is not an appropriate forum to discuss renaming. If it was, one could argue that all "Ossetian war" articles must be renamed as "Russian-Georgian war" articles, because the military actions took place outside the South Ossetia and because a vast majority of sources call this conflict "Russian-Georgina war".Biophys (talk) 03:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Of course it would be entirely appropriate if one wanted to push their anti-Russian opinions, however, WP:NPOV dictates this is not allowable. Funnily enough the article as it stands completely omits or white-washes disinformation on the part of Georgia (the Russians have bombed and destroyed Tbilisi Airport for example) and the Western media (the fact that western media have for all intents and purposes omitted the part about Georgia launching their raids on S. Ossetia which launched the conflict -- something that wasn't lost on the Russian media (and again omitted from this anti-Russian diatribe). --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that we have article Anti-Russian sentiment and other similar articles. Anti-national opinions/sentiment is a perfectly legitimate subject.Biophys (talk) 18:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we have Anti-Russian sentiment, but editors can't allow their own Anti-Russian sentiment to poison WP with their own propaganda and their own POV. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep the main article is too long for all this. Ostap 05:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was no consensus to split this out from the main article in the first place, and the main article needs a major cleanup. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to an even more NPOV title? Like Georgia didn't present major disinformation and propaganda during the conflict? If we were to believe the western media, overnight Putin (who is now known as Hitler) decided for no reason and without provocation to invade Georgia and pound the living shit out of the Georgian people. Talk about disinformation. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 04:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
* Concerning content fork (moving a section of an article to a new article) WP:CFORK Avoiding unnecessary splits

¨Editors are cautioned to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criterion nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the main topic and to the subtopic. Through this process, it may become evident that subtopics or groups of subtopics can demonstrate their own notability and can be split off into their own article.
Creation of the new article should be agreed to by consensus of editors. A template (splitSection) can be used to direct their attention to the issue. If information can be trimmed, merged, or removed, these steps should be undertaken first before the new article is created.¨

* Concerning POV fork WP:POVFORK notice:This section was moved from the main article, and the title changed to "Russia-Georgia" war. It was probably done in good faith, but it has created much confusion. This section relates specifically to one article, and hence should be moved back.

¨A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.
Any improvements should be done on the main article page for now.Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨

* Concerning Attack page WP:ATP notice:

¨A Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image created for the sole purpose of disparaging its subject is an attack page. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, these pages are subject to being deleted by any administrator at any time. Non-administrative users who find such pages should add the tag to them, and should warn the user who created them by putting the tag on their talk page.
If the subject of the article is notable, but the existing page consists solely or primarily of personal attacks against that subject and there's no good revision to revert to, then the attack page should be deleted and an appropriate stub article should be written in its place.¨


- This article/section talks about the information war (ie media coverage aspect of an information war), and therefore does not constitute a subject (person or entity) that could be subjected to personal attacks.

the only appropriate deletion of this article would be to merge back to the main article in conformance with WP:POVFORK
Therefore either AfD is removed, or POV fork is corrected which implies merging with main article.
Therefore the speedy notice must be restored, and if a different reason (apart from the already rejected db:attack) exists for AfD it must be stated. --Tananka (talk) 17:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Merging would make the main article too long and the suitability of the information was already accepted and established as part of the main article. Hobartimus (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection:
    "Even if the subject of the new article is controversial, this does not automatically make the new article a POV fork. However, the moved material must be replaced with an NPOV summary of that material. If it is not, then the "spinning out" is really a clear act of POV forking: a new article has been created so that the main article can favor some viewpoints over others." - WP:POVFORK

"Both content forks and POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.¨" - WP:POVFORK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tananka (talk • contribs) 19:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm cconfused now, because after adding db:move it was pointed out that the notice said it was an uncontroversial move, and yet the matter is controversial. So that was not appropriate. As long as this article remains and is summarized then I agree with keep. My reactions were mainly based on seeing the db:attack and thinking that the whole section would be removed entirely as if there had been no information war and that there were no grave inconsistencies between different media outlets. So, after reviewing readability standards I also support:
  • Keep: Under the condition that a proper summary is added in the main article later, and that it is linked reflecting current main article title and future changes to it.--Tananka (talk) 20:49, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: An article describing media portrayal of the conflict from all the sides is needed, and the text has some starting points. More work is clearly needed to present all POV. --Yurik (talk) 20:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly a notable topic in its own right. —Nightstallion 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with Yurik. And the main article is getting very long so I wouldn't merge, but a summary is needed in the main article. Jason3777 (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but neutralize the article to include the Georgian POV. --Dial (talk) 03:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above arguments.Freepsbane (talk) 11:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable. --Avala (talk) 13:34, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge into main article. Needs concise, neutral, better writing and organization. iWar and Media Coverage should be two different sections. Cyber attacks and propaganda are not the same phenomena. The latter is a critical factor in understanding the ability of governments to harness public opinion in support of their actions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wayneg1776 (talk • contribs) 15:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment this is an important point--that cyberattacks and propaganda are not the same thing. To my mind what's most notable here, and deserving of a separate article, is the information warfare in the sense of [1] and [2]. Waging the popularity war in the media can be handled at the main article. JJL (talk) 15:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wayneg1776 iWar covers both the Cyber attacks and propaganda/media issues, it just happens that most of the combatants are non-state actors and have often agendas not in sync with either side fully. (Hypnosadist) 15:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The disinformation campaign was a notable aspect of the war in South Ossetia. Mjbjosh (talk) 18:30, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the keeps which in most cases is summed up with opinions that this is a notable topic, it should be pointed out that these opinions are opinions of editors, and even the article as it stands now does not even confirm that there was a disinformation campaign, which means that there was an organised and concerted effort to mislead the world community in relation to the goings on in the conflict. The naming structure was obviously chosen to portray a negative anti-Russian POV and this obviously should be looked at in the overall Afd nomination. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 15:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; intentional information bias played a distinct role in this conflict; as time passes the article will become more balanced and neutral. --CopperKettle (talk) 04:56, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keepboth pro georgia/nato and pro SO/russia sources have made whackload of accusations against eachother. while this page may not be clean at this moment, there are relevant contoversies to be covered. although we may even have to rename the title since "misinformation" is a loaded term. in any case, this article has a purpose worthy of an encyclopedic entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaoquan (talk • contribs) 05:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as Ed's concerns have been addressed. Ottre (talk) 06:48, 29 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 Close as nom` (non-admin closure) Michael Q's comments. Thanks again. Leonard(Bloom) 02:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicky Chopra[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Fails WP:N, along with WP:PEOPLE. Google hints at notability, but I'm unsure. Leonard(Bloom) 23:22, 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 delete. Wizardman 01:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talking Metal On Fuse[edit]

Talking Metal On Fuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable podcast. Fails WP:N, and WP:WEB. Google returns nothing useful. Leonard(Bloom) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. This isn't about the podcast but about a TV show that started life as a podcast. This is why I didn't tag it for deletion ages ago. Fuse TV is a genuine TV station so the article might have a hope. The reference in the article only mentions a pilot but there is a page for the show on Fuse's site[3]. What I can't see is it anywhere on Fuse's schedules (so I am not sure that it is a regular show) or any RS coverage when Googling. This link implies that it may have only run for 4 episodes and may be a very short segment, not a full length show. It is borderline, but it leans towards delete. --DanielRigal (talk) 00:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable TV show. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 18:14, 29 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. Policies and guidelines do not clearly favour either side. It's more about whether this is an appropriate statistic to include in an encyclopedia. The consensus here (albeit not an overwhelming one) is that is it not.  Sandstein  19:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita[edit]

2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research. Also violates WP:NPOV for pushing a minority POV and WP:RS for using a blog entry (albeit one from the LA Times) for its only page reference.

Please see past AFDs about similar Olympic medal sorting schemes:

Madchester (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Questions: Nominator, given the eight additional international news media sources added by Sad mouse, do you stand by your accusations in this nomination? If so, which accusations in particular: OR, NPOV, and/or RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given your refusal to tell me what position I am trying to advance, your citation of WP:SELFPUBLISHED was particularly odd.[4] It says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." My understanding is that Culpepper has been with the Los Angeles Times for some time, and was on assignment under the direction of an editor at an established international news organization with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
    • Compromise proposal: merge into Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems and/or 2008 Summer Olympics medal table. I will withdraw my request that you substantiate your baseless accusations of POV-pushing and a lack of reliable sources, and I hope you will withdraw the baseless accusations themselves, in the spirit of WP:CCC and WP:OI. Thank you for your consideration. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 12:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps the top five are worth a mention in the main article 2008 Summer Olympics medal table, but there is no need for its own article. Reywas92Talk 23:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the comments repeatedly made for past articles. There are no reliable sources to support this type of article (the LA Time blog for this particular year is only a top 25 and does not state where they got their population numbers), and any attempt to extend or "improve" the list would clearly be original research. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Affirm delete. I have just read the external links added to the article after my first AfD comments, and I still believe that a standalone article is not warranted. The set of media articles don't even agree with each other—sometimes per capita calculations are used, and sometimes it is per GDP, so they really can't be used as a set of references for that "top 25" table of numbers. I think the most appropriate outcome for this discussion is a deletion of the article, but also the addition of no more than a brief paragraph of prose text (and no tables) to the 2008 Summer Olympics medal table that discusses the criticism of the standard medal table, using some of these articles as cited references. Anything more than that would be WP:undue weight. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 23:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or, by Reywas92's suggestion, merge a limited version into the main article. The article could easily be improved by adding any of the multiple main-stream media outlet references that referred to per capita medal counts. Trying to delete the article within minutes of creation does not give anyone the chance to add additional references. While this system of counting is not as common as simple totals, it was in multiple media outlets and is therefore not original research. Citing precedent is not helpful, as the per capita tables did not make main-stream media in previous games and was therefore original research. In this games they did make main-stream media and are therefore not original research by definition. Madchester's stated position on inclusion "Unless I woke up tomorrow morning and every newspaper and news agency adopted such a medals/capita system, such content is not permissible on Wikipedia" seems to be an unobtainable standard and indicates the bias of Madchester against such a system regardless of how it meets actual wikipedia criteria.Sad mouse (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/thepress/4667484a6009.html http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/editorial/story.html?id=47d1c547-967b-4ba3-ba0c-0735367c27a7 http://www.theolympian.com/olympics/story/557404.html http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/olympics/wires/08/21/2090.ap.oly.inside.the.rings/ http://www.dailynk.com/english/read.php?cataId=nk00100&num=3995 http://www.montsame.mn/index.php?option=com_news&task=news_detail&tab=200808&ne=1277 Sad mouse (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While these articles discuss different/alternative ways of tallying medals, none of them are actually practiced by any reliable source. (A quick check indicates that these sources still use the IOC tally, if not a total medal count) Nor do they have any common tallying method (for example, do they all get their population figures from the same source? Do they do medals/capita or golds/capita? etc.) They're ultimately op-ed pieces and violate WP:NOR, if not WP:NPOV for pushing a specific opinion not shared by the majority.
I think this situation also fails WP:SYN. You can't use Source A and Source B to come to Conclusion C.... unless both sources independently reach the same Conclusion C. Right now, each of the alternative medal tallies listed have their own methodology and placements, so they're not reaching the same conclusion... --Madchester (talk) 00:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.' As an add-on, most of these new stories discussing a medals/capita tally refer to the personal website of one Bill Mitchell. Per WP:SELFPUBLISHED, we avoid using personal websites as reliable sources. On his site, Mr. Mitchell also states that I am currently hating the idea of China hosting the Olympic Games. In fact, I am hating the Olympic Games concept these days in general, so that throws WP:NPOV out the window. --Madchester (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Comment' Your original issue was that no one in the main stream media cared about per capita tables. I found many articles to show that this position was incorrect. Now you change your issue to saying that main-stream media articles that discuss a concept originally brought up on an individual blog cannot be used. This is absolutely not the point of WP:SELFPUBLISHED. If a blog idea gets taken up by the main-stream media it becomes news and is no longer original research. The motive of Mr Mitchell is just as irrelevant as your person motive for blocking this, the point is that whether the idea was originally his or not it was widely reported in the media of multiple countries. It certainly doesn't violate WP:NPOV because nowhere does it claim this is a better or worse measure, it simply reports a measure which was widely discussed in the media. Just listing wikipedia policies doesn't mean much if your use of them is inappropriate. Sad mouse (talk) 01:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it stands. The article currently uses total medals, rather than the official IOC G-S-B ratings, and as such is pretty much fluff. If a source can be found for a G-S-B ranking, Id like to see that information Merged per Reywas92. I dont believe it violates NOR or NPOV, but it definitely violates RS. It is worthwhile information, imo, and adding it as an aside into the official tally page might have some value. Metao (talk) 01:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Affirm Delete per Andrwsc. Metao (talk) 05:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Issue has been discussed over and over again. Clearly is not congruent with Wikipedia's policies. Nirvana888 (talk) 01:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per everything above. It should also be noted that the person defending this type of statistical format and article happens to be Australian. Seems kind of agenda-ish. Geologik (talk) 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Poor form. I was born in Australia and live in America. I have no idea where Neut Nuttinbutter (who made the article, not myself) is from. Have a look through my edit history, I have never edited a sporting article and I have never made any "pro-Australia" edits. You appear to be from America and to be extensively invested in editing sporting articles, yet I don't accuse you of voting delete (and it does appear to just be a vote, since you didn't use any reasoning) just because the US performs poorly on a per capita basis. It would be polite to at least look into a user's history before assuming bad faith. Also Australia is pretty much the only country that has almost the same rank by either measure, so I don't even understand what the agenda would be Sad mouse (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - violates any number of policies. Basement12 (T.C) 02:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the main article. The article is actually referenced, so there is actually no violation of OR as some insist, but there is no need to stand as an article on its own for fails notability compared to the main list.--Huaiwei (talk) 10:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per everything above. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is deletionism taken to a senseless extreme. The article clearly isn't original research - the information is sourced to an external reference. WP:RS does deprecate the use of blogs but actually says "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." LATimes is, I think we can agree, a reliable third party publication and the person who wrote the article Chuck Culpepper is described here as a "lead sports columnist" - sounds like an established expert to me. The final argument - NPOV - is a poor argument for deletion. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Also, looking at the precedent none of those tabulations had a referenced source - hence why they were clearly OR and deletable. Hence the precedent doesn't apply here. AndrewRT(Talk) 13:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per precedent & policy vio. Prince of Canada t | c 13:26, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If large countries (i.e. the United States) were allowed to send a number of athletes in the same proportions as smaller countries (i.e. the Bahamas), perhaps such a article would make sense. As is, NOCs are restricted to one team in team events and one or two entrants in many individual events. Phizzy (talk) 13:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Not recognized and supported by experts and specialists in sport industry. Cannot simply calculate in the sense of economy (like GDP) as winning medals is subject to different factors and Olympic rules. -Ngckmax (talk) 13:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pushing a POV, there are disparancies in the world, thats it. Per nom Monster Under Your Bed (talk) 14:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Additional references added and proposed merge format display on discussion page. Sad mouse (talk) 15:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Eight additional reports in established international news media were just added to the article by Sad mouse, and so I ask that this entire debate be considered as part 1 (above this note) and part 2 (below), with part 1 being informative only and part 2 being operative. I do not understand the deletion arguments, but to the extent I do understand them, they do not seem to be based on actual Wikipedia policies or guidelines, or, in the case of "POV-pushing," do not specify the point of view which is said to have been pushed. As the accused pusher, I can't think of it, either. Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Several affirmations of opinions have been made above this comment, but after the comment was posted. Please check timestamps of opinions above. Metao (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this does not "violate any number of policies". Its been reported on, and its a simple to calculate statistic. No OR involved. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Absolutely fails the OR policy. OhanaUnitedTalk page 20:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question: Does the Los Angeles Times not have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" as described in WP:V and WP:RS? Neut Nuttinbutter (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no reason to believe it's not NPOV (how would it be POV?), the information is well sourced - the above note provides even more - and it isn't OR. OR is referring to original research, such as a scientific paper I self-publish in my basement with no outside recognition. OR does not apply to this article. It's a perfectly reasonable statistic, and dividing two numbers is not OR. By that logic, you could call almost anything "per capita" POV and OR. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 23:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not original research (the data were already there), it is sourced, and it contains interesting information. Also, I don't see a reason why it should not be neutral: it has only information, not opinions. Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:01, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Comment: GDP and winning medals are subject to different factors. If population is significant, how can you answer why India (with 1.1 billion people) got 1 gold medal while China (with 1.3 billion people) get 51 gold medals. It tells us there is not direct relationship between no. of medals won and population of a country. Wining medals is subject to Olympic entry rule and National Sport Policy of an individual nation. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a complaint based on wikipedia policy. It would be original research to cite reasons why China and India have such different performance. One wonders how anyone could possibly assume that population doesn't play a role, but that is neither here nor there. Try not to base your assessment on whether you agree with the article but on whether it violates any wikipedia policies. Sad mouse (talk) 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • It is conceptual incorrect. How can I go further to discuss if any violation of Wiki policies. -59.149.32.77 (talk) 10:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — The article fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There really is not enough significant coverage to determine an independent article, considering the media amplitude of the Olympics. Note the following of the current nine citations:


The first citation, used to show where the table comes from, is the only source actually implemented in this article. The other eight are only used to say something along the lines of "don't delete this article as it is notable". It is simply ridiculous using EIGHT SOURCES to say "Other media sources reported on per-capita medals as well." Nonetheless, most (all actually) of the remaining eight citations are flawed:
Many of the sources in the article are trivial.

  1. This only discusses New Zealand's position in the medal count per capita.
  2. This one is about the "cost" of New Zealand's medals and only makes a trivial statement of their ranking.
  3. This one only refers to "per capita" when it says "Most of the rest of the world — other than those calculating by per capita or economic formulas, that is — renders its standings in order of gold medals won."
  4. This one is an article criticizing the common medal tables. The only way someone might have thought it is connected to a 2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita table is because when it says "On a medal-per-capita basis, Canada easily outranks the two Olympic superpowers." Again, trvial coverage.

Two sources have nothing with "medals per captia", as they discuss "medals per GDP", something completely different:

  1. This one from Sports Illustrated
  2. And this from The Daily NK. If this article is kept, then an article of "medals per GDP" should be created.

One source is out of date.
The last source is basically a summary of the table from the Los Angeles Times blog.
Finally, not pertinent to this AfD, but the article's title incorrect as well. If you name it "2008 Summer Olympics medals per capita", the table should show show the ratio of medals per population, not the opposite. If this was ever to be kept, it should be renamed to something like "Ratio of population per medal of the 2008 Summer Olympics".
Do U(knome)? yes...or no 23:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Question - if your position is that it is not notable enough for its own independent page, then why do you advocate delete instead of merge? I'm sure the references could be improved, the eight I put in were just from a thirty second google news search, I saw longer and better articles in print and there are many many hits. Your criteria for excluding articles was rather harsh (yes, obviously articles that were written during the games are "out of date" but the reference was to say that it was reported during the games; and an article basically summarising the LA Times table seems to me perfect evidence that the LA Times table was reported in the media), but it seems reasonable to cut it down to one or two good references Sad mouse (talk) 03:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. I basically agree with Sad mouse. The article simply shows statistics. It does not imply that this method of ranking is better nor does it imply that Bahamas should be ranked the top in the world. It's just the same medal count shown in a different way. It seems to me that WP:NPOV is being violated by people who want to delete this article more than the article itself. Wookie919 (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree. The problem of neutrality is not so much about which method is "better" or not. I think the most relevant section of that policy is WP:NPOV#Undue weight. A brief mention of criticism and/or alternate calculations is appropriate for the main medal table article; an entire standalone article on the topic is not. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - where do we draw the line on statistics? If some journalist decides to post an article on "number of medals per head of cattle", or any other ranking method, should that have a seperate article also? It would be the same medal count shown in a different way. There is no clear link between population and number of medals (see China vs India vs Australia for example) so this ranking method is not significant. If it is substantially referenced give the system a brief paragraph and no more at Olympic medal table#Other ranking systems. — Basement12 (T.C) 03:08, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lack of link between population/medals is exactly the point of this table and that is exactly what makes this table useful. One might claim that more population would naturally increase the chance of finding better athletes, but this table gives some evidence to the contrary. (Hm, do certain countries naturally have better athletes? Maybe.) Statistical representation can be used to show the link between two variables, but it can also be used to show the lack of such a link. I want to clarify that I didn't vote Strongly Keep. I said Keep or merge, and I am equally happy with both. I also didn't say that the current ranking method should be criticized. I just don't want (what I believe to be) a useful form of statistical representation getting completely wiped from wikipedia. Wookie919 (talk) 05:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: I agree with Wookie919, in fact, for an athlete in a big country it is more difficult to win a medal, because to qualify s/he has to get through a national-level competition in his own country. Wikipedia is not here to criticise anything, but to show how are things (remember that the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former gives some insight into how things are, not just describing them). Showing the fact that the country gets more medals while the athletes have it harder is interesting. An example: Benjamin Boukpeti, a half-French half-Togolese kayaker, preferred to defend Togo's flag, because it was more difficult to qualify being French (and he later won the first medal ever for Togo). Eynar Oxartum (talk) 13:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That really sounds like you are calling for a keep just because it's useful, not considering whether the article meets or not any notability criteria. —Do U(knome)? yes...or no 06:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you read my comment you will see I was not speaking about usefulness, but about the insight it gives into this subject. It is not a phone list (useful, but no insight into anything). If this medal table is deleted, the same reasons would be good enough to delete all the other medal tables. Personally I would prefer to integrate this article as a section of the main medal table Eynar Oxartum (talk) 07:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • ...as long as the amount of content "integrated" into the main article does not give it WP:Undue weight. These per-capita, per-GDP, per-whatever medal tables are clearly a minority view, not used by any major media organisations. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 07:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The "insight it gives into this subject" is not a reason to keep an article, according to WP:Notability. By the way, this article has no subject. It's just a table copied and pasted from a website! What insight does this article give...any derived conclusions are personal and are really quite unreasonable due to the "lack of link between population/medals" as you said. —Do U(knome)? yes...or no 07:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all I think you are confusing between wookie919 (me) and Eynar Oxartum. Also I am sorry that I misled you with my final sentence above. I DO sound like I want to keep or merge the article just because it is useful. That is simply not true. I wouldn't have voted to keep or merge if I thought the article violated any of the wikipedia rules. Also according to IT IS USEFUL: There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. I believe a non-trivial number of people will consider this table useful because the table demonstrates that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. I fail to understand why you keep referring to the lack of link between the two variables as reasoning for the table not being useful, when in fact it is the table that shows the lack of relationship. Wookie919 (talk) 09:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • An entire article, or even just the table of 25 (or more) sets of numbers, is overkill if the point you wish to make is that there is no clear link between population and the number of medals obtained. A sentence of prose text in the main article would suffice. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 09:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Published sources != notable as an encyclopedia article. SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:30, 29 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, defaults to keep. Note that the page has been redirected to bootstrapping. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bootstrap (word origin)[edit]

Bootstrap (word origin) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was placed on prod by another user, but three users had edited it previously and I am unsure. I feel it belongs on AFD; the reason for prod was that the article is a dictionary definition. Esteffect (talk) 23:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (I nominated for PROD) on the basis stated then that word etymology is part of a dictionary definition and thus this fails WP:DICT. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The origin of a word is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However the history of the expression "Lift one's self up by one's own bootstraps" might be. Borock (talk) 00:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wow, the title even makes it clear that it's just dictionary information. --Rividian (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reconsider My purpose in creating Bootstrap (word origin) was to provide a linkable page that presents the image of the leather boot with a visible pull strap in a short article on the history of the word evolving into multiple metaphors that can be linked from Bootstrapping (disambiguation) where the link to Bootstrap (word origin) will be seen by people who click on Bootstrap. I have added the link in Bootstrapping. It is not likely that such people will search on Boot and if they do they will probably exit because they are interested in bootstrapping, not footware. I tried to put the image on the Bootstrapping (disambiguation) page, but that was reverted because images are not allowed on disambiguation pages. If I put the image in Wiktionary, it is not likely that the person searching Wikipedia for Bootstrap will access the dictionary because they already know generally what bootstraping is and they want more than a defination. I don't think it would be appropriate to add the boot image to every one of the links from the disambiguation page such as Bootstraping (computer), Bootstrapping (finance), etc. etc. So where should I put it where it will be seen by those who would be interested? Please take another look at Bootstrap (word origin). Greensburger (talk) 05:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the moment, Bootstrap redirects the the Bootstrapping disambiguation article. I would propose that Bootstrap instead be made into the primary topic, it being the obvious origin of all other uses of 'bootstrapping.' Within the Bootstrap article could be links to the sundry related derivative uses. I'm not sure if this should be done by simply adding the content of this article to the current Bootstrap page, or possibly simply moving this article to Bootstrap, moving the current Disambiguation page to Bootstrap (disambiguation) and then linking back to it. I do think the current title is inappropriate though. Ce1984 (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, more exactly rename it to Bootstrapping: let it be the default, main article for the topic, let it have the default redirects, while removing the default redirects from the recent Bootstrapping disambiguation page, and renaming that to Bootstrapping (disambiguation).
Argumentation: As far as I know, bootstrapping is a strange concept. It is neither a single concept, nor a bunch of unrelated concepts. It is a powerful common pattern, a sweeping analogy with its deserved place in the Platonic realm that manifests itself in many faces in the various sciences. Moreover, its semantic is not static: scientist use the term with new meanings as new manifestations are being explored. For example, we can talk about bootstrapping also
in biology
when we assume that first macromolecule-based living beings emerged "on top of" self-reproductuve clay christals. The biological faces can give rise also to analogies in architecture': How can we build a vault with one hand? The vault should be ready from the very beginning, because a half-complete vault collapases at once. First we build a hill out of stones, then we build a vault on top of it, putting the stones one by one onto the top of the hill, then we remove the stonehill from under the vault. Richard Dawkins uses this analogy in explaining the possible origin of recent self-replication big molecules and life.
in communication
the prisonars in Tzarist Russian prisons developed a means of communication: they "knocked" messages to each other on the wall. The old prisoners had to teach this "knocking alphabet" to their new prisoner-mates: they had to explain what the coding system was, how the patterns of knocks could be assigned to the letters of the Russian alphabet. But the knocking code had to be explained also by the knocking on the wall, because the captives had no chance to meet personally or exchange letters! How could they resolve this circulus vitiosus? First, they used a simpler variant. They coded each letter of the alphabet by that many knockings as the number of the letter in the Russian alphabet was: one knock, A, two knocks, B etc. This simple system could easily be taught by simple examples "Who are you?" etc. Later they taught to the novice a more sophisticated coding system "on top of" this simple one.
in the foundations of mathematics
if we build a system of logic, we often use set theory for "holding" collections, we often use natural numbers for indexing etc. That seems to be a circulus vitiosus: set theory and arithmetic is based on logic, logic is based on set theory and arithmetic? In fact, the problem can be resolved by a kind of bootstrapping: we build first a "dummy" version of arithmetic and set theory, integrated deeply in the very syntax of our system of logic, then we build our system of logic, afterwards we can use our system of logic to build the "unabridged" arithmetic and set theory.
The examples show that
  1. the various faces of bootstrapping share a common, deep underlying pattern
  2. bootstrapping concept is not a closed, static concept, but an evergreen developing one, with more and more new manifestations.
All that implies that a disambiguation page is not the good way to cover the concept of bootstrapping. The "main" bootstrapping artice must explain the origin of the word, and the common, deep underlying pattern, mention the many faces, manifestations, narrate the history, the dynamics of the concept, and enumerate the may various manifestations. Disambiguation pages should not be used for explaining a family of related concepts. Disambiguation pages are good for enumerating unrelated concepts that are casually pronounced materially with a common word.
Of course the disambiguation page may be still needed: there may be such meanings of word "bootstrapping" that are not covered by the above common pattern, but are an entirely casual. I am not an expert in that, but I suppose, Bootstrap Bill Turner is such a meaning of the word. This belongs surely to a disambiguation page, but many of the scientific meanings are related, covered by a shared common pattern, lead by a powerful analogy, these belong rather to an explanatory main article.
In summary: I propose
  1. Renaming Bootstrap (word origin) into Bootstrapping, that will be the main article, it should have the default redirects,
  2. extending the explanation of the "common pattern" in the concept family of bootsrapping
  3. Keeping the etymology part and the image, they are very good in the "common" main article
  4. removing the default redirect from Bootstrapping (disambiguation)
  5. mentioning (and shortly explaining) Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics) in the main article, because they are certainly covered by the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping. At the same time, maybe deleting them from the disambiguation page (this can be debated).
  6. Keeping those links in the disambiguation page, that are unrelated to the "common pattern" of the concept of bootstrapping
  7. Each "subarticle" (e.g. Bootstrapping (computing), Bootstrapping (compilers) and Bootstrapping (linguistics), Bootstrapping (finance)) may have a link to the disambiguation page, and also a link to the main page ({{see also}} template, {{for}} template).
Analogy with shamanism: also a family of related, but very different and diverse concepts
An analogy: there is also another concept that has many special, but related faces. It is shamanism. The concept is debated: African sourceres, mediums are usually not called "shaman" (because they do not undertake a soul travel), while South-Amrican, Siberian, Bushman ad Eskimo mythological specialist are called shamans, because they share some common patterns (e.g. the soul travel).
Now the articles about shamanism are organoized in the following way:
  1. There is a main article about Shamanism, it is this that has the default redirects, e.g. shaman redirects to shamanism.
  2. The main article explains the "common pattern" and it links to "subarticles" like Shamanism in Siberia, Shamanism among Eskimo peoples, Shamanistic remnants in Hungarian folklore etc.
  3. there is a disambiguation page for Shaman (disambiguation). It is rather a marginal page: no default redirects point to it. It enumerates such unrelated meanings like computer programs etc. named as "shaman".
I am not an expert in the following fields (far from that), but I think that bootstrapping is not the only concept that is "problematic" somehow and still has its article.
As far as I know, life has no "official" definition, we have no bulletproof method for recognizing every possible life form, still, we have a main article about life. And it has further links to the many faces to the plethora of life forms. I admit. there is also a Life (disambiguation), but it is rather marginal.
M-theory is another interesting topic. As far as I know, M-theory is not yet developed as a single theory. We do not know its "centre" yet. What we know are its "faces", special manifestations. Still, we have a main article on M-theory.
Physis (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Physis I think Physis is correct in that this is a fairly unique situation, and I think his solution is ideal. I also find it funny that the length of text in his comment is probably about double the length of the article proposed. The above is stated so eloquently that I think Physis would be the ideal candidate to write the article, and I'd say be bold, make the changes, and then we can go from there. ce1984 (talk) 23:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. :-) Borock (talk) 17:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. So I converted Bootstrapping/Bootstrap from a disambiguation page to a full article. The Bootstrap (word origin) article is now redundant and may be deleted. The Bootstrap article still needs work, expanding each section with a sentence or two to summarize each referenced main page article. Greensburger (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's only a redirect anyway. Besides, the actual page, Bootstrapping, is fine as a disambiguation page. Green caterpillar (talk) 13:56, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins definitely claims the relatedness of the bootstrapping nature of genetic pathways in embryogenesis and the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s

First try for justifying the motivation. Thank You for the reassuring words, and I am sorry for the long absence. During that, I was trying to write a first sketch with primary topic about bootstrapping. Because of Wikipedia's verifiability policy, the main question was: is there at last one notable source, which definitely states that the several manifestations of bootstrapping are indeed deeply related (and not only superficially)? If this were not verified by notable authors, then new article would raise huge edit wars. But, for luck, I have found a deciding reference: Richard Dawkins definitely claims in his book River out of Eden, that embryogenesis is a bootstrapping process, with the same underlying pattern as the booting process of punched tape fed computers of the 1950s. Thus, the relatedness of at least two different manifestations have been justified by a notable author. According to this, I have prepared a first try, how the motivation for primary topic artcle can be justified: User:Physis/Bootstrapping. It is still in embryonic stage (at least its stage fits well with its own topic), but I hope it can help to prevent at least an edit war about the overall verifiability of the very idea. Physis (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adiposopathy[edit]

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

This topic lacks notarity.

Adiposopathy is based on the work of one research scientist who it seems is trying to replace metabolic syndrome and obesity with his own term.

  • It doesn't appear in a spell check.
  • It is not recognized by Uptodate.
  • A google search find 1,630 hits for adiposopathy well there are 33,600,000 for obesity and 22,700,000 for overweight.
  • A pubmed search find 8 articles for adiposopathy well there are 112280 for obesity and 90747 for overweight.
  • The diagnostic criteria are the same as those for obesity / metabolic syndrome


--Doc James (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I originally saw this page as verifiable but a google search since has shown me otherwise. If PubMed doesn't find it, it's not a real condition in my opinion. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 8 Pubmed hits and 102 Google scholar hits show more than enough notability. The fact that "obesity" has millions of hits is no surprise, because it is an everyday word. The real question is whether the two words are truly synonymous. If that can be shown, then the articles can be merged, but there is no reason for deletion. --Itub (talk) 10:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 8 PubMed hits and 102 Google scholar hits are essentially from one author, Bays HG, trying to form a new term that is already covered by obesity and metabolic syndrome. The talk page discussion can be found here all the way to the bottom. Several experienced editors here are skeptical of this terms notability. Essentially, the article is trying to describe "sick fat" as different to "healthy fat" but it makes no claims of how to do so. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs) 12:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
77 of the scholar hits are not authored by Bays, but by people citing Bays or using the term themselves. --Itub (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of my biggest concerns with adiposopathy is how it is defined. When I first came to this page it was full of passages that emphasized that BMI was a poor measure of obesity risk and that being "fat" is fine as long as you have "healthy" fat rather then "sick" fat. So I looked and worked on this page until I arrived at the part that outlined the definition of adiposopathy. And the diagnostic criteria are no different then those of metabolic syndrome / obesity. No mention is made in the definition of how to determine if fat is health or sick.
Major criteria
  • Elevated waist circumference or BMI
  • Onset or worsening of high blood sugar with weight gain
  • Onset or worsening of high blood pressure with weight gain
  • Onset or worsening of dyslipidemia with weight gain

I have added one line to the article on obesity which sums this page. Adiposopathy refers to dysfunction of fat tissue. Doc James (talk) 20:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Neologism by single researcher. Not widely accepted, not necessarily a useful concept unless so identified by reputable secondary sources. JFW | T@lk 22:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is tantamount to original research, despite the "references". Even the creator of the article admits that there are currently no diagnostic criteria. ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since when do we have deletion criteria such as "no diagnostic criteria", "not a useful concept", and "same as..."? (The latter one can be a criterion for merging.) We are not here to evaluate the scientific value of this neologism. We only have to evaluate whether it is notable enough for inclusion. The only valid reason I see for deletion is "non-notable neologism". I would agree if the author were a crackpot that no one bothered citing or if no one else bothered using his recently coined term. Yet I've shown 77 third-party Google scholar hits that show that he has been cited and that others have used the term. Some may say 77 is not such a large number, but I think it's pretty significant for such a recent term, and while Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it does attempt to be as up-to-date as possible. --Itub (talk) 15:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Original research is clearly a valid reason to delete. My comment about "no diagnostic criteria" was in relation to OR, ie that the lack of diagnostic is evidence (albeit not conclusive) that the article is an extension of the creator's OR. – ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Original research is not a reason for deletion, but for cleanup. If the Wikipedia article has original research (in the Wikipedia sense of the word), it can be fixed by trimming. But anything that has been published in a journal is not original research from the Wikipedia point of view. Sure, it is original in the more general sense, because that's what journals are for! --Itub (talk) 16:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice. At this point, still a non-notable neologism with no serious acceptance in the literature and no clearcut definition; and there do seem to me to be original research issues here. There are no papers yet backing up Bays and his ideas, and the term is not yet being taken up seriously in the literature. Wikipedia is not a venue for the cutting edge. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete - I think there is indeed a gray area at this point. I think a paragraph summarizing this article's possible differences could be merged into the obesity article. However, the reason why I said "or Delete" was because of the original research. It is undeniable that the author said there is no diagnostic criteria yet. I'll also cite WP:CRYSTAL on a fine line due to the fact that since this term is not yet widely accepted, it is a n.n. neologism, and as stated by Orangemike, we cannot start the acceptance trend here at Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 08:09, 31 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. If a merge is desired, it can be discussed further at Talk:Arnold Kim. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Kim[edit]

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

No notability outside of his website MacRumors. - Icewedge (talk) 22:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: ...his extremely widely-read website that was recently profiled in the New York Times. Binarybits (talk) 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLP1E; his website is notable, he is not. No articles give him personally more than one or two sentences. - Icewedge (talk) 22:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having a widely read website isn't "one event." He has been covered in mainstream media multiple times, including in the New York Times and the LA Times. The NYT story was a profile of him, not just a write-up of the website. The fact that he's notable because of founding MacRumors doesn't make him non-notable. Bill Gates is only famous because he founded Microsoft, but we wouldn't merge the Bill Gates entry into the Microsoft entry. Binarybits (talk) 04:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to MacRumors. 70.110.29.236 (talk) 23:05, 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 redirected to All That#DVD Release by creator (User:Wikialexdx). the wub "?!" 14:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All That DVDs[edit]

All That DVDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per the article: "All That is released on DVD by Paramount Home Video. As of now, there are no announcements of All That's DVD releases yet". This is unverified speculation and WP:CRYSTAL. Ros0709 (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - even if there was any information on this subject, it still wouldn't be notable enough for its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mars2035 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 24 August, 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: Very little content, and subject is not notable enough for its own article. John Sloan (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notible and also WP:CRYSTAL RockManQ (talk) 02:32, 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 Speedy Delete. Article creator just blocked by myself as a hoax-only account, therefore this 'band' can safely be deemed non-notable. Esteffect (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Hate The President[edit]

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

Non-notable band Editor437 (talk) 22:32, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, A7 - no claim of notability made on the current page. No results on AllMusic.com, and a grand total of 0 (zero) ghits. Google isn't the end-all-be-all of notability, but it's unthinkable that a notable band wouldn't be mentioned in at least one online discography. Badger Drink (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The assertion of notability is that its going on a tor, so you can't delete it under A7, but it Badger is right, if it was even 0.0000000000000000001% as notable as a band say Linkin Park, then they should be mentioned in ONE wesite, even their own website. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably speedy. Just saying they are going on a tour doesn't mean it will actually happen. No label listed, no references at all. Miserably and utterly fails WP:BAND. Get the hook. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:35, 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 keep (but rewrite). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transformationalism[edit]

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

Unreferenced article which is, nonetheless, a massive linkfarm. "Transformational Christianity is a very young movement; since it has few structures, creeds, or spokespeople, its future direction is still unclear." [...] "While there is as yet no consensus definition of Transformational Christianity, the following links appear to reflect usage roughly in line with at least some aspect of this article"

So: WP:OR, WP:V and WP:N issues openly and self-referentially admitted. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:21, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Guy, So, if we trimmed the links down into specific references for the various points, would that help? The article was written before the current Citation policy, so I admit it needs cleanup...Drernie (talk) 14:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now - I have no idea whether this article is well-sourced or not, or whether this is a significant trans-denominational movement or a non-notable (unsuccessful) attempt to create one. The unreferenced tag is not quite correct, but the sources are expressed as external links. What this article needs is in-line citations of the works relied upon for each statement, or at least a list of the sources used to write it. When that is done it may be possible to judge its merits. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite. Only primary sources are used.jonathon (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rewrite The article needs to be cleaned up using some of those external link documents (if they're reliable sources) as inline citations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. There is a rough consensus to delete the article, however there doesn't appear to be a consensus about whether there should be a redirect. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicky Blair[edit]

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

Nicky Blair has no claim to be included in an encyclopedia; he has done nothing of significance in his own right (yet), and only achieves newspaper coverage as a result of the tabloid desire to flog papers by including tittle tattle about anyone connected with anyone famous. One could justify a passing reference to this young man in the articles concerning both his mother and father, but not an article in his own right; indeed, the current article contains nothing of substance. A search on his name should therefore result in a redirect to a parent. The Sage of Stamford (talk) 21:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. fails WP:N. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete People are not notable by association. Remove the "son of the former Prime Minister" information from the article and he is just a graduate from Oxford - not worthy of an article. Leaving as a redirect is against WP:NOTCRYSTAL, its assuming someone may want to look him up one day. MortimerCat (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no independent notability. A mention in his father's article is sufficient. TerriersFan (talk) 01:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notible enough to be mentioned in his father's article or his mothers, but not notible enough to be in his own article RockManQ (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the comments above BountyHunter2008 (talk) 19:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • REdirect to his father. His only achievemetn is to be co-chair of a university labour club. I do not think we regard that as notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 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)  Asenine  18:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Peacock[edit]

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

Original research of a non-notable fictional character. Tavix (talk) 22:00, 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Al-Bor'ey[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mohammad Al-Bor'ey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Included in this nomination

Both of these articles are contested prods and fail WP:N and WP:BLP#1E. The death of these children is tragic, yes, but they themselves have done nothing of note worthy of being included here. Wikipedia is not a memorial, and these articles currently only serve as propaganda due to their heavily biased nature. I'd speedy them both for A7, but unfortunately the age of the articles and the previous prods require that we go through process. Hersfold (t/a/c) 22:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am the one who created these articles and I'd like to mention these points:
  • There were a lot of victims died during second intifada and I agree with you that we can't write about these people just because they died. Iman Hijo and Mohammad al-boraey are special cases. These childrens' death got special attention from media (both arabian and international ones) for many reasons and some of them can be concluded from the articles.
  • mohammad al-bor'ey name can be written in english by many ways and I don't know which way of writing is the most famous so I used my own spelling for his name. Therefore, if someone searched for his name in english by a specific spelling, he/she would find a few results. Mohammad can be written as: Mohammad, Mohammed, Muhammad, Muhammed, Mohamad and so on. Al-Bor'ey can be written like: Al-Bor'ey, Al-Bora'ey, Al-Boraey, AlBor'ey, Al Bor'ey ..etc. --Osm agha (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tragic not an encyclopedic topic. The incident can be mentioned as an illustration in a wider article if required. A biography of the individual is anappropriate.--Troikoalogo (talk) 21:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP#1E Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This AfD is a classic example of systemic bias, which we should try to avoid in Wikipedia. These articles should be expanded to address the concerns here, not deleted. It's unfortunate that most of the reliable sources are in Arabic, which may give the (false) impression that they fail WP:N. If these articles are deleted, then by the same argument so should most of the biographies in Category:Israeli casualties during the Al-Aqsa Intifada (and probably a whole shower of others I haven't got time to look for). One may also note the implication (I'm sure unintended by the nominator) that so many children have been killed by the IDF that the death of one such victim is no longer, ipso facto, notable. There is, incidentally, no such link as WP:BLP#1E (it's WP:BLP1E). NSH001 (talk) 11:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD G11 by Athaenara. Non-admin closure. Gr1st (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2Checkout.com[edit]

2Checkout.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Web checkout company that seems to fail WP:ORG due to no coverage in independent reliable sources. Parts of it are written like an advertisement, and the bits that aren't are unsourced weasel-worded criticism. Doesn't seem to be any sourceable encyclopedic content. ~ mazca t | c 21:58, 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 Delete. No sources. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 10:28, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mi Final Feliz[edit]

Mi Final Feliz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is a pure hoax - it is about inexistent song, and chart positions references are totally fictious Cathody (talk) 21:44, 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 keep. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 19:08, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God's Word (bible translation)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
God's Word (bible translation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article on a Bible translation sourced almost exclusively from its own website and publishers. Google returns exactly five hits for "God's Word" +beck +glessler (the originators). God's Word is a generic phrase in discussing Bibles so Google is hard to interpret, but I'm not seeing evidence of non-trivial independent sources for this. Guy (Help!) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of this article, it saddens me to have to say this, but I agree with Guy's points. During the 20th century, there were loads of translations released. Some stuck around, such as the NIV, NKJV, or NASB. Others faded away, such as this one. Thinking back on it now, it was really tough to find sources (outside the various publishers) for the article due to the obscurity of the translation. As for the title, that's not really our problem allthough it trips up google searches, as Guy has said. In other words, let's delete this for the reasons I (and Guy) have laid out. - Thanks, Hoshie 22:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the article author's input normally would be normative at this point, this claims to be a real Bible translation, endorsed by elements of at least one major Christian denomination. What's more, it was both a) published and b) referenced in at least one independent RS that documents Bible translations. It's notable and should be kept, even if it wasn't the next NIV. Jclemens (talk) 17:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some Google Scholar and Google Books searching and I found a fair bit to establish common usage. The results need to be weeded through and integrated appropriately into the article, but my initial impression that this was notable has been reinforced by my searches. Jclemens (talk) 04:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability not established. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag as reliant on a single source, where there may be a conflict of interest. I do not know this translation, but would suggest that most translations of the all-time best selling book are notable. It ought to be possible to produce citations for criticisms of the work from reviewers at the time of publication. However that was before the Internet was widely used, so that they may not be readily accessible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This version of the Bible is included in the widely distributed and used electronic Bible, "eSword," which may help establish notability. Additionally, Google returns a few other sources that need to be reviewed when searching for "American Translation Bible," which is another label attached to God's Word Bible in this article. There is some confusion about that label that needs clarification, as the search for American Translation Bible returns much more information about the 1939 translation by JM Powis Smith and Edgar J. Goodspeed. Heyjohnboy (talk) 14:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This was one of the first in the modern wave of dynamic equivalence/paraphrase translations. (Finding a cite for that requires one to dig thru hardcopy journals from sixties thru eighties.)(If inclusion in Bible Study Software makes it notable, then I'll point out that it is included in Logos Scholar 3) jonathon (talk) 20:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would call a Bible software package an independent secondary source, provided it was published by an organization other than the one which sponsored the translation. Logos is certainly the grand-daddy of the field, as well. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 30 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. Maxim (☎) 21:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahomans for Responsible Government[edit]

Oklahomans for Responsible Government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable 501 group. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 05:00, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A Yahoo search turned up some RS mentions. Here is one article. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, campaign groups like this are a dime a dozen. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wish that was the standard, but it's not. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm relisting this because I'd like to see a bit more discussion of its notability before a decision is made. Bear in mind the idea that notability is not temporary. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Here's another one. They're getting lots of briefer mentions in Google news archives.--chaser - t 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. The standard at WP:ORG is "significant coverage in reliable, secondary independent sources." So far I count one such profile article; the mentions in the others are purely incidental (and there are only 4 of them). I think this one's on the margin, but tending towards non-notability. RayAYang (talk) 12:01, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - partisan-funded short-term astroturfing front seeking publicity/promo through Wikipedia. The Exec Director of this suddenly formed "advocacy group" is the Oklahoma Regional Director for the conservative political campaign group "American Majority" [6]. Note that this is the first and only article created by Downsokc (talk · contribs) -- immediately upon registration. --HidariMigi (talk) 03:11, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamvaya Mata[edit]

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

Article seems to be an original research with no solid verifications of claims. Reference given is unreliable. (In fact reference itself needs references for verification.) Hitro 10:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete currently unverifiable OR, no relevant online sources and the only reference cited by the author is an inscription (primary source). - Icewedge (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources found. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu[edit]

Ee Irupatthiyonnaam Noottaandu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently fails future film notability guidelines. Article created by one editor and one anonmymos IP stating "film will be released in 2009". Google search of film name finds nothing to indicate principle filming has even begun.. Google searches of the "aka' find "rumored" , "trying to recreate", and a number blog posts. No prejudice towards recreation when reliable sources can show that filming has already begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:01, 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reb Moshe of Tzfat[edit]

Reb Moshe of Tzfat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable teacher. Article was created by its subject. All sources I can find are either to his own websites, myspace, or youtube, or similar sites. Corvus cornixtalk 21:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete - not notable and huge COI issues --T-rex 21:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That this isn't a notable teacher is a personal opinion, needs to be proven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not the way it works in Wikipedia. It is incumbent on the article's writer to prove notability, not for others to prove he isn't notable. Corvus cornixtalk 21:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you into jewish orthodox studies to know if someone is a notable teacher? The article is to be edited until it contains only biographical infos, and no connection to any kind of advertisement. reliable sources and quotations are to be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) 21:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC) [8][reply]
        • Besides, the main editor of the article is TeodorTodorov and that is not Reb Moshe of Tzfat— Preceding unsigned comment added by TeodorTodorov (talk • contribs) [9]
          • What I am is an experienced Wikipedia contributor who knows that Wikipedia's notability criteria require that reliable sources be provided as to the subject's notability. If you can find reliable sources that prove that he's well-known in Jewish Orthodox studies, then please do so. This discussion is open for five days, we can revisit the notability any time in the interim. Corvus cornixtalk 21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - he is NN and notability needs to be established, not everyone is notable until proved otherwise. The page now is entirely self-published materials and reads more like a MY SPACE self promotion. No significant external sources or citations were produced, it is COI and self-promotional. We have deleted many Outreach rabbis in the past- even those with brief mentions in local newsletters or brief interviews on Jewish talk shows.--Jayrav (talk) 20:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As always, in order to include an article on a subject the subject has to be notable. The basic requirement to establish notability for an individual is to show that the person has been discussed substantially in multiple reliable sources. Religious and general medias ources are permitted, and there's some latitude as to what's an appropriate source to establish notability in the field. Right now most sources are internal. Even if sourced properly, article would need to be significantly cut because relatively little of its content is covered in outside sources and an article on an individual or organization needs to reflect its independent coverage, it can't be self-promotional. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 01:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Firstly, based on the self-disclosed information on User Reb Moshe of Tzfat (talk · contribs)'s page it is clear that he is also the subject of the Reb Moshe of Tzfat article. He also fails WP:NOTABILITY because while he may be a nice young rabbi, he is no different to thousands (probably even tens of thousands by now in the 21st century) of other Orthodox Jewish outreach rabbis performing the mission of Kiruv ("Outreach to mon-Orthodox Jews) such as the Chabad shluchim, and others, including many belonging to the Breslov (Hasidic dynasty), and many of them have websites and blogs and would still not merit full Wikipedia articles. At this time, this article clearly violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (formerly known as WP:VANITY), WP:NOTMYSPACE, WP:NOTADVERTISING, and even the user's user page violates WP:NOT#WEBHOST. There are also serious problems that a subjects so relatively current does not have WP:RS and hence fails WP:BIO. IZAK (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This article probably should be deleted based on our notability criteria. However, I'm concerned that the coldness of this process has been a bit unwelcoming and has unnecessarily chased off a new editor with unintentional newbie biting. I see the new editor has blanked his user page and not returned. --MPerel 18:29, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Miri: The only thing that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) blanked is two lines about himself: "Teodor Todorov (1982- ) born in Gabrovo, Bulgaria. Currently studies Business Administration at the University of Saarland in Saarbrücken, Germany."[10] and why would he blank that if it was true? What is there to hide? While generally I agree that newbies should be welcomed, in this case it seems that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) right from the outset has been breaking rules. Just look at the User talk:TeodorTodorov page and you will see that his first article/contribution was about himself! It was quickly nominated for deletion, and instead of learning the lesson he then proceeds to do the exact same thing with the subject of a rabbi. This is puzzling. Was he doing that so that the rabbi (Reb Moshe of Tzfat) should be forever miscontrued and lose his chances for a good article or was he up to some other trick? It seems that User TeodorTodorov (talk · contribs) is not as clueless as he is letting on. If he has genuine questions there are many places to learn, such as at WP:SANDBOX or WP:TALKJUDAISM. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 19:04, 29 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 Education in Taoyuan County. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bade Junior High School[edit]

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

Delete- for non-notability. There are so many Junior Highs in any given country. Are we going to list them all? Also, page was created as a massive page creation effort by a suspected sockpuppet. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 21:00, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great Grandma's Rocking Chair[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Great Grandma's Rocking Chair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A seemingly non-notable book. Schuym1 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: seemingly one of those "a dime a dozen" book. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All glinks link to sites that use text from WP, can't find a single review. Fails Book notability. --Ged UK (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnotable. Its a picture book, so I honestly don't think a review would be available. Tavix (talk) 22:02, 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 Delete. Not redirecting as I think it is an unlikely search term, although any editor can feel free to create such a redirect. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three levels of government in Australia[edit]

Three levels of government in Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR-filled essay on Australian government. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Government of Australia: Topic in question already covered in various articles on Australian Government. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:37, 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 Keep, bearing in mind the renomination. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Online[edit]

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

Article lacks verifiable, third-party sources establishing notability. There were two serious issues from the previous AfD nomination. First, I believe the arguments to keep was not backed by any sources and seemed more as WP:ITSNOTABLE claims. Second, the previous AfD was non-admin closed as a keep despite the fact that there was no clear consensus on keeping the article, nor was it a snowball keep. I decided to pass on sending it to WP:DRV and instead re-nominating it for AfD as it was not worth it for admin to look at it, it may have been construed as WP:POINT, and other users will be able to pass appropriate judgment per the argument and sources given. MuZemike (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if the first source is reliable, but if it is 5 million subscribers IS notible and it should be Rewritten. However, 4 of the 6 links are dead links, and the article itself has numerous issues (most of it sounds like it's written as an add). RockManQ (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was my main problem with the article in the first AfD. I don't know how verifiable the data from voig.com is. (I'm guessing the website pertains to tracking to subscriber data of some sort.) MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's only been a few weeks since the first AFD. Did anything significant change? If you do not agree with the consensus of the first AFD, then putting it through AFDs until it gets deleted is not the way to go. Oh, and per the previous afd: "Keep - Being the #4 MMORPG in the world cuts it for me, regardless of anything else. Even if the numbers are a bit off mark, #4 plus or minus two would still make this topic notable." User:Krator (t c) 09:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if I went through WP:DRV, then I would have looked like a WP:DICK wasting admins' time trying to make a WP:POINT. I suppose it was lose-lose for me in this case. Oh, well. MuZemike (talk) 14:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Check out the articles on IGN's[11] and GameZone's[12] site. I believe there is enough to make this at least a Start-class article. Just clean out whatever does not comply with our guidelines. These books[13][14] [15][16] contain trivial information (which, to be clear, would not help establish notability) that could further flesh out the article. Parties interested in having this article remain without trouble on Wikipedia should quickly integrate them into the article. Jappalang (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. It's snowing, no point in prolonging this one. Black Kite 08:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert M. Carter[edit]

Robert M. Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It's true that this article has a lot of sources. However none of them discuss Dr. Carter in depth. What is really happening is that the article is the result of two forces: One, Dr. Carter himself trying to promote himself. Two, environmental activists trying to discredit him as a global warming skeptic. There is also a news story about Dr. Carter's work with geological core samples -- but that is still not about him. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Relatively well sourced, though more should definitely be done. Subject seems notable, and the only "attack" in the article seems to be one sentence sourced to The Sydney Morning Herald about his standing amongst climate scientists. AniMate 20:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the only thing his critics could find was a trivial statement by a newspaper reporter shows how non-notable he is.Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extra comment I have recently been tagging articles on scientists as non-notable. Many of them just give employment and publishing information. There seems to be an attitude on WP that working in the field of scientific research makes a person more notable than, say, managing a bank or filling people's teeth. Is there a policy that says: "WP is not a Who's Who?" Northwestgnome (talk) 20:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For instance Dr. Carter's article states: "Carter has published more than 100 scientific papers...." Duh. That's his job. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also (1) a statistic that helps show how well he's done that job, and (2) an indicator of how well known he is within his field. JulesH (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What if there were an article on a police officer which said: "Officer Smith has written more than 10,000 speeding tickets..."? :-) Northwestgnome (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
False comparison. Writing speeding tickets doesn't make someone notable. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor does writing papers. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it does. Its one of the major criteria in judging the notability of an academic, especially the number of citations of the papers. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"That's his job". Not really. The key job for a scientist is to do science. The publication is not nearly as important as the science behind the publication. Publishing papers is the way science is documented and communicated to the world. Oh, almost forgot:KeepWVhybrid (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree 100%. For a scientist to be notable in the WP sense his work has to be commented on in secondary sources, not it merely reported that he (or she) is doing it. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree in part with the above. Nobody (except the offender) reads speeding tickets. Publishing articles is indeed what academics do (they have to, their performance is evaluated on the basis of published papers). If an academic publishes a thousand papers but there is no evidence anybody ever paid any attention, then that academic is not notable. However, if evidence exists that these papers have made a big impact in the field (for instance, by being heavily cited by other academics - not just a few dozen citations, mind) then such an academic would be notable. Having said all this, this discussion does not really belong in this particular AfD, but at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). --Crusio (talk) 08:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been finding lots of non-notable scientists not related to global warming (which I am against), or anything else "controversial." Northwestgnome (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For anyone following the GW debate he is notable enough for inclusion, IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For once i agree with GoRight ... Carter is one of the most well-known global warming sceptics to anyone following the GW debate. As for whether he is notable as a scientist in his own regard, is more dubious. His Op-Ed in the Telegraph about warming stopping in 1998 is (in-)famous.[17]. He has been the subject of at least one biographical article [18] (reprinted here). He was an expert witness in the Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills trial. etc.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I might well be wrong about his notability. However, that is not really a biographical article. He is interviewed and some info is given on him but then the author goes on, into what is almost Gonzo journalism, about his own feelings about global warming. Northwestgnome (talk) 23:58, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: while not hugely reliable, a Google test shows 12,200 hits, and as said above, he has 100 papers, which isn't bad. He is notable enough imo anyway. The very fact that there are two sets of people, pro- and con- AGW theory, that make this article controversial, shows his notability. Deamon138 (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: passes the professor test; enough sources discussing/mentioning him as an expert demonstrate notability. Oren0 (talk) 00:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - plenty of notable coverage on this guy. We don't need to agree with him to acknowledge that he is notable.--Lester 05:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of secondary sources. The article is quite horrible and should be completely rewritten, but WP:BIO seems to be met. --Crusio (talk) 08:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bob Carter is one of a handful of prominent Australian climate change skeptics who have driven the skeptic side of the debate, has appeared in the Australian media on many occasions, and there should be a Wiki page for individuals who are interested in information on him GrahamP (talk) 10:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability certainly isn't an issue in this article. Content? Sure, it kind of reads like a resume--but that's an editing issue and not an AfD issue. And certainly for collaboration, it's a start--and a darned good one at that. Many editors here start with articles that have much, much less information and edit them to robust articles. Sure, you're not supposed to "create an article about yourself" (and I'm not saying that's what happened here) but if it did happen in this case, I'm okay with it because of the notability of the subject. Now editors can fly with it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm new here so correct me if i'm wrong but it seems like this could be a Snowball Keep? RockManQ (talk) 02:40, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely. I'd do so myself but I'm "involved." Oren0 (talk) 02:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. I do not see this case as passing WP:PROF but there appears to be sufficient coverage of him in the newsmedia to pass WP:BIO (although not as much coverage as I expected after reading the above debate; a filtered GoogleNews search returns 16 hits[19]). Nsk92 (talk) 03:44, 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. Anyone who wants the content to merge somewhere can drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parasitic state[edit]

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

Non-notable "concept". Only one reference, to an unreliable source. Standard Google search shows less than 3k hits, most of which pertain to biological and ecological topics. Google Scholar confirms the lack of widespread usage past this single source. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a made-up concept of the anarco-capitalists. Could be merged to their article. Northwestgnome (talk) 19:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it dates back at least as far as Lenin and has been used by communists as well. EVCM (talk) 19:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the article is about the concept that all states are parasitic, not about the "parasitic states" themselves. It might be okay as a wikionary item. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin (September 1917) asserted that any developed government bureaucracy of his period was parasitic. Any = no need for a separate text beyond the scope of state. NVO (talk) 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he asserted the bureaucracy (the people, the "ruling elite") of "capitalist" states are "parasitics" or even "parasites", but he fid not assert that state per se is "parasitic". If you think otherwise, pleas provide exact citation.Biophys (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, taxation as theft and taxation as slavery would not be articles either. EVCM (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. One-line fringe theories should be reviewed in principal texts on the subject. P.S. Trust me, I'm an accountant. NVO (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Was Leninism a fringe theory? EVCM (talk) 23:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At one time it was. Northwestgnome (talk) 01:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin's theories were fringe. Whatever was made of it after his death is quite a different story. NVO (talk) 01:18, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge useful information (if any) into anarco-capitalist RockManQ (talk) 02:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge/redirect Mathmo Talk 03:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. OR and gross misinterpretation of Lenin.Biophys (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us with the correct interpretation so as to back up your point? I think it's a valid interpretation, which the references amply demonstrate. EVCM (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expression "parasitic state" perhaps belong to Cat Farmer cited in ref. 1. Lenin did not consider state as a "parasite". The "parasites" or "harmful insects" are people - "ruling classes" of the capitalistic (democratic) states according to him. Lenin was not against the state. He simply wanted a different type of state, "the dictatorship of proletariat" or a super-state, also known as a "totalitarian state".Biophys (talk) 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lenin thought that the state would "wither away" once communism were achieved. But, more references to the "parasitic state": http://flag.blackened.net/rocker/marx.htm , https://doi.org/10.1007%2FBF01121238 , http://www.jstor.org/pss/656913 , etc. Just google "parasitic state" and "Lenin." That recurs throughout communist literature. EVCM (talk) 01:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Myth of National Defense[edit]

The Myth of National Defense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable book. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, one of the most important collections of essays related to private defense agencies and related anarcho-capitalist topics. EVCM (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The book appears notable, with many hits. Leonard(Bloom) 20:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It may be an important book but before a neutral article can be written on WP the book has to be reviewed and commented on. Otherwise the WP article ends up being just a promotion for the book. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep. Reviewed by Policy Magazine, which may form the basis of a useful article. JulesH (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete The notability guideline for books gives some basic guidance on what we should be looking for. Reviews are largely insufficient to generate notability for books since most books are reviewed by some body or another. If a broad swath of newspapers and journals decide to review a book, then more of a case can be made. In the case of a "popular book", we could make a case to keep it if the NY Times, LA times, Wa. Post, etc all decided to review it. For a book like this, if Reason Magazine, the American Conservative and other niche magazines (just spitballing to think of right leaning libertarian publications with some clout) reviewed the book, I could see bending WP:NB. as such, it is a work produced by a libertarian thinktank on a subject near and dear to libertarians: divesting the government of its control over some sphere of power. I wouldn't go so far as to call it "one of the most important..." of anything. Free to Choose it's not. without those reviews or some secondary source making the claims above about importance in the field, we should look to other criteria in the books notability guideline. Protonk (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This doesn't meet any of the notability criteria at WP:BK - some reviews in mass media, major awards, etc are needed to establish notabilty. This book ranks 736,090th on Amazon.com's sales rank, which strongly suggests that it hasn't gotten much interest since it was released in 2003. The above keep arguments seem to basically be WP:ILIKEIT. As a note, Google searching book titles isn't a good way to establish notability as such searches always return hundreds of book seller websites which have the book on their databases. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per Protonk, but these swing it towards keeping: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/myth-nationaldefense.html & http://www.sovereignwarriors.com/the-myth-of-national-defense/. Mathmo Talk 03:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article needs a rewrite. The topic of the book is probably more notable than the book itself. jonathon (talk) 20:56, 29 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 everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series[edit]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Second Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:IINFO. Some request applies as the the third series: all included links within the page receive the same outcome as this page. I don't have the time to nominate all 999. Leonard(Bloom) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cascade Delete of all associated, violating pages- Redundant page that is not needed. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I link these indexes to the corresponding pages of indexes on Wikisource as discussed with Gwen Gale here? Openjurist (talk) 21:38, 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 everything has been speedy deleted CSD A3 (and/or A5). Gwen Gale (talk) 06:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series[edit]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entire series fails WP:IINFO. Every blue link fails. Leonard(Bloom) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the time to manually nominate all 325 associated pages, with this article. My question is, can it be assumed that with this one article at AfD, all the others will receive the some outcome as this article? Leonard(Bloom) 18:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget List_of_opinions_from_the_Federal_Reporter,_Second_Series. There has been more than enough time to move these over to Wikisource. I'm thinking the time has come to speedy delete all of this as CSD 5, since the openjurist.org content is now at least linked from Wikisource. I do think the uploader should have looked into what Wikipedia is before copy-pasting this un-encyclopedic, public domain content into hundreds of articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. And, I've got the F.2d nom'd already. ^_^ Leonard(Bloom) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may speedy them all soon. None of this belongs here and truth be told, they amount to link indexes to an external site. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can I link these indexes to the corresponding pages of indexes on Wikisource as discussed with Gwen Gale here? Openjurist (talk) 21:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put a link to these sources in the article Federal Reporter, is all. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Crossword Generator[edit]

Professional Crossword Generator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software. I am also nominating Professional Crossword Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. Both were nominated for speedy deletion but did not fit the criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:29, 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 Delete. Stifle (talk) 15:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DJ IR[edit]

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

Was prodded, but removed by the author. The subject of this article (as well as the author) is not notable. His only assertion of notability is a 275/300 rank on the ReverbNation "chart". That's not notability. Also, When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be) and Lose Control (DJ IR Mixtape), as non-notable as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 18:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I Grow Up (I Wanna Be) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lose Control (DJ IR Mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Delete- He is no Tiesto. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A similar article has been deleted many times under a different title. - While this version at least makes a claim of notablity, he's still not notable. --Versageek 00:25, 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. Mr.Z-man 23:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sui Liaga[edit]

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

No sources are cited; lack of verifiable information and as a result does not meet the criteria in the notability guidelines. The only information I can find is this which contradicts the information given in the article. --Snigbrook (talk) 17:15, 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 00:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people named Gurung[edit]

List of people named Gurung (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability of the most of the people in this list is questionable. No reference at all. Why these people are notable to be the part of encyclopedia is unknown? Having "Gurung" surname doesn't make anyone Encyclopedic. Verification is necessary. I support deletion or trimming the article till verified entries. Hitro 17:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 17:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This doesn't need references, its just a list. I would suggest keeping the list even if all the redlinks are removed. Gurung is large enough, and this is great idea for a split. It will eventuall fill in with bluelinks. In addition, there probably aren't tons of English writing Nepalese people that can track down English language reliable sources for articles on notable Nepalese people. Therefore, per WP:BIAS, I would suggest holding onto most of the redlink until someone with familiarity with the situation takes a look. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a disambig from Gurung is really all this is. I will however be removing all redlinked articles from the list --T-rex 21:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I agree with T-Rex. Removal of red link articles makes it alright. AfD should be closed on this consensus.Hitro 21:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Hitrohit2001[reply]
  • Gurung disambig page is all we need. Keep and close the AfD. -- iMatthew T.C. 22:23, 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Daily[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:ENTERTAINER - unnotable musician. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:09, 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 keep. Waggers (talk) 13:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gestell[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:OR essay on what appears to be a fringe topic in philosophy, and/or a WP:DICDEF. It does not help that the article is incomprehensible to the layman, and that the author isn't sure whether it's "Gestell" or "Gestall".  Sandstein  16:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I agree that the article needs some work to bring it up to standard, but this is an important topic in the philosophy of technology. (Try an Internet search for "Gestell philosophy technology" if you want to see a large selection of articles on this concept.) The German article on Heiddegger has a substantial and apparently well-sourced section on Technology-as-Gestell [20]. Perhaps some of this material could be translated? --RichardVeryard (talk) 22:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick review reveals that there is plenty of source material available. GRBerry 15:26, 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 21:35, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy Byrd (disambiguation)[edit]

Tracy Byrd (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnecessary dab. The singer's page was moved to Tracy Byrd, which already contains a link to his self-titled debut album and a hatnote pointing to the boxer. I can't find any proof of other notable Tracy Byrds, and there's really no point in disambiguating between a singer and his own album, so this is effectively a redundant dab. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I would argue that it should stay. According to WP:MOSDAB, Some disambiguation pages with "(disambiguation)" in the title list only two meanings, one of them being the primary meaning. In such cases, the disambiguation page is not strictly necessary, but is harmless. This is in the section on dabs which contain only two entries - this dab contains three. I believe it is potentially useful and certainly harmless. Boleyn (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has three entries — (1) boxer, (2) singer, (3) singer's eponymous album. Harmless. — ERcheck (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - three articles is a definite keep. Abtract (talk) 16:52, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 23:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girls (D12 song)[edit]

Girls (D12 song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable hidden track, doesn't appear to meet WP:Music guidelines. Ged UK (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:17, 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Piñataland[edit]

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

No reliable sources whatsoever. GarageBand doesn't seem reliable, and the page reads like a fansite as a whole. Note that David Wechsler actually links to a psychologist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep based on the added sources, though the article could definitely use a rewrite. 3-sphere (talk) 03:25, 31 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. Although the users who wish to keep the article numerically outnumber the ones who wish to delete, they have failed to present any strong arguments, mostly arguing that the list is useful, while the users wishing to delete have presenter stronger, guideline-based arguments. Maxim (☎) 21:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC) I've decided to re-close this as no-consensus. I was alerted at my talkpage. I took a second look, and I felt that my previous close as delete was too hasty. What pushed me to reclose this was DGG's comment; while the users arguing to delete comments are certainly valid and strong, DGG's is equally convincing, thus no consensus exists to delete the article. Maxim (☎) 23:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Austin City Limits performers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Austin City Limits performers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ginormous list of every act that's ever performed on Austin City Limits. Overly broad list, non-trivial intersection, violates WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NOT#DIR. Another similar list, List of past Jamboree in the Hills performers, was deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment to expand on my comments from the origonal AFD: I disagree that this list fails either of the WP:NOT Categories as suggested by the AFD lister. It passes WP:NOT#IINFO, in that it is indeed a discriminent list, it is not a list of "all musicians", it is disciminent in that it lists only those who have preformed on ACL. Reguarding WP:NOT#DIR, well, simply read the explaination of that, this list in no way fails here, someone care to cite where in WP:NOT#DIR this specificly fails? Also note, that the nominator here decided to argue my points on my talk page rather then here, while inappropriate I will still assume good faith. Russeasby (talk) 22:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP has lots of lists. This one might be useful to someone. No reason to single this one out to delete. If you want to change WP policy to get rid of all lists please let me know and you will have my support. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- Austin City Limits is a notable program, and having a list of performers that has performed on the show is pretty useful for some people. Also, as some have stated, there are other lists of similar nature as well. Delete this, and their existence is no longer acceptable to Wikipedia. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second part of your argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS]. Also, do you have any proof that there are any lists of similar nature? Tavix (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a directory of information that would be impossible to verify. Although there are some references, all they do is establish that there is a list and there isn't any WP:RS that would verify this list. Tavix (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list is entirely verifiable via the ACL website (link is on the page). Granted this is a primary source, but within the guidelines at WP:RS it is a permitable primary source. Since it is a list, and purely data, with no commentary the primary source is not only fine, but the most reliable one. So the list is verifiable and verified in its current state. Russeasby (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure I follow you. Are you suggesting that the bands themselves are not notable? If thats the case lets put each of their articles up for AFD as well. But I suspect I am misunderstanding you, care to clarify? Russeasby (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An entirely logical list of notable articles. 90% of the entries have WP articles. Those that don't should be sourced to show they performed in Austin City Limits. No reason to the delete this one!--Mike Cline (talk) 18:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment its worth noting that even the few bands which do not have articles, most likely all of them are actually notable to have articles of their own (or redirects, since some may be solo members of a more notable band they played in). If they appeared on ACL it should be easy to assert their notability even beyond ACL as they were notable before their appearance or they would not have been invited in the first place. Just that no one has got around to making those articles yet, a good project for someone perhaps. Russeasby (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep such lists are useful, the information is verifiable, and the performers all or almost all notable. Exactly the right sort of list. would encourage as many more of t these as we can get people to work on. Perhaps the earlier deletion needs a review, but if the fundamental show is not as improtant perhaps there is a distinction. Using precedent for this is like saying since we have occasionally deleted an article on a band, delete every one of them. DGG (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per items 2, 3, and 6 of WP:LC. Stifle (talk) 12:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almagest (game)[edit]

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

Game that is going to be released in 2009. The article fails to state why the game is notable, and although it has some length it almost reads as an advertisement and is 'crufty'. Google gave 450 or so results for Almagest MMORPG although many of those seemed unrelated - I don't see how this game is, at this stage, notable. Esteffect (talk) 15:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and WP:CRYSTAL. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- While there are articles that predicts future gaming products, this one, I don't think, should remain on Wikipedia. If this game proves to be a hit (who knows?), by all means, restore the page. Otherwise, this seemingly "dime-a-dozen" game should not have a page here. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unsourced crystal ball-ism, advertisement. --Stormie (talk) 04:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — yet another crystalballin' MMORPG trying to promote itself. MuZemike (talk) 05:03, 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, already performed (non-admin closure). --AmaltheaTalk 23:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dasi Junior High School[edit]

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

Non-notable junior high school. Possibly merge into Education in Taoyuan County. Ged UK (talk) 15:21, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tattooed Lady of Lochee[edit]

Tattooed Lady of Lochee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOTE and a Google search yields absolutely nothing on the subject Bvlax2005 (talk) 15:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete I'd G3 it as vandalism but I get trouted every time I do that. Clearly nonsense. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No Hammer, it is not nonsense. But the fact that the author has not managed to produce any substantial references in two days suggests that it is original fiction. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Hammer. This is silly. Well-crafted nonsense, but nonsense nonetheless. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also delete related article Dark Lady of Logie. JuJube (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the earmarks of a hoax. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Dark Lady of Logie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Comment. Now added AfD tag to Dark Lady of Logie and I !vote delete for her. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given the creator's spelling difficulty, I tried a few different variations and couldn't find any information using google to verify this figure's importance or existence. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:44, 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 Keep Withdrawal was stated on IRC; also, this looks like a snowball keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Humanzee[edit]

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

Whilst this article is technically feasible, it is over 90% speculation. Humanzees do not and may possibly never exist, and therefore this is effectively an unworkable article. It violates WP:NOT under Crystal Ball, since it also explains something which does not exist at this time. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Article is a part of four projects: placed notice of AFD on all four talk pages.Kww (talk) 15:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. It seems that I have just done exactly the same thing without realising you already had done it. Oops... :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It doesn't speculate, it reports on experiments, historical evidence, and the genetic underpinning that drive those studies. It used to be over 98% absolute crap, but I worked pretty hard to get that out. The Ivanov experiments are real. Bedford's experiments with in-vitro hybridization of gibbon eggs with human sperm are real. Oliver is real, even if he isn't a real humanzee. The genetic studies showing the similarities are real, and the genetic evidence of hybridization shortly after the species divergence is also real. Not really existing isn't a guideline under WP:N, it's whether reliable sources have written about it, and they have. The whole cryptozoology project would collapse if articles about mythical and hypothetical species were yanked out from underneath them. Hell, this article even got a visit from User:ScienceApologist and he didn't gut it.
    Kww (talk) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per arguments above. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Some sections of the article may need to be rewritten to focus more on what secondary sources actually say about the subject directly to move it away from speculation territory (I'm thinking of the "feasibility" section), and the sourcing definitely needs improvement, but this is nothing that can't be fixed by normal editing. AfD is not for article cleanup. An article on this subject that merely covers what scientists have said about it, and historical instances where such hybridization has been attempted or rumored to exist, would be perfectly acceptable in my book. Kww has a done a great job putting it on that path so far.--Cúchullain t/c 16:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep a notable subject, speculation on human-ape hybrids is a valid subjest. What the article shouldn't do (and which it used to far too much) is indulge in speculation itself, but even so it's not grounds for deletion. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nominator - As I also stated in in the nom, its a violation of WP:NOT (A Crystal Ball) - Allow me to refer you to Article 3 of that item:

"Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Much of what needs to be said already has been. This is a legitimate field of current scientific reseach, even of such a hybrid has not been (definitively) produced yet, and a legitimate field of anthropologic endeavor, to the extent of investigating the possibility of such hybrids early in human history. The article could use some additional clean up, and should not speculate on whether such a hybrid will be produced or confirmed in the future. But the research around whether such a hybrid could occur and whether it once did belongs in this article. Rlendog (talk) 17:42, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 23:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Test matches[edit]

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

Delete. Pointless list which repeats the titles of some of the other articles in its own category; presumably it was created before the category but it serves no useful purpose now. BlackJack | talk page 14:52, 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 Delete. Done by Stifle. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Toal[edit]

Kenny Toal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Pam Royle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Biographies of two newsreaders on a British local TV station. Claim to notability is that one of them was once sick while presenting, but not on air, and the other had to stand in for him. I don't think that's enough. Delete both. JohnCD (talk) 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment by nominator: author blanked Kenny Toal and requested deletion, but I have restored it as one is not supposed to blank during an AfD debate. A reference has been added to Pam Royle but it seems to be just a list of the presenters of a particular TV programme, hence not independent. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to do that. If the author blanks the page it can be taken as a request to delete. I've deleted the page. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:11, 27 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. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Lodge of Armenia[edit]

Grand Lodge of Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not meet notability criteria outlined at WP:ORG. The article contains no sources that are independant of the subject. A search on Google, and at Google books indicates that there are likely to be no additional sources. While the subject's name indicates a claim to being an organization that is "national in scope", a look at the Grand Lodge's web page indicates that it actually consists of only 4 suborbordinate lodges, all of which could be in the same city (and given the average size of a Masonic Lodge, this would also mean that the organization has perhaps 200 members at most). When compared to other, significantly larger Masonic bodies this one is simply not notable. Blueboar (talk) 14:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Inherently notable subject, if not as an organisation. Ottre (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain what makes this subject "inherently notable". Blueboar (talk) 12:40, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too new (<6 years of existence) to have historical sources to draw on, and existence does not equal notability. There's no such thing as "inherent notability"; if there was, WP:N wouldn't have to exist. MSJapan (talk) 03:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not this has inherent notability, there is such a thing as inherent notability. A member of a national legislature for example. I think "Grand Lodge" asserts notability (which is not the same as having it), but that's another argument. JASpencer (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to something like Freemasonry in Armenia or Freemasonry in the Caucasus. JASpencer (talk) 08:03, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename per JASpencer. VartanM (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've taken the normal editorial action of redirecting the page to the article on the murder. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manu Sharma[edit]

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

A case of someone notable only for one event- namely, a murder. Said murder is already covered at Murder of Jessica Lall. The subject is the son of a politician, but being related to someone notable does not make you notable. J Milburn (talk) 14:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable person. Schuym1 (talk) 16:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Murder of Jessica Lall - the murder was certainly notable but per WP:BIO1E he doesn't need a separate article. JohnCD (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- to Murder of Jessica Lall. - Longhair\talk 22:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- As the criminal son of an ex-minister in the Central cabinet, Manu Sharma is notable on his own. Indeed, the only reason the murder of Jessica Lall is notable is because it was committed by Manu Sharma. It is true the Manu Sharma and Murder of Jessica Lall articles overlap on a number of aspects, but the Jessica Lall article presents aspects of the murder, and the social ramifications of it. The Manu Sharma article is more about his political and economic clout, covering, for example, the actions taken by his politician-father Venod Sharma to pay off witnesses, leading to his political downfall.
    In addition to the Jessica murder, Manu is also associated with Vikas Yadav, who has been sentenced in the Nitish Katara murder.
    The Manu Sharma case was a landmark in modern Indian history since it pioneered a shift where the growing middle class voice became effective against the entrenched corruption of the political class. Coming from the very highest echelons of India, Manu is personally more notable than, say, James Earl Ray, known primarily for the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. Similarly there are Wikipedia articles for John Hinckley, Herschel Grynszpan, etc. in addition to articles on their particular crimes. The importance of Manu Sharma for posterity is not only because he killed Jessica Lall, but because he is the criminal scion of a powerful family, and his conviction underscored an end of impunity in India. mukerjee (talk) 03:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seemed to have missed the point here. I am not challenging the notability of the murder, but the subject would not be considered notable if he had not committed the murder, meaning that this is a standard case of someone notable for only a single event. Sure, his position may have made the murder more notable, but that does not mean that the murder makes him notable in his own right- note that people are never considered notable for their family connections. As you also mentioned (bribes and such) this is also a potentially serious article in general biographies of living people terms. We have unsourced negative statements all over the article- a quick few examples include "Venod Sharma was denied a congress ticket for the Parliamentary elections," and "many witnesses testified to the police about Manu Sharma being the murderer." This may be common knowledge to those familiar with Indian politics, but that doesn't mean you can just leave such damning statements lying around with poor or no sourcing. Other arguments you use in favour of this article being kept is that other crap exists, which is commonly regarded as invalid (we should judge articles on their own merits) and that this was a landmark case- again, I am not challenging the notability of the murder/case, only of the subject of this article. J Milburn (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per mukerjee - Shyamsunder23:09, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:08, 27 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) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ryan (Australian politician)[edit]

Chris Ryan (Australian politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This was created for an unsuccessful candidate at the Australian federal election, 2007New South Wales state election, 2007. He does not appear to be notable in any way and there is no reason to keep this article. Grahame (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:POLITICIAN, being a candidate for political office does not confer notability, and no other notability is indicated. JohnCD (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - failed candidate for state election. Page is unsourced and there is no substantiated claim for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Article is nothing but a CV.--Lester 22:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability other than as a politician, and the politicial career fails the specific criteria for a politician with no significant political offices held, no significant media coverage, no apparent history of political involvement or contribution other than as the token candidate for an unwinnable seat. The 'rags-to riches' story and first-hand account of conversations with clothing executives is fascinating, but would be better on a blog or userpage. Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:30, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article purports to be a general, whole-of-life biography of Chris Ryan. The article consists entirely of unsourced information. Unverified information may be deleted from WP, especially if the article is about a living person, so there is one ground for deleting this article. It fails to demonstrate notability in accordance with WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN, so there is a second ground. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was created on 12 March 2007 by Kerry1949 (talk • contribs) . This User has been inactive since 16 March 2007 - the final contribution was a request to WP:Help Desk in which the User signed himself "Chris Ryan". The inescapable conclusion is that this article about Chris Ryan was written by Chris himself. Kerry1949's User page supports this conclusion. This is not consistent with WP's policy of avoiding WP:COI - it is almost impossible for people to write about themselves from a neutral perspective. Dolphin51 (talk) 03:51, 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.  Sandstein  19:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotrek Gurnisson[edit]

Gotrek Gurnisson (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) 18:04, 19 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, Blueboy96 13:51, 24 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:02, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slashed[edit]

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

There's a lot of what looks like hoax information in this, it also doesn't meet verifiability standards and Google didn't reveal much about it to confirm what this article says, and is of questionable notability. Masked Hoody (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Based on sources Wub has found, this is not a hoax. However, it also is not released yet so delete based on crystal-balling. Edward321 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing in IMDB. Definite hoax. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the links from the article say nothing about it, the link "official website" from the info box just goes to the Ash website. Likely hoax but even if not, fails WP:V. JohnCD (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Film is not a hoax there are scenes i found on youtube with several notable rock stars are in it, also the film is a low budget so you guys shouldnt expect much results however i believe this film is somewhat notable due to the kind of people who stars in it for example, david grohl, Ash and bowling for soup according to the youtube clips. However if the article does indeed fail notablity then i suggust that the subject should be placed in a apporiate place for example the articles of who starred in it and so on. Pro66 (talk) 16:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete vain vanity in vain (article creator's nick is Jedshepherd, director of film is Jed Shepherd). JuJube (talk) 22:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google search brings up nothing. On youtube or not, you'd think after 5 years there might be something out there to give WP:NF. I did find THIS, and THIS... not enough to show notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Ash article. Changed vote per insights of JohnCD, below. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And a note: The article itself speaks about the film as if it were released in 2004, and there has been no source offered that shows this actually happened. That's the pity, as it might have been as fun a film as promised. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Hmmmm... I definitely remember reading about Ash working on a horror film with a number of cameos in. It was at least once before it was due to be released, possibly in Q magazine (but all my copies of that are at home, so I can't look it up there). In fact I was just wondering the other day what became of that film. I will try and look into this further, but for now could I just urge no one to go speedy deleting as a hoax. the wub "?!" 14:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, here's some references:
  • Incidentally this is a pain to search for, given that Ash is the name of the main character in The Evil Dead and Ash (the band) also collaborated on Shaun of the Dead, so I suspect there may be others out there (plus offline sources such as the Q magazines I mentioned). Given the multiple instances of coverage, including outside the music press, it is clear this is not a hoax. Notability is less certain, but again given the coverage, and the notability of people associated with it, I believe it merits a keep. the wub "?!" 15:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice digging... but a few questions/comments: I do not have nor want to pay for a subscription to Hotpress, but the article is dated 2002. The NME article is dated October 7, 2002. The XFM article from April 2004 calls it a "hugely anticipated homemade zombie movie". The second NME article is from November 2002. The third NME article is a blub and a link to the trailer (its existance is not being denied). The Highbeam article is another that requires a subscription, and is dated September 2002. The Dead Link seems to also have a 2002 date. And the last offered link, from Highbeam (subscription required) also is dated from 2002. Your tenacity is laudable. I do not for a moment think this is a hoax. I think it was a project with tremendous potential. But we have a problem in that the project seemed to die after the trailer. Your newest source is 4 years old and only spoke in future tense. Is there not anything more current from websites of any of the principles that indicate the project continued? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - having studied the references one can look at without subscription, I agree it's not a total hoax, but the dates are 2002 and 2004 - it looks as though the boys had some fun starting to make a sort of youtube movie, and if it were finished and had some sort of release it might be notable because of the people in it; but it's not clear that it has come to anything or is ever going to be finished. So I can't think it deserves more than a mention in the Ash article, and I am not inclined to change my !vote. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm satisfied that this isn't a pure hoax, but this film hasn't been released, and it may even be unfinished (some of the comments certainly lead one to believe that.) WP:NFF has a clause about these films, that they have to be notable. I'm not convinced this one is. I also think there may be some self-promotion aspect to this, as several of the YouTube clips (try searching for "slashed ash" - first hit) actually point to the Wikipedia article. I stand by my original vote of not notable, and therefore delete. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Went to the author's talkpage to post a few questions about any further progress on the film since 2004. I posted my questions, but noticed that he had not been notified about the article being sent to AfD. Becuase of my questions, he should know now, but has missed out on a few days opportunity to address the concerns of the Nom and the AfD itself. Hopefully he might still have time to show that the film has been finished and has been shown... or that the film is still in production... something... anything to show that it has not simply died aborning. I will now make it a point to notify contributing editors about the article being at AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to all (sorry it's so delayed, been rather busy) - Oh no, it's quite clear to me that the film never got released, and I realised that when looking at the sources. In fact that's what drove me to investigate this, just plain curiosity about what happened to it after I heard about it years ago. And I wanted to address those who argued on the basis that it was a hoax, and prove to myself that I wasn't imagining things! I do feel that the coverage whilst in production means it is worth an article, even though it wasn't released, as it passes the general notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable" as well as being associated with a number of notable people. But I can see people disagree. It's been clear to me recently that I'm getting more "inclusionist" or the Wikipedia community overall is getting more "deletionist", or probably both, but I guess that's the way the consensus goes. As for the self-promotion aspect, I removed the two external links from the article since they were unhelpful. the wub "?!" 19:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment per my comment above, I'm hoping that the original author or other contributors might be able to show that this has not been abandoned by its production. If not... well.... it'd be a pity. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes the GNG. articles on films that were never released are cool as long as they come from third part---oh god! What is that around the....AIIIIEEEE!!!! Protonk (talk) 19:51, 30 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. — Scientizzle 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Bandicoot 2D[edit]

Crash Bandicoot 2D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fan-game, nothing near notable enough. YowuzaZXWolfie (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete also per nom. Clearly fails WP:V, especially when no such sources can be found. MuZemike (talk) 05:10, 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. Stifle (talk) 13:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Poulton[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an unnotable writer of unnotable comic books. I am also nominating the following related pages because they appear to be self-promotional spam from Arcana Studio:

Koni Waves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
American Wasteland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Evb-wiki (talk) 13:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Writing 4 comic books does not denote notability. Bvlax2005 (talk) 14:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all Spam. --Crusio (talk) 10:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Looking over them I think they can be improved to the point where a reasonable case can be made for them but they do need work and I'd need to check some of the statements made (it would, for example, be notable if Koni Waves had 3 Eagle Award nominations but I'm not seeing it on the list and I pretty much wrote the list based on the actual announcements so I'm happy it is accurate - I suspect they are referring to the initial process where anyone can "nominate" anything they like, it is the shortlist that is the equivalent of other awards nominations). These were only created a couple of days ago and are the first time I've seen them and it will take a bit to work out what is relevant and if there are other claims for notability but that is going to take time. I'll be having a dig around and seeing what I can find. (Emperor (talk) 03:03, 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 Waggers (talk) 21:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank the Plumber[edit]

Frank the Plumber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organisation. Does not meet requirements for inclusion. —Borgardetalk 12:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CORP and WP:RS. Down the drain with this one, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom --T-rex 21:28, 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 Delete (without prejudice to recreation when verified properly). Stifle (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album)[edit]

Heavy Rotation (Anastacia album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Album news is in the very early stages. There is simply not enough information available to justify creating an article at this point. The page seems rushed and very fan driven. Article should be deleted and recreated with adequate information (i.e. release dates, tracklisting, cover, etc.) and sufficient 3rd party reliable sources. Alkclark (talk) 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Cliff smith talk 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice per nom: can be recreated once track list is verified by reliable sources per WP:MUSIC. Cliff smith talk 16:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. I would much prefer info like this stay in the musician article until the album is released and charts successfully. Yes, it's a mess right now, sourced to commercial sites and largely speculative, but ironically that's probably better sourced than half the album articles. Anyway, MTV Asia supports much of the info. It hardly seems worth deleting now if it will get restored soon. Gimmetrow 20:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Agreed. Too early in the album stage to give it its own article. Inclusion in the artist's main article is more appropriate (at this stage). I say around end of Sept when the song is starting to chart and record company released more information then yes, its own article. KM*hearts*MC (talk) 07:46, 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 Redirect to SBS TV. Waggers (talk) 13:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SBS HD[edit]

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

There is no such thing. All the data in the article has been made up. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Note that the logo is nonexistant and in fact that SBS broadcasts a simulcast in HD (really ED) as noted in the SBS TV article. ~ Trisreed my talk my contribs 08:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: SBS HD is just a translator rebroadcasting the same content on another frequency. Maybe, as Bidgee (above) says, the content could be merged into the SBS TV article, but there's not really any content to merge. It's an article without content. SBS's analogue signal will eventually be switched off. But these things aren't all worth separate articles. It's all just the same SBS.--Lester 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and recreate as a redirect to SBS TV - not a separate channel but a different resolution rebroadcast only - Peripitus (Talk) 03:47, 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. Synergy 13:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C. W. Burpo[edit]

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

Notability, and third party sources for facts presented here fail to establish notability βcommand 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A 30+ page chapter on him in a book I added, The Preachers (plus the page in the other book and miscellaneous googlable refs) is quite enough to prove notability.John Z (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Third party sources establish notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish his notability per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria. Kristen Eriksen (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reliable secondary coverage seems a little limited, but just sufficient to meet the requirements of WP:N. The assertion of notability is the "nationally known" status - this is not specifically referenced in the article but 30 pages of coverage in "The Preachers" would seem to support it. This would also suggest adherence with the biographical notability guideline re making "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field". I appreciate this reference was not included when the article was originally nominated - in conjunction with the other refs the current form of the article seems worth keeping even if the earlier version did not. Euryalus (talk) 03:12, 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 Keep. Synergy 12:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anil Mukim[edit]

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

Notability, and third party sources for facts presented here fail to establish notability βcommand 12:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - appears to meet the notability criteria with significant coverage in Indian newspapers over his actions as district collector (described here as the most powerful government official in the district)and a widely recognized role in the Gujarat earthquake. The position of Joint Secretary of the Commerce Ministry is on a similar level to Secretary of Commerce Carlos Gutierrez - an unelected position but seemingly of sufficient national importance to assert notability. Euryalus (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is significant coverage of him in Indian mass media, both national and local. GoogleNews gives 262 hits[21], most containing nontrivial coverage. There are examples there of detailed coverage of him personally such as this article about him in Indian Express[22]. Passes WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: Joint Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industry is a very high rank for Indian Civil Servants. Also, there are good number of google results appear when searched for this guy's name. Considering that not much results are expected on civil servants, he is notable and often comes in news. I would suggest closing this debate immediately: the article has seven references now. I also do not know enough to estimate notablity of a lot of articles, but I do not try to learn by filing Afd. --GDibyendu (talk) 18:27, 27 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 18:16, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law[edit]

WP:SNOWBALL?

Bulgarian Center for Not-For-Profit Law (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not assert notability and lacks factual third party sources. βcommand 12:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - much improved. Kittybrewster ☎ 11:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep -association with USAID and international not for profit organisation clearly asserts notability. Seems to have played an important role in Bulgrian law and decentralisation of power away from the state in intiating social and legislative reforms. Just needs to be expanded and improved... The Bald One White cat 12:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly meets WP:ORG. "The program has been of notable importance in drawing together multi-party support of a modern legal framework. A new law was drafted in Bulgaria which permitted not-for-profit organizations to engage in economic and legal activity, curbing the state control over the activities of not-for-profit organizations." This has plenty of WP:RS to prove its WP:N. --I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 14:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, the article has changed completely since this deletion page was created. It is now clearly an appropriate wikipedia article. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep, per WAS. the_ed17 15:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is what it was when it was nominated for deletion=>[23]. This is the article now=>[24]. Need I say more? the_ed17 15:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - no comment on the original version, but it is now perfectly acceptable. Carcharoth (talk) 15:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The worrying thing is this article was intially speedy deleted before I had a chance to even look at. I had to request that it was restored. Editors who believe such things are non notable really should do a quick research check. It takes a minute maximum to find why it is notable. All it needed was expanding just ask Baldy nicely... The Bald One White cat 15:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - LOL!!! It's funny to see such an article proposed up for deletion! Shahid • Talk2me 16:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now and Fix WP:SELFPUB problems. If not possible, Delete renominate for deletion later While self-published sources are acceptable in articles about themselves or their authors, an article should not be based largely upon such sources. 80% of the material is referenced to the publications of the Center itself, and the other substantive source is USAID, which is a material supporter of the Center and therefore is not disinterested. If the Center is truly notable, then its activities should be noted by third parties independent of the Center and its backers. If it has not, then Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject. Robert A.West (Talk) 17:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what are we going to start deleting other NGO articles like Friends of the Earth because they are based on their own proclamations or sources? If we want to know what an organization has done there is nothing better than reading information from an official annual report. It could use some third party sources I agree for neutrality purposes for a balanced article but even if there is a lack of these based on english search results on google that still doesn't make it deletable. There would more than likely be sources available in Bulgarian on a clearly notable group in legal and social policy in Bulgaria The Bald One White cat 17:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If articles cannot be properly sourced, then they should be deleted. If they can be properly sourced, they should be sourced properly. Non-English language sources are acceptable if English-language sources are lacking. As it stands, this article is a policy violation and could, after a reasonable interval, be re-proposed for deletion on the basis that it is incapable of being properly sourced. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard is effectively "can we verify it?" As we have admins and trusted users who are fluent in Bulgarian and related languages (i.e. enough that they could understand 50% or more and get the gist and assess reliability of sources) then there really is no problem. Orderinchaos 15:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as soon as the reliable non-English sources are cited in the article any reader who understands the languages will be able to verify that the article conforms to the information in those articles. At that point, the article will be in compliance. BTW, I think it worth remembering that Wikipedia does not have a concept of "trusted user" -- that is more in the nature of Citizendium. Here, admins have no special status or authority as regards content. That is why it is not enough to assert that sources exist -- one must list them. Robert A.West (Talk) 16:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Truly notable? We have articles on tiny asteroids that are only noted by scientists. This is not the encyclopedia of only truly notable things. The point about notability is to be sure it actually exists (not a garage band you invented yesterday), people care enough about it to read about it (not the tree in your backyard), and we have reliable sources for it (how do we know you are not just making this up). This exists. People care. We have reliable sources. USAID is itself a reliable organization. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, WP:SELFPUB is not a deletion rationale. If there are problems with the sources, then the information in the article sourced only to those problematic references should be tagged as such, or simply removed. Second, Betacommand first tagged this for speedy, which was a completely inappropriate action. Once the article was restored (and properly so), Betacommand decided it would be better to AfD it. Even this is questionable, as it was a pretty clear candidate for cleanup and research, not for deletion. The article is now a completely viable article, and thus I recommend that this article be speedily kept, and that Betacommand work to improve problematic articles before tagging them for speedy deletion in the future, except in obvious cases. S.D.D.J.Jameson 17:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it is a perfectly valid deletion rationale: policy prohibits basing articles primarily on self-published sources, and states explicitly, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." The article should be fixed. Many articles should be fixed. If you, or any other editor believe that the article can be fixed, then my recommendation as stated above is not to delete -- fixing an article improves Wikipedia more than deleting it. On the other hand, if no editor believes that it can be fixed, or if time proves that it is unlikely ever to be fixed, then it can and should be brought up for deletion again, quite validly. Robert A.West (Talk) 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy snowball keep Clearly notable. Sour grapes on part of nom due to speedy failing. Jtrainor (talk) 17:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, this is a running theme on the part of the nominator. When one justification or method for deletion fails, try something else. It's like watching a monkey throw shit at the wall until something sticks. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 02:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point you are making can be made without specific analogies like that. WP:FORUM might be what you are looking for, but it is perfectly OK to take things to AfD if a speedy is declined. Trust the AfD system to work, and wait for the nominator to learn something if the nominations keep failing. Just give it time before calling anyone out as a bad-faith or incompetent nominator - such accusations don't help and create more drama than the small amount of time wasted on the discussions. However, if the nominations are in great volume and might be scaring away new editors (not the case for this nom), that is another matter. Carcharoth (talk) 03:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SPEEDY Keep Notable enough for keeping the article.--Caspian blue (talk) 21:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as notable, fix the content. The article probably needs assistance from copyeditors who are proficient in English as a first language but who understand the topic. Orderinchaos 14:58, 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7 nancy (talk) 19:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Haddadin[edit]

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

Non-notable, editor removed speedy delete tag. This article fails our inclusion policy. —Borgardetalk 12:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator. —Borgardetalk 12:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Poorly written unsourced resume by non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. So tagged. Article authors are not supposed to remove speedy tags from their own articles, so I don't see any reason not to tag it again. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:44, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 23:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouAreTV[edit]

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

Procedural nomination: found nominated for PROD deletion with reason stated as "Just another online video sharing site, no assertion of notability, no mention of reliable third party overage." Has previously been to AfD with outcome = Keep. User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:33, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Town F.C.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Forest Town F.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Football club which fails the generally accepted notability criteria of having played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or FA Vase (established in the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 most recent AfDs on similar subjects). Was kept at a previous AfD in August 2006 despite failing the WP:CORP of the time, and even though more editors voted to delete/merge it (the argument for keeping was that the league the clubs play in was one of the strongest step 7 leagues in the country; since then it has been significantly weakened by the creation of a new step 6 league above it, taking several clubs).

Also nominating Bolsover Town F.C.‎, Pinxton F.C.‎, Newark Flowserve F.C.‎, Welbeck Colliery Welfare F.C.‎ and Thoresby Colliery Welfare F.C. for the same reason пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:28, 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 Nomination Withdrawn. (non-admin closure). MrKIA11 (talk) 23:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Charlesworth[edit]

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

Non-notable. Although she might be important in her field, the article's one cited source did not say anything about her. I also checked Google and there was nothing about her, just links to books or papers she has written or to universities where she has worked. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn since it seems that there are sources about her. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Being a fellow of the royal society meets WP:PROF criteria 3. Google scholar search returns 3,820 resutls [25], the majority of the first 50 of which definitely have her as author. The very first result has been cited 1130 times with many of other articles having been cited several hundred times. Hence meets criteria 1. I'm sure there's more as well. Dpmuk (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that merely citing the work someone has done or the honors someone has been awarded makes WP more like a Who's Who or a resume service, not that Dr. Charlesworth needs that. Northwestgnome (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above.John Z (talk) 14:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important in their field is notable unless the field itself is non-notable. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep I have added a direct link to her bio. Very few scientists get a dedicated special journal issue when they retire. I have also added data on her publication activity and citation record, both are stellar. Also author of (at least) two widely used textbooks (cited in the article). Why nominate someone who is "FRS" for deletion? Should be obvious that sources for notability can be found for such a person (actually, being FRS suffices). --Crusio (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work. I am not a scientist and am not aware of the standards of notability in the field. However, WP is written for the general public. So far this article says nothing about her as a person that would be interesting to the general reader. Are there any secondary sources which discuss her importance? I am not trying to deny that she is important as a scientist. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Secondary sources are often a problem with scientists. In this case, there's the (short) intro to the special issue of Genetical Research that was devoted to her (that's where I got her birth date). I'm afraid that's all I have been able to find (but I admit that I did not search very thoroughly, no time. I guess one could just put a stub tag on the article and let someone with the time and inclination ameliorate it). --Crusio (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I will withdraw my nomination. Northwestgnome (talk) 21:02, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brad Ahern[edit]

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

Hoax/non-notable article. Initially created claiming that he was an Australian footballer who played over 100 times for Brazil. Then recreated claiming he was a football coach who had coached many of the world's best known players. Now had a section added claiming that he was an orienteerer with a link to the Australian 1982 championships, in which there was a person called Brad Ahern, though I don't believe he is notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 11:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course they play baseball in Australia - see Australian Baseball Federation. The article above is bogus however. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:43, 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 keep. Waggers (talk) 13:06, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harriet Spicer[edit]

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

Unreferenced for over two years, fails verifiability policy. Also questionable notability — being in the Judicial Appointments Commission does not convince me. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated:Francis Plowden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google News archive search reveals notability several times over. Is it really too much to expect people to do a few seconds' basic research before nominating for deletion? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Harriet Spicer now has plenty of references satisfying WP:V and WP:N. I added extra references to Francis Plowden, and so he clearly passes the same policies. Tassedethe (talk) 15:06, 31 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. Stifle (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC) Keep as amended. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article moved to: Libertarian perspectives on revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution[edit]

Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

original research, questionable notability at best, looks like an ideological fork at best and at worst it could be one person's perspective, cited though it is. either way, it isn't encyclopedic. creator banned from wikipedia. Buridan (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Article moved to: Libertarians perspectives on revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


Delete This is more like an essay, not an encyclopedia article. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete: Current article because POV original research/synthesis with WP:BLP problems (implying some editors support violence when they merely talk about revolution, but they might mean nonviolent revolution). Unless it got changed to much broader "Libertarian perspectives on revolution" which just listed various viewpoints with minimal simple categorization and without all the editor's personal opinions and POV categorizations.
8/29/08 addition: The name having been changed to broader "libertarian perspectives on revolution", all the WP:OR/synthesis categorizations and ramblings removed, worst non-WP:RS sources removed, better quotes and sources put in. Still working on more notability refs, but many of those quoted directly on this topic are libertarian professors who are widely published. Also note there are a number of such articles under Category:Libertarian_theory, some better than others. This one is shaping up pretty good. Please take another look. additonCarol Moore 13:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Keep I am sure there is a wealth of information on anarcho-capitalists' views on violent revolution in general, as there has been much discussion of the American Revolution, etc. See for instance http://www.libertariannation.org/b/strategy2.htm#rev EVCM (talk) 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: in the interim User:Nihilo 01 changed the name back to "Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on revolution." Carol Moore 23:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}[reply]
It probably should be changed to Libertarian perspectives on revolution. There would likely be more references, since there are more libertarians than the smaller subset of anarcho-capitalists. EVCM (talk) 04:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say change it to that, take out all the original, now banned original editor's unsrouced and/or original research, including in section headings, and then see what the editors above think. I'll vote back to Keep if that happens and will be glad to change the problematic material myself. Carol Moore 22:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Delete This is interesting, I guess, but not at all encyclopedic and amounts to a lot of OR, even in the "Libertarians perspectives..." form. Imagine how widely Wikipedia would expand if all these kinds of articles were allowed. Would we have "Neo-liberal perspectives on post-colonialism"? I hope not. Markdsgraham (talk) 23:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you see original research in this article? We have a lot of articles like this; check out the series of articles linked from Controversies within libertarianism. EVCM (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Read, study and think about WP:original research Carol Moore 22:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
That doesn't answer my question, but whatever. The article appears devoid of OR to me. EVCM (talk) 22:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You knew it when you saw it here :-)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lost Isles of Elithis[edit]

The Lost Isles of Elithis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability shown. I did a search and didn't find any reliable sources either. Seems to be just Warhammer cruft/clutter. RobJ1981 (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no evidence of notability of any kind. Percy Snoodle (talk) 12:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned already, no evidence of notability. I prodded the article, but that prod was removed, suggesting a merge or redirect would be better, but I feel there is nothing worthwhile to merge nor any good redirect target. Even this statement from the article pretty much says it all "Not much in the history of Warhammer refers to the Lost Isles..." --Craw-daddy | T | 18:58, 28 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. Mr.Z-man 23:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dialectical libertarianism[edit]

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

delete. neologism, not notable, stub at best. does not establish notability. Buridan (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Buridan (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find one book that includes this phrase in its subtitle, and a bunch of book reviews of this one book, but no relevant sourcing. I don't think this can at this time rise beyond the obvious dictionary definition that it is today. GRBerry 15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Any info belongs in the article about the author Chris Matthew Sciabarra. Carol Moore 02:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
  • Comment You have to admit, the name does sound cool, and helps create the impression that libertarianism is so important, that we have all kinds of philosophical branches and nuances, just like the other major schools of thinking. Thus, I find it hard to vote delete, for reasons of WP:ILIKEIT if nothing else. EVCM (talk) 16:07, 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. — Scientizzle 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hadaka[edit]

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

The article on hadaka, which is the Japanese word for "nude," is a dictionary definition article. Neither is it functioning as a disambiguation article. Tokek (talk) 09:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 11:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We read that It commonly refers to various fetishes in anime, manga, and Japanese culture. Yeah yeah yeah. More commonly it has nothing to do with fetishes in Japanese pop culture; it simply means nude. Delete per Tokek. -- Hoary (talk) 12:21, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the equivalent of making a page called "Giant" on the Japanese version of Wikipedia, and then saying that in English It commonly refers to various fetishes in movies, magazines, and Western culture, such as Giant Cocks, Giant Tits, and Giant Asses. Sure. It also refers to giant watermelons, giant libraries, and giant headaches. It's just a standard word that is used, like many standard words, by the porn industry. 210.160.15.16 (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Tokek. --TorsodogTalk 04:26, 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 Keep. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Egged bus lines[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of Egged bus lines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory, requires frequent updates. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose This information lacks on the web, it is not found on Egged's website. I will challenge your two points:
About it being a list: There are plenty of transportation-related lists. See for example American Airlines destinations - in fact, the entire category Category:Airline_destinations. Thus, there is a very good precedent for transportation-related lists. This in itself is not at all a reason for deletion.
About the fact that this list needs frequent updates: it really doesn't tneed all that frequent updates (how often does Egged change its lines, once every few years at most). And I have seen plenty of updates by random anonymous (both registered and anonymous) users who added lines and modified lines in the list. Can you show me places where the information on the list is false and/or outdated? I don't think your reason of "requires frequent updates" is relevent; there are plenty of articles that require frequent updates, and I do not even think this is one of them. The article George W. Bush needs a lot more updates; are you going to propose deleting that article also?\
Now, as you see: there is no reason to delete the article. Both of your pro-deletion arguments are easily defeated. I suggest you to withdraw the nomination. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more: check Category:Bus routes in England - an entire category of lists of this type. So your arguments are hereby completely defeated. One more up, we have an entire category: Category:Bus routes. I once more suggest that, in the light of these facts, you consider to withdraw the nomination. --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep introduction, which is good and encyclopaedic; Move to Egged bus lines; and Delete the lists and substitute a link to the company website. Bus services are libale to change periodically. The company will pay some one to maintain its own website, but not WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Peter, here another remark: could you tell me where else people can find this information? Say I want to travel from Arad to Safed - which lines am I supposed to take? This line can help people avoid unnecessary mistakes. For example, try searching on www.egged.co.il/eng for Jerusalem - Qiryat Gat: it will tell you there is only 1 line, namely the 446. While I myself can personally assure you that there is also another line, I think 554 (a Mehadrin line) there; I've used it myself... Yet I cannot even find this line on the Egged website, at all! While I see the buses of this line driving around quite often... And no, this is not related to it being a Mehadrin line; others, such as the 402, 982, 418, 450 and 451 do appear on their website. In short: this list provides a function that Egged itself does not provide. There is no other place where anybody can get a clear overview of Egged's lines. Now you might not find this so very interesting, but there are definitely those who do. Could you give a clearer argument for why you think that this page should (still) be deleted, if you still wish to have it deleted? --Piz d'Es-Cha (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the 554 (I found this info on the Egged website) - you were probably looking for the wrong destination in Qiryat Gat. In most cases, you can find the info, without knowing which stops to check, under "route with 2 lines". The 402 is on the Jerusalem-Bnei Brak list; 450 and 451 can be found on the "3 bus lines" link - they go to neither bus station, aparently; 982 is on the Jerusalem-Safed list.
However, Wikipedia isn't supposed to deal with the fact that the Egged website (and probably several other websites on the Internet) are organized badly in such a way that the information is hard to find, since Wikipedia is not an index. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is a precedent to this kind of list, such as the one pointed out above (American Airlines destinations). I was one of the main opponents of turning this list into an index/directory, and right now it's fairly encyclopedic, giving basic useful information, without going into unnecessary detail. There was a discussion in the past where certain users sought to convert the list into a sort of interactive travel directions tool (similar to the Egged website), and again, I was this idea's main opponent, and it thankfully didn't come to pass. Frequent updates is not an issue whatsoever, I can point to hundreds of articles which require more frequent updates. Only the Ministry of Transportation can approve bus route changes, so major stations are changed extremely rarely. This will become even easier when Egged gets rid of more lines. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 18:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The purpose of this article is not (exclusively) to help people plan trips. It is an encyclopedic list of the bus lines, which has its place in Wikipedia (see above American Airlines discussion). -ReuvenkT C 07:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If this information is not on their website, can I ask where it is coming from? If it is say, coming from a printed map, or a pdf map (I haven't checked the article), that's probably fine as it is verifiable. If it is coming from personal observations on particular days out, then I think we have a problem. MickMacNee (talk) 01:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is coming from information which is on their site, and which you can find if you make the correct query. There is usually notice about changes, although not necessarily; such notification is usually gone within a couple weeks. The information seems to only be available in Hebrew. There's been complaints in the local press that Egged doesn't always run every bus on the schedule, and that a lot of busses are frequently late. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Reuvenk. Also, "requires frequent updates" is not a valid reason to delete an article. Also, this is not a list of kindergartens in Xanadu, but a list of bus lines of a countrywide bus service provider. Admiral Norton (talk) 14:02, 29 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, default to keep. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Gross[edit]

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

"Well-known life insurance underwriter" from small town in Canada. Declined speedy. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the content of the article. I was only trying to add human interest information by stating that. Frank Gross has special recognition as a widely known philanthropist and only Chatham-Kent citizen in history to be honored with a provincial medal (for good citizenship).--Paul144 (talk) 19:45, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming this is your family member, so please don't take this personally, but being the only person in his district awarded a Canadian provincial medal for citizenship probably doesn't meet the standards of WP:NOTE, which is why I nominated the article for deletion. Sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article contains a lot of original research - how many miles he rode on his bike, for instance. I haven't found any newspaper/magazine/etc. articles written about Frank Gross. The community service awards are borderline notable - many don't even have their own article on Wikipedia. That this seems to be a vanity piece (why is the number of miles he rode on his bike important?) tips it for me. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 20:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I had researched other past and present citizens of Chatham-Kent before making the entry. Although one feature -- such as being an athlete or an architect -- is usually the apparent reason for the person being notable among those listed as Chatham-Kent "famous people", other personal interest elements about Frank Gross were added to give depth to the man. The details about the bike logs were well-known in the community by friends, business people he knew, police and service organizations. They also reflect Frank's meticulous character, further giving color to the historical description.
Details about awards other than the OMC were obtained from a collection of letters, newspaper articles and plaques. There appear to be no online announcements of these awards, but neither do these organizations typically post such information on their websites. The Chatham-Kent Museum has on current display Frank's bike, OMC plaque and a historical summary.
In comparison to other entries for the small community of Chatham-Kent -- for which there are some 36 people listed -- Frank Gross had more public recognition (national, provincial and district awards) for a longer period of time (over some 11 years) than most. Unfortunately, archives that would report with relatively frequency his cycling and service activities can be retrieved only under a fee from the publisher of the Chatham Daily News. I made one minor edit about an online report of the Cancer Society's banquet for him, October 2006. --Paul144 (talk) 21:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the sources are not online, you can note the source. Can you add any more Reliable sources for the information in the article? DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added links to the two local newspapers where his awards had been announced over the years. Thanks. I also added a sentence to the Freemasonry section, describing an annual award named after Frank given by the Masons to a graduating high school student from Chatham-Kent having humanitarian activity combined with high academic standing. --Paul144 (talk) 01:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An excellent man, but unfortunately he doesn't pass the notability test. AniMate 23:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All due respect, AniMate, but isn't it relative to the locale of the candidate Wiki person, region and article content? In this case, WP:PEOPLE explains criteria that are easily met by this person (see under Additional Criteria, Any biography[27], perhaps moreso than several others listed as "famous" on the Chatham-Kent Wiki site. There would seem to be a double-standard where a person gaining a professional sports contract, by example, is notable, whereas a humanitarian recognized by federal, provincial and local governments is not. The motivation for writing this article was to provide a historical benchmark for charitable work in Chatham-Kent, highlighting a rare Ontario award for citizenship. Plain vanilla and boring to some, but equal in historical significance to the city and county as any athlete. --Paul144 (talk) 00:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From the link, Wikipedia:Notability (people)[28], Additional criteria

A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards.
Any biography
  • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.
Frank Gross meets both of these criteria.
Lower on the Additional criteria page, defining criteria for athletes, a category for which there are 13 people listed out of the 30[29] not counting Frank Gross, i.e., the predominant class of "famous" for people listed from Chatham-Kent.
Athletes
  • Competitors who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
  • Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.
Given that the respective qualifications for being notable due to "Biography" or as an "Athlete" are subjectively the same, it does not seem rational that Frank Gross would be excluded for being any less the philanthropist than most of these people would be for their participation in sports. --Paul144 (talk) 18:30, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect either to Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship or to Chatham-Kent. I agree, your father was a good man (my father was a good man too); and it does seem unfair that athletes from Chatham-Kent are entitled to an article and that someone who worked on making positive contributions to society get overlooked. Perhaps you can mention him in an article about the medal. Mandsford (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a charming and really rather engaging article but Wikipedia does not include on the basis of charm and engagement. Whilst it is a lovingly written bio on an interesting and clearly worthy life, I do not see evidence that the subject passes WP:BIO - it all seems to hang on the Ontario Citizenship medal & an OBE it ain't. nancy talk 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several references to independent, secondary sources have now been added meeting WP:BIO. He may be a minor person on an international level but there exists enough local reliable sources for a Verifiable, NPOV, No original research article. Any content that cannot be sourced can be removed. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this man is notable because: he is a recipient of the OMC award, which Wikipedia has recognised its notability by having an article on it (Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship); he is the only resident of Chatham-Kent to have received the OMC award; he is also notable as a freemason and humanitarian who through the application of his philosophy gained recognition with the OMC award; the government of Ontario (Canada) considers this man important and notable and pays full respect to him, why shouldn't we also recognise his notability? Are we somehow more important than the government of Ontario in deciding who is notable and who isn't? The government employs people whose job is about deciding whether a person is important and notable, and they recognised the importance and notability of this man by granting him the high honour of the OMC. There are many references in the article now and it is of high quality. We also have so many articles on minor music groups, hardly-known athletes, obscure singers, local beauty peagant award recipients, and other personalities that when compared to this man they seem obscure and hardly notable, so to say that we ought to delete an article about an OMC recipient is totally unreasonable. I am not saying that we shouldn't have articles on small music bands, athletes, etc if they are somehow notable in their fields. What I am saying is that we should not allow our encyclopedia to become a pop 'pedia, where obscure pop personalities who hardly even had any TV time are considered more notable than scientists, humanitarians, and people who gained the highest respect of their governments through their excellent citizenship. We should grant equal Wikipedia coverage to all people who are notable in their fields, and not discriminate against some fields (eg humanitarianism) while giving more coverage to fields that are liked by the masses (eg entertainment, sports, etc). Wikipedia's own guidelines clearly say that people who have received or nominated for important awards (and OMC is important) are notable, and this man clearly qualifies. NerdyNSK (talk) 11:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does not follow that just because we have an article on Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship then all recipients are automatically notable - a twist on "notability is not inherited". I have a Blue Peter badge, we have an article Blue Peter badge, I remain non-notable nancy talk 06:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I undid a non-admin closure but we need further discussion of the notability of the award to settle this one. Spartaz Humbug! 09:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" is a matter of reference to the locale, as I first mentioned above on 18 Aug. The OMC designation is important enough to the government and people of Ontario that it is the highest award a member of Ontario's population of 13 million can receive for humanitarian work[30]. Each award year recognizes about 13 people so the award rate is one in one million.
Motivation for writing the article, however, was mainly for the history of Chatham-Kent and to place a benchmark for humanitarianism in this small rural municipality with a population of just 109,000. The OMC is highly notable for Chatham-Kent, since no one else from the area has ever been provided the award, whereas -- in the larger scheme of national or international humanitarianism -- it would have little significance.
However, if taken in the context of what an encyclopedia provides its users, think of this article as if you were a high school student using Wikipedia for historical research on Chatham-Kent's citizens. Only one of Chatham-Kent's people in history has been recognized by the provincial government for altruism and philanthropy. That is what motivated creation of the article, and that is why it is notable.--Paul144 (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several people here, myself included, have assumed that the subject of the article is a family member of the article's creator. WP:NOTMEMORIAL aside, this raises a conflict of interest question. While I don't want to out anyone here, it may be helpful if the article's creator were to address that question directly. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am the son of the subject and trustee of his possessions, some of which are reference material for the article. However, a question of WP:NOTMEMORIAL or conflict of interest seems moot at this point after a week of review by many editors. Anything suggestive of conflict of interest could/would have been edited out if there was blatant overstatement. The article has been crafted to be well-sourced, truthful and showing notability, while hopefully using just enough personal information from records to make it interesting and personable.--Paul144 (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I brought the question up more in relation to your arguments at this AfD rather than regarding the content of the article, but the guidelines applies there as well, regardless of any discussion here. Thank you for that disclosure. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - not really all that notable, still there appears to be a significant amount of independent media coverage --T-rex 20:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • These two statements are contradictory. If there is significant, independent media coverage, it is notable. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, many people who have been given the more prestigious Order of Ontario are redlinks, because getting either award doesn't make a person notable, at least not for Wikipedia. Who will ever be looking this man up, outside from people who knew him? Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 00:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That other ones are redlinks is not overly meaningful (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is related to this idea). Perhaps they've yet to be created.
  • Keep. I would be the non-admin doing the previous closure, and as I can't well close it again when this is done with anyway, I might as well discuss it (intermingling this with the reason I saw consensus earlier). I would agree wholeheartedly that the WP:COI is moot at the moment, as above. Also, while notability is not assumed under the basic criteria at WP:BIO, this article doesn't abjectly fail it due to the first additional criterion: receipt of a notable award or honour. I understand that this does not in any way assure notability, but what coverage in mainstream media there is seems to bolster the notability claim somewhat. Nancy's comment directly above the relist is somewhat contradicted by the nature of the notability of the award (one being relatively insignificant in one's life and the other being one of the highest possible honours). This may be a slightly tenuous claim to notability, but it is a valid one nonetheless, and so the letter of the law, as it were, is fulfilled. Bearing in mind that Wikipedia is not paper, I don't think this article's presence really costs us anything, and besides this, the article doesn't really violate what I would see as the spirit of the notability policy anyway. Even supposing this does have mild origins in some kind of vanity, what really matters is whether it is outside of deletion policy, and I think that it has been established above that this is not. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 10:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. There seems to be some confusion between Notability and Fame and importance. WP:N is a guideline for interpreting the policies of V, NPOV, and NOR when it is unclear whether an article will be able to meet those requirements. That's why the basic criterion of WP:N is simply, "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The additional criteria are used to judge articles that may be of note but are not well-enough sourced at this date to pass the basic criterion. This article passes the basic criterion of adequate independent sources. The fact that the initial author has a conflict of interest means we need to be more vigilant and stringent in ensuring a NPOV and I would recommend that he maintain a distance from the article and simply correct clear mistakes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:45, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your point about notability versus fame is well taken, but the guideline also contains a reminder that coverage in secondary sources only provides the presumption of notability. It is up to the community to reach consensus about individual articles. There was a tremendous amount of worldwide media attention given to Australian party-boy Corey Delaney, but he doesn't have his own article. Frank Gross sounds like a nice person who did good things and was beloved in his small community, but to be completely unsentimental about it, if this were an autobiography rather than a memorial, I don't think we'd even be having this discussion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:15, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with Corey Delaney, as I see it, is that there's very little media coverage about him — it's all about an event he was involved in, which isn't the same thing at all. Which is why we have WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're right - it was just the first example that came to mind. There are probably many better examples. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:49, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The subject clearly exists (there's a picture of him). A list of over ten sources also say he exists. Well-written, too. Not every subject of a WP biography has to be famous to every person in the country. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:14, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Existence does not equal notability, and a more careful reading of the article would show that the subject no longer exists, which seems to be relevant to this discussion. See my reply to DoubleBlue, just above. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The primary thing standing in the way of having articles on most recipients of the Ontario Medal for Good Citizenship isn't the notability of the award itself, but the relative paucity of media sources about many such individuals. In this case, however, sources are present, any potential WP:COI issues have been covered by outside contributions, and I don't see a convincing reason why we shouldn't have articles about recipients of this award if they can be properly referenced to verifiable sources. When you get right down to it, notability hinges on the quality of the sources, not the size of the geographic region in which the person can be said to be a household name. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - he's the recipient of a notable award, and has garnered sustained coverage over a period of years. -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 27 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. Mr.Z-man 23:21, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shen Lung Kung Fu[edit]

Shen Lung Kung Fu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable new art with relatively few schools and no third-party sources. JJL (talk) 19:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable, independent sources present in article or available in a quick google search. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:24, 31 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 per CSD:G7. Stifle (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Lotus Kung-fu system[edit]

Golden Lotus Kung-fu system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable new art; minimal ghits, poorly sourced. JJL (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 09:03, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:15, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic Cultural Center[edit]

Islamic Cultural Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Does not meet WP:ORG. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm struggling to find anything that actually confirms the existence of this particular ICC. Some ICCs are notable however, for example the one in London. This one though fails WP:ORG at the very least. --Ged UK (talk) 20:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Not notable at all.

Mynameisstanley (talk) 05:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)Mynameisstanley[reply]

  • Delete Not Notable - no sources on Google/Google news Also author works for ICC.hard for him to rewrite per WP:COI and WP:NPOV benjicharlton (talk) 07:42, 29 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 deleted per CSD A7 by JzG. (non-admin closure) - Icewedge (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sign Historical Group[edit]

Sign Historical Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:48, 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 delete.  Sandstein  19:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Divine philosophy[edit]

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

This article seems to be orphaned and has no significant articles linking to it. It was the creation of User:RoddyYoung about 1.5 years ago, and it has remained in poor condition ever since. I don't see a potential for expansion so I'm nominating for deletion. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 23:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably could be merged with something or other (Bahai?) but would take quite a bit of work.Hgilbert (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could be significantly improved by blanking the page, but it does seem to be a term used in by a notable religious sect. The fact that the article requires a total and merciless rewrite (at the very least, so that it speaks of what some people believe, rather than something which actually exists) doesn't speak towards its suitability for deletion. RJC Talk Contribs 01:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment what religious sect are you referring to? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 04:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Bahai. The article says that its subject is found in Kitáb-i-Aqdas, a Bahai text. Nonsense, but verifiable, notable nonsense. RJC Talk Contribs 05:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Actually it's not in the Kitab-i-Aqdas, and even if it where, it would be secondary sources that determine notability, not primary sources. The term is not really notable in the Baha'i Faith. I think you should do some research before stating it is notable. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a notable concept. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:30, 21 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not seem to be a very notable expression. Besides that it means different things in different traditions, so the article is OR. BYW the fantasy writer E. R. Eddison also used it. Northwestgnome (talk) 11:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete While I apreciate what the authors are trying to do, with all due respect: write the book first. This synthesis does not belong on Wikipedia ... yet. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:42, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The Kitab-i-Aqdas is written in Arabic, not English. At first glance, a redirect to Theology would be more appropriate than the current content. GRBerry 15:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject is not notable, and article is a weird combination of WP:OR and unintelligibility. Eubulides (talk) 06:57, 29 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. Time's up. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:32, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Franco "El Gorila"[edit]

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

Unsourced WP:BLP, artist is working on his debut album after a few non-chart appearances with others. Guy (Help!) 08:56, 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:31, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careforce Church[edit]

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

This is a non-notable suburban church Grahame (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Mount Evelyn, Victoria. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There are no reliable independent online references provided. There should be some online references provided from outside the church realm, but there isn't. The article shouldn't be a means to promote internal church programs.--Lester 21:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article fails to demonstrate, or even assert, any particular notability. WP:ORG is available as a source of guidance to the criterion for notability of an organisation of this kind. An article of this kind could be written about every church in existence. This could be an entry in a directory of churches, but that is not what Wikipedia is about. Dolphin51 (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete If the size of the congregation is accurate, it might be notable on size alone (Roughly 20 times the average congregation size in the United States.) However, the article lacks third party sources. jonathon (talk) 21:27, 29 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. — Scientizzle 16:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daemon Academy[edit]

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

Non-notable story written by two non-notable authors. Shockingly enough, there are a few ghits, but nothing outside of some "fan fiction" sites. Doesn't look like I can SD this, so here you go... Delete Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is a ghit? Get a life Wikpedia has a page on Vagina's, a page on a book seems reasonable enough for me, get your head outta your ass and grow a pair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FuryanMalice (talk • contribs) 19:55 August 24 2008

  • Comment- Ghit is short for "Google hit". Also, please take note of Wikipedia policies regarding notability, reliable sources and personal attacks. Reyk YO! 20:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trash. I also find it highly amusing that someone with the user name "FuryanMalice" is telling other people to get a life. JuJube (talk) 22:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable fanfic. --Stormie (talk) 04:51, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-administrative closure) -- RyRy (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden[edit]

Barkley, Shut Up and Jam: Gaiden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable independently developed fan game. Content is unverifiable by reliable, second party sources. --Jtalledo (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's a couple of perfectly acceptable sources in the external links, this and this (Derek Yu) are in the first 2 pages of google results. A small article on it takes up most of page 111 in issue 193 of PC Zone UK. Someoneanother 14:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Sources do verify notability of this article. MuZemike (talk) 18:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per supplied sources. Clearly meets WP:N, fan created or not. Hobit (talk) 11:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per above. Several of those stories clearly satisfy WP:VG's reliable sources guidelines. Did you use google or attempt to research this subject? The only true statement in the deletion rationale is, "independently developed fan game". The rest is completely false. SashaNein (talk) 18:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why weren't these sites listed as references in the first place? The article itself should attest to its notability through proper citations, which it does not. --Jtalledo (talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because no one got to it? In general you should do a web search (news, web, books) before sending something to AfD. Saves everyone so>me time... Many (a majority?) of articles here lack sources. Doesn't mean they all should come to AfD Hobit (talk) 02:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, the fact is that no one took the initiative to fix it, and so here we all are. MuZemike (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not how it works, the onus is on the nominator to at least try and find sources first. In this case there were already two sources in the external links, which is often where they're located in unpolished articles, another which I'd cited in April (in order to prevent this) and another on the talk page since March, a maintainence tag is all that's needed. It's not the end of the earth that it was nominated and I'm not trying to dump on anyone, but I am not going to run around like a blue-arsed fly and spend time I haven't got on repairing the article when enough sources were already there and could have been weighed up in a couple of minutes. Someoneanother 15:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nom's reason for deletion falls through upon cursory examination. Jtrainor (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Game is notable and has an internet presence as others have stated. Charlesmartin82 (talk) 04:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Game is absolutely notable and is a popular user-created game. Ajohnson170 (talk) 12:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.109.157.2 (talk) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Augment (Star Trek)[edit]

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

This article asserts zero notability through reliable sources, and is simply a repetition of plot elements from the various Star Trek episode articles plot sections in an in-universe way. It is therefore pure duplication and trivia, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable WP:OR. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notability shown, and simply trivial information at best. Perhaps, transwiki it to a Star Trek wiki.RobJ1981 (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:04, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No WP:RS evidence of notability cited or found in search. Article is a short version of the Memory Alpha wiki, pure plot summary. Worth at most a short entry in List of Star Trek races. • Gene93k (talk) 18:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't have any sources, but the entire Augment plot line is an interesting one, showing up an important thematic aspect of Star Trek (i.e., that not all advanced technologies are unconditionally good). I'd be very surprised to find out that there were no useful critical articles that could be used to augment (pun unintended) this article and bring it up to standard. JulesH (talk) 21:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One minor source on the topic: [31]. It only discusses Bashir, who is only mentioned in one sentence at the end of the article, but it is related to the theme of Augments. JulesH (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's only passing mention and it's not even about the group known as the "Augments" (the subject of the this article). At best, that source could potentially be used in the article for Bashir himself. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Plot summary and in-universe detail without real-world content. Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject indicates this topic is non-notable. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:09, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No citations to multiple third-party secondary sources, which are required to establish notability. Article also is entirely plot summary. Star Trek's treatment of genetically altered characters has, I suspect, mostly garnered third-party attention focused on Khan; the class of characters as a whole, though, probably not. Furthermore, there's so much dubious retcon applying the "augment"s term to pre-Enterprise (the series, I mean) series/characters (e.g. Bashir, Khan) that the topic is a honeypot for original research. --EEMIV (talk) 11:51, 27 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. — Scientizzle 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YouTube Debt[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism, fails WP:NEO. Although the tag says the article has been unreferenced since April 2007, the article was just created. Movingboxes (talk) 05:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A WP:NEO no-no. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:43, 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 Delete. No opinion on the legal matter, etc. Consensus is that this does not meet notability standards - the end. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Lawrence (trademark)[edit]

Bill Lawrence (trademark) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No apparent notability of the trademark or the dispute. All references appear to be primary sources - no indication this was covered by any media. Shell babelfish 21:49, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Perhaps there should be an article on the brand of musical instruments denoted by this trademark, which can cover the trademark dispute as well as facts about the instruments themselves and the people and companies that have made them. *Dan T.* (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article is the result of a complicated and nasty legal dispute between two people. I'm inclined to think that the best solution would be to delete the articles on both sides of the issue, Bill Lawrence (trademark) and Bill Lawrence (guitar maker). The latter article covers a living person who, while being interesting and important in the guitar world, does not appear to have any substantive claim to notability per current WP standards. (Even Guitar Player magazine only has insignificant references to the topic.) Deleting just one article would be likely to inflame the partisans. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:45, 20 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability not established. Article seems to exist for the purpose of making a point. Fails WP:N and WP:POV any rewrite is not likely to address either of these issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:32, 28 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 Dominican Summer Blue Jays2, which already contains all the information in this page. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Jays2[edit]

Blue Jays2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unnotable collection of information. Tavix (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply I didn't notice the other two articles, but we can also discuss them with this nomination as well if anyone wants too. Tavix (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_list_multiple_related_pages_for_deletion  Frank  |  talk  00:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dominican Summer Blue Jays2. Article does deserve to exist, but the page is already there!—Borgardetalk 05:52, 23 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, --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:14, 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 delete. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benevolent Funipendulous Society of Nova Scotia Logotechnicians[edit]

Benevolent Funipendulous Society of Nova Scotia Logotechnicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy by another editor was previously declined with suggestion it goes to Afd, so here goes: whilst I'm sure this is a very nice night out there is nothing to suggest its notable. References given seem to relate to the people involved not the 'event' -Hunting dog (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC) Hunting dog (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apologies I forgot to list this on daily page when I started it, so it's appearing a day late -Hunting dog (talk) 04:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete possibly {{db-club}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. NN club (0 google hits). May not exist, but even if it does, it still doesn't meet WP:N. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 06:08, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I gave it a {{db-club}} because nothing in the article asserts notability. I imagine it was declined so discussion would give a chance to cure the defect, in case there is some unnoticed notability. Methinks the "funipedulous" entry is hanging by a thread.~ Ningauble (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Though the members of the club have some accomplishments, the club undertakes no notable activities, and no reliable source seems to have written about it. Google search finds nothing other than the WP article itself, in spite of the club's name being so distinctive. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 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 delete. Mr.Z-man 23:19, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turkel[edit]

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

I believe that Turkel is merely a brand name for dried apricots. I could not find any sources which identify it as a generic term. If this is merely a brand name, the article should be acceptable if all references to turkel are replaced by dried apricot, the article is moved accordingly, and Turkel is deleted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:59, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Fox (talk • contribs)
  • Delete, I agree with the nominiation and do not find it a notable company. No mergable content, there's already nutrition information about dried apricots in Apricot. --AmaltheaTalk 00:14, 30 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 a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter (rapper)[edit]

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

Notability not asserted - No major media sources or other indications of notability. Editor437 (talk) 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete There was a CSD tag, which has been removed by the next editor. An obviou COI if, the username is anything to go by. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing relevant turns up in a Google News archive search, and nothing in a search of a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. Delete unless some sources turn up, since this article does not otherwise meet any criteria of WP:MUSIC. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:46, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some reliable references or some notability is presented. SkierRMH (talk) 02:02, 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. — Scientizzle 16:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Wizards of Waverly Place spells[edit]

List of Wizards of Waverly Place spells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list of spells in a TV show. Original reasearch or WP:SYNTH at best, not to mention an indiscriminate collection of information. This sort of thing is not what Wikipedia is for. Reyk YO! 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be moved to "List of Wizards of Waverly Place magics" and this should be fine for the encyclopedia since the show page is getting too long. --DCFan101 (talk) 05:31, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer2b[edit]

Lawyer2b (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable magazine. Has notability concern on the article (template). Google returns nothing of any use. Leonard(Bloom) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Notability is not established, and doesn't appear like it's apt to. - Vianello (talk) 03:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It kind of makes a pretence at establishing notability, but I don't think it really succeeds; this publication is not seemingly well-known outside its primary distribution area and target group (contrast with obviously notable serials like the New York Times, Die Zeit, and Time Magazine). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:49, 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 Nomination withdrawn (non-admin close) Beeblbrox (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statham's Quarry[edit]

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

It's a rock quarry. Generally that is not any more notable than, say, an individual farm, and I don't see any indication anything particularly special ever happened at this quarry. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:57, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that I was given about two minutes up and have been elaborating upon the local context I think such a reaction is quite lacking in Agf considering that if I have been through the sufficient contexts there are so many related articles that have never been touched. I ask the nominator to withdraw the afd and at least give the article creator some time to at least give the adeqate context SatuSuro 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're talking about this article, not some other articles. Give some reason why this quarry meets the general notability guideline and I'd be more than happy to withdraw the nom. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is specifically a quarry on the darling scarp that (a) was a significant source of material for landmarks in Perth (b) has a complex interaction with other properties in the area (stathams brickworks in glen forrest) which requires a careful explaation as to why more than one location has been known as 'stathams' on the darling range (c) being identified as a dolerite dyke on the darling scarp makes it a unique geological dyke in the geological framewok of the scarp (d) repeated bushfires at the site specifically has seen the demise of the quarrying operation, as well as significant ecological change at the site itself (e) as a recreational site is one of a very few quarry sites on the sacrp where climbing is not considered dangerous http://www.climberswa.asn.au/climbwa/crags.asp?region=Around%20Perth&crag=Stathams_Quarry&sort=NAME (f) is part of the former ziz zag railway location and operations (g) is well documented as a location (h) is part of the walk trail system of the local authority (i) is part of the reserves of helena valleyt and oddly due to the regular and seriously affected firing - the quarry and its surrounds are siginficant indicators of degraded lands due to fires - similar to the hills of queenstown in tasmania (j) it is unique due to its visual impact on the scarp - and was part of the arguments that were happening during the darling range national park consultations in the 1980's

and thats just the start. SatuSuro 03:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment(ec) Is "one of the most extensive dolerite dykes on the Darling Scarp" a claim that is substantiated in multiple reliable and independent sources, so that it is more notable than random old quarries in my town that no one would consider creating encyclopedia articles about? There isno inherent notability for quarries. Edison2 (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overview of Statham’s Quarry, which exhibits one of the most extensive dolerite dykes in the escarpment. The dolerite (or diorite as it is locally known) has been used for surfacing roads for more than half a century. page 2 of this source Gnangarra 04:01, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Intrem hEritage listing document Aug 11, 2005 and permanent entry Jul 31, 2007 the listing on a heritage register meets WP:N significant coverage by reliable sources requirements. Gnangarra 03:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep. Statham's Quarry is on Western Australia's Register of Heritage Places, which means that it has been assessed by the Heritage Council of Western Australia, Western Australia's advisory body on heritage matters, as having sufficient cultural heritage significance to warrant conservation, and as meriting statutory protection under the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990.
    This is one of those precious few discussions in which we are able to defer to the opinions of experts in the field, instead of muddling through on our own. Those experts say this is a notable place. Hesperian 04:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if every old house in the states that makes onto NRHP's list is automatically notable, I suppose this is too. Please add references supporting that to the article. Nomination withdrawn. Beeblbrox (talk) 05:05, 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 ''Nom closure (non-admin closure) This article is just a tiny portion of the series. See the above AfDs. Leonard(Bloom) 18:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, volume 120[edit]

List of opinions from the Federal Reporter, Third Series, volume 120 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NOT (WP:IINFO). I don't see why this page was needed in the first place. Leonard(Bloom) 02:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll put the whole thing up on AfD. Thanks for the notice; that's incredible. Leonard(Bloom) 18:34, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disability etiquette[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:IINFO. Leonard(Bloom) 02:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. This is taken from here [32].--Crossmr (talk) 02:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Definitely WP:IINFO--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 03:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I didn't create this article--it's from the old days of Cliff's software before all the history was kept, and my edit just happens to be the first one kept. --LDC (talk) 06:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't an etiquette handbook. Movingboxes (talk) 06:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A somewhat unusual vote ... Delete then Replace While the content of this article is clearly deletion-worthy, the subject of "Disability etiquette" (but with a better title) is worthy of inclusion, isn't it? It's a well-known concept, and there's lots of material out there that could be used as the basis for an encyclopaedic article on the subject. SP-KP (talk) 11:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A howto essay. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because you cannot write essays or the like on Wikipedia. I think this is good for WP:SNOW. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:48, 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 Keep. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don Calloway[edit]

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

Unelected politician for a state-level office; fails WP:POLITICIAN. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Come back when he meets the requirements of wikipedia...--Crossmr (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN per nom. —97198 (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ordinarily, I would say that an unelected candidate for the state legislature is not thereby notable. In this instance, however, he has no opposition. In the normal course of events, he'll become a state legislator (and hence notable). We're referring to Obama and McCain as their parties' presumptive nominees, and by the same standard, Calloway is a presumptive election winner. JamesMLane t c 03:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per JamesMLane's argument. This is as close to inevitable impending notability as we're going to get. No point deleting now only to recreate for (almost certain) later. The purpose of the rules, not the strict letter. Not a bureaucracy, after all :) RayAYang (talk) 13:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep and cleanup per WP:COMMONSENSE. He really is running unopposed.[33] Unless something happens between now and January, I see little value in deleting the article just to bring it back in a few weeks. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 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 delete. — Scientizzle 16:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quinta Essentia (Video Game)[edit]

Quinta Essentia (Video Game) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an indie game with no coverage. It absolutely fails the notability requirements laid out at WP:NOTE. No reliable secondary sources means no article. It is impossible to write an article which conforms to wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Crossmr (talk) 02:39, 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 Boldly redirected to tee Ball. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayton Hobbs[edit]

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

His only claim to fame is organizing Tee Ball. Google returns nothing. He appears to fail WP:PEOPLE. Leonard(Bloom) 23:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And didn't I already go through a Google search before declining the speedy? If you search without quotes, you do get 85,000 Google hits. An impossible number to sift through. If you search Google News, for +Dayton Hobbs +Tee ball, you get 50 unique Google news hits. a manageable number for anyone willing to sift for the ones that are relevant. IMHO, the "founder of Tee-ball" is notable. Whether or not this individual fits the bill of particulars, I can't say. (That's why the "putatively" in the article.) I was too lazy to sift before, and may or may not do some sifting now. Leaving it up to the wisdom of the AFD cabal and consensus. Gotta go. Dlohcierekim 00:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
70 Google hits for subject + tee ball. Dlohcierekim 01:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, optionally redirect to Tee Ball. He is one of three major claimants as the inventor of Tee Ball, but there isn't enough to make him notable on his own (e.g. compare James Naismith, Abner Doubleday, etc., who have had actual biographies published about them). Best to cover the various origin theories in Tee Ball. --Dhartung | Talk 01:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Dr. Hobbs was the registered agent in Florida for Gospel Projects, Inc., which obtained a service mark on Tee Ball on February 13, 1973. There may well be other claimants, but Hobbs was able to convince the USPTO, and we are about verifiability, not truth. Note: I am not making any legal claims here; whether or not the ability of his organization to obtain (and twice renew) service mark protection assures he is the inventor is not part of my reasoning. There may well be others with equally valid claims, but that doesn't detract from Hobbs' notability. And, he did other stuff too.  Frank  |  talk  01:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Query I get worldcat hits for his name. Same person? If so, we may need to look more closely at the book to see if his status as an author conveys notability. Dlohcierekim 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think he's notable enough without authorship, but here's a list from one of his ministry-affiliated sites, and then at the bottom of this page ("Other books by Dr. Hobbs"; also affiliated with his ministry). Independently, there are Amazon hits and at least one shows up on bigwords.  Frank  |  talk  03:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the crucial test is World Cat. If his books are in say hundreds of libraries around the world, or in important collections around the worlds, it helps establish notability. Dlohcierekim 03:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One the other hand, galenet gave me nothing. A notable author should have some mention in Contemporary Authors. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:53, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He seems to have been influential to many. However I wonder if we should not retitle the article. Why is it Dayton Hobbs and not Robert Dayton Hobbs or Robert D. Hobbs?Johnpacklambert (talk) 02:07, 22 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, Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:08, 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 delete. Waggers (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Holiday[edit]

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

Porn actress who does not appear to satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Speedily deleted seven times over the past few years, and it doesn't seem that notability has improved. A previous deletion review can be seen here. The article does not assert notability in my view, but the speedy tag was removed and given the history I think it's time for an AfD discussion. Accurizer (talk) 02:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt the earth. An attempts to recreate this article should have to pass a deletion review, this is getting ridiculous. It is bordering on disruptive. Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.--Crossmr (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and SALT. I definitely wouldn't do her. Oh, and WP:PORNBIO. Ya, that too. Ironholds 03:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt. Fails WP:N amd WP:BIO. This in spite of such encyclopedic text as "She is known for a big natural breast." One breast? Is the other lesser in size or unnatural in its augmentation? Edison2 (talk) 03:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Indeed, it does not satisfy WP:PORNBIO. Lady Galaxy 06:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Pass WP:PORNBIO, WP:N and WP:BIO - see talk page, over 100 scenes, 894,000 hit on Google [34], 36,200 on Google Images [35]. Very famous American porn star [36] [37]. --THFFF (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that passing? Just because she has a bunch of Google hits? (Most of them are links to pages, sure, but packed with photos of her and infested with ads and God knows what else.) Where's all the sources? All you have on the page is a link to a site that's basically an adult version of IMDB... Lady Galaxy 18:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - Many film she starred are AVN Award Nominees, I've add it to the article. Now you can't say she doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Please reconsider your vote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.138.247.170 (talk) 08:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep Has been nominated 4 times for the AVN Award. The criteria states "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" - what does "serious nominee" mean though? Lugnuts (talk) 08:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete She hasn't been nominated 4 times for an AVN Award, just the films were. Epbr123 (talk) 09:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment In her business, that is the same thing, as such films are certainly not being nominated for their plot, dialog, or social commentary (chuckle). Don't get me wrong... I am still voting delete (below), but I am doing so because because this article needs significant improvement in WP:RS sourcing to convince me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 15:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep real porn star Qwerty1234 (talk) 09:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I question what you're trying to say here. I know she's real, but where's her claim to fame? Most people (minus hoaxes) here nominated for deletion are real. They're living people, if that's what you're trying to say. They still get deleted... Lady Galaxy 18:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability per WP:PORNBIO. As for the claims above, notability is not inherited from the films she was in, especially based on cast listings. Also X number of films and Y number of ghits are not reliable criteria for notability, especially in porn. They are too easily inflated. This article is basically an IAFD entry. • Gene93k (talk) 09:56, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Gene93k. Tabercil (talk) 11:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: She has over 800,000 hits on Google - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 800,000 hits. What about the Google Image test? She has over 36,000 images - most of the porn stars who have an article on Wikipedia have less than 36,000 hits on Google Image. Exemple: [38]. You can check it. Tabercil, you know porn, you should know she is notable.— Preceding unsigned comment added by THFFF (talk • contribs) 08:15, August 24, 2008
G-hits is insufficient. If you look at WP:PORNBIO, you'll see right below it the Invalid criteria, which points out that Googlebombing can influence the result and the porn industry is known to use that. Tabercil (talk) 12:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
100+ scenes. According to WP:PORNBIO most of the porn stars on Wikipedia should be deleted :( ... In fact I think that WP:PORNBIO should be deleted - Porn stars are people and they should be judged like any other person. --THFFF (talk) 12:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why other porn stars have not been GoogleBoombed and have less G-Hits. Like Bobbi Starr (Bobbi and Starr are very common names). —Preceding unsigned comment added by THFFF (talk • contribs) 12:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
249 result on Google Video [39] --THFFF (talk) 12:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The volume of Google hits means little. The quality of that coverage counts. Since you asked, Bobbi Star got recognition from a credible body of critics (CAVR). That's how she passes WP:PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 12:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yup, fails WP:PORNBIO. Sorry, Tiffany. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't SALT.... yet. Having only once source is part of this article's problem Perhaps if User:THFFF used some of those 800,000 Google hits to find additional sourcing for the article to prove Notability instead of just saying that they are there. Reviews? Awards? Special Commendations? Critical acclaim? Prove notability instead of just saying so and the article will probably never come back to AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 14:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, google hits mean nothing in this genre --T-rex 21:33, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable porn star. 100 films should be more than enough. --Paranoid7 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read WP:PORNBIO. Starring in 100-odd films doesn't make someone notable, unless "unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre" translates as "is now wide enough for Sperm Whale penetration. Ironholds 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Y'know, you shouldn't've said that cause now eventually someone will make that very argument. And I really don't want to be the one trying to evaluate that AfD. <G> Tabercil (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You know nothing about porn. --NZQRC (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AVN Award Nominee films. 777 (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The films themselves were nominatee's, not her. If a film wins an oscar for audio but not SFX, is the SFX guy still notable because "a film he worked on won an oscar"? Ironholds 22:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you'll read the article you'll see that 4 films were nominated for the sex acts. She had sex in all of those films. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.30.150 (talk) 08:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That actor nom for AGP is false information. Tommy Gunn was nominated for his performance in that film, not Tiffany Holiday. The other noms are for production. AVN recognizes the filmmakers and credits the production companies. • Gene93k (talk) 12:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • In these 4 films, the Awards is not about the production (camera, make-up, sound and etc) - they are all about the performers - In "Anal Retentive 6" she did anal, in "Girl Crazy 6" she did girls and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.15.85 (talk) 13:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is "a given" that porn actors do anal or other girls or other guys or multiple partners. Those acts do not show notability. But since you say the awards are about the performers, and since there is one AVN nomination listed that specifically mentions a performer (Tommy Gunn), show me the ones that specifically mention Tiffany rather than a co-star. Or explore those 800,000 Google hits and show me any that say "Tiffany Holiday has won or been (herself) a serious nominee for a well-known award", rather the film title being itself nominated. You find them and the article will quite likely survive the AfD. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • And remember... being in nominated films is not the same as being nominated yourself, as notibility is not inherited. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'm not saying you should keep her because she did anal. In "Anal Retentive 6" she did anal - this movie was nominated as "Anal-Themed Series". So she had a part in each one of the 4 nominations. By the way she did some double anal scenes - only few porn star do it. Most important: she starred in over 100 films. Most of the porn stars here starred in less than 100 films.
                • As stated before, 100 films is not "contributing significantly to the genre". Ironholds 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable actress per WP:PORNBIO. Given that there is a Playboy model with the stage name of Tiffany Holiday (different person) who may be notable. I recommend against SALTing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. Broccoli (talk) 23:56, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correct me if I'm wrong, but some time has passed now and I noticed a few anonymous IPs tossed their hats in the ring. I thought that anonymous IPs couldn't vote in AfDs? Lady Galaxy 23:27, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing AfD is not a vote. And the official policy is clear about IP contributions: "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." Tabercil (talk) 00:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that so? I'm pretty sure I followed a few AfDs which blew up furiously over a few anonymous people commenting... Lady Galaxy 18:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tabercil is quoting the policy. Theory and practice are two very, very different things, especially on the internet. Ironholds 19:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No Independent Reliable Sources. Tosqueira (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • IAFD, AFDM, IMDB... --THFFF (talk) 18:40, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Per WP:BIO reliable source coverage should be non-trivial. Database entries like IMDB are not sufficient to establish notability and the guideline names them specifically. • Gene93k (talk) 19:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Salt Her name isn't among the award nominees for any of the awards that were cited. While it's controversial enough within the project whether scenes should count, this is the first time I've ever heard of anyone claiming a nomination for an entire film series should establish notability for the individual performers. If it's been speedied 7 times then we've hit the point where it should be salted. If she somehow becomes notable I'm sure it will be submitted for review.Horrorshowj (talk) 01:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Scientizzle 16:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madagascar (band)[edit]

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

I don't think this is an actual band. The soundtrack of the movie Madagascar (2005 film) includes a performance of the song "I Like to Move It" in character by Sacha Baron Cohen, one of the voice performers in the movie. [40] However, this article treats "I Like to Move It" as though it were performed on the soundtrack by a band named Madagascar, which I don't think is accurate. I considered redirecting the article to Madagascar (2005 film) or Sacha Baron Cohen, but neither seems to be appropriate given that the claimed existence of this band appears to be a misunderstanding. I recommend a delete instead. Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:29, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be an indie pop band called Madagascar from Baltimore, Maryland, but 1. they're not the subject of this article and 2. they don't meet WP:MUSIC anyway. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:14, 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 keep. PhilKnight (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Jude Catholic Church, Allen, Texas[edit]

St. Jude Catholic Church, Allen, Texas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Local Roman Catholic church in Texas, no assertion of notability.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This church has had some events in the past decade. --Bailey243 (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The addition of Father Tim
    • One of the most active KOC councils in this country —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bailey243 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The church seems an average church with nothing to indicate it satisfies notability guidelines. The press clippings about the church are routine announcements. The only real claim to notability is an ABC News story about Father Church, the priest, who is one of the few married Roman Catholic priests. But any notability of Father Church is not inherited by his church. Edison2 (talk) 03:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just added a link to a Dallas Morning News article on the church's youth ministry and its anti-drug endeavors. While notability here may be marginal, deletion seems like a bad idea. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There appears to be enough secondary coverage by reliable sources to warrant inclusion. --Oakshade (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article now has references to significant in-depth coverage of the church and its activities far beyond the usual religion section notices. The notability threshold certainly seems to have been reached here. - Dravecky (talk) 12:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Dravecky (talk) 12:10, 27 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. Obvious bad faith nom from SPA for a notable and inspiring mayor of Vancouver. Non-admin closure. Nate • (chatter) 06:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Sullivan[edit]

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

Unknown Canadian figure. Article is not backed with sources. Letmehearyousinglala (talk) 04:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep. Both above statements are false. Being the mayor of a major world city is enough notability to be included in Wikipedia. And there are currently 10 references in the article. This nomination appears to be in bad faith and was made by a brand-new user account with no previous edit history. Rawr (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Disruptive and bad faith nom. Waving the Olympic flag with his wheelchair during the Torino handoff alone is enough to put him into notability. Nate • (chatter) 06:23, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_24&oldid=1081103064"