Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 7 August 9 >

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 No consensus, defaults to keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source Mage GNU/Linux[edit]

Source Mage GNU/Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks secondary sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reason to delete Not even asserted to be non-notable. Not asserted to be unsourceable. DGG (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article lacks notability based on the lack of reliable sources provided and the lack of reliable sources found. The article appears to be unsourcable based on a cursory examination of hits returned by googling. This is assumed to be the case for every other good faith nomination that is brought to AfD on similar grounds. Not asserted to be notable. Not asserted to be sourceable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article could use some third-party sources, but otherwise I see no reason for deletion: it's in pretty good shape as it is. -FrankTobia (talk) 02:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of third-party sources is why the article was nominated. Can you please verify that sources exist? Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First page of Google searching "source mage": [1] [2] [3] [4]. That should be a good start. -FrankTobia (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply The first article was contributed by the Source Mage Project. That's not excatly a third party. The second article is essentially directory listing. The third article is a blog which is not a reliable source. And the fourth is a blog with a project developer as a contributor so it neither reliable, nor independent. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And yet the first is published by a third-party; the second demonstrates verifiability; the third provides additional perspective, third-party content, and demonstration of notability; and the fourth provides more of the same. This is more than enough notability to satisfy me. -FrankTobia (talk) 19:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Then we will have to agree to disagree as first, the reprinting material provided by the project is marginal at best (similar to a press release); second, verifiability is not at issue and a directory entry doesn't establish notability; third, blogs aren't reliable sources regardless of any addition of perspective; fourth, a blog written by the project developer about the project is about as far away from a reliable source as one can get when trying to establich notability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Playing devil's advocate, what specifically would be needed to demonstrate notability of this linux distribution? Coverage at LWN.net and distrowatch.com must count for something, considering we're not dealing with a subject not likely to be covered by CNN or BBC any time soon. If blogs are off-limits completely off-limits, can you give a specific example of a source that would satisfy your notability concerns? -FrankTobia (talk) 20:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not looking for coverage from CNN or the BBC. But there are technology journals like Linux Journal where one would expect to see coverage of notable distros. -- Whpq (talk) 20:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are no third-party sources that are writing about this distro to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This project has been mainly focused on the package manager, the package repositories and getting somebody to release and maintain a ISO, PR has not been a priority and it isn't for the core developer group. It wasn't until not too long ago that Paul Beel (aka novaburst) started doing some movement in the PR area, but its still very vague. There's articles about Source Mage published in LXer, there's a DistroWatch page tracking the project (which seems to be a bit out of date, I have requested the people in charge to look into it) and then there's Mage Power, which is run by Paul and myself. We have gotten articles from LWN and other sources, though I don't have the URL's for citing at hand. In Sorcerer's (where Source Mage forked off of) pages about Sorcery (the package manager) referencing Source Mage and Lunar Linux, that I've read recently. [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] and many more if you keep scraping google results. If you require more solid references, then by all means Delete the article, as there is nothing much more concrete about it than there is about Lunar Linux. -- ElisamuelResto (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Noone agreeing that it should be deleted and the nomination does not give a policy reason for deleting. Lack of sources in an article is often a prompt for improvement rather than deletion.Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trustix[edit]

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

A Linux distro of unclear notability. Article lacks sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No reason to delete Not even asserted to be non-notable. Not even asserted to be unsourceable. DGG (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The article lacks notability based on the lack of reliable sources provided and the lack of reliable sources found. The article appears to be unsourcable based on a cursory examination of hits returned by googling. This is assumed to be the case for every other good faith nomination that is brought to AfD on similar grounds. Not asserted to be notable. Not asserted to be sourceable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the company and its product (the linux distro) are pretty much one and the same. Amidst all the press releases, there are these two articles from the Register. [11] and [12]. I stopped looking after these two but I suspect there could be more found. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. BJTalk 17:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grange Lane Junior School[edit]

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

Generic junior school, no independent sources. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelli Martin[edit]

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

Notability unclear. WP:REALITY is against reality show contestants being seen as WP:N for that alone. Is her prior career sufficiently WP:N according to WP:CREATIVE? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was first speedied for WP:NN, still deleted after a {{hangon}}, then went through DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_24 and was restored. I was a contributor to that process, arguing that it should be restored on the question of process, not content. If this article eventually fails, it will only be on a minor point of WP:NN and never needed that sort of heavy-handed treatment.

As to WP:N itself, I can only suggest that editors read Talk:Kelli Martin first, where there is discussion at some length.

I regret AfDing this article, as I'm really not certain myself as to which side of the line it falls. Please consider my opinion to be an abstention, but I believe it does need a wider airing. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I created this article entirely from the six sources cited. As noted at the earlier DRV (resulting from two out-of-process speedy deletions and a salting by User:Orangemike; speedy deletion/protect overturned), the following sources appear (from a cursory google search) to be independent of the article subject, suitable under WP:RS, and readily available for easy verification:
(1) Pre-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article
(2) Post-PR sources: newspaper article, newspaper article, and TV network bio
(3) Self-published (suitable for establishing non-controversial biographical details like birthday, etc.): auto-bio
As discussed on the article talk page WP:REALITY has not gained community support, and one's appearance on a reality show does not detract from one's notability. Nominator said on talk page "I think she's notable, on balance" and said that he would not be nominating for AfD (diff). Nominator added and re-added notability template despite my pointing out misinterpretation of WP:BIO. My position is that Martin is the subject of multiple, reliable sources independent of her and each other, and that these sources are adequate to write a short, verifiable article (See WP:GNG), as evidenced by the current version, which is a short, verifiable article, with all potentially controversial assertions attributed to appropriate third-party sources. I really feel like this is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. In reference to the WP:OWN accusation by Andy, I hope that my eagerness to engage other editors in discussion is apparent from the article and various talk page histories. At least one of Andy's insertions of the template came after I pointed out Andy's good-faith misunderstanding of the standard he was applying (my comment [13], Andy's template add [14]). Also in reference to the WP:OWN accusation, I suggested that Andy ask for a 3rd Opinion if he felt the notability template really belonged. DickClarkMises (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability is not conferred by a handful of puff pieces in a local newspaper. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's borderline, but enough coverage to pass above the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 14:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unless the pieces in a local newspaper are press releases or otherwise written by her representatives, whether or not they're favorable to her, they're coverage, and make her Wikipedia:Notable. --GRuban (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Railroad Gin Liberal[edit]

Railroad Gin Liberal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism. There are no Google (web/books/news) hits for this term, and barely any hits for "railroad gin" itself except in reference to a band named Railroad Gin and a single line from a Bob Dylan song. Father Goose (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per absolutely no Google hits for the whole phrase, and nothing for 'railroad gin' that seems remotely relevant. This thing doesn't seem to have been mentioned anywhere, let alone reliable sources - I find it hard to believe it's a notable political term and no-one's used it on the internet. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. No reliable sources mention the term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not everything is on Google, but I can add that I've been a politics junkie since computers were room-sized and I've never heard this term. JamesMLane t c 01:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete by User:Orangemike. Tiptoety talk 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dovydas Laurinaitis[edit]

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

Likely WP:HOAX article. I have been running multiple unsuccessful searches to find anything about this person. His artist name does return two unusable results, his real name in combination with the festival/oem/book returns nothing. Also, a search on the book has no results identifying its existence at all. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to List of diplomatic missions in Vietnam, already merged there. lifebaka++ 19:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic missions in Hanoi[edit]

List of diplomatic missions in Hanoi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOT a yellow pages or directory. Aaronw (talk) 22:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but remove the addresses and telephone numbers. Wikipedia is not a telephone directory, but there is encyclopedic value in identifying which countries have diplomatic representation in a particular country or city. (See Category:Lists of diplomatic missions by receiving country for an indication of the value that Wikipedians have placed on these lists.) --Orlady (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with List of diplomatic missions in Ho Chi Minh City into List of diplomatic missions in Vietnam, which I will quickly get done up, with references of course. --Россавиа Диалог 02:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Russavia's proposal. The country-level list seems to me to be a more natural choice than the city-level. City governments do not typically have formal diplomatic relations with other countries. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks Aaronw for acknowledging on my talk page that the removal of directory information could make it a valuable article. Yes it has a lot of redlinks, but hopefully WP:FOR and Wikipedia:WikiProject Vietnam will be up to the challenge of in time getting rid of those redlinks. Just a quick comment in regards to country-level to city-level lists. I am the editor who is largely responsible for the formatting and upkeep of Diplomatic missions in Russia. I had a thought the other day in that Diplomatic missions in Saint Petersburg would make for a great article - SPB once being the capital of Imperial Russia, and a heap of countries having embassies there and some of these countries no longer exist (Bavaria, Neopolitan Kingdom, etc); SPB has a long rich history in terms of diplomatic relations and missions, and a split could be done quite easily so as to include not only the consulate-generals located in the city today, but details on the embassies from pre-1917 - many of these were extraordinary examples of architecture, and many happenings at the missions adds the diplomatic corps flavour to it. Each article needs to be judged upon its own merits and the reasoning behind it. A Hanoi and HCMC article may be possible in future; if it can be demonstrated that they warrant it; but I think editors of that article now need to concentrate on using the groundwork which I have now laid to further develop this area of foreign relations. --Russavia Dialogue Stalk me 21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep – nomination withdrawn after reliable sources were found to establish notability. Non-admin closure. Jamie☆S93 23:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Mexico in Berlin[edit]

Embassy of Mexico in Berlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Non-notable building, unlikely to be multiple independent sources of information. Aaronw (talk) 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Changed to Keep now that multiple independent sources of information have been found about the structure/building pointing out its notability. My thoughts align with Nick Dowling on the "Most diplomatic missions aren't notable just by virtue of being a diplomatic mission". e.g. Consulate General of the United States in Kolkata I have my eyes on next, whereas Embassy of the United States in Athens is independently notable because of its architecture, etc. As far as not looking for sources for this particular structure, I admit I was remiss in not doing so, but I assumed that whoever wrote the article would have made note of why it was notable, and I did not look further. Aaronw (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I find it hard to believe someone would nominate a diplomatic mission as non-notable. riffic (talk) 22:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep OTOH, I find it horribly easy to believe that someone would nominate a diplomatic mission as non-notable. 8-( Still a bad idea though. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment Can we keep the focus on the article instead of on the nominator? Thanks. Aaronw (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about the nominator, it's about the nomination. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:N unless sources can be provided to establish the notability of either the building or what occurs within it. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sources exist and you would think embassies are inherently notable. sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there's an architectural interest in the building too, but surely a major embassy like this is inherently notable as an embassy, no matter what the building? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now has sources have been found. I don't see why embassies are automatically notable - most of them are boring office buildings with a smallish number of public servants performing routine diplomatic work in them. Nick Dowling (talk) 04:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Embassies of major countries in major capitols are notable in general and this one is particularly so due to its architectural design, even according to the New York Times.[16] [17] --Oakshade (talk) 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep perfectgly adequate sources now. And of course there would be, as for all other missions of major nations to major countries, at the very least. DGG (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It seems like the nominator didn't even try to find reliable sources. Schuym1 (talk) 05:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's not their job, and there's no need to be impolite like that. References should have been included when the article was created per WP:PROVEIT. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that nominators had to find out if it was non-notable before nominating it for deletion. How was I being impolite? Schuym1 (talk) 06:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While researching is not required for AfD nominators, it is most helpful. --Oakshade (talk) 06:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) The list of reasons for deletion lists "Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources" and "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". That sounds like a fairly clear indication that "no sources" isn't a good reason for going to AfD without searching for some first. But even if it weren't policy it would certainly save time for nominators to do a quick Google Books search. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep why would anyone nominate to delete this article (or any other article for that matter) regarding a diplomatic mission to another country? Aquintero (talk) 10:13, 09 August, 2008 (UTC)

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:26, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Union of Chinese Nationalists[edit]

Union of Chinese Nationalists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is nothing more than a violation of WP:SOAP, it is full of weasel words, there are no third party sources (therefore a violation of WP:V, no references, reads like someones essay or blog entry, it violates WP:NPOV, and to that end, there is nothing listed in this article that would support notability. nat.utoronto 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although the article cites no sources, it appears that this is an actual online organization. It's mentioned briefly in one issue of the newsletter of Chinese Human Rights Defenders (see [18] and scroll down to item 7), and there's a "Groupsite" claiming 56 members ([19]). Most of the search hits, though, have no English-language content. Conceivably, someone (especially someone bilingual, as I am not) could find enough sources to write a decent article, but what's here now is not worth keeping even as a starting point, because of the heavy POV. I've removed similar content from Pan-Blue Coalition with this edit and from Kuomintang with this edit. I suspect it will be restored unless those articles are closely monitored, a task I don't intend to undertake. (In each article, I left in the ext link to the UOCN website. The "See also" link to this article should be deleted if the result here is deletion.) JamesMLane t c 02:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - article is being used as a soapbox -- Whpq (talk) 14:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States 2008 Presidential Election Battleground States[edit]

United States 2008 Presidential Election Battleground States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be solely composed of original research based on opinion polls, or states which are always battleground states (FL/MI/OH/PA). Thus was the reason why Swing state was tagged as containing original research several months ago. Sceptre (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree that this doesn't have a place on Wikipedia in its current form- I came across it a while ago and just didn't quite know what to do with it. J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:NOT#CRYSTAL. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 22:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not encyclopedic coverage... it's more suited to the various election-by-the-nanosecond sites that are all over the place. The term "battleground" for example is very POV. --Rividian (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a prima facie violation of NPOV as currently named. The encyclopedia ought not be in the position of declaring one group of electoral division of greater importance than another, and the title of this article seems to imply that. DickClarkMises (talk) 03:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. The arguments as to lack of notability are solid, and User:Peripitus's analysis is convincing.--Kubigula (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Plaza, South Australia[edit]

Hollywood Plaza, South Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hollywood Plaza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Wikipedia is not a directory; this shopping centre is not notable. Delete both articles about it. JohnCD (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy deleted by User:Werdna. Canley (talk) 10:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowfares.com[edit]

Lowfares.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete Blatant advertising (speedy removed by IP) Mayalld (talk) 20:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Fails WP:CSD#A7. -- Hawaiian717 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article gives basic information about a leading website. How is this grounds for deletion? should allow article to stay live for a few weeks so other users can add on it and edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.163.36 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see how this article differs from articles for other online travel agencies. if this one is up for deletion, then so should the articles for kayak, expedia, travelocity, etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emomurga (talk • contribs) 20:49, 8 August 2008


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  16:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 31[edit]

American Airlines Flight 31 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Short article on an airline incident not likely to have long term notability. The incident doesn't meet the notability guidance developed by the Aviation WikiProject and detailed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Aviation/Style guide#Aviation accidents. Diversions due to smoke in the cockpit aren't typically considered notable, and the fact that this diversion caused a slight delay to the arrival of the Emirates A380 from San Francisco doesn't make it notable, either. Also, keep in mind WP:NOBJ which notes it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability. Hawaiian717 (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- As it stands, this event isn't notable, and I doubt anything will happen to change that. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- per nom.Nrswanson (talk) 20:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are all these events coming from? BTW, I seriously doubt someone from the FAA doesn't know when last an aircraft had to use its slides. He may not have been able to supply an exact date, but he'd have an idea. Far too regular an occurence, and fails the draft WP:AIRCRASH guidlines to boot. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not so hasty, please. A few days to allow the story to unfold seem reasonable. There were injuries, hence it is an Aviation accident within the NTSB's definition. The event "prompted federal regulators to take another look at evacuation rules and practices in such instances, and how procedures may vary among carriers." [20] While trivial on the surface, there may be notability yet. Also, the article was created by a newcomer. Please don't BITE. LeadSongDog (talk) 20:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see no evidence of BITE-ing going on here. Even the presence of injuries does not make this particularly notable. If some changes are made to policy years down the line, this incident might be mentioned in passing in the applicable article, assuming it even plays a role. 23skidoo (talk) 22:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Neither do I. My intent was precautionary. The unseemly haste to delete a new article can be very discouraging for a novice creator. It does no harm to wait a few days to see how it evolves. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just a news story. If something comes of it then that information can be added to other articles, for instance on the airplane model or articles on airline safety. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. JohnCD (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. NOT#NEWS isn't a justification for deletion. Perhaps for a transwiki to wn. LeadSongDog (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't tend to go "per nom" but there really isn't anything I could add to state the case better. Minor incident, no crash, no one died. These things happen all the time. Nothing to suggest notability in any way. 23skidoo (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm usually kind to flight articles, but this, as of now, doesn't have any extraordinary details. They smelled smoke and took it back to LAX. The smoke didn't even come from a fire. --Oakshade (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - An event like this is woefully non-notable. It's a non-event that is far from being encyclopedic. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 02:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge info - to American Airlines accidents and incidents. Incidents causing injury should be mentioned there. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 06:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - if it were major injuries, I'd agree, but we're talking about minor scrapes from sliding out...everyone walked away, no one was taken off in an ambulence even. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 14:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment - misses the point. The need to deploy masks and chutes reflect emergency measures. Also, the failure of masks to work when called upon is non-trivial.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- another NN aviation incident. Every minor mishap seems to generate an article that has to go through AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable, smoke related air conditioning problems are not rare either are precuationary landings. MilborneOne (talk) 18:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - generally smoke in bleed air reflects deficient maintenance or design. The AAIB in CAP752 required operators "ensure that the standards of maintenance and modification of the aircraft's air conditioning system, engines and APU are such that air supply contamination by oil from the engines and/or APU, or by any other potentially hazardous substance, is avoided." While the case in point was a BAe 146, the principle is universal, to avoid poisoning people with pyrolized lube oil. On two-engined ETOPS-180 aircraft, like AAL31, the importance rises greatly as they may have to operate three hours on one engine.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and WP:SNOW. Smoke from an oil leak.[21] Precautions taken. Bumps and bruises on evacuation. Unremarkable malfunction with no evidence of lasting impact. • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Update: the FAA are investigating the failure of almost half the oxygen masks. A recent Airworthiness Directive pertains.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unless something else comes out from thh FAA review, precautionary does not rise to notable.King Pickle (talk) 00:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fito (Skimo)[edit]

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

Non-notable TV character - Sorfane 08:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Main character in a show that has run for multiple seasons. Edward321 (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having read the article, I am no closer to knowing anything about the television show, this character, or the notable status of either. It reads like a fan-page or blog. doktorb wordsdeeds 20:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No reliable sources, notability is not inherited. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 21:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn The song did indeed chart, so it's probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted[edit]

2 of Amerikaz Most Wanted (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable song. Didn't chart. Only sources were fansites, which I removed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 02:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral if the statements can be sourced, I think it should be kept as a notable song in 2Pac's history; but if not, then delete it. JuJube (talk) 13:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A quick search shows that the song did chart. Do U(knome)? yes...or no 23:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Chippenham--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 06:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Church[edit]

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

Non-notable church. And that BBC reference is not about the church, but about Paul Jones (the church is cited briefly as a venue where the singer was making an appearance). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Ecoleetage (talk) 13:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (with regret) -- I wish we could have articles on local churches, but the consensus is that most are NN, and this appears to be no exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (changing vote) - Merge with Chippenham. That article has a section on churches, which includess a link to the website of this church. I do not think this is a notable church, but the appropriate solution (as with primary school articles) is not to delete, but to merge them, usually with their town or village. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry Ecoleetage, could you tell us; why it is non-notable, and what you mean by this? This gives the impression you have no proper reason for nominating this article for deletion. Also as I read the article I get the impression that the BBC reference is actually in relation to celerities that have visited the Church. Simschr (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment it needs in-line cites. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 8 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, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Chippenham per Peterkingiron. Note to Simschr: I see the link to your talk page is red which means you have never had a Welcome message. I will put one there which will give you links to useful pages about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. In brief, notable is WP shorthand for of enough general interest for an encyclopedia article (remembering that WP is an encyclopedia not a directory) and the usual test is, have people independent of the subject found it of enough interest to write about. In this case I have to agree with the nominator that the only two independent references, "This is Wiltshire" and the BBC, are about a celebrity visit rather than about the church itself. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Hey, I love local churches! Some churches are indeed notable. I don't see any reason to think this particular church is a worldwide standout. Wikipedia is not a church directory.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - isn't notable enough for a stand alone article. PhilKnight (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:40, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZCubes[edit]

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

Article is a thinly-veiled advertisement. See Talk:ZCubes#Summary of issues with this article. DanielPenfield (talk) 19:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Am not convinced that the article is unsalvagable. Some reliable sources which cover ZCubes significantly are available - [22], [23] (google cache version) and [24]. Based on those I think a valid and notable article is possible here. The issues identified by the nominator are real but can be addressed by cleanup. Davewild (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepComment This topic appears notable after some research and new references, the original sources were weak, some being blogs and the others online magazines with questionable editorial oversight and independence. However, there is credibility to the new sources. I would vote keep if one solid source were added to the several weak ones. --Kevin Murray (talk) 19:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 2 of the 3 sources I identified above to the article as references. Davewild (talk) 20:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
David, my g-search yielded recognition in an article by The UK Guardian and much other chatter to make me think there has to be something strong out there. The Hindu is mildly compelling and with the Guardian piece it will do the trick. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reality check #1: It took you over three hours (from here to here) of web searching to find what you believe to be a "reliable" source. If the google/Yahoo search/Livesearch page rank puts it down on page 426 of the page results after 4260+ links from obscure web-zines, part-time bloggers, and outright advertisements, really, how worthy a source could it possibly be?
  • Reality check #2: The Guardian "piece" (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/06/link.link12) is a six-sentence mention in a "websites we think you should visit"-type advertorial that is something you'd find in the "features" section of your newspaper along with the comics, relationship columns, recipes, and crossword puzzles. ZCubes shares space in this "piece" with a website for "furry elephants" and another for "embarassing bodies". No reasonable person would ever mistake this "piece" for the investigative journalism.
  • Reality check #3: The ZCubes advertisement still contains, as of this writing, "citations" that include a Wikipedia:Spam blacklisted website and website that makes no mention of the product at all, just photos of its company's executive giving a talk at a lightly-attended community college "conference". See Talk:ZCubes#Summary of issues with this article for details. Yet you expect the rest of us to believe that finding advertorials in the The Hindu and The Guardian somehow removes this unabashed WP:COI taint from the ZCubes advertisement.
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reality is that you are discussing issues related to editing the content not deciding the AfD. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reality is that you claimed "I would vote keep if one solid source were added to the several weak ones" and then turned around and added an advertorial, then changed your story to "there is credibility to the new sources." Sourcing an advertisement with advertisements does not help Wikipedia. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A badly sourced article on a notable subject is should be improved, not deleted. lk (talk) 20:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article was primarily written by a few editors (TOReilly, Millerclarissa, RayFrench, LNRyan, SarkowA, MeghaABS, ScottmaM, Rishihima, PeteDevries, etc), none of whom have user pages and whose few edits are either solely or mainly based around this article. I suspect that they are employees. If the article is kept, it will need a rewrite. -- Escape Artist Swyer Talk to me The mess I've made 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A giveaway sign is how it is written - almost every sentence starts "ZCubes does this, ZCubes is, ZCubes provides..." If this article is to remain, a lot will have to be done to stop it from looking like a copyvio from their own website. I am leaning towards Delete doktorb wordsdeeds 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in clear agreement with Escape and Dok, but poor style and non-encyclopedic intent on the part of the contributors is not a reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to editors: Kevin Murray bears a grudge after I criticized him for his careless edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=ZCubes&diff=next&oldid=230472047, in which he not only unilaterally decided that the ZCubes advertisement was ineligible for {{prod}} despite my careful research presented in Talk:ZCubes#Summary_of_issues_with_this_article, he also inexplicably deleted the article's infobox. His breathless championing of the ZCubes advertisement is entirely due to my harsh words rather than whether Wikipedia should be allowed to be used as a free advertising platform for ZCubes. I'd ask you to disregard his attempt at vote-stacking pandering and concentrate on the question: Should we aid and abet the spammers who authored this article? Or should we send the clear message that Wikipedia does not allow advertisements? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am sure Kevin will declare any interest in this discussion doktorb wordsdeeds 06:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials, sources such as those are commonly used as references on wikipedia and, unless there is some evidence that has not been revealed here, they do fit the definition we use on the advertorial page. Secondly needing cleanup, being poorly written or being written in a non neutral point of view are grounds for asking the article to be improved but are not grounds for deletion. Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray? I fail to see anything to suggest he has done any canvassing but instead he has quite properly found another source towards notability which he has added to the article. Davewild (talk) 07:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Statement Response
"I fail to see how the sources from TheHindu or to a lesser extent the Guardian are described as advertorials"
  • The Hindu's http://www.hindu.com/2007/12/30/stories/2007123054481100.htm is an advertisement for ZCubes, 100% promotion from its title (which trumpets "ZCubes will soon have innovative web-driven spreadsheet") to its conclusion ("A ‘cool’ cyber-age calculator might just be the foot in the door that leads to Web. 3.0 and beyond.")
  • The Hindu's One-stop cyber shop for creativity is also an advertisment for ZCubes, featuring such rhapsodic gems as "Enthusiastic blog postings on the Web speak of the browser-based ZCubes achievement as `disruptive technology' that all too rarely shakes up the Internet by unveiling an inspired tool or resource which leaves users saying: "Why didn't any one think of doing this before? It's what we always wanted!""
  • http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/06/link.link12 is an advertisement for http://www.cilt.org.uk/14to19, http://www.furryelephant.com, http://home.zcubes.com, http://www.channel4embarrassingillnesses.com, and http://teachtoday.eu/home/, complete with pricing information for the "furry elephant": "available on an annual subscription basis - £99 for physics [...] and £49 for PSHE"
    • "sources such as those are commonly used as references on wikipedia"
  • Post examples and I'll show you "articles" that are little more than free advertisements.
  • Doesn't it bother you that product reviews such as [25] and [26] are considered "reliable sources"? Are you truly unable or unwilling to distinguish between advertising and legitimate journalism/scholarship?
    • "being poorly written or being written in a non neutral point of view are grounds for asking the article to be improved but are not grounds for deletion" Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion G#11 "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic."
    "Lastly please could you substantiate the serious charge of 'vote-stacking' that you have made against Kevin Murray?" I overstated the case and have corrected it.
    -- DanielPenfield (talk) 08:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE User DanielPenfield suggested this issue at the WP:CORP discussion page as a reason to justify his attempts to unilaterally rewrite that guideline, where he was reverted by myself and another, but gained no specific support for his edits. After reviewing the Zcubes article and finding it moderately referenced I removed his prod tag as allowed by procedure and suggested that it be sent to AfD to discuss and improve the sources. Dan accused me of misdeeds at my talk page and the WP:CORP talk page, including offensive comments about MBAs (my degree as described at my user page) ethics and abilities. Prior to this I had no knowledge of Dan nor ZCubes. My further involvement has been to, do a Google search, add a reference (Guardian), and divide the bibliography (reference) section from the footnotes. In an effort to rectify the situation I will be seeking career/vocational counseling and rehabilitation, return several million dollars that I have treacherously extorted from the free-markets, and hang my head in shame all weekend long. --Kevin Murray (talk) 14:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The Hindu is a single-edition English-language Indian newspaper. With a circulation of 1.17 million copies, The Hindu has its largest base of circulation in South India, especially Tamil Nadu. Begun in 1878, it was founded on the principles of fairness and justice. Headquartered at Chennai (formerly called Madras), The Hindu was published weekly when it was launched and started publishing daily in 1889.
    (as per Wikipedia - and is a respected source.
    Also check http://yihongs-research.blogspot.com/2008/04/zcubes-towards-web-30.html . Yihong Ding is a widely respected writer on Web 3.0.
    [Wikipedia states:
    • The Hindu is a single-edition English-language Indian newspaper. With a circulation of 1.17 million copies, The Hindu has its largest base of circulation in South India, especially Tamil Nadu. Begun in 1878, it was founded on the principles of fairness and justice. Headquartered at Chennai (formerly called Madras), The Hindu was published weekly when it was launched and started publishing daily in 1889.
    • The Hindu became, in 1995, the first Indian newspaper to offer an online edition.[1]. The Hindu is the most circulated periodical in India with a circulation of 1,102,783 copies, according to the Registrar of Newspapers for India (The Sunday Times of India is second with a circulation of 1,038,954 copies).
    Daniel may find the above interesting... Accusing one of the articles in one of the most fair newspapers in 100 years as an advertisement is ridiculous. Daniel Penfield should consider editing the Wikipedia page on 'The Hindu' stating that.
    Absurd Drivel from DanielPenfield who is a statistician making poor statistical observation. All these contributors seem to have different styles of writing. I think the edit by MicroTalk improved the article by removing a persons name. Not sure if Mr. Pally is relevant to an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EdgeOne (talk • contribs) 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    — EdgeOne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Keep Minor edits may be required, but generally the article is ok. Webpage developers like me find this software useful, and the information is of interest to us. Wikipedia is a neutral source we go to get updates on ZCubes.Annaklein92 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The guardian coverage Kevin cited looks as of something of interest to anyone who is interested in Internet evolution. the article can use some editing, esp. removing references to any individiuals.

    Lucaskant (talk) 17:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep In reference to comments on reality check 1, 2 and 3 as presented by Daniel, (1) the amount of web search has no significance on a topic. In Google, some items may not be listed according to their significance (check on topic Sex for academic information) (2) In a newspaper like Guardian, one would typically expect articles of local murders, Iraq invasion and John Edwards Affair, along with a website of significance like ZCubes. (3) Looks like a presentation at CUNY is worthy of note, when the other participants are from Google, Microsoft and Adobe. Someone's suggestive personal attacks on one of ZCubes executives looks silly, as I am sure the CEO of such companies will certainly have better things to do that edit Wikipedia. I have been a user of ZCubes for a while, and have been quite impressed by it. I have always used Wikipedia to find more neutral information about ZCubes. Going through this discussion I find it disheartening the way that one person of questionable credentials seems to be trashing world renowned newspapers (like the Guardian and Hindu) and sources (such as bloggers like McManus with 250000 readership) as trivial. A cleanup of the references may be appropriate. However, deletion is not a good step for a technology that is considered to be very notable in technical circles. Much of the article looks real in content, could certainly be worded better.Eisenhowerdd (talk) 22:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC) — Eisenhowerdd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep. --jonny-mt 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles[edit]

    Wind and Water: Puzzle Battles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    prod removed with no reason given. game with no claim to notability, lacks references Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change to Weak Keep — there has to be something out there establishing notability. MuZemike (talk) 19:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i say let it stay " game with no claim to notability" the game was a Finalists in the Independent Games Festival Mobile for Audio Achievement: http://www.igfmobile.com/02finalists.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andri12 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep - The article needs ALOT of work but it is notable none-the-less. Gears of War 2 21:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The game is only one of the two commercial GP2X games and therefor important for the independent game scene. The Dreamcast port is the best indie Dreamcast release so far and was a finalist of the Independent Game Festival: http://www.igfmobile.com/02finalists.html - so keep. 91.89.109.219 (talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Author of the game: I have edited the article with links to external sources including the nomination as an Independent Games Festival and an interview from a notable website, and the presence of Yuan Works in the Game Developer's Conference. --YuanHao (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete As shown with other recent deletions like Feet of Fury, Inhabitants and the GOAT Store, independent game development that is not released to large sales and critical acclaim does not apparently meet the criteria to be notable in and of itself. Finding a few articles without finding a lot of information is not enough to make a game notable. Information on this game is less than the others that were deemed 'Not Notable' already. Game is important to the GP2X independent development scene, but when an independent scene is so small as to not get recognized on most of the notable sites, it might as well be deleted. If anyone wants to find the history of these games, Wikipedia should not be the place for it. D3l8 (talk) 03:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This game is more notable than those D3l8 cites. Just because some pages on independent games were deleted doesn't mean that all pages on independent games should be deleted. This game has won awards, whereas the games cited had no claim to notability. lk (talk) 20:23, 8 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, « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I would say this has sufficient notability based upon the sources. Not to go WP:WAX, but other independently developed games such as Uplink (video game) are notable, while initially not having been released into the mainstream, nor leading to spectacular sales. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The game page reads like an advertisement to the game and does not cite any information about the game that makes it notable. Unless the article is rewritten so that it does not read like a manual or advertisement, I see no reason to keep it. Also, just because it was entered into competition does not necessarily make it a notable game. Other winners of that competition are not listed, so it should depend on the notability of the game itself to save the entry, and with almost every link being a link to the game or the programmers site, I see this as an advertisement, not a notable game.63.84.191.66 (talk) 16:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I disagree that notability has been established in this case, a pity since it looks interesting. Listed in the article is an interview, which is useful for development but not for reception (which is the part where notability gets demonstrated), there's a short piece about the dreamcast release here, but what is needed is a couple of full-size reviews from reliable sources. Being nominated for an IGF award is no basis for an article - "it was the running for an IGF award" so? Where's the reception information coming from? Nah, no prejudice against restoring the article if reviews show up in the future, but trying to build a broad and neutral article out of dribs and drabs doesn't work, I've tried. Someoneanother 01:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is in reply to the above reply to my first statement -- All pages on independent games shouldn't be deleted, however there has been nothing shown that establishes the GP2X independent development scene as a notable one. The Independent_Games_Festival page does not list this game or any other runners up. As for the reply from lk, I believe the deleted games that I listed were entrants of other contests and also an important part of the Dreamcast independent development scene, but exactly like this article those titles did not have any notable reliable sources to establish the reason for their notability. D3l8 (talk) 05:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Struck through your second 'delete', we only need to make one suggestion to keep or delete. Someoneanother 16:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No problem. Just couldn't reply above, and didn't know if it was better to "comment" randomly before, or create another Delete.D3l8 (talk) 18:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:56, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Black Writs[edit]

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

    album page for NN band, band page long since deleted but this has somehow escaped the process - previous prod attempt was declined and referred back to Afd as it had been referred before, which I'm now doing Hunting dog (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    the previous Afd referred to is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gotham City (single) which mentions this title but not as subject, so I have no idea how to officially un-mangle this to include it!-Hunting dog (talk) 22:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Non-notable album from a non-notable band. TN‑X-Man 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as COI OR essay.  Sandstein  21:50, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Colposcopy of Actinic Light[edit]

    Colposcopy of Actinic Light (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    New colposcopy technique, invented in South-America in 2005. No PubMed links, few links on Google Scholar but not included in major reviews. Hence, Original research without reliable tertiary sources (yet). Creator claims to be the second author of this paper, even if that would be true, copyright issues remain as we don't have permission from the other authors or the journal. Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • speedy delete Violates just about every guideline RogueNinjatalk 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please, please, please delete —CyclonenimT@lk? 20:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Self-promotion. If anything useful remains, consider merging with colposcopy. JFW | T@lk 07:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Merge/Redirect to Motion City Soundtrack (non-admin closure). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Matthew Taylor (bassist)[edit]

    Matthew Taylor (bassist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Previous AfD was no consensus, band member who has done little notable outside of the band.

    Jesse Johnson (keyboardist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Tony Thaxton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 18:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Actually, there are: Both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC say that band members who have done nothing notable outside of the band are not notable enough for an article. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's odd - it certainly doesn't apply to politicians (is Obama notable outside politics?) or sportspeople, and is not being applied to musicians in a coherent fashion. One can always change these guidelines. In any case these people have been in other bands. Occuli (talk) 10:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection I have no objection to the 3 articles being merged in their entirety into Motion City Soundtrack with a sub-heading each (under the heading Band members or some such), and the redirects (to the respective sub-heading) being categorised as they are now (see WP:CAT-R, subtopic section). Occuli (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per WP:BEFORE. Neier (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Occuli. Tezkag72 (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Occuli. Though if you want the information to be merged into the MCS article, would you please post some pointers on its talk page, so i (because since i wrote the rest of it, i'll probably get stuck with this) know exactly what your intentions were/are. kiac (talk) 06:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 13:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Kamille Project Exchange[edit]

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

    Doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. G11 speedy removed by a SPA. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 09:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a short and concentrated article about the project. (EsetCo (talk) 15:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    New update (EsetCo (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    I have listed it under; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_stock_exchanges#Worldwide:_Internet-based (NielsArm (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    PS. The name of the exchange is written with @ and a lowercase - k@mille (NielsArm (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 16:46, 3 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, Davewild (talk) 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete, no evidence of notability or coverage in reliable sources. I'm not counting out the possibility that these could exist, but I barely even see many compelling google hits for the term - this article may well have been written with promotional intent, though it's not written in the blatantly spammy tone that would have warranted a G11 speedy. At this time I can't see much reason to keep it. ~ mazca t | c 21:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. All articles need at least the possibility reliable sourcing per policy. --Leivick (talk) 23:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Makkah Learning Center[edit]

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

    Non-notable religious organization. Fails WP:ORG, WP:N. Ragib (talk) 16:29, 3 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, Davewild (talk) 18:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note - this is not really a school, despite the claim made in the page. Rather, per their website, they have *future plans* for a school. It seems to be a religious studies group, or prayer circle. --Ragib (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note This is the definition from the web site, "Makkah Learning Center is an educational project of Islamic Society of Annapolis, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit organization in Annapolis, Maryland." it is not prayer circle, it is non-profit organization!--Puttyschool (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article doesn't even suggest why it might be notable, so it's speedyable under A7. Olaf Davis | Talk 23:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Keep Nonprofit, charity, school teaching Islamic religion as well, This is notable for Muslims in USA, and who are interested to know more about Islam--Puttyschool (talk) 22:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it can help people learn more about Islam doesn't help establish notability according to Wikipedia's technical definition. I can find no mention of it on Google in any books, news stories, or other sites that might qualify as reliable sources. If you know of such sources, please feel free to add them. Olaf Davis | Talk 22:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most religious centers in Wiki cannot establish notability according to Wikipedia's technical definition, about Google [1] it is listed in many Islamic Sites, Sorry my query returns about 9700 results, I don’t know how to write a query that return less results. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttyschool (talk • contribs) 13:00, 12 August 2008Sorry--Puttyschool (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all putting quotes round the name ([27]) cuts out lots of irrelevant hits which happen to contain all three words. There are still a couple of hundred, but most of them appear to be entries in directories, posts on forums or blogs and the like (see WP:SPS for why those don't count as reliable sources). The closest thing to coverage in a reliable source I found was this, but it just mentions the centre in passing as the venue of an event, so that doesn't constitute "significant coverage". I haven't read all 200 search results so if you've found one that does meet those criteria please feel free to mention it - but the number of Google hits itself does not confer notability.
    Finally, it's true that there are many Wikipedia articles about things which don't appear to deserve one, but that's an argument for deleting those articles and not for creating other similar ones: see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Olaf Davis | Talk 13:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, you put a good base point for negotiations, there is a lot of similar pages that need delete, but according to the fact the Muslims are over than One billion and four hundred millions, their articles must be at the end of the deletion list, just above the Christian deletion list, but not on the top of the list. At the same time Christianity is the nearest religion to Islam, then this article must be compared with similar articles about Christian Education Centers.
    Also without being biased, I think what makes this center notable is how many similar center in USA for teaching Islamic Religion, and what is the % of the Muslim population in USA?--Puttyschool (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry to say that the argument about Muslim-articles vs Christian-articles is pure nonsense. What is being questioned here is the notability of *this* organization, and you should either prove notability or stop making comments along religious lines. Nobody's going to take your word for the organization's notability unless you show some solid proof from reliable sources. --Ragib (talk) 18:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m taking a neutral point of view; I'm not making comments along religious lines, or a religious, I'm basing on current statics and facts, and it is very clear that my comment is based on a previous comment, Wikipedia is mine as yours--Puttyschool (talk) 18:55, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, so far, your argument for keeping the article is simply along religious lines. Please provide sources/references to validate WP:N (and not just hand-waving, religion-baiting). --Ragib (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m using logic, not waving hands. Are you forcing me to give wiki examples? My first comment at top of page start from the beginning of the line and it is very clear, another I'm far away from Annapolis, I was searching the deletion log, when I read this comment "Article doesn't even suggest why it might be notable", I was attracted to the subject. How it comes it is notable for about Billion and half. Beside this both of us knows that the use of reliable sources Is flexible!--Puttyschool (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are NOT using logic here. (let alone "statistics"!!) You were asked to provide *proof of notability* of *this organization*. In reply, you claim that this article, in your personal opinion, should be here, considering the number of adherents to a particular religion. That's not a logical statement. Your personal belief does not establish the notability of any organization. Also, you are not asked to provide notability of any religion, rather we are discussing the notability of one particular organization. And you don't even have *any* sources giving significant coverage on the organization. --Ragib (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, notable means something important to a BIG number of peoples. You are form Bangladesh, I checked your contributions most are Related to what we can call Islamic Articles, I’m requesting validating your neutral point of view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Puttyschool (talk • contribs)
    For what notability means in *Wikipedia*, please refer to WP:N. For information on what verifiability means in *wikipedia*, please refer to WP:V. As for your stalking behavior, please refer to WP:NPA and WP:STALK. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 20:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) No, it doesn't, not here. Here, notability means it meets the notability criteria spelled out for it, namely WP:ORG and WP:N, neither of which this meets. Also, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL as we do not tolerate personal attacks on other editors, including unfounded accusations of basis. You have already shown you are far from neutral on this topic, so I strongly urge you to stop attacking every commenting editor and sit back and let the process take its course.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (undent)Ok, there are accusations of bias and stalking going on here, both of which are pretty serious. Let's try and put our concerns about other editors aside and focus on the article at hand: the bottom line is that to qualify for an article in Wikipedia, a topic has to establish notability by Wikipedia's rules. That does not include 'important to a big number of people', but it does include WP:RS which really is non-negotiable. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Now I’m confused, your first comment was It meet A7, Now you suggest WP:RS, but I think what User:AnmaFinotera Suggested WP:ORG and WP:N are more appropriate and may not require WP:RS
      about 'important to a big number of people', check this from the guides Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." is this can be for one person only, I was talking about billions not millions
      Another small comment, you are the one who established the base of this discussion! then all of us(User:Olaf Davis, User:Ragib, and User:Puttyschool must leave it to other editors.--Puttyschool (talk) 22:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh ... before making any further comments, I suggest that you read the recommended policies. Especially WP:V, WP:N, WP:RS. That way, you won't have confusions about the need for reliable, verifiable sources to establish notability of a subject. That you claim *this* organization is important for all 1.5 billions of people is patently false. --Ragib (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My comment was very clear, check top of page. You cannot reference WP:V hear, USA registration documents makes it verifiable. Not the organization, the information itself is important, then what makes both of us interested about it. About the 1.5 billions now they are increased by one, you. Best Regards--Puttyschool (talk) 23:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you claim the organization is notable and is important to 1.5 billion people. I challenged you to prove this. That's verifiability. You have to come up with info from reliable sources. That's WP:RS. And with info from reliable sources, you have to satisfy notability as an organization as specified in WP:N. I somehow feel you are missing this very simple request. :( . Anyway, continuing this dialogue is meaningless unless you read the policies and come up with some reliable sources that establish notability. Till then, I won't respond to the same old rhetoric any further. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a number of responses, Puttyschool.
    1. An article can easily qualify for speedy deletion (in this case, A7) and fail notability at the same time. A great many which are deleted every day do.
    2. You make repeated reference to 1.5 billion people and the importance of the organisation. To quote from WP:N: "Notability is distinct from 'fame,' 'importance,' or 'popularity'".
    3. You said "WP:ORG and WP:N are more appropriate and may not require WP:RS". Both of those policies refer to reliable sources as a requirement for establishing notability. There is no article to which WP:RS does not apply: I can't say that any more clearly.
    4. You said "Not the organization, the information itself is important". In that case, shouldn't we have an article about the information and not the organisation? Since the information they claim to propagate is Islam, about which we have many, many articles, it would seem that we've achieved that. We don't need an article about every group or person who talks about Islam just because Islam itself is notable.
    5. You said "all of us(User:Olaf Davis, User:Ragib, and User:Puttyschool must leave it to other editors". I really don't understand what you're saying here.
    I'm afraid I must agree with Ragib: it seems as though you need to spend some time re-reading WP:N, WP:RS and WP:ORG because at the moment you're arguing from several points which, while not ridiculous, are not based on Wikipedia policy. Such arguments are likely to be ignored by the admin who closes this discussion. I suggest you do that before adding more to this discussion. Olaf Davis | Talk 17:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - 179 Google hits, most of them from Yellow pages or directories, no substantial coverage at all. The only "coverage" other than directory listings is from this organizations parent organization, and that's it. --Ragib (talk) 19:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course, but you didn't notice that it was talking about a different "proposed" high school by the same name, not the current organization. Wikipedia is not a place for future, proposed organizations. Besides, this doesn't establish notability at all. --Ragib (talk) 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    may be, same name, same place, same area, same persons wow.--Puttyschool (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, wikipedia is not a crystal ball. The article is, first of all, from a non reliable source, and is talking about a proposed high school, which according to this, is yet to exist. Even then, such trivial mention happens everyday and does not make a non-notable, not-yet built entity notable. --Ragib (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Puttyschool, all articles on Wikipedia are required to meet notability guidelines - meaning that article topics should be notable. Notability is proven by non-trivial coverage or mention in third party reliable sources, because it's these sources we will use to construct the article itself. Such sources can be reports in the local newspaper, or internet publications by a reputed organisation for example. If the learning center is notable, then it's bound to have such coverage - you just need to find it. If it's only been opened recently, then you might just have to wait a while before sufficient coverage is obtained. This shouldn't be about "Muslim vs. Christian articles", numerous articles are deleted daily irrespective of their slant. ITAQALLAH 17:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please follow the history of the discussions, I said that WP:ORG Is more appropriate and this may not require WP:RS, WP:ORG may require only Secondary_source.
    Also I said that I followed this discussion as I glanced this comment "Article doesn't even suggest why it might be notable", I checked the article found a list of references, I assumed that listed references is what establish its notability. so I added my comment. Other comments are responses to previous comments assuming references establish notability, and other users think this is something un-notable, even with references, so I build similar relations using wiki pages, I comapred "Muslim vs. Christian articles" as I know both religions share a big set of similarities, I was not comparing against religious bases, only statics; scientific comparisons, not more.
    For other new comments in this page, I can take the main definition as it and put it hear, not to select part of the explanation To enforce my point of view, the rest of the section is Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education
    Another point I Left this discussion, so If anyone want to discuss with me anymore, he can use my talk page, now we left the main subject, and this will confuse other editors--Puttyschool (talk) 19:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:ORG does require reliable sources: "Such sources must be reliable". Olaf Davis | Talk 21:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was weak keep.  Sandstein  16:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Jewish Internet Defense Force[edit]

    The Jewish Internet Defense Force (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This group does not appear to be very notable outisde its own circle. I personally suspect it to be more of self-advertiseing than an actual article MethMan47 (talk) 18:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note, this wikipedian seems to know his way around wikipedia and its guidelines pretty well for someone with only 4 random edits to his/her name. this wikipedian is most probably a sockpuppet of an involved party and this nomination thus contravenes WP:DEL. ephix (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Umm...no I'm not a sockpuppet. And I guarentee I have more than 4 edits, thank you very much. Please quit trying to stifle debate. Thanks. MethMan47 (talk) 20:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. And if you are reffering to edits to my own page, then yes there are only about 4 edits. I didn't realize a member of of Wikipedia's merit was judged by how often he edits his own page, I was under the impression that contributions to actual articles was more important. But anyway, enough of this, continuing on with the discussion. MethMan47 (talk) 20:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep They do seem a bit WP:ONEVENTy, but then that applies to people not groups. I can find news items on the Facebook thing in papers from six countries [28], including the Telegraph and Jerusalem Post, which I think qualifies for notability. Irritatingly the latter seems to be a broken URL, but the snippet on Google News search confirms the gist of what the Telegraph article says. The article could certainly do with improvement: several of the claims there seem to be unsourced, such as the 'over 100 groups' claim which is sourced only to a complaint about this article on the group's website. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article could indeed be classified as "self-advertisement" if it wasn't for the fact several mainstream international news agencies have taken notice of it. Whether or not this group will be making news 20 years from now is irrelevant: it is newsworthy at the present and justifies a Wikipedia article on it. As an aside, the article's broken JPost reference URL is now working. Osmos2017 (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: hello? who are you? another sockpuppet? lol, this is fun. ephix (talk) 20:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've moved this comment of Osmos's to the bottom since it looked like it was the nomination up there. In reply, the self-advertising is in my opinion more of an issue of tone than the article's existence. Indeed, since this AfD has been open you've changed the article's wording to mention "the insidious existence of over 100 Facebook groups espousing rabidly hateful, genocidal, and violent doctrines". I'm afraid that violates our neutral point of view policy, which you might want to read: quoting the group as describing them that way would be fine, but Wikipedia articles should not themselves state that groups or people are 'insidious' or 'rabid'. Even the statement that the groups in question were hateful and genocidal is at present sourced only to one article (as far as I can tell) and gives no attention to the opposite view: presumably the tens of thousands of members of those groups would disagree with the characterisation, and that makes it sufficiently controversial that we can't reproduce it on the grounds that one or two journalists agreed the groups were nasty. Olaf Davis | Talk 08:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep - while I have concerns about their long-term notability, looking for references reveals that they easily pass WP:RS, having been the subject of news coverage from various independent media organisations. A year or two from now, this group may or may not have faded into irrelevance; but for now at least, I don't think their notability is in doubt. Terraxos (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • STRONG DELETEThe page seems to be a vehicle to host links to strongly one sided sites re the Palastinian Isreali conflict. Propaganda page only for a POV with links to external sites promoting same Opiumjones 23 (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - this organisation and its activities have been noted by the media, and with the citations included it seems to conform to WP:N and WP:ORG, but should be rewritten to improve its style. ephix (talk) 02:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. The sources cited in this article border on being "a short burst of news reports about a single event". It's not clear to me whether this is truly a notable organization or if this was basically a news item. So, I suggest we err on the side of keeping the article - we can always revisit if it becomes clear down the road that this was just a news item.--Kubigula (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The JIDF as content conforms to WP:N, the issue of whether it lasts as a hot topic is something that will have to be judged in the future. On WP:ONEVENT, actually the JIDF have been on the radio on other topics, so it is not really one event, but this is certainly the biggest event. NB: I'm not entirely uninvolved given that I have commented in the press on them and have a publication coming out soon (so you may want to disregard this vote). (It does mean there will be another source though if anyone want sto look out for it and add it). Oboler (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps when that source becomes available you could mention it here or on the article's talk page, Oboler: that way I or another editor without any risk of seeming to have a COI can decide whether it's appropriate to add. Olaf Davis | Talk 11:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. – The organization is notable, having been referenced on at least one web page that discusses "military matters and terrorism". However, I agree that the article looks as if it's been copied from the organization's web site. The text of the article needs to be completely re-written from an NPOV. I recommend placing the article into Wikipedia's "intensive care unit" rather than deleting it. A lizard (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correction: This article does not belong in the WICU, because that is only for articles that have not been marked for deletion. Rather, it should be marked for rescue, which I just did. — A lizard (talk) 05:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • SPEEDY DELETE, ASAP How a group created on FACEBOOK, be notable enough to to include in WikiPediA, also check the Author words which seeks to remove from the web hateful anti-Semitic and anti-Israel content that "clearly promotes violence and Islamic terrorism" what are their criteria of judging? and who gave them the authority to judge? is this group Group belongs to the United Nations?
      For a statment like this one "FACEBOOK: Why do you aid and abet terrorist organizations?" and this "successfully leading to the closure of over 100 of these groups" this is not more than original research, where are the referances?
      Also a sentense like this "Israel is not a country! Delist it from Facebook as a country" Whoever said that Israel is not a country, Israel is a well known country to the whole world.
      Can anyone help me with the definition of what they call Islamic terrorism, and what about if we used a similar definition and invent JIDF Anti Freedoms Terrorism.
      In addition of being un-notable group, this article is UNFAIRE.
      They can help their country as they wish and by any mean but outside Wikipedia pages, WikipediA is an unbiased, un-political organization, so please delete it as soon as possible--Puttyschool (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The organization is notable and it was not created on Facebook. I agree that the language in the article is not neutral and in fact, is not even original: it is identical to much of the language on the group's web site. You might disagree with the goals of this group, but that is not a reason why this article should not exist in a form that is in accordance with NPOV. The article needs to be rewritten, not deleted. You have requested a definition of "Islamic Terrorism," well, Wikipedia already has one. — A lizard (talk) 05:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Facebook or web, what make a difference, about the definition, I was not requesting the Wikipedia definition, which is based on a huge amount of references and neutral, (and not related to what they are doing), I was requesting their definition. Finaly a group of few countable peoples are not obligated to judge. About rewritten the article which gives the impression of an Anti Freedoms, political, biased, representing a single side, organization, now we are discussing keep or delete, and they can write a different one again, but for this one it must be deleted.--Puttyschool (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please check how articles related to Arab-Israeli conflict are written, In addition to the neutral point of view, how the references are listed. They are not a place to show (Or promote) a single point of view.Arab-Israeli conflict, Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinian territories It is not a matter of notability; it is a matter of fairness. Also Wikipedia is not a place for resolving conflict issues. For me, I do not believe the Internet or Wikipedia are war places requiring a Defense Forces(DF)--Puttyschool (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think anyone's denying that the article is a mess, violates NPOV and OR, etc. etc. However, that is not the issue: the reasons for deletion are about article topics, so we must decide whether this topic is worthy of an article. If the answer is yes then the article will have to be severely rewritten; if no then it will be deleted. You say "It is not a matter of notability; it is a matter of fairness". Well, it is a matter of notability because at AfD we're concerned with whether the topic is notable enough for an article, without concern for the current state of the article. This is the established convention and is laid down in the deletion policy. Olaf Davis | Talk 16:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. DS (talk) 22:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gunnar Jøhannssen[edit]

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

    Subject does not seem to be notable. However, I have made some researches but I didn't find anything substantial which may assert importance. Infringement in the article like "Søvnist religion, a religion based on relaxion and television worship." looks vandal. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Not even sure why it was brought here, blatant G3 vandalism. Wizardman 18:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fat asshole[edit]

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

    Offensive vandal redirect (?) ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 18:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: arguments for keeping failed to address the concerns. `'Míkka>t 20:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Human toilet[edit]

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

    This article describes an apparently non-notable perversion. The singular reference to an unreliable source provided fails to establish the practice's notability per the general notability guideline, or any other notability guidelines. John254 18:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no evidence of documentation beyond some random fetish site. --Rividian (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to urolagnia. This is real fetish with a long doccumented history in many cultures. I believe the term "human toilet" is used in the bdsm community for urolagnia. This article is really just in need of better references but it is notable if somewhat bizzare.Nrswanson (talk) 19:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The references actually need to be found first for the claim to have much meaning... theoretically there could be references about absolutely anything. --Rividian (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. I'm not particularly interested in the topic so I really don't want to take the time to do it. My point in making the comment was to point out that I don't think verifiable sources will be difficult to find for this article.Nrswanson (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevertheless, they still need to be found, whether we're interested in the topic or not. --Rividian (talk) 19:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and Redirect to urolagnia lk (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Why are there suggestions for a merge with urolagnia, but not for a merge with Coprophilia?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 02:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment human toilet is more about stool than pee, pee would fall into "watersports/golden showers/urolagnia/urofilia" as for this article this is a definitive keep, needs help with sourcing and content though, i suggest we ask at wipipedia the BDSM wiki encyclopedia. this is a definitely a notable practice but needs more RSMY♥INchile 07:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Completely revolting to some but certainly notable practice. Treat encyclopedicly and please take a shower. Banjeboi 00:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This is not the proper article to read while having dinner (trust me on that). But it doesn't deserve to be deleted -- enhancement is always better than erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Not my kink, that's for sure. But is notable. Article needs much work. Atom (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Not only are the notability standards - nontrivial substantial coverage in reliable sources - not met, the article also fails WP:V for lacking documentation in reliable sources, which is is particularly important in articles dealing with bodily functions.  Sandstein  16:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Zembly[edit]

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

    The creator and major editor of the article has a WP:COI with the product, being the products creator. The product is in beta, and no sources have been offered to indicate it is notable. Ronz (talk) 15:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Ronz: As someone involved with zembly, I recognize that there is the potential for a COI. However, with this in mind and to allay any concerns, I have written the base article based solely on factual information and from (I believe) a NPOV, and have added external references from noted media sources. I also want to point out that I am not trying to shill and have edited the article clearly as myself in good faith. My intent is to standardize the factual information about zembly from the beginning using what I know of the project, much like you can see in the Popfly article. I hope that the content of the article can stand on its own, and if there are further suggestions for improving NPOV or allaying any concerns, please let me know.Toddfast (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sun just published a press release yesterday. It is something new, and thus this explains why it is "not notable". Raysonho (talk) 04:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wizardman 18:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been around a little longer than that. It was launched in June, was showcased at OSCON, and was covered in a couple other places, like SitePoint. I undid quite a bit of Toddfast's canvassing of Zembly links to various articles, so I understand the part about conflict of interest, but that shouldn't color an assessment of the subject itself. I can say from experience dealing with other new articles that in terms of neutral point of view, this isn't a bad start. It could use some in-text citations, but I think that can be accomplished with a little work. Dancter (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - COI is not a reason for deletion, and neither is lack of indication of sources that prove notability. A quick search yields some relatively reliable sources: an article on the Inquirer, another on System News, and another on an IT management site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuel Tan (talk • contribs) 18:40, 8 August 2008
    Does anyone think these are anything more than just press releases with a few edits? --Ronz (talk) 16:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    While not direct copies of the press releases, yes, the sources Samuel Tan point are essentially rehashing the same information. That does not mean that independent commentary does not exist for the subject. If SitePoint piece I mentioned above doesn't work for you, O'Reilly Radar is a well-respected site. Dancter (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep per the sources offered by Samuel Tan. As he says, lack of indication of notability is not a deletion criteria except in the case of speedy deletion (which this doesn't qualify for as non-web-content software). Olaf Davis | Talk 00:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Skookum (rock band)[edit]

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

    Non-notable band. The subject of the article does not appear to meet the notability criteria set out at WP:MUSIC. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    RORA Elevation[edit]

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

    Non-notable corporation, COI/advert. Compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Holstein Artificial Insemination Bulls concerning an article created by the same account.  Sandstein  18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below.  Sandstein  19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep - Actually the subject is not a corporation but a bull (yeah, a little bizarre). This bull is notable per this Washington Post article, a writeup about the bull and a celebration planned for it here, and the fact that it won an award (although I'm not sure if the award could be considered notable). -Samuel Tan 18:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed. I may have been too hasty here. Withdrawn based on the WaPo article, but the article should probably be stubbed to remove all the ... cowcruft?  Sandstein  19:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - Elevation is the Bull of the Century, and he is a bull important to the Holstein Association of the United States (The World's Largest Dairy breed Association and this bull is historically known to be a legend to the Holstein International a monthly magazine that comes in 5 different languages published in the Netherlands, and to the Holstein World a monthly magazine published by Dairy Business in the United States. This bull is actually Father to 14% of the Holstein population in the United States. User:Glenridge —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lottatore Brindisino[edit]

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

    Not a real breed Lillolollo (talk) 17:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of Ericson Alexander Molano's awards and nominations[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    List of Ericson Alexander Molano's awards and nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Since I created the list and have found that the awards/nominations aren't notable, it would be best if it were deleted. --  ThinkBlue  (Hit BLUE) 17:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. May be recreated if sources are provided indicating his importance.  Sandstein  21:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Harish Purohit[edit]

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

    Bio of an individual concerning one event. Not a notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I could have been clearer above - it seems many newspapers covered his murder because he was highly notable, not vice versa.John Z (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guðrún Kristín Magnúsdóttir[edit]

    Guðrún Kristín Magnúsdóttir (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Bio of a non notable religious leader. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shri Lakshmisha Tholpady[edit]

    Shri Lakshmisha Tholpady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Bio of a non notable religious leader. Also, there are no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 never mind go away get back to work

    Dirty goose[edit]

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

    PROD removed without explanation or improvements. PROD rationale was that it is a non notable drink and blatant unsourced original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It may also be qualify as a speedy, and I have now tagged it as such. Beeblbrox (talk) 15:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy keep The individual is clearly notable. This is among the nom's first edits as well, so I suspect a WP:COI/WP:POINT. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Terren Peizer[edit]

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

    This article should either be deleted or changed to Hythiam instead. To be honest, Terren Peizer is a nobody and is one of millions of people who started companies but do not have a Wikipedia page. Even the sensationalism written up about his ties to the crook Michael Milken is unworthy of mentioning. Peizer was one of numerous people who testified against Milken, after being just as corrupt as he was when working for him. Most of the references provided are offline and cannot be found over the internet. This leads to a question of whether or not the articles were in fact written, or just made up. The only sources online are the same sources and most of them have been provided by Peizer's employess via a press release or promotion on business sites. They were also the ones who probably created this ridiculous article, as an attempt to present a resume and advertisement about their boss. Peizer himself may have even started it, as it was filled with praise and boasting.

    All in all, this person is completely irrelevant and is not even worth mentioning or talking about.

    Singleschmingle (talk) 15:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)— User:Singleschmingle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • You seem awfully upset about this, and seem to have personal feelings on the matter. Are you sure you don't have any issues you need to address? Beeblbrox (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep As a bad faith nomination. Most of what is mentioned in the nomination is cleanup or point of view related, plus a big dose of unproven accusations and outright malice. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And something is really out of whack here, we've got a second AfD going when the first one is still ongoing... Beeblbrox (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Several references have been added during the AfD, and it is not clear to what degree these have been taken into account.  Sandstein  21:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    George Van Horn Moseley, Jr.[edit]

    George Van Horn Moseley, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article has been tagged for lack of notability for over a year, and with good reason, for the subject isn't notable. Biography of an American officer in World War II whose greatest claim of notability appears to be (1) being one of several people who were together made a composite single character in a John Wayne movie, and (2) being awarded the Legion of Merit. Neither of these confer notability, individually or together. There are four references, but one is a directory, two are likely obituaries, and the final is a regimental history: if these confer notability, any military officer whose death was noted in a newspaper is likely notable. Nyttend (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete. He isn't looking notable to me, but I'd say a few good (as in, from decent sources and of a decent length) obituaries would confer notability. Google News throws up a couple of articles, but nothing much. J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. He was certainly very well decorated, but I don't think that means he was notable. However, I think that this one falls only just below the threshold. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The subject does not appear to be notable. As stated above, there may be information available to change that opinion but I couldn,t find it. --Stormbay (talk) 22:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Forget the movies and the medals. Here is a man who not only and commanded, trained and but parachuted into Normandy[1] with the 502d Parachute Infantry Regiment[2] of the 101st Airborne Division in the pre dawn darkness of D-Day 1944. He refused to be evacuated, commanding his regiment from a 2 wheeled cart for two days. A colleague, Robert Sink of Band of Brothers fame, has a better written and more complete article but is in actual fact no more notable. The article on Moseley should be strengthened not deleted.Hmose (talk) 00:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the contrary: there's a full biography from a reliable source that's linked to Sink's article, while there's nothing of such a sort for Moseley. Simply doing what you say he did (and I'm sure you're correct) doesn't make him at all notable, unlike receiving significant coverage as Sink has. Nyttend (talk) 00:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • DeleteMerge Fails the notability test at WP:BIO, which is the relevant determinant of notability at Wikipedia.Keep --Orlady (talk) 01:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind based on information below. The father is notable and the information about the son could be merged into the article about the father. --Orlady (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind yet again. It now appears that he's notable. --Orlady (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment People leaning towards delete should be doing a google book search. There seems to be good deal of sources related to this subject. [29] and [30] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riffic (talk • contribs) 18:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm... I'm confused. Those search results identify him as a general, but the article says he was a colonel. Are these the same person? --Orlady (talk) 19:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two people with this name: the father, General George Van Horn Moseley (1874-1960), and son, Colonel George Van Horn Moseley Jr. (1905-1976). There are reliable sources for both of these men. riffic (talk) 19:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The lack of notability does not detract from the honorable service to his country by this individual. The story/character that shows some notability is not the subject, however. --Stormbay (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There is no lack of notability, this subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. riffic (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep The sources are probably sufficient. Tons of books have been written over the airborne operations in Normandy, so I suspect that all regimental/brigade commanders in the British and US airborne units would pass WP:BIO. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tons of phone books have been written for my county since I was born, so we have many reliable sources to verify my father's phone number, but that doesn't make him notable. Would these "tons of books" really amount to significant coverage? Nyttend (talk) 12:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Contrary to the original comment, Van Horn Moseley is not just 'any army officer'. He was one of the Army's first airborne officers, commander of one of the U.S. Army's crack Parachute Infantry Regiments, of perhaps it's most famous Division, the 101st Airborne (the Division which this writer happens to be the Museum Director of). Moseley was severely injured in the jump, and was described by witnesses as having such a severe broken leg that the bone protruded from his trousers, yet he refused medical attention, unsuccesfully tried to capture a horse to direct his troops from, and actually did direct them from a wheelbarrow. He only relinquished command after the Commanding General of the Division ordered him to do so because of his intense pain and the severe injury. When Wikipedia keeps articles of such trifling nature and transitory interest as the 'biographies' of obscure, minor cartoon characters, it is a travesty that an article about a famous war hero of real WWII history be omitted. This seems opposed to everything Wikipedia stands for. Granted, the article is currently weak in content and deserves expansion. I would add that one of the iconic photo series of the D-Day operations, and even World War II, is that of General Eisenhower accompanied by this same Colonel Moseley reviewing his paratroopers just prior to the invasion, and this photo should also be added to the article. Tacitvs (talk) 15:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This article now meets all notability guidelines. The article has been expanded. Seven citations were added in the year prior to its nomination for deletion. Numerous additional internal and external references have been added in the past four days with more to come.Hmose (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was conditions of WP:SNOW clearly met, keep, non-admin closure Beeblbrox (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Col. Adelbert Mossman House[edit]

    Col. Adelbert Mossman House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Needs reliable sources to show it meets the general criteria at WP:N. Very few ghits for "Adelbert Mossman House" -wikipedia. The author contested the WP:PROD by stating: I object to deletion because the House is listed on the National Register of Historic Places and therefore prima facie notable. (diff). However, to be notable surely there needs to be in depth coverage in multiple sources? JD554 (talk) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Any property on the NRHP is covered by multiple sources: all NRHP properties are well documented, and plenty of information can be found. See here to find that the author and I aren't the only people who believe that all NRHP properties are notable. Perhaps you could contact the NRHP wikiproject? Nyttend (talk) 15:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- TravellingCari 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep on the NRHP and see here for a number of sources amid false +, appears to have a number of different names. Valid stub. TravellingCari 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep all NRHP properties are notable. Tovian (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep par user:Nyttend Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. That NRHP listing means that the historical documentation is out there to be retrieved. Nominator's search term was too restrictive. NRHP lists it as "Mossman, Col. Adelbert, House". Besides, WP:GHITS is a poor test for historical topics. • Gene93k (talk) 16:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep with a big BUT I understand that consensus is that NRHP locations are all notable, but lately there has been a massive influx of essentially useless stubs on these locations. There seems to be an obsession with creating as many articles as one can, without any thought as to the quality of those articles. Just letting us know a place exists and is "historical" without providing a single detail on why it is historical is not really helpful. The phrase information is not knowledge comes to mind... Beeblbrox (talk) 16:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Snowball Keep: The concept that certain things are prima facie notable is long established on Wikipedia and is amply established as an alternative to WP:V by all notability criteria. I'm quite surprised that a veteran editor with 9000 edits under his belt hasn't before seen additional notability criteria.  Ravenswing  16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (edit conflict) Keep with a promise(?) to try to do better Although I myself have created many stub NRHP articles, I want to concede that Beeblbrox has a point. This stub and many others in Massachusetts were recently created by User:Swampyank working off lists of Registered Historic Places in Massachusetts, and cutting and pasting from a stub NRHP article generator tool. It does seem to be getting ahead of the capacity of locals to absorb and develop articles. But, the NRHP site is still notable. Whether the sources have been added yet or not, they exist and can/probably will eventually be added. Lengthy NRHP application text and photo documents are available by request from the National Park Service. Perhaps some mention of that, and how to obtain them, should be included in any new stub articles. I will raise this for more discussion over in wt:NRHP. It could end up changing the suggested output from the stub NRHP article generator tool. doncram (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Girard, OH Fire Department[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Girard, OH Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Previous AfD closed due to mass nominations making the process unwieldy. Local non-notable fire department. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Ah, well just redirect it then to Girard, Ohio.Nrswanson (talk) 16:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Thank you for relisting this -- I tried to do that in the first AfD and it got hijacked. Beyond the people in Girard, Ohio, who have homes on fire, this department has no notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 reason for a separate page or a redirect from an unlikely search term. Possibly worth a mention on the main C4 page. --Leivick (talk) 23:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Last C4[edit]

    Last C4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    As I understand, this article is about the last car that was produced of a certain series? If so, I don't see how it meets notability guidelines StaticGull  Talk  15:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur. I propose it should be merged into Corvette or deleted altogether. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arrow keys (non-admin closure), duplicate information as found in the newly-merged Arrow keys. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Navigation keys[edit]

    Navigation keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete Article had been created as an attempt to jump the gun and carry out a merge suggested at the open AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASD keys (2nd nomination) by C&P. Good faith attempts to speedy the article to allow for a proper move (assuming that this is the outcome of the AfD), retaining history, have been rebuffed by the creator of this article. Mayalld (talk) 15:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Abstain as creator of article. However, I would like to remind those coming to the AfD discussion of WP:BOLD and WP:IAR, and while I believe Mayalld is acting in good faith, I believe he's inadvertantly drifting uncomfortably close to WP:POINT. I am attempting to resolve a problem brought up in AfD, and I've never yet seen an argument that an article is required to stay in stasis during AfD. Haikupoet (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This AFD is quite idiotic. Please withdraw this and just let the article be speedy'd if the other AFD closes as anything other than merge. User:Krator (t c) 18:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What is idiotic is the need for the AFD. If the main AfD goes Delete, the article will be a G4 candidate. If the main AfD goes Keep the article will (at best) end up as a redirect. If the main AfD goes Merge, then the merge should be done properly by moving one of the existing articles, and merging the others in. In other words, no matter how the main AfD ends, this content isn't going to be kept. As such, the correct course would have been to allow the article to be speedied to make way for a potential move. Sadly, that speedy was objected to. If the creator of the article would stop jumping the gun, and let things run their course, this would resolve much more tidily. Mayalld (talk) 20:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It seems to me that the merged article is rather more valuable than the original articles were on their own anyway. And I reiterate -- WP:BOLD. I don't think it's jumping the gun to take it upon oneself to try to remedy the problem that brought the original articles up for AfD in the first place, and to say otherwise strikes me as extremely pedantic and rather counter to the Wikipedia spirit. Haikupoet (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, I really don't see anything that justifies what is effectively a C&P move. Rushing to do this is not doing it any better. Mayalld (talk) 20:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for right now and see what happens with WASD keys. If WASD keys gets merged, then we can G6 this one. MuZemike (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Better yet, we could just simply redirect to Arrow keys if the merge happens, which might be a good alternative to speedy deletion. MuZemike (talk) 18:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:14, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Duffy jackson[edit]

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

    Merely playing with another band doesn't seem likely to qualify for notability guidelines. StaticGull  Talk  15:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete- No convincing assertion of notability. Reyk YO! 23:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete A Google Books search ([31]) gives lots of results, but as far as I can see they're all short mentions, usually as an aside when talking about his father. I therefore don't think any of them qualify as non-trivial, but someone else may want to dig deeper into the results. The article claims that he's notable due to a 'famous drum battle' with Lionel Hampton, but I can find no mention of that in a reliable source. Olaf Davis | Talk 00:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also, if you ask me he even lost the battle! [32]) Olaf Davis | Talk 00:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; editorial redirect possible.  Sandstein  16:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Survival value[edit]

    Survival value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Delete nn neologism, one of a series of "seduction" articles, that are simply expounding the theories of a single author. Mayalld (talk) 15:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 17:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non notable. Another overexpansion of an element belonging to the niche "seduction" community. At best it could be merged into a comprehensive "seduction" article instead of being part of a mass spawn of non-notable topics. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - It appears that this article used to be strictly a biology/chemistry article before it was co-opted by the "seduction community." Unfortunately it has never had references, so the addition of leading text and a single reference to the same "seduction" book gave it the appearance of another over-analyzed "seduction" article. It could be saved if valid supporting references to the original scientific term are included and the "how to pick up girls" aspect is at best minimized in proportion to its real comparative significance. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/Redirect, as the comment above says it is worthwhile but should probably be under a different name. Mathmo Talk 10:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Speedy delete as hoax Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Dugan[edit]

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

    DELETE NOT A REAL FOOTBALL PLAYER! Jerryreese17 (talk) 14:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy delete as hoax - ESPN has never heard of this guy. [34] Oh, and the picture is of New York Giant Kenny Phillips. I'm off to play a little tag. Giants2008 (17-14) 15:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy delete (G12- Copyright violation) by Orangemike. Nonadmin close. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ravan (Movie)[edit]

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

    Pure speculation. StaticGull  Talk  14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • G12 speedy delete since text is copied from here, third Ghit when I searched "mani ratnam ravan". So tagged. Cliff smith talk 16:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    New Album(Bijelo Dugme album)[edit]

    New Album(Bijelo Dugme album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The album hasn't been released yet(?). StaticGull  Talk  14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Beyond the Sun (Desert song)[edit]

    Beyond the Sun (Desert song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No notability is established and does not meet the Music criteria: Fails WP:N, WP:RS, WP:REF, WP:MUSIC#Song. SRX 14:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdrawal of nomination with no one advocating deletion. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Antoine de Mouchy[edit]

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

    Only notability I see established is that the article is incorporated from a Catholic Encyclopedia. Fails WP:BLP and WP:N. SRX 14:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Please explain the relevance of BLP to a sixteenth century person. Please explain why a rector of the University of Paris is not notable. And please note that inclusion in a specialist encyclopedia is prima facie evidence that a topic is notable in its field. Why are you dismissing an encyclopedic topic, in other words? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There's enough in Scholar to help build a decent article. While the current article doesn't quite establish notability that's a different issue than the person not being notable. TravellingCari 16:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry? The University of Paris was Europe's leading academic institution of the time. The Corpus was the major legal text regulating the Catholic Church, Europe's leading religious institution of the time. The Council of Trent defined Catholicism for 300 years, and de Mouchy was the theologian of a very powerful Cardinal there. Please tell me you're kidding. This person sits squarely on a historical crossroads. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment responding to me? I said keep. He is notable. The current article isn't very encompassing and doesn't explain it, but I didn't say he wasn't notable. TravellingCari 17:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm grateful for the support. I'm just astonished at the formulation: given that the Catholic Encyclopedia was written for people who would know the background quite well, it would be fairly elliptic. But there is absolutely nothing to indicate that the CE's verdict that this person was notable need be contested. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the nom will come back and explain his/her reasons. For someone who isn't willing to do a little digging, de Mouchy might not appear notable from the state of the article. Hopefully someone will improve it. TravellingCari 17:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Shrug. Drive-by nomination with Twinkle. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I invited him to come back. I use Twinkle, can't fault the tool. It's all about how it's used. TravellingCari 18:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep - BLP doesn't apply; the person is dead. Also, the page was created at 14:39 - it was nominated for deletion two minutes later. The nominator should of given the article a chance. D.M.N. (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh, I the nominator Withdraw the nomination.--SRX 18:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Was already deleted) Wizardman 22:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sam Tilston[edit]

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

    Hasn't done any really notable work, also WP:COI. StaticGull  Talk  14:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Seems more like a CV or puff piece. Even without the lack of importance the lack of Reliable Sources to verify the information presented would seem thin on the ground. M♠ssing Ace 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as non-notable or even unverifiable, and obvious advertising. I've found nothing from reliable sources with a google search. Most hits seem to be blog postings (this one is quite funny given this article: [35]), press releases he's written, unrelated people, or the usual bebo, facebook, linkin content. Only hit on google news is a piece about a (presumably unrelated) hockey player : [36]. The article seems to be a copy of sam's blurb from here: [37]. Silverfish (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it's a nice sounding resume but there are no reliable sources writing about him -- Whpq (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. Wizardman 04:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Monterey County reforestation[edit]

    Monterey County reforestation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Normally when confronted by something this biased with no valid version to revert to, it would just disappear as spam. However, this one seems to have had so much work put into it – and is so obviously on a potentially valid topic – that I'll bring it over here to see if anyone can think of a way to save it. Procedural nom so I abstain.  – iridescent 14:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep - I say it needs rewording as like the nom said a lot of work is in the article, just not properly worded.--SRX 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Notable enough topic. It just needs a more factual tone. Northwestgnome (talk) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Peecher[edit]

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

    Weak delete - I removed the speedy tag from this as there is some notability claimed (being the subject of a song by Daggermouth), but I just don't think it's enough per WP:MUSIC. Google search for "Mike Peecher" mostly brings up lyrics to the Daggermouth song, but no evidence that it's actually about this person. (And there are no sources where anyone likens him to Freddie Mercury.) The previous band album didn't chart and the new solo album is not yet released. ... discospinster talk 14:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete -per nom.--SRX 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no significant source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not verified by reliable sources -- I can't find any either -- and so no verifiability. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It should be noted that various individuals are commenting with respect to this AfD on the talk page of the article itself, or so it seems. None of the comments has any reference to a Wikipedia policy, but the pleas are somewhat impassioned. Accounting4Taste:talk 21:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Album didn't chart? Please, Neither did the daggermouth albums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.207.204 (talk) 17:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    i don't see why anyone would want this deleted. peech 4ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.55.124.75 (talk) 22:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - significance not asserted. Ndenison talk 20:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was selective merge to Linkin Park discography. There seems to be a rough split between those calling for deletion and those calling for a merge (I'm including Startstop's comments in the latter), so I'm defaulting to the option that keeps the most comment. The comments in favor of keeping the article were largely discounted, as they did not provide any evidence demonstrating that the article is sufficiently notable for standalone inclusion. --jonny-mt 07:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Linkin Park Underground[edit]

    Linkin Park Underground (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable fan club. No third-party, reliable sources provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete: although it looks as if a lot of work was put into the creation of this article, much of the content could be incorporated into one of the Linkin Park articles (band article or discography articles) already established. There is no sources aside from the fan club Web site, which is not a reliable or 3rd party source.--Startstop123 (talk) 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable fan club --T-rex 15:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't delete - definitely notable fan club, even though the article needs some work; plus the article serves as a list for the exclusive EPs (even more important reason to keep it, in my opinion). Anrod (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Fans of the group and members of the group certainly consider it notable, but that is a moot point. To be notable in wikipedia's terms, we need substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. The article doesn't provide that and I haven't been able to find any. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Linkin Park discography. The albums are worth noting. GreenRunner0 20:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Selective Merge to Linkin Park discography. The EPs are from linkin park, so they need noting on the discography section, but the rest is written like an advertisment for the "club" and needs to be deleted. Tavix (talk) 15:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep The albums are all worth noting, but there is too much information to merge. And it is too important to delete. It is a high-importance article in the Linkin Park WikiProject. Tezkag72 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 01:22, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Superpanopticon[edit]

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

    Doesn't look notable, no sourcing. D.M.N. (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - per nom.--SRX 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Certainly notable, but seems to fall foul of WP:NEO. If this undoubted neologism for a very real concept has achieved any sort of currency, then the article needs to demonstrate that clearly before we can regard it as acceptably encyclopedic.
    Besides which, have we no standards for quality? The very least this article needs to do is to cite its etymology from Panopticon. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete all a7, webcontent with no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Freak Attack Musical[edit]

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

    User has created several articles about albums, youtube videos and movies which notability is very doubtful, if they are not even a hoax Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they were created by the same user and are products by the same "artists" - The "artists" have been requested to be speedily deleted:[reply]

    Mark Presents:Cynthia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Cynthia Revenge Of Luis‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    The Groove Series‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Speedy Delete I think it should be speedied per G1 of the CSD book. HeLLboy2HeLL (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all. These personal musical projects of some Australian preteens fail every inclusion criterion there is. Deor (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    2023 Cricket World Cup[edit]

    2023 Cricket World Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod regarding a future sporting event currently lacking in verifiable information. Delete as per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Allen3 talk 12:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete This event is not ready for wikipedia yet.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Premature and consists mostly of speculation. There aren't even host city candidates listed. The Olympics articles have set precedent for just future-looking articles, but right now there's nothing here by WP:CRYSTAL. 23skidoo (talk) 12:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete It's not time yet for this article --Numyht (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Until the host is announced.BUC (talk) 11:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Håkon Winther[edit]

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

    This user has created a page about himself without demonstrating with reliable sources why s/he may or may not be notable ClubOranjeTalk 11:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No evidence this person was a professional at any point in time. Linking to his own paysite for references is a little on the egregious side to boot. Qwghlm (talk) 12:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above. --Jimbo[online] 12:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep- If the information in the infobox is accurate he did manage a handful of senior appearances for a professional team in Ireland. Reyk YO! 12:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If a memeber of playerhistory.com can confirm that he's played in a fully-professional league using this link then I will change my vote. --Jimbo[online] 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Considering the subject in question created both the article in question and the Playerhistory.com site quoted I would seriously question whether that link qualifies as reliable source in this situation due to conflict of interest, regardless of any standing the site may (or may not) have in other respects. I would expect to see a completely independent reliable source for this that a) the individual played, and b) it was a fully professional team in a fully professional league. --ClubOranjeTalk 13:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The article claims Håkon Winther used to be known as Håkon Johansen until apparently changing his name (with no citation to back it up). As a result there is no current evidence that proves Håkon Winther the website editor is the same person as Håkon Johansen the footballer (who does exist [38] [39]) - apart from his own website. So I would take the claim he used to be a player, professional or not, with a degree of scepticism until an independent reliable confirmation of that claim can be cited. Qwghlm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment After, quite ironically, looking through his profile at playerhistory.com I can't see any evidence of him having played in a fully professional league. The highest he seems to have played at is "2. Division Group 8" of Norway, which I assume is the second division...? Mattythewhite (talk) 14:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment second Google link for "Håkon Winther" goes to "Uncle Håkon's Candy And Submachine Gun Shop" in Norway. Same person? What an interesting combination - totally irrelevant though. Nfitz (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Mattythewhite. By the way, the Norwegian Second Division is the third tier and is far from professional. Punkmorten (talk) 21:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Anyone know if the "Division 3 - Västra Svealand" of Sweden or the "2. Deild" of Finland are professional leagues? Mattythewhite (talk) 22:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in the absence of reliable sources that demonstrate his notability or that he meets WP:Athlete. Happy to change my mind if such reliable sources are produced. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all above. Or at least move it to the guy's user page. At least then he can keep his vanity to himself. – PeeJay 12:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What is it you want me to confirm? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I played profesionally in Ireland, Faroe Ireland, Sweden and 3 seasons in Norway. That mean the club payed my salary.

    PS! I have nothing to do with this candy shop :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC) And yes i was born Johansen, but changed my surename to Winther —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    By the way, is this for me critiziseing Wikipedia last night? Well to know that a person like Matthewithe editing football on wikipedia says most of it? He don't even know the difference of Faroe and Finland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 13:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm flattered. Fine then, does anyone know if "2. Deild" of the Faroe Islands is a profesional league. I assume not... Mattythewhite (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I deleted both my profile and Playerhistory, please also remove my link from available sources.

    Just to help you out a little:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Clitnovici
    He never played for: Barnsley 03/04
    He never played for: Craiova 02/03
    He never played for: Elche 07/08
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 14:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The league itself is not profesionell but they have professionell players.

    • Delete - it appears that author/subject of the article has never played in a fully professional league (until sources are provided to demonstrate otherwise) and I doubt that his founding of the playerhistory.com website is sufficient to pass WP:N. Perhaps there are reliable sources that demonstrate notability related to the website activities, but none are provided. Jogurney (talk) 04:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I can't believe that Wikipedia (the copysite) are question playerhistory.com as NOT reliable. Please look in your own nest before critise others. I can promise you one thing. If i really want i can find at least 20000 WRONG adding on football players in wikipedia. We have started a group to notify media around the world about wikipedia and their copycat attitude. So good luck. My vote is delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 08:04, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What do you mean by "copysite" exactly? Mattythewhite (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think they are personally questioning your sites reliability in general, just as a matter of conflict of interest of sourcing information from one's own website. Information from anyone's personal website would have a chance of bias, and I don't think anyone has meant it as commentary on your project as a whole. matt91486 (talk) 16:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What i mean by that is as follow: Contributors of wikipedia are copying other sites WITHOUT checking if the sources are reliable or not. They also make straight copies and paste it to wikipedia. I have proof and will be happy to provide it to you.

    By the way could you check out who added the player of Daniel_Clitnovici? His adding is totally wrong, He has never played in Barnsley 03/04, Craiova 02/03 or Elche 07/08 Is that profile a AfD? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Polarman (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Speedy Deleted as A7 or G11. Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 16:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Capablue Ltd[edit]

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

    Likely not notable. Search produced a mere 20 results, fails WP:V and WP:N. Author removed WP:PROD. JD554 (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I disagree with it being blantant spam. There is not contact information in the article, simply what service they provide. --JD554 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: The article does not cite any 3rd party references. I googled the company, but could not find any reliable 3rd party sources that would make the business a candidate for inclusion into Wikipedia. It almost appears to be written as an advertisement, which makes me think that perhaps the creator of this article may not be in accordance with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.--Startstop123 (talk) 14:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I remain to be convinced that a company that does business with BSKYB and Channel 4 would tout for business on Wikipedia. --JD554 (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Motive is less important than style for me; though frankly I suspect that media and tech businesses know of the publicity value of Wikipedia. But the article is written spam-style, with meaningless glittering generalities and buzzwords, vague to the point of evasiveness. IMO, that kind of writing labels the text as blatant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Strong delete - Very likely fails WP:N could not find any reliable sources online. -Samuel Tan 19:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Speedy Delete I've nominated this for a speedy as a non-notable company. Ged UK (talk) 18:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jamario Thomas[edit]

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

    Fails WP:ATHLETE and, I think, WP:BIO. Last I found he is still playing for UNT, not a fully professional league. He has recieved a very decent amount of coverage in '04 and '05, most of it trivial though (scorecards and match coverage). The most significant coverage seems to be this from late '04. Tagged for notability since June 2007. I think this does not add up to significant coverage thus fails WP:BIO. AmaltheaTalk 10:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Please don't mis-apply WP:ATHLETE--it also clearly states "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports." This athlete led the nation in rushing, and that's no small accomplishment indeed. You can also review (and participate in discussion) at CFB:PLAYER.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep When discussing notability of college football players, I never have been a big fan of the "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports" per WP:ATHLETE. That being said, Jamario Thomas is not a third string running back. He was the 2004 national leader in rushing yards. He tied the NCAA record reaching 1,000 yards fastest . He was one of only three freshmen ever to rush for over 1,800 yards. There seams to be enough reliable primary source (www.meangreensports.com ) as well as a National (ESPN and USAToday) and Local (Denton Record Chronicle and the Dallas Morning News) 3rd party Independent sources. Note: I am a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. 09er (talk) 15:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tru Blood[edit]

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

    Un-sourced article on a fictitious product within a TV series (?). Article uses assumptions ("it seems as though...") to back up 'points'. Was CSDd, and changed to PROD by an admin. PROD was removed by unknown IP (not creator) so I've brought it here instead. Booglamay (talk) - 10:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment You can't delete and merge - GFDL prevents that. Redirect and merge is possible however. M♠ssing Ace 15:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's a fictional product on a fiction show and has certainly not received substantial coverage from reliable sources to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete - fictional product with no notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as apparent hoax. The contributions by Theazerbaijanglory are discounted as incomprehensible.  Sandstein  16:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Imperial Family of Lanka[edit]

    Imperial Family of Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. This article is a hoax or at the very best a fantasy. It's unreferenced, created by an SPA, completely at odds with the history of Sri Lanka in other WP articles such as Sri Lanka and Kingdom of Kandy. The article's purpose seems to be to support the claims in Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII, which gets a flat zero ghits for the subject and which I'm also nominating. andy (talk) 09:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • i feel you people should first check the references provided, the books listed before comming to any conclusions. typing mistakes could occur, and how could you simply say that this ia a based on Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia, and compare the content and when Britain itself had 6 Kings named George, why only Grand Duke George Mikhailovich of Russia. all referecne are not found online, they come in books as well.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • the Family of the person mentioned in the article, is not somthing that i made, his ancestry and family tree was approved and comfirmed by the National Archive of Sri Lanka and the British Archives, i obtained a copy from the national archives of Sri Lanka and , his great grand father's name is G. H. George Edward Themis Gunawardena (1874-1934)who was married to Silvia Angammuwa (1880 - 1915)(firstly) and later to Cecilia Wijesingha. George was name used by many sri Lankans during the colonial Rule. Sir Oliver Ernest Goonetilleke was a Sri Lankan not a hoaxed by a person copying everything from Oliver Cromwell, William Gopallawa is also a Sri Lankan not a British or some other person bearing the name William.....
    • Sri Lanka Many historical records a still kept in documented form. very few is available online, as for example wikipedia has information about all british kings and queens, but out of the 197 monarchs of Sri Lanka substantial information of 10 kings cannot be found. but books in sri lanka still give a vast knowledge abouth these.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Rajawaliya (story of kings) is one good example. the Mahawanse, Chulawanse are also examples of these.

    the codes of conduct put up by king Nissanka Malla are still presevered in documentaion. i will try my best to upload to these information to other websites to help people across seas to known what a great monarchy sri lanka once had and what there desendants do in pretendence. --Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • it is utterly unsuitable for you people to directly label these article as haox, did you atlest have time or even bother finding out the books that i have mentioned. i find information of books more reliable than the once found online.--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The way I see it is this: "Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha" can't be found on the web and your article provides no references that show that he even exists, let alone is a king-in-waiting. So it fails the key Wikipedia policy of verifiability and therefore must be deleted. The other article was clearly written to support this one, so it too fails. andy (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • request you to check to books mentioned above.......--Theazerbaijanglory (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your sources in the articles are links to random news sites. Post links to the specific articles so we can verify it. I believe you have cited one book Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the "Great Dynasty", or rather you've given a link to Amazon, what page number are getting your information from. - dwc lr (talk) 13:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please find below the page numbers.

    20th Centuray Impression of ceylon (1905):-

    Pages :- 287 (gives details about George Edward Gunawardena)includin pictures. Pages : - 598 (Details of the paternal ancestry)

    the richmond castle mentioned in the article is now owned by the public trustee and was built by the gran uncle of the person who is in the article (his brothers desendants). but custamarily this mansion is used for annnoiting. the link to a news paper article is [[40]]


    Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the "Great Dynasty

    Pages:- 354 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 13:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Padikara Mudaliyar is title
    • Comment page 354 you say. That's funny Google Books says "Royalty in Ancient Ceylon during the period of the Great Dynasty" has 52 pages.[41] Amazon.co.uk says it has 52 pages.[42] - dwc lr (talk) 14:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • 35

    and also the Rajawaliya —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Anyway, what's it got to do with Nilupul Narendra Rajasingha VII? This is a fantasy. andy (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    How can you say that.... and why the anyway.....

    anyway, i tried to update your site with sri lanka history. your LIst of longest reining monarchs of all time does not show a single sri lankan monarch, there where many sri lankan kings who rulled 50+ years, and King Pandukaabhya ruled for 70 years.

    as for the fantasy thing. yes it is a fantasy!!!!!!!!, if any of you people are in sri lanka, please read the paper the Sunday times of Sri Lanka next sunday. for an inteview with the person mentioned in the article. my kind request to you, remains do some justice to sri lankan history and update your site with more information about Sri Lanka History.............. , which i suppose will not be found online, refere the Rajawaliya.... [Lankan Glory] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    from myside i will not further write on this page ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,i close the discussion from my side and leave others to do what ever they want.............. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 14:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    • i am new, i dnt understand what you people actually need, please tell i will try to do something in such a way to satisfy you criteria.

    now this Prince Jerry, the Article, i have provided a refernce link, what more information do you expect from the editor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theazerbaijanglory (talk • contribs) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    after serious editing this article could be merged with a relative of the person in the article, if any exist.......--Pauljohn564 (talk) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete these two articles has no RS to prove any of what is said is true.Nitraven (talk) 05:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BMTH Album[edit]

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

    Article does not indicate significance. Article is unreference. Demo was recorded but was never release. – Jerryteps 09:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Even if they do add references, a 2 song demo album that was recorded but never released still does not fufil WP:MUSIC#Albums. – Jerryteps 03:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Aviculture.  Sandstein  21:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Cagebird trade[edit]

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

    Covered better on the aviculture page. Snowman (talk) 09:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - agree. Seems to be redundant duplication from aviculture and not a notable term in itself. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect' didn't need to come here. The aviculture page needs a check for POV though,especially the lede paragraph., DGG (talk) 16:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh yeah, I hadn't read that before...well, I am sure no-one will object if someone closes this one early as a redirect - for the record I guess.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to aviculture or move to Bird trade and cover all bird trade including wild bird. There should be enough material on bird trade in general including legalities, economics and conservation aspects. All articles in this cluster need care. Shyamal (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to aviculture per Casliber.Nrswanson (talk) 06:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Arrow keys (non-admin closure), merge completed per result from the first AfD. MuZemike (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WASD keys[edit]

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

    Per previous AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WASD keys, article was to be merged promptly. The article is entirely unsourced. Little attempt has been made to improve ([43]) the article or merge the article since the last AfD. I am also nominating the following related pages because they are similar in content and notability:

    IJKL keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    HJKL keys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    --Voidvector (talk) 09:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Looks like original research to me. --MrStalker (talk) 11:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per original AFD. I don't really see this needing to go to AFD again (not counting the two riders that have now been added). Might I suggest the nom be bold and execute the merge if it's a concern? The decision has been made at a previous AFD only a few months ago so there shouldn't be a need to revisit it. I would recommend relisting the two rider articles, though, as they aren't necessarily covered by the original AFD decision, even if they're similar articles. 23skidoo (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect all three to Arrow keys without prejudice to merging from redirect page history. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Old reasoning of last AFD was: ... and sort out what needs to be done with it. It is very clearly a distinct topic from other controls and inputs. For example, many computer gaming devices are advertised as having "WASD keys". Game reviewers often use the abbreviation WASD to summarise a method of control. This still applies. The result of merging to arrow keys is wrong, because the topic is quite distinct. I would not be against a merge, but then a proper target needs to be found. Perhaps a new article navigation keys could be created? User:Krator (t c) 14:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Navigation keys article has been created. Merge all relevant articles. Haikupoet (talk) 14:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The articles have been merged, along with some content moving from arrow keys. I've left the original articles intact for the time being, but would prefer to convert them to redirects. I have not done so because of the pending AfD. Haikupoet (talk) 15:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would be much more supportive of a merger - these key combos all do the exact same thing. There's no need for a seperate article on each one. --Explodicle (T/C) 15:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as seems to be the general agreement. I may have missed it, but I see no attempts to merg e in he page history. Instead of coming here, perhaps you should have proposed a merge, and, if no opposition, carried it out . 15:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I have added possible sources for the article on Talk: WASD keys#Sources. I encourage other editors to do the same. If any one of these sources can be considered RS I would encourage that the AfD be banished to an alien dimension for a thousand years and allow a cleanup crew to prepare the article for the time of prophecy when the dimensional gates will tear asunder and the ancient foe shall return once again. Otherwise I will keep looking for more sources. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per previous AfD. If a previous AfD isn't actioned upon, a healthy dose of {{sofixit}} is always in order. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge again. Hopefully someone carries out the merge this time. MuZemike (talk) 18:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and I approve of MuZemike's efforts to complete the merge. Randomran (talk) 19:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done All three articles have been merged into Arrow keys. I will close this AfD as a merge. MuZemike (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  16:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of sports by popularity by country[edit]

    List of sports by popularity by country (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Delete. Article has no sources and breaches WP:RS. Clearly POV throughout and breaches WP:NPOV. Some of the assertions made are designed to make a WP:POINT about the perceived popularity of certain sports. Adds absolutely no value to the encyclopaedia. BlackJack | talk page 09:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Strong Delete - in current form. If someone could find RS to support, I'd be happy for it to stay or return. As it happens, I disagree with some of the contentions in the article, and more fundamentally seek an answer to what constitutes "popularity"? Without that being sorted, the article is flawed to its core. --Dweller (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it looks to me like a list of countries by population, grouped into what sports 'seem' to be most popular, with no evidence of actual 'popularity'. No references, and an external link titled 'Some statistics'. –MDCollins (talk) 09:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No sources (the linked URL isn't really a source for the material on the page): at best WP:OR and quite possibly WP:POINT. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Pure WP:POV and WP:OR Gnevin (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong delete POV, OR, making a point, etc... Andrew nixon (talk) 15:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Cliff smith talk 16:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have reverted the article back to the version with reliable sources. Gary King (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The article has plenty of sources, now that a previous version has been restored. The article was a division/separation of content from National sport, as it was felt that the original combined article was confusing two separate issues. Now National sport focusses on sports defined as being national sports by legislation etc, whereas this article lists those that are most popular in individual countries. See this thread Talk:List_of_sports_by_popularity_by_country#Request_for_comment and those that follow. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to comment the restored text was removed when National sport was created as the majority of it was unreliable and it's now out of place in the current article Gnevin (talk) 19:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's fine. I have no view either way. I was just bringing to the table information for the consideration of the person that has to decide this AfD. However, Gnevin, I will say one thing, as it must be pointed out. Given that it was you that removed all the references from the article [44] when prior to that it had heaps of refs, I'd say your call above that it is "Pure WP:POV and WP:OR" is downright dishonest questionable. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The revision I replied to was [45] which had no reference at all and was the current revison of the article at the time . I don't know how that was downright dishonest or questionable or how you where assuming good faith Gnevin (talk) 10:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gnevin's edit took out the section of official national sports which went to a new article. He did not take out the references for these tables as far as I can tell. The section that Gnevin removed is unrelated. Metros (talk) 22:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at it again, I can see it being a bit related, but I believe it was done in good faith and was in no way trying to be dishonest. I don't think that that section should double as the reference section for those tables; those tables should be cited directly. Metros (talk) 22:47, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Difficult also to know why anyone would ever want to consult this as an "encyclopedic" article. Johnlp (talk) 20:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Extremely difficult to understand and extremely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajolla2009 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or rewrite There's trouble right off the bat, in that "popular" is left undefined. Speaking strictly from the U.S. perspective, the one site that it links to, a Gallup poll, doesn't show anything about this matter. For another, I would be shocked if soccer were anywhere near the popularity level of NASCAR, which is treated like an "etc." in this list. There's a lot more to popularity than a single poll that says what sport someone likes. There's also how much money is spent on a given sport. In fact, that's your true measure of popularity. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:19, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Virtual Internet Cafe[edit]

    Virtual Internet Cafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No verifiable reliable sources to show why this article meets the notability criteria at WP:WEB. Failed WP:PROD. JD554 (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete More reliable sources is needed to keep this article. Artene50 (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that's all I got though, the news paper article was alot bigger, they have shortened it on the Internet. Fell free to delete the article since I don't have any more sources, I did find a press release on IDG but I read that press releases don't qualify. Sad though... Pexter12345 (talk) 09:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament Group A[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament Group A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I believe this article classifies as over-coverage of this particular football tournament. The tournament is not a senior one, and is not even an important one in the football calendar, compared to the FIFA World Cup or the UEFA European Championships, which do deserve this sort of article. – PeeJay 08:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. – PeeJay 08:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament (assuming that tournament is notable enough for its own article). Bettia (rawr CRUSH!) 09:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, this is too detailed. Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament is the most that is needed. Either delete or merge (although without the detail such as precise team composition). Sam Blacketer (talk) 09:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to the football article identified above. However I'd suggest that snap nominations of this sort might be a bit of a losing battle while the Olympics are underway. Unless WP:BLP is violated it may be a more efficient use of effort to let these ultra-detailed articles run their course till the games end, then go in and merge or AFD-nominate as applicable. Otherwise people will just end up recreating these things all over the place. Just my 2 cents. 23skidoo (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge to Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament. This one is too detailed for a stand-alone article. Nsk92 (talk) 12:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. "and is not even an important one in the football calendar" the fallacy of this statement shocks me. I'm not 100% convinced that such detail is necessary - but if it is, I'd think it is better placed in a separate article, or else the Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament will become very long and difficult to read through. Nfitz (talk) 17:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that if such detail was necessary for a non-senior tournament, separate pages would be necessary. However, since the tournament is, technically, a youth tournament for Under-23s, such detail is not necessary, and the {{footballbox}}es can be placed in the main article. – PeeJay 17:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • One side effect of the arguments being used here, is that by merging, reducing, or eliminating pages like this because it's not a senior mens tournament, one is validating the creation of similiar pages under Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Women's tournament, which is a senior tournament. Which might lead to an ironic situation. Nfitz (talk) 22:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment it is important becasue it is the Olympics, and thus important to those outside of the football world. It's the only tournament of worldwide profile that the usual suspects don't attend in force. 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. There is nothing significant about this competition. BlackJack | talk page 08:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with Football at the 2008 Summer Olympics - Men's tournament the tournament is notable enough to have it's own article, but there is no point spliting each group into separate articles. BUC (talk) 11:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as suggested. This is not exactly an application of NOT NEWS, but t he same principle of avoiding the excessively detaaled coverage of contemporary events. DGG (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge as above. GiantSnowman 10:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, leaning toward keep per above. It's important enough to warrant keeping most of the information on this page, but not in its own article. Bart133 t c @ How's my driving? 00:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete.  Sandstein  21:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    3dgd360[edit]

    3dgd360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    A rendering engine (the author assumes we know what that is) written up by its developer. No evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment Is this legitimate grounds to delete this article? Perhaps specialists may value it. Artene50 (talk) 08:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it is, under WP:N. In other words, material should only appear on Wikipedia if there are independent, third party reliable sources who have commented on it--and those sources are quoted in the article. You see, if we didn't have that policy, then Wikipedia would become a useless quagmire of articles on everyone's little backyard projects and rapidly bog down. (Obviously, this comment is a vote to delete.)--S Marshall (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment i let people who used 3dgd360 already ( beta testers ) put comments on the page. I guess they are third party and i guess there is no more reason to delete the article anymore. Thanks ~phpboxxx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.128.0.230 (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There are so few ghits that it was possible to scan them all, and I saw nothing usable as a reliable source. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment At least thats honest. Fact is, there are a lot more users, they will comment as well, give it some time please. On the other hand i can figure out easily that my article is going to be deleted as is. I accept this fact; but theres one thing left to say. As soon as one of my projects is a success i will create an article on wikipedia about it. ~phpboxxx
    • Comment OK. I dont know what to say now, the user RHaworth just undoed the latest change... and removed the comment a user of my project ( its not a dupe account, actually it was from a beta tester of my project ). Anyways you can see it in the change history so what... ~phpboxxx
    • Delete - a rendering engine coded entirely in PHP? That's pretty cool. But with no reliable sources, notability is not established. -- Whpq (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- definitely a topic of note if verified but without independent third party sources verification is impossible.Nrswanson (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    G.I.R.L.I.C.I.O.U.S[edit]

    G.I.R.L.I.C.I.O.U.S (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Contested prod. This song fails WP:MUSIC as a song that was not released as a single (and didn't even make the cut on their album). There is a claim that the song is "popular on Youtube", but no reliable sources are offered to back it up. UsaSatsui (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom and not notable ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, non-single album tracks themselves are generally not considered notable unless they have a specific feature or use that's been covered in reliable sources. By extension, a track that didn't even make it onto an album, and hasn't had any appreciable independent coverage, doesn't look very notable at all to me. ~ mazca t | c 21:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the PCD TV show, since this typography has been used on the show. (alternately, redirect to the band created by the show) 70.55.85.40 (talk) 05:36, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was keep. John254 01:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GitHub[edit]

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

    Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment Please explain your reasoning. Pointing to various policies does not explain specifically how the policy is being violated.riffic (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are several notable projects being hosted on this revision control service, which is asserted in the article, and it is referenced in several third party resources. Furthermore, the only contributions of the nominator are AFD nominations. riffic (talk) 15:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - Now, I'm not sure if having notable projects hosted on the subject means the subject is notable, but I'm for keeping it because the Washington Post wrote about it and described it as "popular", and it has many other, albeit brief, mentions in many other secondary sites.-Samuel Tan 19:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Host of several large open source projects, several mentions on prominent sites. -Halo (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep notable, curious about the nominator though... aren't you?--Buridan (talk) 22:15, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Newscred[edit]

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

    Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak delete The news site exists but doesn't appear very notable. There are hundreds of good news sites including BBC, CNN, Yahoo, Googlenews, AP, etc. Artene50 (talk) 07:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am a bit unimpressed by the arguments used (the debate here is basically a "it's not notable" v. "it's notable" contest), but there clearly is not a consensus for deletion here, and the argument given for deletion was superficial. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Busuu[edit]

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

    Non-Notable Website. Per3512 (talk) 06:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep From a quick google search it looks notable to me. Maybe the article needs a little bit of work though. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 08:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Hi. I started this article. I don't see why this is a non-notable website. Who determines which one is it and which one is not? I think this article is very relevant for Wikipedia not only for the company but for the busuu language reference too. In Europe busuu.com is a very notable website with steady growth.Lestaire (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.159.100 (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 - identical material contained in Concepts in the seduction community. KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Replication value[edit]

    Replication value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • Nope, policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and merely reflects what AfDs have typically done, not what they must do. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Only insomuch as, in my humble opinion, wikipedia strives to represent consensus reality. Sticky Parkin 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete technical term in a small community ,used with a rather eccentric meaning; has no context outside it, and the possibility of confusion. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - niche community term. At best merge it into one comprehensive 'seduction' article. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, a bit of useful content there to merge elsewhere but at the point it probably lacks enough to have any chance at making a complete article by itself. Mathmo Talk 10:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Keep (non-admin closure), as per the affirmative consensus of this discussion. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    James Wannerton[edit]

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

    This individual suffers from synesthesia, and due to having this condition has been featured in studies and reports about it. However, he is not notable for any type of achievement, and the one linked source would appear to be about the symptoms of synesthesia using the this individual as an example, rather than the individual himself. Falls somewhere between not been being notable and WP:BLP1E, both of which are short of Typhoid Mary and WP:BIO. Deiz talk 06:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep. I don't think this is a BLP1E case really: BLP1E is meant for things like being a crime victim where you actually can cover the event rather than the person. That does not seem to be the case here. There is not a whole lot of coverage, but some of the coverage available is fairly detailed and about this person specifically. The coverage is spread over a prolonged period of time, e.g. 2003(BBC)[47], 2004 (Telegraph)[48], 2007 (The Age)[49], 2008 (Pagina)[50]. The coverage also is not limited to the U.K press but also involves international press e.g. The Age(link above), Tampa Tribune[51], CBS News[52]), Pittsburgh Tribune[53], Pagina (link above). Appeared in the U.K. documentary series "Horizon" in 2004 (see imdb record[54]). It is true that many of the above links contain only brief mentions but some of the coverage is detailed, like the BBC story[55]. While notability is somewhat marginal, I think this one does pass the bar of WP:BIO, if only just. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's not that he is notable for possessing synesthesia (I would avoid the word "suffering" in this context), but for being an activist with respect to knowledge about the condition, and there's evidence enough that he's notable for that. If this is how BLP1E is going to be used, its time we got rid of it, as it's doing more harm than good by confusing people. . DGG (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I would very much want this entry kept on Wikipedia if possible. It certainly used to contain links to in-depth articles regarding synaesthesia and it will again soon. I'm certainly not claiming any degree of "notability" but I am very well known within the psychology discipline and have appeared in very many reports and tv documentaries explaining the condition to mass audiences. There have been a further five documentaries since this Wiki entry appeared - Discovery Channel, BBC1, BBC2, Channel 5 and a full length one for Tokyo TV. I was instrumental in getting the condition re-examined in detail as I was the first synaesthete to put myself foward for fMRI scans proving that synaesthesia is a genuine neurological condition and not just imagination, and I am the only Lexical-Gustatory synaesthete to have undergone intense examination. I have been the President of the UK Synaesthesia Association for 18 months now and that organisation provides a starting point of reference for anyone interested in syn as well as organising annual conferences at Universities all over the country. I can update the entry to project all of this if acceptable. I get over 50 emails a day from synaesthetes from all over the world and a good many of them have been routed through the Wikipedia entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwannerton (talk • contribs) 14:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Coverage about him is sustained over a significant period of time. BLP1E is irrelevant and there are reliable sources covering him, so notable -- Whpq (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete as he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ross Clark[edit]

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

    Ross Clark fails WP:ATHLETE because he has never played in fully professional association football. I proposed the article for deletion, but User:Foxtrot1985 removed the comment, saying on my talk page that "He has played in a professional league (Scottish Third Division) and therefore qualifies as an athlete." He has played in the lower divisions of Scottish football, but not for fully professional clubs. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 05:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete due to lack of notability. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Luddenham United[edit]

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

    This is an article on an amateur football team with no evidence of notability presented. Grahame (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Neg (seduction)[edit]

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

    Non-notable term with very restricted use, seemingly only applicable to the work of a single author. Heavily dependent on niche language from other "seduction" articles. Rob Banzai (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep, this is a very newly created article and thus the nominator is way off the mark as their only impression of it appears to come from the article. Is not dependent on a single author at all, is just because of the newness of the article that this appears to be so. Is not heavily dependent on "niche language", neither is that relevant to AFD. Mathmo Talk 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NEO. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I don't see any of that in the article, and honestly--I'd be pretty astonished if there was anything about it. Movingboxes (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep One of the most important, notable and famous concepts in the seduction community as far as pop culture is concerned. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO. We could probably put some of the content in flirting or seduction community. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And while we're at it, delete computer. Notice the first line of that article? "A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions." Omigosh! Sounds suspiciously like a dicdif. WP:NAD! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:POINT. Let's not get silly here. Movingboxes (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's the exact same argument. Because the article happens to explain what the subject matter is, people bring up WP:NAD, which is a total non sequitur. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The difference is that computer goes beyond the first sentence to explain the concept of computers and their significance and the article in question does not. The article serves as a slang/jargon guide and that isn't what the project is here for. You say it is "important, notable and famous . . . as far as pop culture is concerned," yet there isn't anything but a single CSI mention and in-community usage to show for it. Movingboxes (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well shit, I don't see a whole lot of mentions of banthas outside the community of Star Wars fans, so I guess we better delete that too! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Do you have anything to say about this article other than pointing and saying "THEM TOO!"? Surely you're familiar with WP:OSE. If you feel that strongly about computer and bantha, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion (in the case of bantha for the 2nd time). Movingboxes (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • It's not my fault deletionists are inconsistent and therefore create no objective criteria by which to judge whether a subject is worthy of inclusion and therefore worth investing time in creating an article about. Those who routinely create articles rather than only trying to get them deleted have good reason to be annoyed at the arbitrary bases and incorrect application of policies and guidelines used to justify deletion. Moreover, it should be noted that it was not by deletions that we got to almost 2,500,000 articles and if it had not been for deletions, we would be far beyond that count now. It's just a bad practice. Deletion hinders the encyclopedia, rather than helping it. Essentially, we should completely abolish all deletions, even for copyvios and libel. This can be accomplished by moving the Wikipedia servers to a floating community in international waters where no laws can interfere (see seasteading). That will also save a lot of effort that currently goes into copyright compliance as well. Vandalism pages and such can be dealt with through the pure wiki deletion system. It's really the best thing for everyone. Why don't we start on the road to this brave new Wikipedia by applying the new standards to this article? Since rules are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, we can go ahead and begin blazing that trail now, and let the rules catch up, as they will in time. Who's with me? Let us begin making preparations immediately for server relocation, and may the keep votes begin. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. If we were to completely abolish deletions, we would have far more pages, yes. But more than half of those pages would be articles like "My brother", or "This band that I was in that was together for three days". Deletions are just as necessary to the Wikipedia process as article creations. And you really think that making Wikipedia an illegal operation loaded with crap articles would make it better? There are several problems with that logic. And you say that there is "no objective criteria by which to judge whether a subject is worthy of inclusion", when in fact there is, Here. If you really want the article to stay, it would do you best to read the notability guidelines and provide evidence that the subject is notable, rather than complaining about the process. Oh, and this sentence makes no sense at all: "Since rules are descriptive, rather than descriptive". Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No evidence has been presented that articles about non-notable subjects are detrimental to the encyclopedia in any way. Notability guidelines are just based on what people have done in the past; thus it is perfectly acceptable to argue that they should do something different in the present and future, which will in turn lead to a change in the guideline. If we never break outside that mold, then things won't change. Verifiability is a much more objective criterion for inclusion that notability, which is inherently subjective. How much coverage in reliable sources is "enough"? It's been argued over and over. And, if we move Wikipedia to a jurisdiction where copyvios are allowed, it won't really be an "illegal operation" will it? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, go argue for a change of policy in the appropriate place. That place is not here. Here we discuss where this article lies with respect to existing policy. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're proposing a catch-22. Policy is most commonly promulgated as a result of decisions made in forums such as AfDs rather than, for instance, through proposals. (It is exceedingly rare that a proposal actually results in a policy change.) Thus, if we want to change policy, this is the place to do it. See Wikipedia:POLICY#Sources_of_Wikipedia_policy. The most effective thing to do is create good practices here so that they can be documented in policy. Here is where the rubber hits the road. Now, have it! Everyone, please change your votes to keep, so we can get this show on the road. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn neologism. Mayalld (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article could use some revising and additional sources. But reliable sources on "neg" are available, so deletion is not the right solution. Here are some sources that I ran into with a bit of Googling, which include discussion about negs in addition to defining them (satisfying WP:NEO):
      • Page 2 of this article in the Times UK characterizes a neg as Mystery's "greatest achievement"
      • The Rochester City Newspaper calls the neg "one of the many interesting examples of pseudo-psychology the PUAs employ"
      • Salon.com defines the neg and characterizes it as "inspiring ire"

    So we have these three reliable sources defining and discussing the term, plus two books in the current article by the guy who coined the term and wrote extensively about it. Rather than being deleted, this article should be improved using the reliable sources available. --SecondSight (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Neo and niche-market, but it is just about noteworthy, referencable and well-enough established to survive. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    comment I can't bring myself to say 'keep' as the article and concept is so vile, but I'm afraid this concept has been mentioned in many WP:RS. [56] The article needs a lot of WP:NPOVing and other help though.Sticky Parkin 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What's wrong with negs? It's not the seduction gurus' fault that these techniques work on many beautiful women, and that seemingly "nicer" methods are counterproductive. At the end of the day, there is often a big difference between what women say they want and what they actually respond romantically to. So, what is a guy to do? Either remain an average frustrated chump, or try what has been proven to work. The development and propagation of tools such as the neg was a great service to humanity. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this most recent comment (and many by this editor in relation to "seduction" topics) seems absolutely laden with POV tones. "Great service to humanity?" That's absurd. My issue with this article (and my original issue with cockblock is that these minor sociological points are being blown completely out of proportion. Instead of advocating for an article you sound like you are evangelizing a way of life. All we're talking about is an over-inflation of the old "how to pick up chicks" books. That's it. It's not a great service to humanity. It is a niche topic that has been peppered with buzz-words as if it is a legitimate field of scholarly study. Your worship at this weird altar of pickup-artists is not conducive to NPOV article creation. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sacrilege! Cast the blasphemer out, that the seduction community may be exalted among the heathen. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Rbanzai, a lot of cults edit their articles on wikipedia. Aldrich, I doubt women with any self-esteem think men who act like this are anything more than obnoxious and lacking in social skills, and think the rest of the seduction communities' techniques and obsession creepy, desparate and sad. However, let's get back to discussing this AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, negs are generally recognized as being most effective on "10s" with sky-high self-confidence. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Those selling the courses, and believers, would say that wouldn't they? Try and publish these findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how far they get. Sticky Parkin 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Any topic that is believed in by a large group of people is generally held to be notable. Proof of the veracity of the belief held by millions that the Assumption of Mary occurred has not been presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals either, but we have an article about it. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was responding to your comment which implied that these were sort of scientific findings or 'generally recognised' rather than a believe system. Plus it's not held by a large number of people in the real world, maybe it seems it to you as you mix in those circles/in forums for it/read the stuff a lot. I've not really heard, for instance, of this movement having encroached on the UK (where I am) much (yet). Sticky Parkin 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Due to the valid concerns of users voting to delete, I rewrote the article almost entirely, like I did for Cockblock per WP:HEY. I added several reliable news sources, and I aimed for more NPOV tone. The article sources now contain definitions of the term, usage of the term, and discussion about the term to satisfy WP:NEO (e.g. the interview in Salon.com where the interviewer explicitly asks Mystery about the neg, which also demonstrates notability). As User:Sticky Parkin observes, there are many [prospective news sources mentioning negs, some of which I have already cited in the article. Consequently, we should continue improving the article rather than deleting it. Perhaps if my rewrite is unsatisfactory, a clean AFD should be opened on it rather than continuing with this one. --SecondSight (talk) 09:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Upgrade to Merge - SecondSight you've done another good job of improving a 'seduction' article. I still think they should be merged into one comprehensive article on this non-notable cult subject. You should be commended for your quick response, skillful editing and good attitude. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol, I was hestitating about the 'c' word above but that's what I meant.:) Sticky Parkin 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Second Sight, your idea about a concepts in the seduction community article is probably the most viable one, from a strategic point of view. As we all know, it's easier to get away with adding content to an existing article than it is to create a new article from scratch that will survive. Thus, this can become our foothold for adding more and more content about the seduction community to Wikipedia, and it will be hard for them to do anything about it because what are they going to do, delete the whole thing? They can remove content but another editor can just add it back. All in all, it sounds like a splendid idea. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete In instances like this we need to use judgment. My judgment is the term is not used in this meaning outside the community, though it somewhat resembles the more general use of similar words, and is best described in those of the main articles on the technique. Otherwise it requires the repetition of all the basic material for providing context, and does serve in practice mainly to multiple the number of articles.DGG (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Ok, but what are the policy reasons behind your vote to delete? Terms such as categorical imperative also have no meaning outside a particular community and somewhat resemble the more general use of similar words, but they are worth including in wikipedia because they are written about by notable people and in reliable sources. Same thing with neg. Neg is discussed in other articles, but that discussion is not as well sourced as the current version of this article. --SecondSight (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've not heard of categorical imperative in any other sense than that sense you mention, and it's not unknown at all. I studied it for A-level when I was 16. So, unless you mean outside of all Arts faculties in higher education and academia, that's a pretty large community in which it's included. Anyway, wikipedia is explicitly here to cover things mentioned in WP:RS, as you say. As you say, 'Neg' counts too IMHO (unfortunately). Sticky Parkin 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you'll find, as you branch out from your insular world of books and venture into the social realm, that bragadoccio is not an endearing quality. I think I deserve another civility award for not going off on you in a more extreme and devastating manner. Done. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Aldrich you've been warned about making personal attacks against other editors. Please cool off before revisiting this discussion. We've had good feedback on the other 'seduction' AfDs but it can't happen with this kind of antagonism.Rob Banzai (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For those whose hysteria blinds them to the vast importance of seduction theory, remember this quote:
    Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I know we're pretty far afield here from debating the merits of the article, but I can't even properly express right now how offensive this quote is to me. The solution to the problem of men feeling they have the "right" to women's bodies isn't to teach them cool tricks to score with said bodies. And even if Strauss was right and he had found the super-awesome solution to rape and other violent crime, that still doesn't have anything to do with how this particular article fits with Wikipedia policy. I could stumble upon the solution to world peace in my dreams tonight and it still wouldn't be appropriate for me to create an article when I woke up. Movingboxes (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • He's probably not just talking about rapists but also people like Timothy McVeigh, who never had a girlfriend and finally committed an act he described as "state-assisted suicide."[57] There's definitely evidence that single young men are statistically more likely to commit acts of violence (indeed, some worry that China will get caught up in that problem due to the shortage of females caused by the one-child policy.)[58] Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  16:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pubephilia[edit]

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

    No significant coverage in multiple relaible sources. Google scholar shows no ghit [59]. Fails to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --Leivick (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Rasul Abbasi[edit]

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

    it don't think this person meet Wikipedia:Notability (people). As his article was deleted from fawiki Mardetanha talk 04:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. I think I agree that it doesn't meet WP:BIO even though he was the opposition leader. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and cleanup. I thought it didn't meet it, but per WP:POLITICIAN, it seems anyone who has held national office (even just as, say, an MP) is notable. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete He is not a politician who has held elected office but is an Iranian dissident. A search here does not find any hits from reliable sources but mostly blogs sites and foreign languages pages which most people can't access. If this article is kept, it requires a major rewrite to remove the broken English and poor prose in it. Artene50 (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete because he did not hold national office and I could not find reliable sources, unless someone can verify that one of the foreign-language sources is reliable. -Samuel Tan 19:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless reliable independent third party sources can be found.Nrswanson (talk) 06:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. John254 01:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unarius Academy of Science[edit]

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

    Lacks Notability and is full of original research Advocate (talk) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That being said the current article seems to rely mostly on things by members of this group and one book I found by a travel writer or something. I just assumed in time it'd get better sourcing.--T. Anthony (talk) 13:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Definitely a BLP problem, no prejudice against creating a sourced version, but isn't really a start. --Leivick (talk) 23:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Notable socialites[edit]

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

    A list based on a subjective term. Neutralitytalk 03:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could be kept If it defined the term and included reliable sources for each person listed it would be acceptable and useful, seems to me. Redddogg (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move to List of Notable Socialites. If each one has their own page, they are probably notable, and if they are not, they should be listed here; if the page contained no more links, then I would say delete. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as is there are no sources and thus violates WP:BLP. However, it could be kept if it's moved to "List of Notable Socialites" and sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs)
    I agree. I didn't know about the "list of" article. Redddogg (talk) 12:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was G3 by Pegasus , non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Camp Rock (TV series)[edit]

    Camp Rock (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Supposed animated TV series based on the movie Camp Rock. However there are no sources that prove this series exist; further, why would a movie by Disney have animated spin-off airing on Cartoon Network, which is owned by one of Disney's biggest rivals? This is an obvious hoax; I also suspect the creator and the separate user who removed my prod for this article are socks of blocked user User:Danny Daniel, as this user's editing pattern (creating articles about non-existent animated series) matches DD's work. NeoChaosX (talk, edits) 03:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 14:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Damn Right, Rebel Proud[edit]

    Damn Right, Rebel Proud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    No reliable sources, WP:CRYSTAL. The only sources are from Hank III's own website and what appears to be a forum. The allmusic link has just a track listing; no writers, personnel or even track lengths. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete I don't know what the exact standards are of notability for an album, but one that is self-published and not even out yet probably wouldn't make it. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — It's not "self-published". It's being released on Curb Records, a notable label, and it is by a notable artist. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    My mistake. The article says "self produced" not "self published". I withdraw my vote since I am not sure about the exact standards that apply here. Northwestgnome (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a directory listing on Allmusic and a primary source. Do you really think that's enough? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 03:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Simply existing is not enough for an album to be notable. Besides that, at WP:MUSIC#Albums, note the last sentence which refers to articles containing little more than a track listing. This should be merged into the artist's page, at best. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The reference is to the artists official site so there is no WP:CRYSTAL violation. The artist himself appears to be notable (as he his own article) so this meets WP:MUSIC. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've had several featured articles citing pages on Amazon.com as a source. The question was not about using Amazon as a source, but as proof that it "will even exist," as you put it. Why do you even bother nominating pages for deletion without searching for these things in the first place? (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • I did search, and all I found was trivial mentions and torrents. Why did you think I didn't search? I always search before afding anything. Furthermore, Curb delays albums all the time, so there's a chance this might get shelved. What would happen then? We'd have an unsourced article on an unreleased album, and unreleased albums are almost never notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 05:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS. If/when substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources arrive, feel free to recreate. Otherwise, wait until it's released. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment — Allmusic and Amazon.com are substantial, reliable, third-party sources. There's a cover, track listing and release date. It doesn't fail the guidelines at all. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
        • Comment Simply existing is not enough to make an album notable, even if the person who made it is himself notable. WP:MUSIC#Albums even advises such things be put on the artist's page except in special circumstances, and as there is little to say about this album outside of asserting that it exists, I don't think it's too special. I think I've mentioned this before on this AfD, too; does anyone have a rebuttal? --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 21:19, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Falcon Kirtaran.Nrswanson (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Clearly a non-notable comic-strip character, with nothing to verify its accuracy or existence. PeterSymonds (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gingerbread Drakula[edit]

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

    A casual Google search turns up nothing to support notability. (That whirring sound you hear is Bram Stoker spinning in his grave.) Ecoleetage (talk) 02:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Non-notable and probably a joke. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Of course it is a joke as it came from a comic book, but we are not told which one, and individual comic book characters rarely seem notable anyway. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Useless and absurb.--BlackWatch21 03:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Non-referenced, non-notable comic book character and most likely a hoax. – Jerryteps 04:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete For a supposedly syndicated strip/character I'm finding nothing. I can usually dig up at least one source for any once-syndicated comic strip, even something that ran in some podunk newspaper in the 1960s. This turns up bupkis outside Wikipedia, so I'm thinking it might be a hoax, but it might be a little hasty to outright G3 this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 06:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google search shows nothing. It could be a hoax. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 14:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above: no sources have been found to verify that this is real. Cliff smith talk 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Looks like a non-notable comic strip character also the article fails to give reliable sources, and verifiability. --Kanonkas :  Talk  16:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), because it has become impossible to debate the merits of the article in question due to the blatant disruption of the AfD process. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Girard, OH Fire Department[edit]

    Girard, OH Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Local fire department, of no particular notability beyond the poor folks in Girard, Ohio, whose homes are burning. Options can include deletion (as the article fails WP:N and WP:RS, or merging or redirecting to the Girard, Ohio. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nomination withdrawn In view of the outrageous disruption of the article's debate, I have no choice but to withdraw the nomination. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would also like to nominate other articles in the same category as it which are equally non-notable (or make no attempt to assert notability):

    1. Beaver Township Fire Department
    2. Fredericktown Community Fire District
    3. Youngstown Fire Department
    4. Bella Vista Fire Department
    5. Bristol, Connecticut Fire Department
    6. Chicago Fire Department
    7. Clark County Fire Department
    8. Cy-Fair Volunteer Fire Department
    9. East County Fire & Rescue
    10. Fire Departments in Delaware
    11. Glenville Fire Department
    12. Honolulu Fire Department
    13. Lincoln Fire & Rescue Department
    14. Memphis Fire Services
    15. Muskogee Fire Department
    16. Nashville Fire Department
    17. Noroton Heights Fire Department
    18. Providence Fire Department
    19. Seattle Fire Department
    20. Tess Corners Fire Department
    21. Unified Fire Authority (Utah)
    22. Vicksburg Fire Department
    23. Wayne Township Fire Department
    24. West Pulaski Fire Department
    25. Zoneton Fire Protection District
    26. Webbs Mills Fire Department
    27. Pasadena Volunteer Fire Department
    28. Virginia Beach Fire Department
    29. Milwaukee Fire Department
    30. Dublin Fire Brigade
    31. Mumbai Fire Brigade
    32. Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service
    33. Romanian General Inspectorate for Emergency Situations
    34. Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service
    35. Anaheim Fire Department
    36. Bakersfield Fire Department
    37. Brea Fire Department
    38. Costa Mesa Fire Department
    39. Fullerton Fire Department
    40. Holy Jim Fire Department
    41. Huntington Beach Fire Department
    42. Laguna Beach Fire Department
    43. Los Angeles County Fire Department
    44. Los Angeles Fire Department
    45. Menlo Park Fire Department
    46. Newport Beach Fire Department
    47. Oakland Fire Department
    48. Orange County Fire Authority
    49. Orange Fire Department
    50. Presidio Fire Department
    51. Riverside Fire Department
    52. Sacramento Fire Department
    53. San Diego Fire-Rescue Department
    54. San Francisco Fire Department
    55. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District
    56. Santa Ana Fire Department
    57. University of California, Davis Fire Department
    58. University of California, Santa Cruz Fire Department
    59. Ventura County Fire Department
    60. Broward County Sheriff's Office
    61. Chaires-Capitola Volunteer Fire Department
    62. Coral Springs Fire Department
    63. Miami Fire Department
    64. Miami-Dade Fire Rescue Department
    65. Orange County Fire Rescue
    66. Palm Beach County Fire-Rescue
    67. Palm Harbor Fire Rescue
    68. Seminole County Fire Department
    69. Tallahassee Fire Department
    70. Tampa Fire Department
    71. Fire Departments in Maryland
    72. Montgomery County Fire & Rescue Service (Maryland)
    73. Rockville (Maryland) Volunteer Fire Department
    74. White Marsh Volunteer Fire Company
    75. Bayport Fire Department
    76. Beekman Fire District
    77. Binghamton Fire Department
    78. Border City Fire Department
    79. East Fishkill Fire District
    80. East Meadow Fire Department
    81. Great River Fire Department
    82. Haverstraw Fire Department
    83. Lakeside Fire Rescue Company
    84. Levittown Fire Department
    85. North Bellmore Fire Department
    86. Seaford Fire Department
    87. Snyder fire department
    88. Vista Fire Department
    89. Wantagh Fire Department
    90. Organization of the New York City Fire Department
    91. Flourtown Fire Company
    92. Fort Washington Fire Company
    93. Kimberton Fire Company
    94. Parkland Fire Company
    95. Penn Hills Fire Service
    96. Philadelphia Fire Department
    97. Pittsburgh Fire Bureau
    98. Pottstown Fire Department
    99. Rosedale Volunteer Fire Department
    100. South Media Fire Co.
    101. Union Fire Company
    102. West Lake Fire Department
    103. Baytown Fire Department

    There are a lot more of these, and if anyone else wants me to add the rest of them, they should leave me a note on my talkpage, as I don't want to spend all night nominating more of these if the community thinks it is out of line. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge the significant content in each to their respective location pages, if any, or their respective page on fire services in the area. Each of these pages share significant similarity to many others in the same way that local histories of hamlets are frequently interchangeable (not quite all the same, but very close) but even more so, and the information would best be summarized in fire department with local details left to the locale pages. I have not listed articles which would be undue weight if merged. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or merge' Many seem fake, regardless not notable Testmasterflex (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A 100-plus-article mass nomination is never a good thing. A number of these departments serve major metropolitan areas and could easily be proven notable. The Chicago Fire Department, for example, has been the subject of multiple books ([60], [61], etc) and thousands of newspaper articles. Zagalejo^^^ 04:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't particularly like it either, but I think we're dealing with the same question with the vast bulk of these. Anyone is free to vote "delete all except chicago fire department or the like if they don't think an item on this list should be included. That one specifically, I thought, didn't have enough useful information to not be included in Chicago. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Chicago Fire Department article is easily expandable, though. We might as well just leave it where it is. Zagalejo^^^ 09:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and Object. I have serious problems with this mass deletion nomination process. This really is not the best way to go about doing this as it makes it impossible to evaluate each article fairly on an individual level. A number of good articles might get deleted unecessarily this way. I request that this on mass AFD be withdrawn.Nrswanson (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy close this mass nomination makes it impossible to fairly evaluate all the articles on there merits. I spot checked some, many were stubs but some were medium length articles with good cites. - Icewedge (talk) 05:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close. Far too many articles listed to effectively judge their merits. Maxamegalon2000 05:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • We could redact all but the first fire department from the list and vote on each of them individually, as well. I just thought that, on the other extreme, the process would be immense, but it seems from this discussion that it would be warranted. I invite anyone who agrees with this to redact the list or reduce it to a handful (or leave a message on my talkpage requesting I do so). --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 05:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 20:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Go Johnny Go Go Go Go[edit]

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

    To quote the article, this is a "comedy fictional card game from the television series, The League of Gentlemen from the Series 2 episode." No notability whatsoever, unfortunately. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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  16:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Gigablast[edit]

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

    Non-notable search engine, presented in an article that reads like marketing collateral. Dismally fails WP:RS (all of the references in the nominated article circle back to the Gigablast site). Ecoleetage (talk) 02:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with Clive Robertson. KrakatoaKatie 23:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Libby Purvis[edit]

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

    Nothing here suggests notability, except marriage to Clive Robertson, which in my view doesn't confer notability. Grahame (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was Keep--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 17:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Destiny Norton disappearance[edit]

    Destiny Norton disappearance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    While this is certainly a sad incident, it isn't clear how this is more notable than hundreds of other murders each year. The article doesn't establish why it is notable enough for retention. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. No reliable sources found that weren't directly tied to the incident. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Can you clarify that, TPH? No reliable sources found that weren't directly tied to the incident. Wouldn't all news sources re: the disappearance be directly tied, or am I missing something? TravellingCari 02:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Got it, thanks. For some reason I misunderstood your comment as 'if you search on the murder, you find hits on the murder' and that's why I was confused. I agree that she wasn't notable prior to disappearing and if she hadn't, we'd never have heard of her, but the same probably applies for Natalee Holloway, Elizabeth Smart, Madeline McCann or Jon Benet Ramsey as well as Adam Walsh. While the latter is special because he spawned a TV show and this does border on an OSE argument, I think we have enough consensus on en.wiki that these people are notable. Not that I personally agree, but I really really would like to see something resembling consiststency in AfDs. That said, the article does need some clean-up but that can be easily fixed. TravellingCari 12:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a good point. Maybe news reports of an event should be considered primary sources? Northwestgnome (talk) 03:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Disagree news reports from reliable sources are a core part of WP:V unless they're written by someone with an immediate connection, they'e clear secondary sources, which is part of why I don't understand TPH's vote yet. TravellingCari 03:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A single crime, no matter how evil, is not notable by WP standards. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Some murders and surrounding circumstances are notable and some aren't. This murder obviously is notable. Before we explain why, let me first set the record stragiht: She churns out almost 10,000 ghits. Take away 5,000 because ghits aren't conclusive.....You're left 5,000. She is notable. As for why her murder became notable while other murders did not: She was six-year old at the time of the murder; as the article states - huge search teams in the community went out to search for her; the Mormon community historically has a very low crime rate. These are some of the factors that made this murder notable over other murders. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - The number of g-hits doesn't actually matter. What matters is that attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed per WP:DEL#REASON. In other words, if there are 100,000 g-hits but we have not found reliable sources, it should be deleted, if I understand the guidelines right :) -Samuel Tan 19:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, he didn't say that at all. He was just commenting on the validity of ghits in general. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yup that's what I was doing; thanks, Wildhartlivie. *hands out a cookie* :) -Samuel Tan 03:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The keep on the AfD on Gregerson occurred shortly after the girl was murdered, over two years ago, and was undoubtedly a germane case at the time. What I don't see in googling is an ongoing high profile status of this event, or some legislative or societal effect from the case. Outside of the fact that this was a tragic murder, the article does not assert the notability of the murder, even if it was a huge community search in a Mormon town. When you eliminate "blog", "wiki", "wordpress", "forum" and "blogspot" from the google search, the gross number of hits drops to just a bit over 2700, some of which are duplicates, and the majority of which are from the time of the murder. I'm not unsympathetic (or in fact unempathetic) to the murder of a child or its short term local newsworthiness, however beyond the time frame surrounding the case, what continues to make it notable? In the examples given by TravellingCari, three of those cases are new and even ongoing, at least one of which is fairly sensational. However, once they fade from current news, will they continue to have a notable effect? The fourth, Jaidyn Leskie, has resulted in activism by the mother and a constant presence with a kit being released to assist in choosing babysitters. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:01, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. A legislative or societal effect is not prerequisite to notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources is a pre and end requisite to notability, and this case easily meets that criteria. I'm not saying that it didn't have a societal effect on its community. As a matter of fact, it probably did. The very fact that it was covered so substantially is prima facie evidence of a societal effect.
      • The elimination of a few thousand links is unfair. The fact that this case was so widely discussed in blogs and forums is proof of notability. And besides, 2700 ghits is nothing to sneeze at. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I won't keep arguing this. However, I have a real issue with articles covering victims of crimes in this way that don't have wide-ranging effects. There are so many, and on a local level, murders, especially grisly ones or those that effect children, tend to get a larger measure of local news coverage. Unless they result in publication or coverage beyond the time and scope of the event, I am not convinced they are notable. A situation in point would be the majority of victims from the Columbine massacre. Some have articles, at least those whose individual deaths had effects after the event (Cassie Bernall, Rachel Scott, for example), but the rest don't. The argument that blog and forum discussions indicate notability doesn't hold in my view, since they aren't considered notable for purposes of sourcing. But in any case, I don't believe the article, as it currently stands, establishes notability. Right now, it is little more than a news item and needs to be expanded in order to show notability in the article. Brewcrewer's arguments here do that far beyond what the article itself does. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Do we use proposed policies and guidelines as criteria when they haven't yet been accepted? I am wholly supportive of the institution of notability guidelines in these criminal and victim biographies. It's an issue that needs addressing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment sometimes, WP:SCHOOLS is one often used although I see its now noted as failed, as is WP:FOOTYN. Ideally none should be used as an absolute, but rather as a basis. We're never going to have total uniformity. TravellingCari 15:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Kevin (talk) 09:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lewie Day[edit]

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

    Nothing in this article suggests that this DJ is notable Grahame (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Buddy film[edit]

    The result was withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin closure. Enigma message 15:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    No sources. Represents someone's original research. No evidence this term has been notably used by any reliable sources. Loodog (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This term, or probably more commonly, "buddy movie", has certainly been used in reliable sources, so it's simply a matter of finding cites for listed films and {{fact}}ing or removing ones for which none appear. While I'm in the shop, much more worthy of attention is both the title and content of Grande Dame Guignol, the title of which is I think a neologism used in one DVD commentary and some blogs and amateur websites, and the content of which is a decent but entirely OR essay. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just to be clear, it's also my belief that a serious and well-sourced treatment of the term can exist under the nominated title. 86.44.18.48 (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep notable idea though the OR charge is justified. JJL (talk) 03:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment "Buddy film" is listed in this book as "a film that highlights the relationship between two men who are often forced to work together even though they don't like each other at first. They then go on to battle adversity together and become buddies by the end of the picture." (You can get a preview of the page at Amazon.com.) So, it is a real "subgenre". I'm not sure if the topic deserves its own article, but it at least deserves a mention somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 03:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not sure' The Buddy cop film seems to be a recognized genre. However, almost any story could be a "buddy film." All it needs is two people working together: Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson, R2D2 and C3PO, Hamlet and Horatio, etc. Redddogg (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 11:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as it appears to be a notable term, per Google Books and Google Scholar. However, the list should be removed from the article. There is no criteria for these items, and I disagree with a number of them. Keeping the list is only going to encourage more of these opinionated items. Keep the article, remove the list and note the diff on the talk page, and add some sourcing to this article. It may be worth merging this article and Buddy cop film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, here's an example of useful content:
    This appears to be just scratching the surface. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The quote describes a hopelessly wide genre that doesn't have women as love interests, which, according to the examples given on this page, isn't even necessary for a buddy film (e.g. Wedding Crashers, Sideways, Knocked Up). If this isn't going to be a category encompassing half of all film, that source needs some examples.--Loodog (talk) 13:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the list is useless, but the historical context is useful. Why does the topic itself have to be deleted when the list itself can either be removed or trimmed down to those independently recognized as "buddy films"? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Produce a source showing the term "buddy film" being used, describing its significance as a genre, and giving examples. As of now, the "examples" list is a colossal crud bucket of OR.--Loodog (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC). Keep. --Loodog (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't have to !vote if you already nominated. The nomination itself is a !vote for deletion. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other sources that I found:
    • Hunter, Stephen (1990-12-15). "Buddy pictures: Male bonding a persistent theme in Hollywood movies". The Record.
    • Wuntch, Philip (1992-05-09). "Hollywood's Best Buddies: Sometimes, a film's popularity depends on whether it makes the right friends". The Dallas Morning News.
    • LaSalle, Mick (1996-08-08). "The Buddy Film Goes Way Back - Sure, it's a formula -- but not all are alike". San Francisco Chronicle.
    • Strauss, Bob (1997-07-18). "More Than Skin-Deep: The reasons (and rewards) behind Hollywood's interracial buddy-movie pairings". Los Angeles Daily News.
    • Goldstein, Patrick (2001-10-15). "It's Still a Guy Thing: The Evolution of Buddy Movies". Los Angeles Times.
    • Konigsberg, Ira (1998). The Complete Film Dictionary. Penguin. p. 41. ISBN 0140513930. BUDDY FILM: A film that features the friendship of two males as the major relationship ... Such films extol the virtues of male comradeship and relegate male-female relationships to a subsidiary position. Male relationships have always been a significant element in our popular culture, from the Leatherstocking Tales of James Fenimore Cooper to television beer commercials.
    • The list is original research, yes, but this is not List of buddy films. This is about the primary topic buddy film, and it can be demonstrably explored in a historical context without needing such examples. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep in mind that although sources apparently exist, they are not in this article, and have not been incorporated into it. I didn't nominate this article for deletion because a suitable article cannot be produced, but because the article that exists meets criteria for deletion.--Loodog (talk) 14:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that sources exist to establish the meaning of the term and also provide historical context validates this article. Original research about a topic should be removed, but topic itself should not be removed. It's like throwing the baby out with the bath water. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:SOFIXIT. JuJube (talk) 14:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Erik and JuJube. Cliff smith talk 16:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Sources exist; the genre is notable. What remains is a matter of cleanup. PC78 (talk) 17:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Sourced and notable. . We do not delete articles for being unsourced, just unsourcable, and perhaps we should stop accepting nominations that are not accompanied by some at least rough preliminary evidence that sources do not exist. DGG (talk) 18:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per DGG. It's too easy to slip deletions through just because nominators and discussants fail to adequately determine the actual state of potential sourcing, and many people seem to have the attitude that this isn't necessary.--ragesoss (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep There are plenty of sources that indicate that the term is indeed used in today's culture. The article can be improved, but it clearly should exist. Enigma message 02:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and recreate as redirect to WALL-E. Nousernamesleft (talk) 19:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Buy n Large[edit]

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

    Non-notable fictitious company; entirely in-universe information; not enough reliable non-trivial 3rd party sources to establish notability independently of the film WALL-E. Chardish (talk) 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Previous afd resulted in a redirect to WALL-E which was apparently undone at some point. I can't imagine this being anything besides an in-universe plot summary, just a minor aspect of the film. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this, per nom and Hammer, again. Cliff smith talk 02:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete although at some point there could be interest in the failed viral marketing campaign surrounding BnL, currently should just go back to a redirect. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 03:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and then redirect to WALL-E per nom and all above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 14:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Chantrey[edit]

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

    Contested and declined speedy deletion--there is a clear assertion of notability, so not a speedy candidate, but may benefit from a wider debate on general notability and reliability of this information. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 02:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete. The issue here is that there are no verifiable sources given. If some are found that establish the truth of these claims than I will change my vote to keep.Nrswanson (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep. Sources are now beginning to surface in the article. I believe this page will be useful for the people that want to learn more about this man, since he is widely known for his programs, now an important part of skinning Windows XP. DeathShot39 (talk) 20:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment. Did you even look at the supposed sources? None of them are third party reliable sources but links to informal discussions on blog pages or other useless places. One of them even links to wikipedia itself as a source. No valid sources have been found.Nrswanson (talk) 03:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. How else can non commercial freeware software prove itself ? All the facts can be verified by using the software yourself. I have also changed the article to be from a more NPOV.Christina884 (talk) 4:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment. Even freeware or shareware gets write ups in computer magazines and reputable websites at times. If the software is that important than it will be found in a reliable source. Otherwise, it is probably not notable.Nrswanson (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So softpedia, lifehacker, and vnunet.com(computeractive) are not "reliable" sources  ?Christina884 (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm afraid not. Particularly sense they are advertisements rather than an actual article about the software from an independent source. If you can download the software from the site than it is not really an independent source.Nrswanson (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have to disagree, Softpedia may not have a written review. But the other websites listed are reviews of the software written by a professional. Such as Tim Smith from ComputerActivChristina884 (talk) 00:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no reliable sources about the subject. His own website, and forum posts don't establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. In my opinion ComputerActive is both notable and reliable.Christina884 (talk) 13:19, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. Christina884 has made no edits prior prior to those on Lee Chantrey and on this AFD.Nrswanson (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I'm afraid not. The author of the content of ComputerActive is unkown and reads like an advertisement. Most likely written by Lee Chantrey himself as self promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 00:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If we contact ComputerActive i am sure they could confirm the identity of Tim Smith for you. Should we ask them if programmers themself can write self promotional material about their own software on the publisher's website and magazines. What an unprofessional thing to allow. In your opinion would you allow your magazine to have biased information? Of course not. ComputerActive is just one reliable source. A quick google search will show that the software is also reviewed on chip.eu, keznews.com, freewarebb.com, cybernetnews.com, freewarefiles.com, askvg.com, uptodown.com. And also it appears in hundreds of other websites in different languages. Where do we draw the line to say this is signficant and that this source can be reliable. Is there a list of websites that software must appear on to be signficant enough to be on wikipedia? If one source isn't reliable then the other 608,000 results on google are completely unreliable? Christina884 (talk) 06:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is not whether or not something exists but about whether the notability of the subject can be supported through verifiable references. As of yet no reliable have been found. Advertisements for products are not viewed as reliable references.Nrswanson (talk) 09:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I declare that the websites mentioned above are reliable and it's your opinion that they are not and its my opinion that the websites are reliable. But just because the sources mentioned above say positive things about the software that does not make it an advertisement. Christina884 (talk) 06:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can somebody provide a link to the articles about Lee Chantrey? All these websites are being bandied about but I don't see any actual articles about Lee Chantrey. -- Whpq (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment- I doubt that any of these websites will pan out any better than the already shoddy resources referenced on the article. Christina884, an SPA, is the author of the article and she (or Lee Chantry?) would have used them if they were. I am thinking this may be an attempt at self promotion.Nrswanson (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Nrswanson and Whpq. It's telling that nothing comes up under a google news search [62] and I see no more than a handful of relevant ghits, most of which appear to be forum/blog based.– Zedla (talk) 01:32, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Glycobiology research and training center[edit]

    Glycobiology research and training center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable company. No references at all. Few Google hits. Written like an ad, or at least a press release. Declined speedy, but User:DGG noted in the edit summary: "almost certain will be deleted if taken to AfD". (Is that a vote, David?) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyvio? The article is pretty clearly cribbed from this page with minor rewriting. Anyone want to opine on whether the rewrite is sufficient to avoid copyvio concerns? Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I just noticed that on the talk page the article creator specifically claims he's been instructed to copy the text over by the author of the UCSD page... Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see DGG has similar copyvio concerns about the centre's director's bio, and I note that the creator of the Glycobiology research and training center, User:Varkilab's name is suggestive of a role account. Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that the note at the talk page is sufficient to address the copyvio concerns. WP:IOWN says that in these kinds of situations the copyright owner needs to either e-mail WMF directly or put a note directly at the webpage containing copyrighted material permitting its GFDL use. Nsk92 (talk) 02:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd rather let it go down on notability, so that it is gone for good. But there are copyvio issues, I think. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete the Glycobiology research and training center is a subdepartmental unit, in my (very fallible) memory every AFD we've had for one of those has been a delete. Obviously this would be a keep if it satisfied WP:N by being the subject of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. My googling turns up very little. Glycobiology Goes to the Ball The Scientist 16[9]:32, Apr. 29, 2002 looks good, but features the Consortium for Functional Glycomics, mentioning the Glycobiology research and training center only tangentially. So I don't see how this passes WP:N or WP:CORP. Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per Pete Hurd. --Crusio (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: It's a "unit" of a larger entity, and the entity may or may not be substantial, but the unit within it can't be. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:09, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: who does my boss need to email to illustrate the permission given to me to make this page? glycobiology is a small and upcoming field of study in science. it is a new type of research that is combating the race to cure cancer and other human diseases. this wiki page would allow for possible individuals to see that education in this scope is available for them. please tell me what i can adjust in my page to make it stay. Varkilab (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Varkilab. I'd say there are two issues. The first is the copyright permission issue (proceedure for that is explained at WP:IOWN and ought to be pretty simple for your boss to do via email). The second (and probably more difficult) is that the article has to demonstrate that the Glycobiology research and training center passes the standards of notability (explained at WP:N). Since GRTC is an organizations it will probably be judged according to the guideline at WP:GROUP. I'd be happy to answer any other questions here or on either of our talk pages. Best regards, Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I understand that you are working a bit to spec for your boss, but my suggestion would be to put this effort into improving the Glycobiology article, rather than this page. If "glycobiology is a small and upcoming field of study in science" then Wikipedia needs really good article on Glycobiology far far way more than it needs one on the Glycobiology research and training center. Just my 2c. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I think we have a conflict of interest problem here, don't we? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      On Glycobiology research and training center, clearly... but until proven wrong I think the editors have the ability to improve a fairly drafty article on Glycobiology and wouldn't that be nice... Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Yeah, that would be good. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article calls it a "virtual center" ; in reality that means a few faculty members with common interests using a catchy title to attract funding and arrange seminars--a very useful academic technique, and not the least disreputable--but that doesnt make it notable. Every department of any repute has several such centers. The Univ. of California in particular due to its multiple campus nature has dozens upon dozens of such programs. My advisor was as I remember a member of four different ones at least. A few of such groups will even become notable in some real sense, but it would take strong positive evidence. I second Pete's advice to work instead on articles in the subject-- and I'd then suggest articles on the most notable senior faculty, present and past, with verifiable awards and distinctions. That will serve more to advance the field than meaningless articles like this. DGG (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Nothing more to say really.Nrswanson (talk) 06:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), snowball closure, government licensed stations are considered notable by consensus, notability is not temporary. Rtphokie (talk) 22:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    WCNU[edit]

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

    doesn't pass WP:N, defunct station with nothing particularly special or notable about it KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I was under the impression that all FCC-licensed stations are notable even if defunct. Although I'm finding no reliable sources for this one, I might be tempted to go for a weak keep given that it went defunct before there really was much to the Internet. Some Florida native with access to news archives might be useful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and fix. Licensed radio stations are presumed notable for their geographic impact and history. This station was on the air for 40 years60 years+. Google searches show that the station's tower is still a local landmark and the station's operations are at least partially WP:verifiable through Google Books. Note: This article was taken to AfD two minutes after creation? If notability is in doubt, there are other measures to try first. • Gene93k (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • corrections on better review of sources: Google Book hits on this station go back to the 1920s and 30s. At least some of the station's history is readily verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep All stations are notable, even if they were licensed for one day and are not defunct. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 14:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - notability does not expire --T-rex 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep as notability is not temporary and this former licensed broadcaster had a 40+ year history of service, firmly establishing notability. Defunct to a radio station is like being dead to a notable person--tragic for them but just a few lines in their article for Wikipedia. - Dravecky (talk) 17:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: 10,000 watts is miniscule. Your college radio station will be 40,000 watts. The durability is good, and it establishes that there was a long time niche served, but, at that power rating in its last days, it would have been an extremely small market, even in the clear air days. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In what part of the U.S. is that small? Certainly not the East Coast where major commercial stations weigh in at about 50,000 watts. Even a 100 watt signal covers a significant area. Since, WCNU was a HF station, it was subject to nighttime restrictions from the 1930s onward to keep the signal from bouncing to other parts of the country. • Gene93k (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You must be kidding, or off by three decimal places. Maybe 10 KW is miniscule for a TV station. But definitely powerful for a radio station. I don't think I've ever heard of an AM station with more than 50,000 watts. At that level they can cover half the continental United States at night. Ten watts is more typical of the college station we'd be debating notability of. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The Google Books hits indicate that this station is indeed verifiable, and notability doesn't expire. The station was once licensed by the FCC, and as I stated above, FCC-licenesed stations tend to be inherently notable. I see no reason to leave this one out, even if it has been off the air for 20 years. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just noticed in the article history that this was nominated a full two minutes after the article was created as an "initial draft." I'm all for keeping the project clean but that seems a little fast on the trigger to me. - Dravecky (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per TenPoundHammer.Nrswanson (talk) 23:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep article now has multiple sources, and have been worked into the history of the station. Is a full-power station with a nearly 60-year history, and this is the sort of thing we presume notability on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:29, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Douglas haddad[edit]

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

    The result was Delete. BJTalk 17:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forest of the Sprites[edit]

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

    No established notability for this book. Prod was contested on the grounds of nobility (see Talk:Forest of the Sprites). Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 00:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJTalk 17:34, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The World Cafe[edit]

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

    This "Article" is written like an Advert, cites no sources, contains opinion and overall encyclopedic content is questionable.   «l| Ψrom3th3ăn ™|l»  (talk) 00:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per WP:ADVERTISING, WP:V and WP:RS. Cliff smith talk 02:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless independent third party sources can be found that verify notability. In which case a significant re-write is in order.Nrswanson (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete looks like an advert to me. I was about to freak out, thinking that the radio program had been nominated. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No notability shown, and looks like just an advertisement. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • G11 Speedy Blatant advertising, no reliable sources. Beeblbrox (talk) 16:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Advertising, and it clouds the moderately popular National Public Radio show, too. I don't want to eat the world, nor visit the restaurant that has it on the menu. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Almost blatant advertising. I also would not surprised if the content was copied/pasted from another source. TN‑X-Man 18:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • snowball fight! Beeblbrox (talk) 16:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If there are any sourcing issues with individual entries, this can be remedied through editing or, per WP:V, removal.  Sandstein  16:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of designated terrorist organizations[edit]

    List of designated terrorist organizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

    Criteria for inclusion are too susceptible to bias, and irreparably so. The concept of "designation" is relatively modern, and not used by many countries, so almost every organisation listed here has been listed by US, UK or Australia.

    If we were to loosen the definition to reduce this bias, we'd start running into verifiability problems. -- Mark Chovain 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep- I found this list to be highly useful and the article itself does an excellent job at explaining its limitations and the concept of designation. In my opinion this is the only possible way to list terrorist organizations in an objective neutral way that isn't biased by wiipedia editors or a product of original research.Nrswanson (talk) 02:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- This is highly encyclopaedic. The neutrality dispute is valid but it's grounds for rewriting, not deletion.--S Marshall (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My concern is that it can't be rewritten neutrally, unless we change the inclusion criteria. Can you see a way to rewrite it without neutrality problems? -- Mark Chovain 03:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do understand that concern. There's a possible case for re-naming the article, for example, "List of organisations designated as "terrorist" by western democracies," so as to be even clearer the opinion expressed is that of the specific countries concerned rather than an opinion of a Wikipedia editor, which I think is really important. If there are equivalent lists or designations for other countries, those should also be linked to provide a counterpoint.
    The result still won't be neutral, of course, but I'm absolutely convinced this article is inherently encyclopaedic, which I think should be an overriding consideration in afd debates. In other words, think this is one of the rare cases where it's appropriate to counter the neutrality argument with WP:IAR.--S Marshall (talk) 10:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article defines its terms and is well sourced as well as neutral in tone. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think that the article should add what agency has listed each organization, without that information, it is hard to verify that the groups belong in this article.Advocate (talk) 04:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep , very useful. Advocate makes a good point however. Mathmo Talk 04:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I think this category cannot respect WP:NPOV for the reason given by the nominator. But I see also two issues : 1. It is not easy to find an alternative solution that would be better for NPoV ; 2. The bias associated with this category is currently extremelly sensitive and should require much energy; other tasks are more urgent. Ceedjee (talk) 06:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    One alternative solution that would be better for NPoV would be to not try to list terrorist organizations at all. Or, we could create a list called "U.S. Department of State List of Foreign Terrorist Organizations," and simply reproduce their list, with clear attribution... no need for original research, no headache trying to sort out what should and should not be listed and why, no Point of View whatsoever, just let the reader know whom the U.S. seems to think is a terrorist... which is practically what this list is now, anyway.zadignose (talk) 11:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Listed groups are unquestionably terrorist in nature and action. Frotz (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you. But eg, Hamas is an acronym of Ḥarakat al-Muqawama al-Islamiyya which means "Islamic Resistance Movement". My personal and political mind is that the targeted killings of its leaders were completely legitimate. But I am 100% sure this is not the mind of more than 90% of Arab and Muslim population. There are numerous such examples in that list. The solution of using the word designated was not one 100% respecting WP:NPoV. It is a little bit hypocrisy. Let's require NPoV for the others, not for us; let's require same level of democracy as we have for the other but no more democracy for us... Being pragmatical and realist in real life doesn't prevent intellectual honnesty... Ceedjee (talk) 06:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even African National Congress, which was listed for quite some time (and met the inclusion criteria)? -- Mark Chovain 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep No problem with us reporting the fact that some governments have designated certain orgs in this way. Valenciano (talk) 08:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete "Designated" is a very vague and unprecise term. What if Al-Qaeda "designates" the US government a terrorist organization? Should we include that to? The way I see it, this article only list organizations viewed as terrorist by western governments. Why not make it more accurate by making seperate articles such as "List of organizations regarded as terrorist by the US", and so forth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.119.130.132 (talk) 09:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is a very useful and necessary article, and has proved invaluable to me; how else am I (and others) to find a somewhat comprehensive list of organisations designated as "terrorists". (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • Rename or delete Strong delete - The information is valuable, but nonetheless biased. It's only useful in terms of knowing what some particular countries or organizations have designated as terrorists. We could split and rename it to something like "List of designated terrorist organizations by.." followed by credible organizations. Naurmacil (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment The fact remains that terrorist is a subjective, pejorative term. There is simply NO way this article can be neutral, because the designation of terrorist organizations is biased itself. And I removed my earlier call for rename because we could easily find these lists on official websites. They have no encyclopedic value at all. Naurmacil (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rework, rename: To be bland and clear, the article needs to have "UN designated terrorist organizations," "EU designated," "US designated," "NATO designated," etc. Putting in that slippery "have been designated" is asking for trouble, and dividing the organizations according to aims is, again, the insertion of POV. There are troubles here, but it is possible to do it properly, even if it will be nigh unto impossible to keep it proper. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I really like this suggestion. While it doesn't fix the bias, it makes it much clearer who is claiming what -- Mark Chovain 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Rework: I was banned for 24 hours by an idiot who didn't know that there were Armenian terrorist organizations when I had edited this page it was reverted. This page needs rework, so many terrorist organizations like the Nationalist Armenian Terrorist organizations like ASALA, JCAG, Armenian Revolutionary Federation need to be included. If you kill the innocent you're a terrorist, I'm sick of debating people about obvious terrorists. There are so many nationalists (hiding) in Wikipedia its absurd. Fix this article, rework it, and add ALL terrorist organizations, even if it's an "iffy" organization. Rebels turn into terrorists as soon as they kill civilians, and I'm sick of arguing about it. — talk § _Arsenic99_ 17:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Rework. The current title is the best we can achieve in neutrality and compromise. However, the list won't be totally NPOV unless it is clearly mentioned who is designating each organization by terrorist. As for the sections, it doesn't matter whether they are organized by nationality, ideology, or designation, we just have to be careful with entries that cross multiple sections. I liked the proposal in Talk:List of designated terrorist organizations#Suggestions to improve this list. Eklipse (talk) 04:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Delete. I can't believe there's so much support to keep this! If there exists a United Nations List of Terrorist Organizations, then go ahead and create the article United Nations List of Terrorist Organizations. Criteria for inclusion will be uncontestable, we would just report on a list that SOMEONE OTHER THAN OURSELVES RESEARCHED. But THIS union of lists and groups "designated" by... someone... to be terrorist organizations, consititutes Original Research. It is bound to be the center of dispute and controversy forever.
    We already see above that some supporters of this list would love to add "ALL terrorist organizations" including "iffy organizations," though that sounds pretty messy, and we're certain to see a dispute over virtually every entry added to the list.
    As of now, we have a list with items like the Animal Liberation Front, though the Wikipedia article on the same indicates that this is not even an organization or group, and that no people have been killed by ALF actions... but of course they've been "designated." I don't give a damn about ALF in particular. I just don't see what purpose this list serves, or how it can be defended.
    Certainly if this list continues to be maintained, The World Uighur Youth Congress and the East Turkestan Information Centre will have to be added, as they have been "designated" terrorist groups by the Chinese Government... whether or not they ARE terrorist organizations will have to be deemed irrelevant to inclusion on the list. [63]
    The Iranian Parliament has designated the U.S. Army and the C.I.A. as terrorist organizations, so I'm pretty sure they'll have to be added too. [64]
    Meanwhile, should UNICEF be listed if it can be demonstrated that they have partnered with an organization (the International Islamic Relief Organization) which the U.N. itself has designated as funding terrorism? [65]
    Well... maybe not. Maybe we can just avoid this whole mess by deleting the list. zadignose (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per reasons cited supra. Add by whom they are designated. Kittybrewster ☎ 21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - sourced list with clear inclusion criteria. PhilKnight (talk) 23:22, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The article defines its terms and is well sourced as well as neutral in tone.Nitraven (talk) 11:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The article is not well sourced. Almost all of the citations are from MIPT, which is no longer online. We're hoping that TKB will be able to replace them, but at the moment only about 10% of the entries are sourced. -- Mark Chovain 22:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep This needs a bit of work and as Kittybrewster states I think we should include who have designated the groups included. Also I feel a good point was raised re the CIA and the U.S Army so criteria has to get tightened up. BigDuncTalk 22:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I have changed my mind on this as I feel the arguments put forward by Zadignose are rather compelling and this article can never be WP:NPOV unless we use headings like List of Terrorist Organisations designated by USA or UK.BigDuncTalk 08:15, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve by adding more orgs and more references. WP's job is to provide useful information to its readers, not hide it by eliminiating whatever some pushing POV editors do not want to let others see. These organizations exist as a fact and are terrorist. The goal of WP is improvement, not mindless deletion, catering to the terrorists. Be useful and help. Hmains (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Err - I hope you're not suggesting that the nominator (me) hasn't been helping with the article. You might want to check the article's history before doing so. Sure, we don't want mindless deletion (that's why we have AfD), but we also don't want mindless hyperbole suggesting those who feel this is never going to be NPOV to be "catering to the terrorists" -- Mark Chovain 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This is exactly what's wrong with this article, precisely why it should be deleted. Multiple editors have clearly expressed that they believe the organizations should be listed because they ARE terrorists... this list becomes Wikipedia's assertion, not only that someone somewhere has claimed that they are all terrorists, but that they ARE terrorists. This is very far from NPoV, and this compilation from multiple sources is Original Research. If one country says an organization is terrorist, and another country says they're not, then presumably Wikipedia sides with those who say it IS? Because it has been "designated" by someone. And the suggestion that deleting an item, or deleting the list is somehow "catering to the terrorists" is frankly a horrifying accusation! But certainly it's going to be hard to maintain any kind of editorial standards in the face of the emotional appeals that demand we "Ignore All Rules" to get out the FACT that whoever the U.S., or Eurpean Union, or perhaps China SAYS is a terrorist truly IS.zadignose (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This list is undoubtedly a very important one. It would be a gap in WP and shame for any reader not to find any kind of list related to this very current and controversial subject. Our job here at Wikipedia would be to present him with neutral, emotionless and verifiable information and data. There is a flaw in your logic. The list has been explicitly called designated in order to remove any doubt about WP not siding with anyone or not making claims of its own. The list aims to present which organizations have been designated (which is understood as designated by an external party) as terrorists, instead of which organizations are terrorists (which might be understood as claims by WP, although I strongly disagree: The neutrality of any WP article should be an inherent assumption by the reader) (WP:SUBSTANTIATE).
    NPOV and V also implies precise and neutral criteria of inclusion. If an editor believe the organizations should be listed because they ARE terrorists, unless these organizations fits perfectly the criteria of inclusion, the intents of the editor are irrelevant. So the bulk of discussion would be on deciding on the precise criteria for inclusion. I see that the lead presents clearly some criteria which could be modified (for example to exclude any claim or metaphor used during some speech) Therefore, I don't see the problem, any entry will make it if it conforms to these criteria and will be deleted if it doesn't without "catering for the terrorists" (it is a horrifying accusation).
    List of countries faced the same issue because it was so unmaintable and any user could assert a claim of his own. However, giving its precise criteria of inclusion (read the lead and the first paragraph) and the note at the begginning of the list, it seemed to have survived. Eklipse (talk) 06:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You say the list is undoubtedly important, but I doubt its importance. Rather than a list, how about an article? We already HAVE an article titled U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations which lists the majority of items on THIS list. But that article has the most NPoV possible inclusion criterion... we don't make the list, we just report what the U.S. Department of State has on THEIR list. Similar articles can be written for other lists, such as "Groups Designated as Terrorist by the Chinese Government," and so on. But THIS list is a wikipedia produced sythesis of lists, a work of original research, with a nebulously defined inclusion criterion... and LISTS aren't nearly as valuable as complete ARTICLES. This is superfluous, contentious, and easily lends itself to the interpretation that the listed groups ARE terrorist... an interpretation that not only the general public, but many concerned editors are quite quick to embrace.
    Let's face the reality that, if this were 1947 we would be putting together a list called "Designated Subversive Organizations," and a few years later in the McCarthy Era we would be listing "Designated Communists." And then we'd be debating whether to include "The Boys Club Of America." Or did Katzenbach really say "Du Bois Club?"[66] zadignose (talk) 08:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete Inclusion in such a list irrevocably NPOV - either the inclusion criteria themselves will be POV - e.g. requiring "designation" on a list biases POV to those who systematically make such lists, or too open to dispute - what is a "reliable source" for determining inclusion? Because of the pejorative nature of the term, listing (or not) here is too important an issue to suffer such problems. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Nominator did not provide any rationale for deletion. Having some amount of POV in an article is not a valid reason for deletion. While working with various terrorism-related subjects, I found this list very useful.Biophys (talk) 12:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The nominator provided a very clear rationale for deletion, which is right at the top of this discussion. Some of us have elaborated in the discussion that followed. How is "Criteria for inclusion are too susceptible to bias, and irreparably so" not a clear rationale? That's just a part of what's been said, but it speaks pretty directly to the problem. zadignose (talk) 07:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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.--Esprit15d • wish me a happy wikiversary! • contribs 21:24, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pet turtles[edit]

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

    Well, I looked back through the page history and this topic was obviously established for a POV against turtles as pets. I can't find enough sources to merit an article otherwise, and this history is littered with POV. As for a cleanup, it is my personal opinion that such article is not needed. Should it be created, let's delete this version first. Keegantalk 06:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. If there is anything salvageable, merge it to either Terrapin or Tortoise, delete, and recreate as a redirect to one of the two (I'm a bit too lazy to figure out which Taxon is better as a pet, any suggestions?). Anything that's contained in this article is better suited to one of those two, since its basic premise is turtles are also pets and the rest appears to be just copied content. Synergy 06:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note so you know - merging content then deleting the source article is not allowed under the GFDL. See WP:MAD. ~ mazca t | c 21:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to Turtle - the fact that turtles can sometimes be pets should be mentioned in Turtle, but there is no need for a separate article. --T-rex 15:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Turtle per T-rex. Cliff smith talk 16:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (then we can make a redirect): There are lots of ways to make an article at this topic, but not without creating a how-to guide. Since we don't allow those, either, we're left with deletion as the only real course of action and a small section in turtle about how some species are used as pets, with a number of estimated terrapin sales. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:59, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this POV personal essay and Redirect to turtle. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    1. ^ "Google Search for Makkah Learning Center".
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_August_8&oldid=1081103218"