Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 December 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 5 December 7 >

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.  Sandstein  20:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pat Korte[edit]

The article for Pat Korte should be deleted because it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability as it fails to demonstrate "significant" coverage. Yes, Mr. Korte has appeared in a mainstream press article, but this does not demonstrate significant coverage to the point of notability. Mr. Korte's alleged notability is based solely on the fact that he is a member of Students for a Democratic Society and has been involved with the organizing of the group and that this has been mentioned by a mainstream press account. Given the vast numbers of individuals who have been intimately and publicly connected to the new Students for a Democratic Society, many of whom who have received greater press attention, the relative amount of press coverage Mr. Korte has received cannot meet notability. Moreover, Mr. Korte's notability can never extend beyond a one-line statement of him having been involved in the organizing of the new Students for a Democratic Society and this article will never extend beyond a one-line stub. At best, he merits a mention on the Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(2006_organization) page in the section "Re-formation". It is notable then, that the entry for Students_for_a_Democratic_Society_(2006_organization) does not even mention Mr. Korte and there is no edit war agitating for his inclusion. This page therefore does not meet notability standards and meets the guidelines for deletion. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should mention that this may NOT be the articles second nomination for deletion. In the talk page, there was mention of a deletion tag having been put on, but I think it was for speedy deletion or something, which, from what I'm gathering, is a distinct process than this one. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 23:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The only reason that this might not develop beyond a one-line stub is that the nominator keeps deleting the sourced material beyond the first line. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The person who nominated the article for deletion and the person who kept deleting the biographical information are not the same person. We happen to work together and I explained that you are supposed to go through a process for deletion, not simply remove things. As for the one-line comment--the biographic information that was being deleted isn't particularly useful to an understanding of the subject's notability. But that's a separate discussion entirely as this discussion is about the fact that we have a stub of an article that will never grow past being a stub. The fact that Pat Korte is a student activist is something one can obviously infer by the fact that he was involved as one of many in the refoundation of SDS--you could insert a single sentence into the main SDS (2006 version) article and the needs of an encyclopedia would be served. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I read the sources, and it does appear to satisfy notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significant coverage is part of the guidelines and this person has not received significant coverage. Nor is this information really that accurate--Korte and Rapchik didn't refound the organization per se, they sent out a call for it to be refounded and people answered that call by starting chapters. I think we're all forgetting that on the page of the actual organization we're talking about, neither of their names are mentioned and an entirely different story is told about the founding of the new SDS. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:VER says the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". If multiple articles, spread over three years, report that Korte and Rapchik triggered the founding of the revitalized organization we should report that they are credited with triggering the founding of the new organization. If our nominator has other sources, that offer a different history of the founding, then he or she should cite those references. Geo Swan (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I would like to ask our nominator how much research they put in to this topic, prior to making the nomination. I found multiple additional references -- spanning over the last three years. This makes him more than a BLP1E. Contrary to what the nominator asserted, that Korte is just one of a large group of founders the references state that he founded the new SDS with one other person. I urge our nominator to show greater due diligence in future.
  • Keep -- Nominator failed to do due diligence prior to nomination. Subject co-founded an organization, with one other individual, which now has 120 chapters. Geo Swan (talk) 03:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator did not fail due diligence as he has made references. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 15:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I looked at our nominator's past contribution history, to see where else on the wikipedia they had contributed. I found they had made exactly two other edits -- to Talk:Students for a Democratic Society (2006 organization). I know there are, occasionally, valid reasons why a wikipedia contributor will abandon one wiki-id, and adopt a new one. But I think when a wikipedian does that they should leave a good faith note on their talk page acknowledging they did that, and possibly offering a trusted administrator, or experienced wikipedian, who knows the full story, and can vouch that they are not a sockpuppet. I left a request on the nominator's talk page asking them to explain their background. Geo Swan (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me? The article, not the nominator, is the subject of discussion. I created this user name to engage this topic, which is appropriate as it is me taking responsibility for this and is my first engagement with this sort of thing. Calling my honesty into question is failing to meet good faith guidelines of discussion as laid out by Wikipedia, friend. Check yourself. It is appropriate to disagree with me, but inappropriate to accuse me of being a sockpuppet and I expect some sort of apology. SamuraiDiscoCat (talk) 15:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And making this even more funny, I notice that you then went over to the SDS page and inserted the Pat Korte reference, without giving an edit summary. This is an inappropriate escalation of a disagreement over the notability of an article, to an edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuraiDiscoCat (talk • contribs) 15:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I put the reference to Korte into the SDS article, prompted by your suggestion above that it should be there, and I did use an edit summary, as did Geo Swan when he added further sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - esteemed fellow Wikipedians, may we please all assume good faith, remain civil and stick to the issues? It will make the closing admin's job so much easier, and keep all our blood pressures down. Springnuts (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKE (tabloid)[edit]

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

Delete Merge with Journal Communications. Not notable & has no third party, verifiable sources to boot. SERSeanCrane (talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated sourcing/re-write by Orange Mike, but I'm not convinced the tabloid requires its own article (WP:CORP).SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanessa White[edit]

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

Article that lacks any sources whatsoever about a living person. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez Get to know me! / Talk to me!←at≈:→ 23:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - JodyB talk 23:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick varley[edit]

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

Unelected politicians are not inherently notable, although being the youngest candidate may confer some notability. However, I can find nothing to verify this story; also there is no election and therefore no official candidate, so this is both crystal balling and unverifiable; Wikipedia is not a news outlet. Ros0709 (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep: A quick Google search yielded numerous references; I've added one to the article. This person is certainly verifiable, and if he is indeed the youngest-ever Parliamentary candidate I would consider him notable for that reason. --Russ (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are plenty of refs. I got absolutely zero before I nominated - probably a typo on my part when I searched. Ros0709 (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The youngest person ever to be a Conservative party candidate would seem to be some degree of notability; I added what I think to be some better sources that give some of the background, including --amazingly enough-- his actual age, which is 19. As the commentators to the unofficial Conservative party site I used for a reference mentioned, there is significant political interest: it apparently represents the absolute hopeless nature of their campaign in that region--he's a second year university student. DGG (talk) 08:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Emily Benn, 18, is younger. I'm fairly sure there was an 18-year-old Green in the 80s, but it's hard to track down historical info on minor party candidates. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Discordian works. MBisanz talk 02:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha Discordia[edit]

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

This books seems to fail WP:BK. The sources present as external links do not stand up to scrutiny as WP:RS.

A brief process history: 1st AfD (2.5 year ago, result keep) happened before the WP:BK guideline ever existed. 2nd AfD (a couple of months ago) was closed out of process by invoking the 1st AfD. The brief DRV discussion (this week) supports renomination, so here we are. (The 3rd AfD discussion was a WP:TW error at the time of the 2nd nomination). Pcap ping 13:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, can't see how this is notable enough for inclusion. References aren't great either. Stifle (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Principia Discordia as a logical adjunct to that work. However, for the record I have to state my discomfort at articles being disqualified for existence on the grounds that a guideline (not a policy; guidelines can be ignored) came into being after an article was created. In this case I happen to believe this item should be merged with the main book. However I urge my fellow editors to never use the fact that WP:BK did not exist when an article was created as a rationale for nominating anything. I do not acknowledge WP:Consensus can change on this issue because I feel it is more closely related to Notability does not expire. 23skidoo (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge, but I think the nature of the book is significantly different that a separate article will avoid confusion. As for WP:BK, the sources were never realy adequate in the sense of being indepndent of the group, but on the other hand I don;'t think it's necessary for the texts of a religion of similar movement to have such sources --if it is of importance in the group, that's sufficient, now as always. DGG (talk) 19:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm pretty confused by the original nomination discussion. The Bottom line section in particular was a fine demonstration (on both sides of the argument) how the article shows zero evidence of notability (according to WP:BOOK or otherwise). "This site believes the book notable enough to host" is Original Research, and it's making a number of assumptions. I'm mildly opposed to any proposal of redirect, and moreso opposed to merge, unless some genuinely reliable sources establish the text's notability (which is entirely possible, at which point I'll happily change my vote). -Verdatum (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, further, DGG makes a reasonable argument, so I wanted to respond to it as well. I'm willing to entertain the argument that religious texts of a notable religion may themselves be notable. However, the article itself states, "Although some Discordian cabals consider the work to be canonical, others deny the existence of any canonical document of Discordianism. It may be considered a sequel to the Principia Discordia, or it may be a complete joke. This dichotomy of religion vs. joke is a fundamental part of the book, and indeed of Discordianism itself." If it cannot be shown to be a cannonical text, then I don't believe it should qualify. I'm a big fan of discordianism and I regularly do, or do not partake of hotdogs on Friday as appropriate, but if you wish to have an intentionally disorganized religion, a possible concequence is that aspects of the religion will not be attributable to reliable sources, and thus, not appropriate for WP. -Verdatum (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Discordian works. The title of that article does not make any claim about whether or not the work need be canonical, so that resolves my above concern. The Discordian works article is not nearly large enough to need any WP:SPINOUT of minor subtopics like this text at this time. If either article becomes siginifigantly larger through appropriate content, then it could certainly be split again later. -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 20:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. For whatever it's worth in this case, the Apocrypha, unlike Principia, doesn't have an ISBN, is not held in any library, and I was only able to find it for sale on lulu.com. Pcap ping 20:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an acceptable WP:SS split out from Discordian works, or merge into that article, rather than to Principia Discordia. Jclemens (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Discordian works is a fairly short article, and is itself the subject of a merge discussion. How is forking something from there appropriate per WP:SS? Pcap ping 00:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If Discordian works is merged into Discordianism, I think it best if this article is merged to there, rather than to Principia Discordia, which has independent notability. My point was that this isn't a sub-article of PD, since it's a separate and later work, not an appendix or a subsequent volume. Jclemens (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree that Discordian works is the best merge target for Apocrypha, even if that article may be merged elsewhere later. Pcap ping 00:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sounds good Pcap, you've convinced me, changed my vote accordingly. -Verdatum (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment no objection to a merge into Discordian works instead of a keep, if it is done right. DGG (talk) 09:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Comment Here we go again. And just tonight, I discovered that my book was being cited in yet _another_ thesis -- this one a Masters. How's that for kismet? You guys keep deleting and undeleting and merging and fighting over this article, y'all hear? I can assure you, it'll make no difference to Discordians. HAIL ERIS! ;}P> DrJon (talk) 10:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Tis true, good Doctor, "all rites perversed". Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Apocrypha has made a significant contribution to the religion of Discordianism. It has been referred to as the "New Testament" of Discordianism in publications such as Konton magazine, it has been translated into many languages, and the subject of thesis research by a number of people. The constant attempts to delete this page are nothing to do with notability but rather a mix of people with other agendas and people who think that notability is only established using a Google search. Prenna 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.129.141.49 (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 keep. John254 22:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frazer Brown[edit]

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

The subject of the article fails notability. Shovon (talk) 11:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Out of all the references mentioned above, only two actually mention Frazer Brown. We have to keep in mind that two of the references are from the same source. Again whether these sources are reliable or not, is a big question.
For Verdatum, a collaboration with some one may sound like rendering plenty of reliable sources, but at present I cannot find any. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 20:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Out of all the references mentioned above, only two actually mention Frazer Brown. This is not true. In this revision of the article Frazer Brown (14:41, 1 December 2008), with 6 references, the following mention Frazer Brown: 1, 2, 4, and 5. IdeasTap.com (6) was supposed to launch today, but it has not. I think (3) just confirms the link between Edinburgh and Cannibal!. That's four references, three sources. --Joshua Issac (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sources 1, 2 & 5 (as mentioned in the article) do mention Brown, but as I said 1 & 5 are from the same source. Source 3 does not mention Brown at all. Source 4 does not count. Pls refer to WP:RS. Also, fringereview.co.uk (which constitutes Sources 1 & 5) is pretty borderline case when it comes to reliablity. Even Brown's LinkedIn Profile does not suggest anything about his notability. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks properly sourced now. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Properly sourced? Please refer to WP:RS. There are 9 sources now listed in the article, but none of them actually help in establishing the notability of the person. In fact, the 9th reference is from a yet to be launched website, http://www.ideastap.com/. But this version of the article says that the information was retrieved on 2nd December 2008. I also smell COI issues here. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Assault on Precinct 13 (2005 film). MBisanz talk 02:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jake Roenick[edit]

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

Tiny article, all of which content is in the film's article. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was close without action. Consensus is that this mass nomination is too unwieldy to properly evaluate. Note: I will rollback the AfD tags for convenience.  Sandstein  20:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angel's Touch[edit]

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

Band fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. I can't find anything on this band, and think it may be a hoax. A google search for ""Angel's Touch" Jennifer Roberts Jessica Farilla" returns zero hits. The album isn't on amazon, all the claims are unsupported. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • OK, so I should really have checked the article history. Turns out the page was hijacked, and was initially an article for a single by Aeoliah, though I also feel this fails WP:MUSIC, so I'll leave the AfD go... Nouse4aname (talk) 20:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating all releases below, there is no content on any of these articles. I cannot find "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" as required by WP:MUSIC.

Serene: Music for Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ZEN PEACE: Music for Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sanctuary of Rejuvenation: Music for Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
BLISS: Music for Spas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Love (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Love for Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angel Love 2: Sublime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
THE SEVEN CHAKRAS (Crystal Illumination) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Activating Your Chakras Through the Light Rays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Healing Music for Reiki, Vol. 1: Mandala of Purity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Healing Music for Reiki, Vol. 2: Mandala of Integration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Healing Music for Reiki, Vol. 3: Mandala of Unity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Healing Music for Reiki, Vol. 4: Mandala of Transformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Majesty (Aeoliah's album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Love in the Wind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Echoes of Tomorrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Inner Sanctum (Aeoliah's album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Journey Home (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Best of Aeoliah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Angels of the Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dolphin Serenade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Realms of Grace: Music for Healthy Living (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and relist separately What a mess. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close As I learned myself on doing a batch nom far too many articles listed, around five or so articles listed together is a far better number. For large batches like this, it's too time-consuming for other editors to do the appropriate research for each article, to try to determine notability for each individual one. Please feel free to relist, but I'd suggest bundling far fewer together at a time. Raven1977 (talk) 08:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • So somehow it will be quicker to list them all separately rather than in a list? That makes no sense. It takes the same amount of time to assess each one whether it is listed alone or together.... Nouse4aname (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist 21 articles that are not part of a series is too many to consider in a single AfD. The nominator may be right about the lack of notability - but everyone will keep skipping to the next debate while that mammoth list remains. Paxse (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 23:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the East & Abroad Catholicos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Church of the East & Abroad Catholicos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article should be deleted as it fails to meet criteria for verifiability (Wikipedia:Verifiability) and notability (WP:Notability). Possible hoax. No secondary sources are available to establish notability. No secondary sources are available to verify claims in article or even to verify existence of organization. Dgf32 (talk) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was merge to List of Zoids. MBisanz talk 13:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saberlion[edit]

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

This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Zoids through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research, trivial model details, and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, and this is too trivial to require any separate coverage. TTN (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect as plausible search term and merge anything verifiable in a list. Also, AFD says that deletion should be a final resort for things that cannot be solved with editing. The nominator has not shown there are no possible sources available which could help this article prior to nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 22:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to List of Zoids as per Mgm. Edward321 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and of the three possible ways of keeping, decide between merge and just redirect on the article talk page, not here; no one is likely to argue for a separate article, and no one would have objected to a proper merge preserving a reasonable amount of content. As usual with these nominations, it wasn't tried. DGG (talk) 23:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and trout the nom for abusing AfD. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I came here to find out what a Saberlion was & was surprised to see the delete tag. Why would you delete it? Kellysontheroad (talk) 04:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as no one has made even the weakest of attempts to establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Boston (talk) 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: LOL you've gotta be kidding me, as per the nom; this fictional weapon obviously does not establish notability independent of Zoids and it obviously has no 3rd party sources. I do not think we should "trout" the nominator for "abuse" of the AFD process??? Ryan4314 (talk) 01:25, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. As this article doesn't even suggest the faintest whiff of real-world notability for the subject under discussion, the suggestion that the nominator should be reprimanded "for abusing AfD" process by nominating this is by far, for me, the Wikipedia head-scratcher of the month. Boston (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Enough (Evanescence song)[edit]

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

At AFD because editor reverted redirect. Never charted on any acceptable charts, fails WP:NSONGS. —Kww(talk) 23:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC) ([reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails notability requirements per WP:NSONGS. Dgf32 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not see how NSONGS trumps the general notability guideline, which this article appears to meet with multiple third-party sources. Is strong charting now the only way a song warrants an article? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 23:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a debate recently at an attempt to generate a compromise for fiction articles about that exact topic. There was no consensus. Many felt (as I do) that you have to meet both the general notability guideline and any specific guideline. Others felt that an article was fine as long as it met one or the other. That leaves us arguing about each individual article at AFD.—Kww(talk) 23:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is quite unfortunate, since there are so many better things we can be doing ;) It makes no sense to me, however, why a song must have charted well to be considered notable; the basic notability guideline is of primary consideration...everything else is of secondary importance. Oh well, differences of opinion. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 00:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary Actually, it's pretty debatable as to whether this meets the general guidelines, either. The first two sources([2][3] don't specifically mention this song. The third source, from VH1, provides a listing of all cuts on the album, which has a hard time contributing to the notability of any individual song. The Blender interview is fine. Sony BMG isn't an independent source. Videostatic is a blog, and just has a "now shooting" blurb. Evanescence.com isn't independent. So, only one source, which makes it pretty marginal.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are more than enough sources to cite the single. Pictures of the CD single cover and alternate cover are plusses. There's even a snapshot of the music video. Plus there's a story behind the song, clearly it means a lot to the writer and singer. Just because it didn't chart in the top ten does not mean it shouldn't have it's own article. In my opinion, this article meets all the requirements to warrant its own page. Jeremy706 (talk) 00:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close nomination Just reinstate and discuss the redirect. There's no point in bringing this to a deletion discussion when a redirect is also an option and has already been in use. - Mgm|(talk) 11:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cori Dauber[edit]

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

Articled should be deleted as it clearly fails to meet notability guidelines. See: Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Dgf32 (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep An associate professor, at a first-rate university, One major book, another book, half-dozen articles and about a dozen book chapters--this is borderline. Decisive for me is that among the approximate 180 quotations of her work at Google Scholar [4] an unusually high number seem to actually discuss it specifically. To me, the nature of these references indcates that she is probably an authority inn her field. DGG (talk) 23:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Writing books and articles is just what academics do. An academic having their work published does not make them notable. Dgf32 (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Yes, and some of the people discussing are quite prominent, like Andrew Bacevich. She gets 20 gnews hits, and her blog is quoted and discussed on several pages of this OUP book Blogwars, among 38 gbooks hits. Scope for expansion.John Z (talk) 12:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Not one single decisive indication of notability, but bits and pieces here and there form a picture that indicates some notability. One of Dauber’s books is held by 191 libraries worldwide - Cold War analytical structures and the post post-war world: A critique of deterrence theory. That is Dauber’s most widely held book in libraries. A search on Academic Search Complete returned only 3 entries; I would expect several more in ASC for a notable scholar in Dauber’s area. I could not find much evidence of academic impact either. The number of citations indicated by Google Scholar is relatively small.--Eric Yurken (talk) 03:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You wrote, "Not one single decisive indication of notability." According to WP:N this indicates a deletion, not a "weak keep".
  • Delete. With all due respect to the previous editors, but I am not too impressed by the evidence that they unearthed. Maximum of 12 citations in GScholar, not really there yet. --Crusio (talk) 09:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • deletei'm somewhat in her field, she's right down the road... this is the first i've heard of her. the evidence provided above does not rise to the level of notability, it rises to the level of professionalism, for which she should be congratulated.--Buridan (talk) 13:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CIA and USA Involvement in the Guatemalan Revolution[edit]

CIA and USA Involvement in the Guatemalan Revolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Partisan fork of 1954 Guatemalan coup d'état. Delete. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. No merge or redirect either. Blueboy96 23:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand: Article has plenty of references from reliable sources. Partisan? See WP:BIAS: "Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. These Anglophone countries tend to be industrialized, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmundo (talk • contribs) 23:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has nothing to do with whether or not the article creator is a native speaker. Please stop spamming AfD pages with irrelevant comments. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The WP:Bias policy is about the world wide perspective that Wikipedia should have. Many wikipedia articles are written from the bias of the industrialized countries, see WP:Bias.--Jmundo (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV fork. Jmundo's concern about bias appears misplaced, and even if true, creating an article like this is not the way to counter it. --ZimZalaBim talk 05:51, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the life of me, I have no idea how that happened. Certainly wasn't purposeful, and glad you reverted my erroneous keystrokes. --ZimZalaBim talk 04:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. However, there may be some salvagable information to plug in main article. Yanksox (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even the article title is strange. Wikipedia is not a good place for essays. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carl hartman[edit]

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

This article is unsourced. It may constitute a hoax. Richard Cavell (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Likely hoax. Article fails WP:Verifiability as none of the usual sources mention this individual's name has having played major league baseball. Also fails to meet notability requirements. Dgf32 (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. The article begins, "Carl hartman is a man that people know little about ...." which sometimes can be interpreted to mean, "Carl Hartman is unverifiable and having an article about him would violate a major Wikipedia policy." I note, however, that the article states that the subject played in certain major league baseball teams' "organizations", probably meaning their minor league affiliates rather than the major league teams themselves. Regardless, with no sources provided and no indication that we will be able to locate any, the article must be deleted. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax or not, it's clearly not notable. JuJube (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing notable with verifiable. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Textbook example of what a Wikipedia article is not. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 17:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Church of the East & Abroad[edit]

Church of the East & Abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The religious organisation in question does not appear to exist... the religious organisation to which this page links has a different name and specifically denies any connection to any other earlier name, although allowing that individuals might use any kind of name for themselves depending on their spiritual advancement. (Whatever that means.) So: article's subject does not exist and the article is otherwise totally uncited. Ogress smash! 21:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • [Merged from duplicate nomination here] The religious organisation this article purports to discuss denies having this name or EVER having this name (see "External links"). There are no other cites. Ogress smash! 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete There is no evidence for the existence of this church other than similar pages on the web that appear to have been created by a single user. Likely a hoax. This "church" has no coverage in any sources. There is no official website of this "church". I can't even find that a physical location of any church building exists. This is a very clear deletion. Dgf32 (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notablility. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was : Obvious consensus to keep, early closure. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Azam Amir Kasav[edit]

Azam Amir Kasav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person was one among the 10 terrorists that were involved in the November 2008 Mumbai attacks. Wikipedia article on commando Havaldar Gajender Singh (who was killed in the encounter) was deleted from Wikipedia, for the reason that he was notable only for one incident. Isn't Azam Amir Kasav noted for this one incident only? His being a terrorist or caught alive does not make enough reason for a Wiki article. He was not a notable terrorist or terrorist leader before the attack. There are many more terrorists in Indian custody. I strongly suggest the deletion of this page. Suggested read -- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Havaldar Gajender Singh -- Sreejith Kumar (talk) 21:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. There is a key difference in that this article Azam Amir Kasav is a sub-article from November 2008 Mumbai attacks: There recently was a merge discussion in which the community consensus was to keep both articles separate, as it is felt that the story of Azam Amir Kasav will continue to develop and grow as he is dealt by the legal system. Please see here: [5][6]
  2. Merge discussions are similar to AfDs, so the nominator should not have ignored community consensus before nominating. Talk pages are there for a reason.

Besides process, because we know consensus can change, there are content issues that speak against an AfD. While it is true that Azam Amir Kasav is notable for one event only, the nature of the notability is quite different from the victims, be them military or civilian. As the sole surviving perpetrator, his interrogation will lead to further insight into the attacks, which is in itself notable. India will in all probability try him, and he will in all probability make declarations. In general, he will continue to be notable in ways connected to but separate from the event in Mumbai. Where the rest of the attackers alive, we would probably have a page called "Attackers of the November 2008 Mumbai attacks", but there being a single one, his biographical page is more correct. The information should be going somewhere, and the community has overwhelming consensus that it is this page. Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 23:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: Ajmal Amir, (son of Mohammad Amir Iman, a resident of the village of Faridkot the tehsil of Dipalpur in [Pakistan] Punjab’s Okara district) is a key link in India's case against Pakistan, being the only attacker caught. He is an extremely important person. --ISKapoor (talk) 01:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article describes in detail a rare find: a modern day terrorist captured during a large scale operation, and the details on his life will offer a rare glimpse into radicalisation, methods, techniques, ...etc. Merging is a bad idea as well, since the material in this article is quite massive to be just a section in the main attacks article KB (talk) 01:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is likely to be in the news for long time, and in academic and historical source indefinitely. We can use NOT NEWS and ONEEVENT for most of the individual victims, who were caught in an event not of their own making & who did nothing of their own in particular; this is someone who did (jointly) cause the event. ONEEVENT doe not deal with mass murderers, though it may of their victims. event. DGG (talk) 01:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we are still adding new material about this guy, which is important for proving attribution for the Mumbai attacks. Pakistan government denies he ever existed, i.e., they claim he is not Pakistani, but newspaper reporters have visited the village in Pakistan and verified that his family is there and remembers him. Can we continue to edit the article while this meta-controversy continues? bostonbrahmin 02:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bostonbrahmin20 (talk • contribs)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Notorious people such as Kasav are notable. We already have articles for militants such as Marwan al-Shehhi and so on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 04:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This person is of great importance in proving Pakistani involvement. Particularly, in light of the fact some villagers of Faridkot, Okara have identified this person. It is important that the story of his identification by the villagers is not trivialised and buried --SahirShah (talk) 06:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --This is the person who might be end up being very important on Mumbai Attacks and its subsequent events. -- Visnagar (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has a notable coverage. --SkyWalker (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep and Close. This article has clearly been nominated as another article was deleted. BIO1E/BLP1E do not cover terrorists/mass-murderers although those may cover the victims. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 10:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sumit ojha[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is about a poet, but I cannot find any reliable sources to indicate why he is notable. I cannot find evidence of the award mentioned in the article. Any searches bring up trivial listings on social or self-published websites. TN‑X-Man 20:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

April 29, 1992 (Miami)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
April 29, 1992 (Miami) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a non-notable non-single lacking references and that doesn't explain the importance of the song. If Caress Me Down doesn't have an article, this shouldn't have one either.

  • Delete This song fails notability requirements. As an aside, the article also appears to consist mostly of original research. Dgf32 (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christmaversary[edit]

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

Non-notable term, unreferenced. The term does get google hits, but they number less than 20 unique hits. Request deletion. roleplayer 19:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable, and may contain original research (Google reveals nothing about the 'Christmaversary' in Northern Ireland [7]) I couldn't find any source that defined the term in order to use it as a reference. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An unlikely story that, no surprise, can't be confirmed. From what I understand, this wasn't created in response to the potato famine, but by cheapskates who say "Hey, let's get married at Christmastime", so that they don't have to buy two presents. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Hogwash/hoax/pseudohistory AlexTiefling (talk) 01:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to reduce the stress of Christmas, I intend to start a tradition of calling this "pseudhoaxwashtory". Mandsford (talk) 03:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother (software)[edit]

Big Brother (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable proprietary software, most probably a case on WP:ADVERT or possibly WP:COI. The only somewhat reliable 3rd-party publication about Big Brother is a mention on page 6 in comparison of "9 SNMP monitors that cost less than a grand" article at networkcomputing.com — existence of this article doesn't mean that we should create and maintain 9 articles about all these SNMP monitors. This article contains almost no non-trivial information that can't be found in official specifications by Quest. Googling yields just tons of "software download directories" links, which means that Quest's marketing works pretty well, but I've failed to find any substantial 3rd party coverage. So-called "Big Brother community" external link in article leads us to "Product specs" page. GreyCat (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Appears to be advertisement. Fails notability requirements as there is no third party coverage. Dgf32 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The software is mentioned in Quest Software article. Sounds like advertisement. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Spirits[edit]

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

Contested prod. Non-notable film, fails WP:NF. CultureDrone (talk) 18:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly fails notability requirements. Dgf32 (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete keep as deletion is not so clear now that the article has ben expanded and sourced. Pity about the author's COI. If he had only pointed the way to some better reviews.... (sigh) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the same reasons. Laurent paris (talk) 04:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - yes, sources have been found; no, they don't indicate notability by virtue of their existence. It does not help either that none of the actors' bluelinks are to unrelated articles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, the sources found still do not establish notability. Dgf32 (talk) 01:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD criteria G11 (spam) and G12 (copyvio). —David Eppstein (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Lotlikar[edit]

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

Bio of non-notable. Also an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of SouthCentral Los Angeles[edit]

University of SouthCentral Los Angeles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non recognized and non notable "university". Very strange and fakey looking website. Googling returns only hits to discussions questioning the status of it and craiglist postings soliciting rental properties that were flagged for removal. Strongly suspect is a hoax/scam. Mfield (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Even assuming it is real, this appears to be an online university which may not have started operations yet and has not yet been accredited yet. The lack of any names of faculty or administrators that I can find on the university's web site does not bode well for notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not even notable as an unaccredited diploma mill. For those interested in learning more, there's an interesting thread here:[8] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are missing the point. it was flagged for deletion as an 'advertisment' yet you have not discussed how it differs to any other university website on wikipedia. see below example which reads very similarly:
    Harvard University (incorporated as The President and Fellows of Harvard College) is a private university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S., and a member of the Ivy League. Founded in 1636 by the colonial Massachusetts legislature,[2] Harvard is the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States. It is also the first and oldest corporation in North America. [4] weg22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weg2 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weg, a key difference is those little numbers after the sentences. Those mean that the assertions are cited to reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that confirm the existence of this institution. For all we know it could be a hoax. An institution that has never been written about is inherently non-notable. Please find some good, reliable sources for this topic. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok that is the first correct thing anyone has said on this subject. I concede on the basis that there is no reliable sources for this topic. I propose deletion. User:weg22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weg2 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what the whole discussion has been about - WP:Notability. Mfield (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. However, instead of the derogatory comments, and discussions around fake school or advertisment, it would have been easier to just say, unfortunately, there are no reliable sources on this topic, we cant have it on wikipedia yet. come back when there are some. User:weg22

  • A user did that,[9] but you deleted the tag so we had to come here and have a more detailed inquiry. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

point taken. thanks for your time. (the url he mentioned as unreferenced however was not accurate)User talk:weg22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weg2 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Fails notability requirements. Furthermore, information is unverifiable without any 3rd part sources. This is a very clear case. Dgf32 (talk) 01:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do cover unaccredited universities--provided they actually do hove a program, students, faculty, and tht they do award degrees. almost none of it is true in this particular case. the only thing distinctive (I hope) is their fee schedule, of $8450 for US residents and twice that for international students, to be paid in full before enrollment, not as one works towards the degree or when -- or whether-- the degree is awarded. One step below selling degrees for money. if we were a consumer information website, we would probably cover this remarkable way of doing business. But we can not do so until it actually becomes notable as shown by outside sources. DGG (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts[edit]

The Masculine Gender In 1 John 5:8 In The Critical And Majority Greek Texts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a very narrow offshoot of Comma Johanneum, and appears to advocate a certain viewpoint in a theological argument as well as being overly narrow in scope. In other words, it is a treatise, not an encyclopedic article. I think it is beyond repair. There may be parts of it that could be moved into the Comma article, but that's beyond my understanding of the article. Contested PROD, which had three additional prod-2 tags applied, but it is obvious that this deletion would be controversial and should be subjected to a formal AfD instead. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as POV/OR. I think the author is arguing for an early date for the Comma, on the basis of its grammatical consistency with the preceding verse, but I also think this is way beyond the scope of an encyclopedia article. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR Personal Essay. Wikipedia is not your private webhost. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research and for advocating a point of view, per above. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested to the primary author that a brief summary of this article is put into the Comma Johanneum article under a heading of "Grammatical Issues" and that this article is then deleted as an implausible search string. He was reluctant to do so and I haven't had time to get my head around the argument to do it myself. I still think that this is the best way forward. I know that "merge and delete" is considered bad form on Wikipedia as the edit history is lost - however, in this case the article title is so unlikely that I don't think that a redirect is appropriate. If the issue is not important enough to take into the Comma Johanneum article, then my !vote is delete. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Icewedge (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lipton Iced Tea[edit]

Lipton Iced Tea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This appears to be an ad for a product/company. Nominated for deletion. --Fremte (talk) 16:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It should be re-written because it reads like an advertisement but I believe the subject is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, but the current article is a total re-do.--Iamawesome800 17:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lipton and redirect. Just "Iced Tea" fails notability guidelines, but Lipton itself is certainly notable. GreyCat (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Under the precedent of all these articles shown here, here, and even here, I believe that this article is notable. To help deal with the advertising problem, I have rewritten it [10]. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 20:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reliable references should be dug up about this, but if this page is correct, Lipton Iced Tea was the first canned ice tea (CCBS: "The ready-to-drink market exploded in the early '70s when Lipton introduced Tea-in-a-Can." Lipton: "1972: LIPTON Iced tea in a can introduced in the US"). If [this http://www.unilever.co.uk/ourbrands/foods/Lipton_Iced_Tea.asp] is correct, Lipton Ice Tea is the 15th biggest selling soft drink brand in the world. Lipton Ice Tea is, or certainly used to be, a popular brand all over the world -- as evidenced here, where it was (in 2003) the #4 liked brand by young (after Coca-Cola, Mars and Lion). -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Lipton and redirect for the same reasons as noted above T-H (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable brand independent of the company, as indicated by sources. 23skidoo (talk) 17:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable for being the first iced tea brand. Some credence could be given for merging since it is a significant part of the business success (at least as far as I know). - Mgm|(talk) 11:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep noptable brand, improve article. Artw (talk) 05:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - famous brand. Article needs substantial work, but it meets WP:N and WP:V. Bearian (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin America – the new BPO hotbed[edit]

Latin America – the new BPO hotbed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay, not an encyclopedia topic or article. WP:NOTFORUM, WP:OR. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete:original work, P.O.V, no references, etc. --Jmundo (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; From the article: "Currently Cost Rica is leading the pack, but Honduras is seen a sleeping giant within the industry. With it’s large bilingual population, the BPO outsourcing industry the future looks bright.. Besides a skilled and educated work force, low cost and good telecommunications infrastructure are among the attractions of Honduras. Sure, the low labor costs are attractive for US companies in places like India but the close proximity of Honduras makes an extremely viable alternative." This message brought to you by the Honduras Chamber of Commerce -- "Not just a banana republic". Though the article doesn't mention it, "BPO" isn't Barack P. Obama, but "business process outsourcing". Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a repository for personal essays Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 16:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Obviously canvassed votes have been given little weighting; there has been no real response to the concerns about notability and verifiability. Neıl ☄ 11:18, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rolando Gomez[edit]

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

This article, authored primarily about its subject, was subject to a previous AFD in July 2006. There, there was no real consensus, as much of the page was flooded by the subject/author's pleas to keep the article. As it stands, the article does not really demonstrate that the subject is notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes. It is time that this autobiographical puff piece be sent into the trash bin.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Sorry, but where's the claim to notability? And the sources? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not properly sourced, probable conflict of interest.--Boffob (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Seems notable as primarily as author. No doubt a COI, but no outrageous claims are made. Johnbod (talk) 23:12, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The links quoted should be sufficient to establish notability. The article already went through one AFD, how many AFD's do articles go through? I believe there are underlying reasons to the deletion, as stated above, "I was originally directed to this article because of its authorship and questionable content for notability purposes." What does this say for Wikipedia, that those with deletion powers can be biased based on perhaps a stalker, competitor, or jealous person's remarks? Why not post who directed you and why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 04:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC) — 72.191.15.133 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment I don't think the article should necessarily be deleted, as I think the subject passes WP:N, but the information must be properly sourced, and only information from reliable third-party sources must be used. It would need the Heymann Standard for a keep. Jeremiah (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, see *Lexar Elites as just one of many examples for credible sources--this is from a publicly traded corporation on the Stock Exchange that honored Gomez with "Elite" status over six years ago along with other notable photographers listed on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.38.112.174 (talk) 05:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand The article passed the first AFD, it looks bad if Wikipedia will constantly challenge articles, that have only been updated but not violated any standards. AFD 2nd nomination? What happens after it passes the 2nd? Do we do a 3rd, in two years? Think of the precedence these additional AFD's will cause for additional workload on voting member editors? What are we doing here? Now to answer some proper sourcing, simple "Google" will bring you to see outside source information, like the non-profit, Palm Beach Photographic Center organization, http://www.workshop.org/pages/rolando_gomez_glamour_lighting.html or Imaging Info, http://www.digitalimagingmag.com/publication/article.jsp?id=1477&pubId=2 or http://www.imaginginfo.com/publication/article.jsp?pubId=3&id=65&pageNum=2 and more examples, http://www.glamour1.com/about/tearsheets/rolandogomez.php and http://www.henselusa.com/rolandogomez.html and http://www.rangefindermag.com/magazine/Sep06/showpage.taf?page=24 (the latter a national publication and written by author Michelle Perkins) http://www.lexar.com/dp/pro_photo/rgomez.html (a publicly traded corporation) and http://www.samys.com/newsletters/2007-02-consumer.php (the largest camera store chain in California) and http://www.af.mil/news/airman/0202/lajes.html (U.S. Airforce) to name a few. What more sourcing do you need, his DD214 from the U.S. Army? A copy of his diploma? Would we require everyone in Wiki to send copies of their college diploma's, honorable discharge certificates, birth certificates, etc? I'm sure they could be scanned and provided, but that leads to privacy issues with social security numbers. Thoughts? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 14:45, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am appalled at the inputs questioning the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia. I have known Rolando for almost 10 years. I am very familiar with his background, experience and achievements and I have seen his official DD Form 214 listing his military time in service, awards and decorations. I can also confirm that he earned his bachelor’s degree in communication and electronic media while working at the Air Force News Agency in San Antonio and his selection as the agency’s 1997 senior-level civilian of the year. Rolando worked for me as chief of multimedia at the agency and it was a great loss to the Air Force when he decided to leave the agency to pursue his current endeavors. He is now one of the top glamour photographers in the country, an exceptional speaker and a noted author on the subject of glamour photography. I served 26 years in the Air Force as a combat photographer in Vietnam and public relations officer in Saudi Arabia during operations Desert Storm and Desert Shield, and I am upset over innuendos besmirching the career of a fellow military veteran. I do not know if those commenting have any military experience, but if they do, they know that military records are official government documents and Rolando can provide any documentation of his military and civilian achievements to squelch these malicious comments. I still work at the agency as an Air Force civilian employee in senior management and proud to serve beside military service members and civilian employees like Rolando. -- Jeff Whitted, deputy for public affairs operations [jeff.whitted(at)afnews.af.mil] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please understand that the questioning of this article is not in regards to "the integrity of Rolando Gomez in reference to the information listed on Wikipedia." The issue is whether there are enough available third-party sources (see WP:N and WP:V) that can allow an editor to write an article without performing any original research. Jeremiah (talk) 00:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This IP has already commented on this discussion, and it appears that all individuals who are using it have a vested interest in whether or not the article remains on Wikipedia. The IP who brought the article to DRV is the same who said this article should be kept here, and now it was said twice.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources means that this article fails to comply with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no verifiable third-party references to establish notability.freshacconci talktalk 16:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. This does seem to be an accomplished, award-wining photographer who has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject. Clean-up, add sourcing and spell out notability upfront and clearly per WP:Lede. ::Banjeboi 20:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree, per AFD, if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. I'm very aware of this photographer, I've seen him speak at national conventions and I have spoken along side him. These events have included Photo Plus Expo in New York and Photo Imaging and Design in San Diego, and I can attest to his notable credibility. He has authored several books on the subject and speaks and advises on the subject in many venues. I might add, from my 20 plus years of professional experience in celebrity and advertising photography, you cannot "just speak or lecture" at these notable venues unless you have some serious credentials. To sum it up, clean it up, add sourcing as recommended. Jerry Avenaim (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "Keep per AFD" mean? I'm suggesting that this article should be deleted because there are no non-biased third party sources that support that this man is notable. All that was there was a list of external links to his works, references in another sense.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There were plenty of links, which you deleted, off the original article-that were from third-parties, but somehow you label them as biased? On what grounds? When Lexar selects and Elite Photographer, does that make that photographer's biography on their web site biased and inaccurate? When Photo District News (PDN) posts a news release, in PDF format, does that make PDN biased--when in fact PDN is a monthly news magazine on photography. When an author of another book dedicates an entire chapter on Gomez, does that make that editor biased and does that mean their comments in their own book are inaccurate? You are splitting hairs here and accusing others that have selected Gomez to speak or feature him at their venues as biased? Doesn't make sense. I think there needs to be a serious review of what makes an link biased or not and you also appear very biased at deleting, instead of being proactive and helping, because you were the original admin that deleted this article and now your own pride is involved--that is a perception that is apparent simply by looking at the logs of this debate and the article where you keep deleting links and moving discussions over to other pages--I can assure you this comment will be moved by you unfairly as you've done others, but yet your comment for Mr. Avenaim, will stay. Now where is the bias? 74.38.112.174 (talk) 02:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Please remember to assume good faith when commenting here. There is nothing wrong with this deletion nomination. No one has a right to be in Wikipedia. If the subject is notable and there are verifiable third-party sources, then the article will most likely be kept. However, per Wikipedia guidelines, the subject does not appear to pass notability standards per WP:CREATIVE and appropriate sources have not been brought forward yet. freshacconci talktalk 03:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If any of those wishing to help save the article would like I've listed the links on the articles talkpage. What's most helpful is published articles about Rolando Gomez and referencing awards, him speaking, his work and books reviews. I'm not in the mood at the moment but I'll look to rewriting this as there does seem to be able evidence backing what the article states. More sources are better, in general so feel free to list them here or there and I'll follow the links to what's usable. -- Banjeboi 03:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete.. Or at least a stubbification. Not sure that the notability hits the bar required, but there's too much unencyclopedic stuff in there anyway. SirFozzie (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unsure how many books he's authored but at least three are here. -- Banjeboi 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Why is this even a discussion? The article has already passed one AFD. Additional citations could and probably should be added. But that does not mean that the current version should be deleted. Where is the legitimacy of even considering this for deletion? There are no false claims, no apparent error of fact. Within the world of photography, Rolando Gomez is notable. That is a fact, not an opinion. I'm not suggesting that this is a personal attack on Mr. Gomez, but I certainly do not see a legitimate argument here. --Agletp (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC) — Agletp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment Yes, additional citations should be added, but they haven't. That Mr. Gomez is a "notable photographer", at this moment, is merely an opinion, not a "fact". There are no verifiable third-party references. The legitimacy for considering this for deletion is found here: WP:CREATIVE. This is the process that Wikipedia has established. Any editor can bring an article to AfD and a discussion then takes place. Just because you feel there should be an article does not mean that an AfD discussion is not warranted. Present a compelling argument as to why this article should be kept. Attacking other editors' opinions or the validity of the AfD process is not useful. freshacconci talktalk 11:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is now obvious that there is some outside group canvassing to get this article saved. Two IPs and now an account with no edits other than the one above have commented here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Regarding the above post, please do not try to make any "obvious" statements about me. You know nothing about me. I am a long-time user of Wikipedia, and I was looking for one of the references that USED to be listed on the article in question. When I saw that it was up for deletion, I created a user id and posted my opinion that it should be kept because there is no compelling reason not to. I am not part of any group. I have found this article useful in the past, and I do not see any validity in the arguments to delete it. That's it. Any further assumptions based on my postings undermine any credibility that may otherwise exist with your opinion.--Agletp (talk) 07:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Regardless of my own comment above about assuming good faith, sometimes WP:DUCK does apply. You just happened to be looking for the article and stumbled on the deletion discussion. That's convenient (the argument about a reference that "used" to be here, is telling; there's either a campaign or some sockpuppetry happening). Anyway, as for Mr. Gomez's apparent conflict of interest and use of Wikipedia for promotional purposes, I've found this interesting tidbit. Rolando Gomez's blog states this: "Also, one of the few photographers listed by Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Gomez" which is found here. freshacconci talktalk 10:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: This was originally closed as Delete by User:Neil, but was relisted after this discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 15:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for lack of reliable sources iaw WP:N. It had no sources when written two years ago. It still has no sources. If it were a new article then a pause to allow sources to be found and added would be appropriate but after two years??! So delete now; then if an editor (preferably not the subject) wants to re-create a good article idc, then all well and good. Springnuts (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Funny, "...but after two years" was the same argument of defense on why it was being considered for a "2nd" AfD and now you're using that as a defense after deletion review on why it should not even be looked at again? How ironic this is, or should I say "egg" on Wikipedia's face for even being looked at for a second AfD when it passed the first one, over two years ago. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note before 'voting':' It is more than usually useful to look at old versions of this article, since much of the discussion revolves around what is and what isn't a proper source - and many claimed sources have been removed. Springnuts (talk) 17:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're correct, many claimed "sources" have been removed, but what you failed to say many of these credible sources were removed during the 2nd AfD and thus erroneously influenced a few people to vote for delete as they didn't even have half the facts straight. If the sources had been left to stand, it would have been overwhelmingly a "keep."--74.223.216.130 (talk) 03:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unsourced vanity piece about an apparently non-notable person (2 years no notability established by other users; i certainly couldn't find any via google).Bali ultimate (talk) 02:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First, you don't even sign your statement properly, even as an "anon." Second, you obviously don't know the correct link to Google, and Google is not considered the "sole" reason to keep an article on Wikipedia for notability, but if you feel so, here's the Google link [11] for plenty of search results and if that doesn't help you, try this link, [12] Gomez is substantiated plenty of times by three other books, his three books on top of those for a total of six books, a cover story and feature article about him on the Sept. 06' Rangefinder magazine article, [13] and [14] and he's even listed here [15] as a "notable" speaker with several photographers listed as notable here on Wikipedia. Several Lexar Media Elite photographers like Gomez. If you want more credibility then remember he's the cover story for European photo magazine D-Pixx, [16] and there's more if you just take the time to click the links. Hopefully you'll be considered "weak" as those in the second AfD who posted as anons. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Deletion is getting ridiculously out of hand. Why are articles on people getting deleted? This is obviously something someone out there will be interested in. If you don't like it, don't read it.Likebox (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Noticeable: From Zoom In website, "This week's guest is Rolando Gomez, a photojournalist who made the switch to glamour photography a few years back. The author of Garage Glamour, he's the expert on beauty, and shares his insights on getting the most out of a shoot." Podcast interview of Gomez--Jmundo (talk) 22:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep issues raise are editing issues, notability was established on first nomination for deletion. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A clear keep, perhaps obscured by tangential arguments here and confusion on the page. There are quite enough independent, substantial, third party, reliable sources on Rolando Gomez. For example, a 10-page chapter in this book is on him. There are magazine articles like [17] in the references/EL section in/out of the article, (see talk page), on him which also prove his notability. There's plenty of room for expansion based on reliable and other usable sources.John Z (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - A ten page chapter about him in an authoritative book about photographers would certainly be one reliable secondary source - a short chapter written by him in what looks like a non-notable book is not! Springnuts (talk) 19:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since the author of the book does not appear to be the subject in question, and since it seems to be written in third person, could you tell me why you feel it was written by him? "Michelle Perkins" appears to have published many books - do you not feel it is a reliable source? Kuru talk 20:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You are sort of right - and I was wrong in that I mistook the chapter heading for a chapter author. But - the chapter is written in the form of an interview, so the content (about three pages of text - the rest is photos) is very largely his own words. There are about ten lines about him on the first page. So it is a source, but not a hugely impressive one. Falls way way short of WP:CREATIVE. Springnuts (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And the biography in the same source you are discussing is not written as an "interview" but in Michelle Perkins words. The bio alone is priceless as a credible source. On another note, I like your user page, it's got great resources for deletions. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - An article appearing like a self-aggrandizing autobiography is a reason for re-writing, not deletion. The sources found by JohnZ clearly show this person passes WP:N and WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The book chapter alone is substantial enough to provide notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Funny, I see people arguing to delete because of "two years ago" but we should look at the present, not the past. An article sourced properly two years ago, passed an initial Afd, then two years later a 2nd AfD claimed it's fate for political reasons, then when it's back, the past is being judged, doesn't make sense. This is a photographer with three books, over five national speaking appearances, listed here on the University of Texas Wikipedia entry as notable, and we're still arguing about notability after being re-listed during a deletion review. There is no question this person is notable, especially after you see links to other photographers listed on Wikipedia as notable with less sources and all are Lexar Elite selected photographers. Let's cut the deletionsist crap and move forward and do some justice and make this article what it should be, notable. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 03:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)74.223.216.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.[reply]
  • Comment As this has been relisted, I've read through the comments and looked at the sources, and my original "delete" still stands: I don't see this passing WP:CREATIVE as Gomez isn't a particularly notable photographer any more than many others out there. WP:N needs to be applied with vigour. This is a self-promotional article (see my comment above about Gomez's use of Wikipedia as a promotional tool), nothing more, and the sources provided are not convincing in establishing notability, other than showing a working photographer. freshacconci talktalk 04:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So it's against the law to list on your website that you're listed in Wikipedia? Don't get it, promoting Wikipedia is wrong? Gomez, at least on what I can tell, lists Wikipedia in his three books to photographers, as a great resource. I think someone with such a huge following of fans is positive and proactive toward Wikipedia in providing marketing "FOR" WIkipedia more than himself. As far as your definition for "working photographer," which perhaps you should consider starting a page for here on Wikipedia so we can have a clear definition, perhaps we should ask ourselves how many "working photographers" exist in this world, then trim the list on how many have written three books or more, how many are featured as cover stories on magazines in the U.S. and Europe, how many are Lexar Elite Photographers, how many are Speakers at Photo Plus Expo, how many are speakers at Photo Imaging Design Expo, how many are speakers at FotoFusion, how many are teachers at Julia Dean, how many are teachers at Samy's Camera Digital Photography Institute, how many are speakers at the Palm Beach Photographic Center, how many are featured in other books in chapter length, how many have co-illustrated stories with Pultizer prize winning photographers like Eddie Adams, how many have a distinguished military career, how many documented the drug-war in Central and South America, how many have taught over 300 workshops in the past eight years, how many have gone on 3-country, 7-city European tours for Calument Photographic, how many were featured in Leica World News, how many were featured in Studio Photography magazine, how many are NBA credentialed, etc., etc., and you might find a total of "one." Yep, that' your ordinary working photographer. --74.223.216.130 (talk) 04:39, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but maintain our standards about promotional articles and remove puffery. the photographer is sufficiently notable, though it would really help to have some reviews of the books in 3rd party publications. Some of the references in earlier versions were reasonable links, and should be readded. But the argument above in favor of it is an apt illustration of exactly what we do not want in our articles. It is reasonable for an artist to what to promote his work, and there are suitable places for it, but one reason why people use and perhaps trust Wikipedia is because it is not a medium for advertising. if we're not an encyclopedia, why bother--if one wants to see advertising and promotion, Google has us beat. DGG (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a more current version of this article's entry here: User:Miranda/Gomez, [18] that Kuru placed for Miranda to work on, than the current one displayed now. Please keep that in mind as it's more current with more current sources. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is written as a promotional piece and contains no reliable sources that verify notability. The one source given is a podcast and one of the two further reading links says nothing about him. If the gentleman is indeed notable, and reliable sources verifying notability are added to the article (I couldn't find any), I will be happy to reconsider my delete (my personal notability bar is quite low so even one independent source would suffice!). (I also disagree with the reasoning that the article should be kept for the purpose of 'marketing' wikipedia.) --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 22:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You obviously missed the master list of links for notability on this person, there is more than one outside link on notability listed on this master page of links, [19] that can truly help this article. I would also recommend reviewing this discussion for more references: [20] and hit the "show" button on the right to see the full discussion. You might also want to see this link, [21] as it's an older version but has great links --72.191.15.133 (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My problem is that I don't see a personal website as a credible source (I have one of my own and don't consider myself notable!). What would do it for me is one reliable independent source that says that Mr. Gomez is a notable photographer. AFAIK, every reasonably proficient photographer would have photos published in various magazines, but that does not, by itself, make them notable. I went through User:Bali ultimate's research and, though I wouldn't quite put it the way he/she has, I think the research is right. In the final analysis, I'm willing to be convinced that the gentleman is notable, so a good source would be great. Other than that, I'm waiting for User:Miranda to weigh in on this. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some outside links, Photo District News, considered the "Wall Street Journal" of photography, [22] and [23], Lexar website for their Elite Photographers including Gomez and Jerry Avenaim, Greg Gorman, John Isaac, James B. Dickman, Vincent Laforet, Joe McNally to name a few [24] and [25]. New York Times best-selling author Lisa Kleypas on Gomez, [26] Other links, Zoom-in, [27], PRWeb release, [28], article by Gary Bernstein [29], Danella Lucioni credits Gomez, Podcast [30] by University of Virgin Islands professor Alex Randall [31] and previous podcast [32] hopefully that helps. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Ok Rolando. First off, the article has not one -- not one -- citation establishing notability from a reliable source. But let's look at the "master list" hosted at your own website. It consists of: 1. A link showing the fact that you took a cover shot once for something called Rangefinder Magazine. 2. A link showing you once took a vaguely soft-pornish picture for something called d-pixx magazine. 3. A link to the wikipedia page for the University of Texas, San Antonio in which you're included on a list of "notable alumni" the citation for this is addtion, made three weeks after you created your vanity page ([[33]], is of course your vanity page. Discursive establishment of notability is a no-no. 4. Advertised as an article about your military career by someone called Alice Miller. Click link... whoops! It's five paragraphs of first person text about yourself, written by you, to accompany two photos of your carried on something called studio photograph & design. 5. A link to a brief article about yourself in "Leicaworld" magazine, which is funded by the camera company and used to advertise it's products. Money quote from the article: "Another thing that's essential is having a camera that's solid as a rock, confidence inspiring and dependable. That's why I chose the Leica with Digital-Modul-R to shoot my first Playboy Playmate submission. It has exactly what a photograph needs to do the job (advertorial copy about how Leicas cure cancer, make you better looking and get the weeds our of your lawn goes on and on." 6. A link that documents you had 3 pictures in parade magazine. 7. Links to your how-to books for Amherst Media, which may or may not be a vanity press, but specializes only in photographic how to manuals. 8-10. Links showing you spoke at photography conventions. 11. A link showing that he did a book signing and seminar giving tour to promote his how-to books. 12. A link showing he was once credentialed to take pictures at an NBA game AND...zzz.... Actually i give up. The list goes on and on. All i can say with certainty is that the first 12 links on the "master list"=Epic Fail when it comes to establishing notability as per bio, artist, etc... and none of them approach acceptable as a reliable source for anything. Also, and this is just a personal opinion that has no relevance on the status of this article, Mr. Gomez is a shlockmeister of the first order, whose photos of quasi hot chicks are as predictable as his military shots are static.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment First, let's take your points one by one. 1. The Rangefinder photo was taking during an instructional workshop in the Virgin Islands. Rangefinder chose that image for their cover, it was not originally taken for them specifically and they ran that image to compliment their "feature cover story"--Rolando Gomez, Mysteries of Lighting. The link to the story is provided on their website. 2. The image for D-Pixx cover was shot years before the article ran and was not shot for that or any other magazine specifically. D-Pixx ran that image on the cover to support it's cover-feature story on the photography of Rolando Gomez, it was a 9-page spread with a double truck image. They also ran another story in the magazine, 4-pages long, about Rolando Gomez workshops, not one of the stories were written by Rolando Gomez, though he was interviewed for supporting quotes in the story. 3. The University of Texas, San Antonio Wikipedia notable link on Rolando Gomez originally pointed to his Wikpeida page here, but was changed only after the article was deleted here on Wikipedia so it would not resolve to a Wikipedia link that no longer appeared to support the link. Once the article is listed here again, it should be updated. Gomez graduated summa cum laude with a GPA of 4.0 out of 4. 4. The military career article was written by the editor of Studio Photography monthly magazine, in fact it was a 14-page feature piece that listed many notable military photographers including Pulitzer Prize winner Eddie Adams. The story uses supporting quotes from Rolando like any magazine uses supporting quotes to establish credibility, that is journalism 101. There were no advertisements in this feature piece that won journalism awards. 5. The Leica World magazine is published by Leica Camera world-wide. They invented 35mm and the article was written by Jason Schneider. While Leica does sponsor Rolando Gomez as photographer, they only sponsor a few photographers world wide because of their ability and who they are in the photography fields and they must be notable in their fields. Leica doesn't sponsor ordinary photographers. The magazine features photographers, both sponsored and not sponsored on a quarterly basis. 6. Three pictures in Parade magazine was for a commissioned photo feature on U.S. soldiers guarding the Holy Land during Christmas that involved the photography of Rolando Gomez and Eddie Adams. It was an assignment like any other photographers assignments that appear in a periodical. This was not a sponsorship endorsement. Gomez traveled to the Sinai Desert for two weeks to get these photos with a journalist. Circulation was 32 million printed copies in 400 major U.S. newspaper markets--it was a cover story. A full-page ad in Parade costs $300K. This was not an advertisement, it ran cover plus two-pages and featured 2 images of Adams, 3 of Gomez's. 7. Amherst Media is not a vanity press and many of their authors are listed here as notable photographers. Rolando's first book made the Amazon.com top 1,000 sellers list out of over seven million books and has 50 book reviews and still sells well. Amherst Media books are found in every Borders, Books A Million, Barnes and Nobels and more brick and mortar books stores world-wide on the shelf, unlike vanity books. 8-10. The photography conventions Gomez speaks at, Photo Imaging Design Expo, Photo Plus Expo, FotoFusion, etc., are the same conventions listed for notable photographers on Wikipedia Jerry Avenaim and Greg Gorman, all three photographers are Lexar Elite Photographers, Lexar is listed here on Wikipedia, and Gomez and Avenaim have even spoken together as Aveniam discusses in this original 2nd AfD. These are annual conventions and PPE alone is the number one convention at the Jacob Javit's Convention Center in Manhattan that attracts 24,000 photographers and hundreds of vendor booths each Fall. There is no greater Expo for photographers in the United States or Europe in attendance. 11. There was no book signing tour, while Gomez often takes books to sell at his appearances, attendees often bring their books for signatures as he's well-known. The tour was an American in Europe lecturing on glamour photography and lighting and was paid for and advertised by Calumet Photographic, one of the largest camera store chains world-wide--hence why the press release ran in the top photography magazine Photo District News and in nine top European magazines in two-page spreads. 12. He was an NBA full-credential (not a day-pass) photographer for four years covering the San Antonio Spurs, including covering the first three rounds of the NBA Playoffs last year. NBA credentials are not handed out to anyone, they must be applied for. Not to mention he was a 1996 Olympic Game Committee credentialed photographer too and the 1999 Pan American Olympic Games. Your final statement demonstrates your prejudice toward Gomez's photography and hence why your statements are tainted toward deletionist bias.[Special:Contributions/72.191.15.133|72.191.15.133]] (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando - Who cares about the nature of your assignements for speciality photo mags, parade, et al? I believe you took the shots (it's not hard to believe after looking at them.). But all that does is verify you're an at least occasionally-working pro photographer. An honorable profession. Good on ya. But using this to establish notability would be akin to Jim the Carpenter submitting pictures of cabinets he made as evidence for his notability and the non-deletion of a vanity/advertising piece about him. James Nachtwey, David LaChapelle, Robert Maplethorpe, guys that win awards like World Press Photo are all notable. You, not so much (have you even read the standards for notability?).Bali ultimate (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First, Parade, listed here in Wikipedia, [34]) is, and I quote Wiki, "PARADE is a national Sunday newspaper magazine, distributed in more than 400 newspapers in the United States. It was founded in 1941 and is owned by Advance Publications. The most widely read magazine in America, Parade has a circulation of 32 million and a readership of 71 million." This was a cover-story assignment co-illustrated with Pulitzer Prize photographer Eddie Adams, also here on Wikipedia. Gomez is a full-time working professional photographer. In 1994, during the Combat Camera workshop in Ft. Meade, where to be accepted you had to be one of the top 25 photographers in U.S. Military just to attend, several notable photographers, including James Nachtwey, Bernie Boston, Eli Reed [35], Mary Lou Foy, and others selected Gomez as one of the top-five military photographers in the world that year. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I won't comment on Mr. Gomez's style or abilities as a photographer, but I do thank Bali ultimate for the legwork in looking through these sources. As such, I'm now more convinced than ever that this article fails WP:CREATIVE. freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. But I would note that Bali Ultimate didn't address the 10 page book chapter about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment True, but looking at the link provided, that source seems tenious at best. It's a how-to book and I would argue that it doesn't fulfill the requirement as a third-party source. It establishes Mr. Gomez as a professional photographer, but not as a notable one. The book is published by Amherst Media, which publishes photography how-to books. There's a grey area here, and I'm not really convinced that a chapter on Mr. Gomez is a reliable third-party source rather than an advertisement for Amherst Media. Googling the author, Michelle Perkins, it seems she only publishes with Amherst. Seems all too cozy for me. I'd be more comfortable if there were some source that doesn't lead back to Gomez. freshacconci talktalk 20:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment User Bali Ultimate obviously has a biased perception, please look at the rebuttal to his 1-12 links expose and you'll see he was totally wrong in his "assumptions" about the links and did not properly state the facts. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com and the first had 50 reviews. These are not chapters, but 25,000 words in each book. Not vanity press either. And since you're from Toronto, Gomez has taught four seminars/workshops in Toronto in the past, all sold-out appearances. Lexar, listed here on Wikipedia, selected 30 photographers around the world to represent them six years ago and updates that list annually, Gomez, Gorman and Avenaim, the latter two listed here on Wikipedia with that as one of the source links, were all and still are from the group of the original 30 selected world-wide. We cannot use one link to others here on Wikipedia and then state it's not credible for another. If it is a credible link for Gorman and Avenaim the same should be for Gomez. The appearance I see here, is the genre of photography is being judged. If a notable photographer shoots glamour, it's a negative, if the same photographer shoots celebrities, it's a positive. I think this link, [36] shows more than what a typical photographer accomplishes. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • cmt Rolando: You're the liar, not I. I clicked the links and have described what i saw accurately. I invite anyone uncertain on who to believe to investigate for themselves. And of COURSE i'm biased against your photography; i've looked at it.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I lied. Rolando, I missed this bit: "There are three how-to books authored by Gomez, all top-sellers on Amazon.com." Authors of 3 best selling books are by definition notable. Just give us the links proving best selling authorship, and i'll happily change my vote (I still think your pictures are lousy, but as i said, not relevant to the matter at hand).Bali ultimate (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment First, calling someone a liar is not only libelous but not needed in these types of discussion. I cannot post the Amazon.com link for his latest book as we don't want the appearance of spamming, but it's about 5-weeks old and if you type "Rolando Gomez" in the search box under books you'll get his three books listed, then click the link on the latest book on "posing" and you'll see under "product details" the current hourly ranking in sales. Just so you understand, it changes hourly, currently it's at 12,693 and #2 in Nudes, #7 in Fashion Photography and #26 in Portraits, but it may go up or down and Amazon.com has millions of books in inventory and this number reflects sales in the previous hour. Here is a link to his first book, almost three years old [37] with a ranking at 39,423 and #12 in nudes and #80 in Portraits at this hour with 50 reviews. Most books on Amazon.com don't average more than five reviews at most. His second book for some odd reason is listed under the "Erotica" category instead of glamour and Amazon.com doesn't rank those, it has 16 reviews. The first book in the first year made Amazon.com's top 1,000 listing, however I'm not sure since this is updated hourly how that can be proved. One last note, if you type in "glamour photography" on Amazon.com under "search books," you'll find [38] his three books hold spots at this hour #3, #4, and #5 out of 766 results, again, this updates hourly. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*to clarify. The author has not written a single verifiable best seller, let alone three. Pity. Would have changed my position. (though i love the "hourly" bit).Bali ultimate (talk) 01:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Bestsellers in photography are not rated like a mainstream non-fiction book, they are genre specific and therefore rated by their specific category. If you use the above referenced Amazon.com link, [39] and select "Best Selling" you'll notice in the categories nude photography, glamour photography and portrait photography Gomez books (more than one) are in the top 40 out of hundreds and over 1,700 in the case of portrait photography. Specifically at the Amazon.com best seller list here (links are left in URL form, notice Amazon.com uses "/bestseller/" in the directory URL, http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/271620011/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_1_5_last he holds spots #3 & #6 at this hour and here, http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/books/2030/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_b_2_4_last spot number seven in fashion photography. I guess, like Wikipedia, everyone has their interpretation of things, Amazon.com being the biggest on-line "book" retailer must know why they name their directory "bestseller," guess they know what they are doing. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very disappointing debate. I'm afraid that the world of photography is not my fotre, so forgive me if there's some sort of secret set of criteria for notability here, but a lenghty study of articles in the American Photographers category reveals no hint of a low bar for inclusion. Hell, Gomez is in the top quartile of what I saw there. Yes, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but in this case the notability guidelines that seem to be implied by WP:CREATIVE are clearly not in use. The criteria for the underlying WP:BIO is easily met. He is the subject of third party, published material. His books seem to be well positioned on Amazon and appear to be legitimate works; if Amherst Media is a "vanity press" I would like to see the support for the assertion. "They only publish photography books" is odd; is Edward Elgar Publishing non-reliable because they only publish economics material? I do agree with DGG that the article should be reduced to material that can be directly sourced, something I'd be delighted to do at the end of this AFD. Kuru talk 01:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I agree with your assessment that the debate is disappointing. The nature of things in wikipedia is such that, when reliable secondary sources are missing, it becomes a challenge to determine notability and I see various editors here trying to do a good job in figuring out whether this person is notable or not. Where you see a disappointing debate I find a community that seems to be functioning the way it is supposed to function! To your point about WP:BIO, or in particular WP:CREATIVE being easily met, my conclusion is a little different. Let's see, the criteria for WP:CREATIVE are: (1)The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. This is fairly obviously not the case because the person is barely, if at all, cited. (2) The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. This is not the case. (3) The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. He may marginally satisfy this requirement with the 'how-to' books but no independent periodical articles or reviews on these books have been provided. (4) The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries. No to (a), (b) or (d) and evidence for (c) is not available. While I am open to keeping the article if even one reliable independent source is provided, or if the consensus is that a published book or two is enough for notability whatever the status of secondary sources about the book, I'm afraid I don't really see how the criteria in WP:BIO are 'easily met'. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 02:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem to be confused by my prose; I've made no such claim that he meets WP:CREATIVE. I would ask that you read my analysis again. Kuru talk 03:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You're right. I did misunderstand your post. Apologies. I do think, however, that the debate here is far from disappointing. Notability is the crux of what goes into wikipedia, sourcing is an important (if not the main) way of determining notability, and the debate is centered around these two things. This is, IMO, an example of wikipedia working well. --Regents Park (bail out your boat) 13:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On another matter, may i ask the IP why he continues to edit referring to "Gomez" as if he is not, in fact, Gomez himself? I note this edit of his [[40]] states that he is gomez. I guess one is allowed to write, and advocate for, articles about oneself, but it seems at the very least a little misleading.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't pretend that's not bugging the hell out of me. :) Kuru talk 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This IP is used by more than one computer. A known fact, many "creatives" use "co-ops" for many things. My apologies for the confusion. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando: Are you telling us that the IP that vociferously canvasses for the obscure non-notable Rolando Gomez and feeds a bunch of hooey about the "subjectivity" of best seller lists, mischaracterizes sources, and is trying to use walls of text to confuse an afd debate, and which recently self-identified on Kuru's talk page as Rolando Gomez, is not in fact Rolando Gomez? Either way, the conflict of interest, your relentless canvassing, etc... is pathetic. As to best seller lists and what otherwise makes a book notable; there is no subjectivity. There are clear guidelines for book notability[[41]]. Your books, Rolando (aka ip 72.191.xxx) are VERIFIABLY non-notable as per wikipedia standards. Not even close.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bali, you obviously "have it out for Gomez," and no one ever said the books were being tested for "notability." In fact 95-percent of all photography books over the past 25 years would not meet Wikipedia "notability" standards. You mentioned they were not bestsellers, the only issue discussed was where they best-selling or not? That point has been proven, at least two are verifiable as best-selling photography books. You love to veer off into many tangents. You are living proof, with all your comments and posts on this subject as the type of Wikipedian who loves editwaring. Obviously you're not an admin and will never be one with that type of attitude. You should try filling out your user page so we can see what you really are besides an anti-Gomez stalker. You obviously have a vendetta and proof is in your statements here and your own questionable deletionist comments list history. --72.191.15.133 (talk) 17:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rolando - none of your books are best sellers. Your latest book was ranked when i looked 16,000 at Amazon. According to this [42] that means you were selling at that moment in time at a rate of 12 copies a week.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Rolando/AKA IP As i was researching your illustrious career on your web site, even as you were calling me a "stalker" "edit warrior" etc... I was reading in your bio that you are "a State of Texas Certified Mediator in Conflict Resolution." Clearly not a very skilled one, though.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. Chill, both of you please. Bali ultimate, wether or not the anons are/ or are related to Gomez we need to be welcoming and no one is falling for voluminous assertions instead of actual reliable sources. To the anon(s), if your interest is improving the article you can post reliable sources to the talkpage of the article. At this point all else is just white noise that will be disregarded and repeatedly posting will generally hurt this process and possibly get you banned. -- Banjeboi 00:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete notability not established ukexpat (talk) 13:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was originally closed as delete. However, the decision was overturned at Deletion Review, see Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_December_12#List_of_longest-lasting_empires_.28closed.29. Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 16:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of longest-lasting empires[edit]

List of longest-lasting empires (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reason this article needs to exist as there is already a List of empires, unless this is supposed to be some form of Guiness Book of Records. By definition, the longest lasting empires are a subset of the empires that existed. This article is also plagued with original research. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 13:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps similar redundancy with this article: List of largest empires The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 16:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —GPPande talk! 18:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and I'd also support the suggestion of a togglable duration column in List of empires. I must admit to being a little bemused that the Japanese empire - arguably the longest-lived empire ever - isn't on this list anywhere. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How does one renominate an article for deletion? [43] The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similar to nominating something the first time, but with a couple of extra wrinkles. Details are here. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without redirect. Everything in the list of empires--MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is not a duplicate of List of empires, even if it provides some of the same information, it provides it in a different format and is useful for navigation and informational purposes. It is not original research unless the same information in List of empires is also original research. Even if the two lists could be consolidated by adding an age/duration-column and making the list sortable, this list should not be deleted until that is done, and even then making this a redirect is a better option, and in fact policy says that we don't need to delete duplicate articles. And unless you can be sure that content was not moved from one article to the other, we shouldn't delete for GFDL reasons. It is certainly not redundant with List of largest empires, which contains no information about how long the empires lasted. Finally, any defects with the article can be solved by fixing them. If the Japanese empire belongs here, add it. Finally, this is clearly not indiscriminate information as the longest-lasting empires are clearly of interest to writers of books and scholarly articles. DHowell (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is no current way of sorting this from the List of empires. It is not OR because verything there is fully sourced in t he references to the articles n the empires, though it is usual when challenged to try to find some conventional source for each of them, but actually any standard world history would give almost all the dates. DGG (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a very useful list.--Michael X the White (talk) 16:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 17:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow International Hilton Hotel[edit]

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

Article about a hotel, does not assert notability or cite any sources; creator is a blocked (1 mo.) suspected sock puppet. Prod was contested. —Politizer talk/contribs 15:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no assertion of notability - not even worth, imo, a redirect to Hilton Hotels. Could have been speedied, but perhaps better this way. Springnuts (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being the only 5 star hotel in a major city (largest city in Scotland) is an assertion of notability. --Oakshade (talk) 02:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What is considered the most luxurious hotel in the largest city in Scotland and has hosted major celebrities such as Bill Clinton qualifies it as a notable hotel. Unlike the state when this article was nominated, it now asserts notability and cites sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter "Slides" Mullen[edit]

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

Hoax article. 0 ghits for subject of article or "Bad to the Boner Records". roux   14:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not even hoaxalicious—just stupid. Deor (talk) 14:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comanche Stallion[edit]

Comanche Stallion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comanche stallion

We do not need a crystal ball to see that this movie fails to meet the notability criteria for films:

  • The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics. Nope.
  • The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following:
  • Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. Haven't seen this . . . anyone?
    The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. Nope.
  • The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. Too early. Seems unlikely given initial reception.
  • The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. Don't think so . . . anyone?
    • The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. Nope.
    • The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. Don't think so . . . anyone?
    • The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program. No suggestion of such . . . anyone?

    The fact that a lot of work went into the article, or that it is well-written is irrelevant. This is simply a non-notable film that involves lots of notable people. Note that the alternative criterion that "the film features significant involvement (i.e., one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career." If that is the case, it only argues for the inclusion of a separate article if the information "it would clutter up the biography page of that person if it was mentioned there", which in this case would not appear to be applicable. Bongomatic 14:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Ignoring the long-winded comments above, the fact remains that this barely makes a twitch on IMDB, including no links to any reviews. The claims of a link to John Ford are extremely dubious. Mangoe (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This film does not seem to have achieved a theatrical release that I can find evidence of, nor even a home video release three years after its production, nor received any reviews. Lack of any cultural or commercial impact suggests non-notability to me, despite the participation of performers such as James Arness. (By the way, the nom's references to lack of articles appearing at least five years after the film's initial release, or lack of placement in a poll at least five years after release, are irrelevant to this movie, because the movie only completed production three years ago.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The first AfD of 3 weeks ago: diff


    • Keep as article just came out of an AfD 3 weeks ago and even then it was agreed that it could be further improved and expanded over the next few months. I am sorry if there has been no NEW news in the three weeks since it was kept, but the nom KNEW the article had just recently survived an AFD and I am at a quandary with lack of patience. Are we in a hurry here? It was already determined that the film has had a limited release and involved a number of very notable people. And, a good stub can always be made better, deletion is not the answer. Unmentioned by the nom, is a more important part of WP:NF: "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career", where it can be seen that by it being the final film of several of Hollywood's senior notables, the making of which these notables have dedicated their remaining senior years, in the creating an an homage to legendary director John Ford, it thus meets this criteria. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at the previous AFD, and towards the end of it, concerns about notability were raised but mostly ignored. A set of links were provided to demonstrate that the movie existed (which was the main concern at the time), but examination of those links shows the same problem: no reviews and in fact no evidence that anyone has ever seen this film. Mangoe (talk) 23:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep Notability was established recently at an AfD and nothing has changed. This movie has enough ntoability to pass AfD, so I ask that the nominator withdraw and please bring one of the MANY no good articles to AfD and save our time from having to reconsider subjects we've recently covered. If you want help finding bad articles articles that lack notability I'm happy to point you in the right direction. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't the previous AfD have been included in the nom itself? Why hasn't this been corrected? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The original AfD was for the article titled "Comanche stallion" (small "s"). The title was corrected after the last AfD, and may account for the nom not including it... even though he appears to have been made aware of it before making the nom. I am myself more concerned that the nom apparently feels that 3 weeks was a long enough time to wait for improvement after the last AfD, and that his nomination seems more based upon his disagreement with that VERY recent consensus than anything else. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Strong Keep and Close This is the AfD that MQS is talking about: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Comanche_stallion. It is much too soon to justify another attempt to kill the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:34, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • With regard to the previous AfD, the discussion in that one appeared to focus on whether the movie had actually been made and whether it really was an unrealized John Ford project. Admittedly, it was. But three years after filming, evidence of any theatrical release is vague at best, and it has not even been released on DVD or shown on television as far as I can tell. None of the media coverage, nor even any blog-type commentary, appears to have been written by anyone who had actually seen the completed film. The media coverage seems to have been advance coverage only. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Química Sustancia[edit]

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

    Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONGS. Disputed prod. SummerPhD (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hansjörg Malthaner[edit]

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

    Not a notable person. --Kuebi (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • This AfD was malformed; I fixed it and relisted it at the top of today's log. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Why haven't you nominated Simutrans as well? Looking at the forum it seems like there might be a couple of dozen people interested at best. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 03:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:BIO. Schuym1 (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 15:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kastro (rapper)[edit]

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

    Musician who is not notable outside of the group he's a member of. Fails WP:MUSIC. Prod removed because "member of a notable group who has released solo records". Acutally has released 1 collaborative album (non-notable) outside of the group, apparently no solo albums. Any properly sourced content can be included in Outlawz —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes he's released records with Outlawz and was also a member of the Thoro Headz and the Young Thugs. The 'collaborative album' is by Kastro and E.D.I., both members of Outlawz (who appear to be notable). He has also contributed to albums by several other artists. There may not be enough coverage specifically about Kastro to justify an article, but a merge to Outlawz would be far more constructive than deletion, as I stated when I removed the PROD tag, the full edit summry being "member of a notable group who has released solo records - at the very least this should be merged to the group article".--Michig (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This article cannot be considered in isolation from Kastro discography. The best approach would be to Merge the verifiable facts (i.e. that Kastro and EDI released the Blood Brothers album) into the Outlawz article. The album's release, tracklisting, etc. are easily verifiable. Kastro's contributions to other albums may also be worth merging into Outlawz discography.--Michig (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Inside of Me[edit]

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

    Fails notability per WP:SONG. Yet another (sigh) article that is made up of OR. Song was never released as a single. No references (again) Paul75 (talk) 12:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 02:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forbidden Love (song)[edit]

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

    Fails notability per WP:SONG. Album track only, never a single. The article is pure OR, no references, No value in merging to parent album articles Paul75 (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak Keep Delete. The title is the name of two different songs released by Madonna. The article clarifies this ambiguity well and should be kept in some fashion to differentiate the two. Sources to back the article's claim can easily be found via Google; it is not OR, but it is poorly referenced.SERSeanCrane (talk) 01:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I think the problem is more that the subject fails notability per WP:SONG, not the fact that it is poorly referenced. Paul75 (talk) 06:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Commnet Cut and dry, yes, it fails WP:SONGS; I don't see how it could ever become more than a stub. Not much was ever made of the reused title, very little info out there on either song really. I've changed my mind: nix it. SERSeanCrane (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 00:05, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Something to Remember (song)[edit]

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

    Fails notability per WP:SONG. No references, article pure OR. Should not be merged as there is no notable information on the song worth putting in the parents album's article Paul75 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Nintendo[edit]

    The result was Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Bad faith nomination, no reason for deletion given, non imaginable. Non-admin closure. JulesH (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    SaiyanEmperor2008 (talk) 12:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was : Deleted. WP:SNOW, nonsense, failed attempt at dictionary defintion, Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Jerkhole[edit]

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

    This article appears to be a dictionary definition. A brief Google search reveals other possible definitions: 1. The hole made by one's hand when masturbating; 2. An otherwise meaningless combination of the words 'jerk' and 'arsehole'. The present definition is unsourced. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Menarchy[edit]

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

    This is another candidate for my proposal CSD#G13: Kids writing about something that cannot be of interest to the readers of an encyclopedia. This joke is said to have gained popularity in Australia. I live in Australia and have never heard it. The term gets 3,000 Google hits but a brief review indicates that they are all misspellings of the medical term menarche. Richard Cavell (talk) 11:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete, unsourced, not encyclopedic. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t11:42z
    • Delete then Redirect to menarche as plausible redirect (and to prevent recreation).--Lenticel (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I agree with the redirect. It's a plausible misspelling, and according to Google it is quite common. - Richard Cavell (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blatantly unencyclopedic, speedy delete on the grounds of the snowball clause and/or the criterion A7 (no claim of notability) since an article about something you have invented is essentially an article about you. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In addition, the article (in the first deleted revision) originally said that the joke "... became popular in mid 2010" (i.e. admitting that it isn't actually popular). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete but there was no need to bring this to AfD, it's an obvious candidate for speedy deletion and if you tag it with that it'll go faster. —Politizer talk/contribs 14:45, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Rule #1: If you have to say it's famous, it probably isn't famous. Rule #2: If you have to say it's funny and then explain why it is funny, it probably isn't funny. Maybe you can say something funny about a minstrel show. Get it? Mandsford (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I recently prodded this, but the author seems to have missed the hint given by the first deletion. Icewedge (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:17, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Qâlat Daqqa[edit]

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

    This article was created four months ago, and since then, no significant changes have been made to it. The article is not even worthy of being a stub. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. --Seascic T/C 09:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete after moving any useful information to Tunisian cuisine. (ie, if this spice is particularly common/significant, if Tunisian cooking is characterized by this spice, etc). —Politizer talk/contribs 09:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notability is not established. Boston (talk) 03:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Thanks for making needed improvements. Boston (talk) 08:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This article is a requested article in the field of Herbs and Spices, and meets the four standards of notability:
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Proposing editor does not seem to have familiarity with our food notability guidelines. Please use "Discussion" and work together with the article creator and others to make this the best possible article on this subject rather than taking a confrontational approach and attempting to delete this article on a notable subject. Badagnani (talk) 07:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep There is reason to believe the subject is notable and a trip to a good library is all that's required to add sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep also known as Galat dagga, for which there are 9000 google hits. this AfD, while made in good faith, has probably run afoul of Arabic transliteration. Totnesmartin (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The references already in the article show notability, and there are more sources available such as these books. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. References prove notability. And I want to know how it tastes. 169.229.109.115 (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tulio Jaudy[edit]

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

    no notability, no reference, possible vanity SyG (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete No references given, and a google search only brings up the name in results pages (ie, it's never been mentioned in an article anywhere). Has been tagged (badly) with {{underconstruction}} for over a week, with no construction taking place, and it's pretty likely that the article creator is Jaudy himself. Before any more action is taken, though, could you please notify the article creator using the notification template? —Politizer talk/contribs 09:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified the author of the article, as you rightly suggested. SyG (talk) 09:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China[edit]

    Surveillance and Incarceration in the U.S., Russia, and China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The article seems to be non-encyclopedic and arbitrary collection of information on incarceration in 3 separate countries. The only rationale for putting these three together is one external article that reported that Privacy International listed these as the "top 3" countries in terms of incarceration; the rest of the article is simply references to data that says the same thing, or criticism of Laogai (already available in that article). The decision to discuss these three countries together and not any other is too arbitrary to be encyclopaedic —Politizer talk/contribs 08:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NOTE: Incarceration Rate, Military Spending, and Surveillance among the World Superpowers has recently been created, a nearly exact copy of this article. --ZimZalaBim talk 15:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The article basically seems to be a summary of the findings of one watchdog group. The judicial, police, and prison systems of these countries already have their own articles, making this article redundant. The idea that this one organization focused on these three countries is not a sound basis for an encyclopedic article. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete after ensuring any relevant facts from the article have been moved to appropriate new homes (e.g. surveillance, incarceration). JulesH (talk) 08:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree; if the user wants to move this stuff into his userspace then we can move the country specific bits to articles like Incarceration in the United States and the corresponding articles for Russia and China (with a sentence like "Privacy International identified the United States as one of the '3 worst incarceration societies'" or whatever), and the broader statements can be mentioned at surveillance and incarceration as you suggested. The information about Laogai doesn't need to be moved anywhere, it's already in the Laogai and Re-education through labor articles. —Politizer talk/contribs 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - little more than subjective highlighting of certain statistics, that of themselves aren't notable. Use of the term "surveillance" in title seems inappropriate. Agree that perhaps individual articles like "Incarceration in the United States" might be of value, but would have to be expanded greatly on what is provided here. I see that Incarceration in the United States exists, so, anything new here should just be moved there, adn similarly for articles abotu Russia or China. --ZimZalaBim talk 14:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article explains that the big 3 incarceration societies (US, Russia, and China), which collectively jail about half of the world's prisoners, are also the societies that give their citizens the least privacy and have the most prevalent surveillance. The decision to discuss these 3 in particular is not arbitrary because they are the only superpowers/potential superpowers in the world to be considered "endemic surveillance societies" by privacy international. I agree that the article can be expanded or marked for a proposed merger with another article pending discussion. But, this information is too valuable and relevant to be deleted and must be kept in context if it were moved. The article is not a summary of the finding of one watchdog group because no organization ranks both surveillance and incarceration. (Disclosure, I wrote the article but am in no way related to any party mentioned or referenced in the article. I am a Law School Student that just finished a paper on the subject and decided to create a wikipedia article because no one in my class knew anything about the lack of privacy or incarceration statistics in these three countries.) Unsigned comment by Kikbguy (talk) (contribs) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If the combination of surveillance and incarceration is what's supposed to make this article special, then it's missing a lot, because the article in its current state doesn't integrate the two at all. Sentence 1 says the three are "endemic surveillance societies," and sentence two immediately switches to saying the countries have lots of people incarcerated, without ever addressing the relationship between the two. The rest of the article talks exclusively about incarceration, completely ignoring surveillance; the only mention of surveillance anywhere in the article is the quoting of Privacy International. Finally, the statement that "The United States, Russia, and China have more total prisoners then any other countries in the world" is almost meaningless: these countries also have some of the worlds' highest populations in general, so it's not surprising that they have a high raw number of people incarcerated; talking about it per capita would be more useful, although still not enough to save this article. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I did mention that the US and Russia were the highest per capita incarcerators and referenced that fact as my third reference in my originally submitted article. I agree that the article is just the begining of an article and does not explain the correlation bewteen the two because I'm not yet sure if there is a causal relationship to explain the correlation. But the correlation is important and needs to be further studied by someone who can determine whether or not a causal relationship exists which would explain the correlation. Unsigned comment by Kikbguy (talk) (contribs) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's no point having an article in the mainspace if the article's whole raison d'etre is a causal relationship that might not even exist. If you want to investigate it further, the best thing to do is to move the article into your own userspace (by using the move tab at the top of the article, and moving it to User:Kikbguy/Surveillance and incarceration in the United States, Russia, and China, and then allowing an admin to delete the redirect); it shouldn't be a mainspace article if you can't establish the significance of this otherwise arbitrary relationship. —Politizer talk/contribs 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Something that "needs further study" before the article makes sense isn't ready for an article at all. There is a serious potential for drawing your own conclusions in a situation like this, and that is to be avoided in encyclopedia articles. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The whole reason for the article is a correlation which does exist and few know about, not a causal relationship that may exist. I wrote the article to disseminate important information that does exist and can be verified through references including but not limited to the ones that I cited. I thought that was the goal of wikipedia.Kikbguy (talk) 19:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • First of all, as far as I can tell, the correlation was not pointed out in any of the sources you gave; the Privacy International source points out the three countries' problems with surveillance, some other sources mention the three countries' problems with incarceration, and you put the two together. This is a kind of original research or novel synthesis, not something that's independently significant and covered by other sources. In other words, as far as I can tell, the topic of "surveillance and incarceration in the United States, Russia, and China" is something that you just made up.
              • And more seriously...now that I've looked more closely, I don't think you're even interpreting the data correctly. Look at the original data table [347=x-347-559597 here] (from the source you gave in reference #1, this article). The U.S., Russia, and China are not listed as the three worst surveillance societies. The three worst, in this data, are Malaysia, China, and Russia; also in the top 7 are Taiwan, Thailand, and Singapore. The U.S. is 7th. Only one time does the article even mention the U.S. and Russia in the same breath, and at the end of the posting the writer even directly separates them: "In any case for all your whining, the UK scored a 1.4, China, Russia, & Malaysia scored 1.3. The U.S. is still doing a bit better at 1.5."
              • So, long story short, not only is this article an an arbitrary cross-categorization and a pairing of two factors that are not connected in any other literature, it is factually inaccurate and a source of misinformation. If the U.S. isn't listed in the top 3 endemic surveillance societies in the one and only source that you've used to rank them, then the whole exercise of comparing these societies in terms of surveillance and incarceration is futile. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • addendum: I have changed the article so that it no longer implies that the US, Russia, and China are the top 3 surveillance societies. That was just to clean up misinformation; I still believe this article is OR/synthesis and based on arbitrary cross-categorization (the creator's rationale for creating it, stating above, is essentially that these nations are "the only superpowers/potential superpowers in the world to be considered "endemic surveillance societies" by privacy international" and that all three happen to be in the top 3 for incarceration and the top 7 for surveillance...that's a lot of qualifiers) and should be deleted. So far, the only person against deletion has been the article creator. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points all. What about the British obsession with security cameras? What about India's possible emergence as a "superpower"? Beeblebrox (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well obviously Politizer doesn't want my article up. At least there is a good discussion on this article and I know that at least 5 wikipedia editors have read it. Even if you kill my article please don't let the information die. There are too many people in prison because they are threats to the ruling party or status quo. All three countries have a history of using surveillance technology against political dissidents or groups that threaten the status quo with similiar "keep the people safe" rationales, such as Cointelpro by the FBI in the U.S., Goulag prisoners in Russia, and Laogai prisoners in China.Kikbguy (talk) 20:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • But identifying these three countries as the only countries to talk about, while many other countries use surveillance technology for the same thing, is arbitrary and uninformative. If you want to write this article, then do your research so that you can talk about all countries that do this, rather than giving undue weight to these three.
        • You seem to think I have a personal quibble against your article. This isn't personal; it's just a problematic article, for the reasons I have pointed out. I don't have anything against you and I have already offered you the option of moving the article to your userspace where you can continue to work on it and then move it back to mainspace if it ever gets good enough to be included. No one here is trying to stifle your information; we're trying improve the quality of the encyclopaedia by removing articles that don't belong. —Politizer talk/contribs 20:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Wow, this article must not be deleted. There is currently little information available on surveillance and incarceration relationships among the world's top three superpowers. I would like to learn more about the possible reasons that would explain the statistical relationship. Unsigned comment by 38.105.86.203 (talk)
    • Keep and expand: Per Wikipedia WP:BIAS policy, "Despite the many contributions of Wikipedians writing in English as a non-native language, the English Wikipedia is dominated by native English-speaking editors from Anglophone countries. These Anglophone countries tend to be industrialized, thereby accentuating the encyclopedia's bias to contributions from First World countries."--Jmundo (talk) 23:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)Delete: The appropriate article should be List of countries by incarceration rate.--Jmundo (talk) 00:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What? This AfD has nothing to do with the language or style in which the article is written. —Politizer talk/contribs 23:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The WP:Bias policy is about the world wide perspective that Wikipedia should have. Many wikipedia articles are written from the bias of the industrialized countries, see WP:Bias.--Jmundo (talk) 01:00, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know what it says at WP:BIAS. But this article has nothing to do with those issues. Including this article on WP wouldn't add anything to worldwide perspective; the article is an arbitrary cross-categorization founded on original research. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand I completely agree, this article is relevant and it should be expanded. I can't beleive it's even been posed up for deletion in the first place. I'm looking in to the concept myself and see a relationship between welfare, incarceration, and surveillance that can be well referenced if one just spends a little time looking. But this information would be better disseminated if it remains on wikipedia. Unsigned comment by User:86.59.32.35 (talk) (86.59.32.35)— 86.59.32.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
      • Wikipedia is not a place for disseminating new information that you are "looking into." It's for disseminating well-established information that is documented in third-party sources...not just some abstract "relationship" that you think you see. —Politizer talk/contribs 00:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The International Centre for Prison Studies from King's College in London is a "well established" source.The article should be expanded using more references not delected because the subject is not in the U.S media.--Jmundo (talk) 01:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a well-established source but it's not saying what this article is trying to claim. The page linked is just a list of incarceration rates; it doesn't do a thing to back up the claims of this article. Try actually looking at the article and sources before you leave irrelevant comments. —Politizer talk/contribs 01:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - folks, the fact that these three countries might have poor incarceration and/or surveillance records might be true, and there are likely sources to support such a claim. but this article purports to make some kind of connection/correlation between the three, which is not supported by any sources provided. No problem having an article for each case, and probably ok to expand more appropriate articles like List of countries by incarceration rate, but this article is an arbitrary highlighting of three countries, with nothing binding them together other than the author's own analysis/opinion. --ZimZalaBim talk 01:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin. The two IPs in this debate so far, 86.59.32.35 and 38.105.86.203, have been identified and blocked as open proxies. -- zzuuzz (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Politizer certainly didn't familiarize himself with the facts of my article when he claimed my article "only referenced one wired article and criticized Laogai". I never criticized logai, I just used the Logai Research Foundation as a reference for the 6.8 million people it believes were in Laogai camps and every sentence of my 4 sentence article is referenced to an entirely different source. And you may have the power to delete the article with some bogus rationale, but you will be doing the world a disservice, instead you should mark it as a stub until it is complete, like Politizer should have done in the first place.Kikbguy (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't claim that you only referenced one article, I claimed that only one article supported your statements (the other articles, as I have explained already, are irrelevant). Since then I have looked closer and found that actually none of the articles support your claims, and I have described that above. If the article is incomplete (as you have admitted), the proper action is not to mark it as a stub and leave it for people to see and be misinformed by, but to move it to your userspace where you may work on it at your leisure—as I have already suggested multiple times. Also, please note that insulting other editors and calling the AfD process "bogus" is not a good way to get your article rescued. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh look, it's lord of wikipedia with his arbitrary deletion powers based on false claims. I never insulted other editors, I only insulted you. You told me on my homepage that I shouldn't accuse you of killing information when in fact that is exactly what you do when you propose to delete my article based on false pretenses. Deleting my article will not make the fact that you are abusing your power as a wikipedia moderator any less valid. Kikbguy (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Banned as a sockpuppet and has attempted evasion of that block on several occasions.--VS talk 20:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin The original creator of this article, Kikbguy, has begun editing from a sock IP address (diff), 74.79.166.241; this casts doubt on some of the other IPs who have commented on this discussion (and are already blocked). —Politizer talk/contribs 04:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see any potential for expansion, too narrow topic for an encyclopedia. Delete (or userfy at best). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • NOTE I gave this user the option of userfying early on and he has instead resorted to personal attacks and socking, as well as recreating the article under other names in mainspace, showing a deliberate unwillingness to userfy. So I don't see much value anymore in userfying the article to him, although if someone else wants to take this under their wing I won't stop them. —Politizer talk/contribs 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete arbitrary collection of information, redundant to articles on the individual countries. No justification for comparing them all in this way. Hut 8.5 17:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence has been presented that the relationship between surveillance and incarceration has been the subject of any significant study. If there are such studies then there is the potential for an article on surveillance and incarceration, but there would be no justification for limiting it to three countries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Indiscriminate as there's no particular reason for lumping these countries together, uses Wikipedias a soapbox. Ray (talk) 18:59, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (full disclosure- I was alerted to this discussion by Politizer). This article does contain information that should be saved but there are already existing articles for Incarceration and Surveillance and I see no reason why the page should focus only on these three countries. Superpowers is also pretty vague term. Does that include India? The EU? The relation between incarceration and surveillance is an interesting issue that deserves mention, with a cited source making that relation explicit. But do I think that one factoid about these three particular countries deserves its own article, no.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this drivel. Obviously. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as WP:SOAP. Arbitrary set of countries. Even the title given to the first citation is misleading "Privacy International Ranks U.S., Russia, and China as Worst Surveillance Countries" - that web page correctly says that the US, UK, Thailand, Taiwan, Singapore, Russia, China and Malaysia are assigned in the Privacy International list to the worst category. The Privacy International document [46] actually ranks Russia, China and Malaysia as worst (with 1.3 points each). UK and Singapore get 1.4 points. The US comes equal sixth worst with Thailand and Taiwan (and 1.5 points). Jll (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOW Beeblebrox (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Laoise Ní Chárthaigh[edit]

    Laoise Ní Chárthaigh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Not notable. Wholly fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. This persons only claim to fame is that in 2004 she was the youngest ever member of the National Executive Committee of Fine Gael (Fine Gael is the largest opposition party in the republic of Ireland). She has not being elected to public office, or even stood for it. Google searches returns no reliable secondary sources, nothing appears in any national or local media. Finally a search of the Fine Gael website returns zero results for her. Snappy (talk) 07:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks to the nominator for taking the time to include the nomination in the appropriate projects. Kudos. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nominator. Nothing on google and no other sources to suggest she meets WP:POLITICIAN. Valenciano (talk) 08:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. If it were verifiable from independent sources, I'd say her position in a major political party is a notable one, but I'm seeing nothing at all to verify it. JulesH (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Also doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO for "significant coverage"/secondary sources. Guliolopez (talk) 23:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. This verifies that the subject did serve on the Fine Gael Executive Council. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply - The subject did indeed serve on the Fine Gael NEC, that is not in question. This discussion is on whether this person meets Wikipedia notability criteria. Snappy (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - merely being a party officer does not meet WP:N. (Disclosure: I am a party official in the USA.) Bearian (talk) 01:18, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Raleigh-Durham International Airport. In a reduced form, possibly.  Sandstein  20:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Airline hubs at RDU[edit]

    Airline hubs at RDU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Much (but by no means all) of the information in this article belongs elsewhere, and probably already is included there. Information on the airlines strategies belongs with the airlines, a minor list of the airlines that have hubs at RDU belongs in the RDU article, etc. However, there is no information whatsoever in this article that is appropriate for a standalone article. Bongomatic 07:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Crash and burn - per nom. // roux   14:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reroute to Raleigh-Durham International Airport, send luggage with it. This a spinoff from an unnecessarily large article about the airport. The gist of the article is that the airport has served as a smaller hub for Delta Airlines and for (not now) Midway Airlines, and here's a directory of what cities that Delta flights went to and which cities Midway flights went to. That minutiae belongs, if at all, with the rest of the minutiae in the parent article, which notes everything from gate numbers (Delta is at gates C8, C9, C10, and C11, as well as C15 and C16 in Terminal 2, in case anyone's interested). Merge it all back. Mandsford (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge with the airport. The fact that several airlines had hubs at RDU is a notable part of its history, but it is not the kind of thing which justifies a spin-out. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge the essentials to the airport. If it is necessary to keep most of the dialog, then it may be better merged into the airline article since the narrative seems to be more about the airline rather then the airport. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List of brahmins[edit]

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

    Blatant violation of NPOV. While there do exist many "Brahmin" communities in India, there is no "Brahmin community" in India. While I feel that lists of people based on their residence or origin such as List of Tamil people, List of Telugu people or even communal lists as List of Beni Israel could be allowed as they are informational, list as these which are based on varna serve no purpose other than casteist propaganda. Besides I don't find anything common among these people other than one or two Brahmanic rituals and the religious sanction of the Manusmriti to illtreat people of other varnas. I might be wrong here, but even if consensus is in favor of retention, I feel that maintenance would be a tough job and would even require full protection. The purpose of creating a list like this is not fulfilled as it would scarcely be informational. See Wikipedia:Lists#Information RavichandarMy coffee shop 07:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Indiscriminate as in way too broad. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: useless list maintained by anonymous users.--GDibyendu (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I don't see why it is too broad. More important, the original nomination here seems affected by ethnic prejudice. "They were the oppressors, so we shouldnt include them" -- all the more reason to do lists for them -- and other groups -- so their dominance can be fairly seen. DGG (talk) 08:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I haven't called them "oppressors" anywhere. The article is filled with propaganda and OR. Please have a look at the textual part of the list. You will realize it. And mind you, it has zero references thereby making verification difficult. As for the Manusmriti remark, what I've said is factually accurate. Other than privileges conferred upon Brahmins, there is little in common between the different communities. Brahmin communities differ from each other in their culture, language, dress - almost everything. I don't find any similarity between M. S. Subbulakshmi and say someone like Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru. And FYI, we don't have lists for other varnas like List of Kshatriyas, List of Vaishyas and List of Shudras.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 08:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looks like a caste of thousands. Mandsford (talk) 17:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Violates NPOV. The encyclopaedic value of this list is questioned --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:34, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep List in no way violates POV or furthers any propaganda. Nominator themself shows heavy POV and admits these people do have something in common. Edward321 (talk) 14:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: This list has some factual inaccuracies as well. It lists Kamal Hassan as Kamal Hassan Srinivasa Iyer. Kamal Hassan, in fact, is not an Iyer but an Iyengar. It also lists K. S. Chitra who, in fact, is not a Brahmin. Besides, there are so many red links and entries without links at all. Do these individuals satisfy notability? Well, if POV is the only issue, then retaining this article could be considered. But then, that's not the case. And how come do you consider my nom as POV. I was only quoting what is mentioned in Manusmriti article. Classification based on varna is scarcely of any informational value. For example, we don't have List of Aryans or List of Semites, etc,though geneticists mighjt feel that these races do exist. It only serves to fuel hatred. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 03:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. India Caste related lists are out of control.Taprobanus (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. An indiscriminate listing of persons belonging to a certain community. There are definitive arguments about amount of work done by this minority community in the multiple areas of society. But the main article can be considered for addition of such information. Simply adding persons who satisfy WP:BIO (some don't even pass that) can't really be considered a positive treatment on an encyclopedic level.
    On a more technical level, the list is rife with inaccuracies. e.g. Sunil Gavaskar belongs to Chandraseniya Kayastha Prabhu, further inaccuracies in sections such as List of Brahmin Gotras. There's incessant duplication of names, no verification provided on the persons background, random cross-categorization in terms of years, languages, areas of work etc. The list is a complete disaster with virtually no light at the end of the tunnel. LeaveSleaves talk 14:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You see, there are many Brahmin communities. Fusing them all into a single "Brahmin community" isn't appropriate. A Brahmin is simply a varna. And then, if at all you wish to verify if someone is a Brahmin or not you could check List of Chitpavans, List of Deshastas, List of Iyers, List of Iyengars, List of Nambudiris, List of Bengali Brahmins, and those of other Brahmin communities. What is the use of this list? This makes it clear that it doesn't serve any informational purpose too. I wouldn't support a decision to create such a list in the article on Brahmin either. Such classification on basis of varna would only create unnecessary communal hatred and would be used for propaganda. Instead, readers should be lead to lists for individual Brahmin communities -RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Have a look the talk page for Mukkulathor article where unparliamentary abuses have been exchanged as a result of a heated debate as to whether the Mukkulathor were Kshatriyas or not. -RavichandarMy coffee shop 17:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Magic Voyage[edit]

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

    Notwithstanding the conclusion of the first nomination, this film does not satisfy WP:NF.

    There has never been a claim that this film meets the main criteria there.

    The out-of-context justification for the previous "keep" decision at the original AfD was a selective interpretation of "The film features significant involvement (ie. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career."

    While a number of notable people were associated with this project, there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that it constituted a "major part of" any of their careers. Bongomatic 06:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • The voyage is over - per nom. //roux   14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'm not sure how the film fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. "Abenteuer von Pico und Columbus" was a direct-to-video film that was redubbed in the United States by Hemdale for re-release, and it's clearly notable [47]. It doesn't matter whether it got awards or not. I'm sure the latest Barbie DVD won't be an Oscar winner, but that won't make it any less notable. Mandsford (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no reviews, no article. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep on the grounds that, whether the nominator agrees with the outcome or not, this article passed AFD with a keep decision less than a month ago, and articles must not be renominated in such a short period of time in this fashion as it undermines the AFD process. I believe there are other processes, including I think deletion review, that can be followed if you disagree with an AFD decision. Or else, simply wait 6 months to see if the article is improved and then renominate. 23skidoo (talk) 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep. 1.) The keep-!votes are still as correct as they were a month ago and 2.) renominating an article because you don't like the previous outcome, i.e. renominating until it gets deleted, is, as 23skidoo points out, undermining the very foundation of having a discussion about whether to delete an article. If you disagree, take it to WP:DRV but not here again. Regards SoWhy 19:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep' consensus does not usually change this fast--though it would help to have something more in the way of references. DGG (talk) 23:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment in response to 23skidoo, SoWhy, and DGG. It is clear by the fact that there was (a) a new nomination; and (b) two editors already in one day who agree with the "delete" recommendation that the "consensus" reached by the previous AfD disucssion was not a fully considered one. The nomination in that case did not actually address the notability guidelines, and neither the nominator nor anyone else pointed out the inapplicability of the lone reason given for the article to be kept. DRV doesn't seem applicable because the closing editor was not negligent in closing the debate--the problem was mainly of the original nomination.
    Looking at the debate a month ago, the closing admin said nothing more than "The result was keep." The admin didn't say that there was a problem with the original nomination. Within those four words, the admin did not say anything that suggests "a selective interpretation of" some policy. Looking at the debate right now, I don't see that any editor has said that they agree that "the 'consensus' reached by the previous AfD disucssion was not a fully considered one". Thus, I don't agree that the debate a month ago was closed on a flaw in the nomination process. Mandsford (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say that there is a problem with the original nomination I did not mean a procedural one. Rather, the nomination failed to give detailed reasons that the article's subject does not qualify for inclusion in WP. Thus (through no fault of the closing editor), the comments on the previous AfD page were not terribly informed (and the comment that drew the wong conclusion from the alternative grounds for inclusion was not challenged). So "consensus" was reached without the context necessary to come to a (in my view correct) "delete" result. Procedure alone doesn't determine outcome--substance matters too. Bongomatic 01:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but WP:DRV clearly states that deletion review is also to be used for cases when new information warrants a different outcome. If you think that the closing admin made a mistake because the !votes were incorrect within policy, DRV is the way to go. Your argument is that your !vote was the only correct one, because it was within policy. This means that the closing admin, if you are correct, made a mistake in judging the outcome. But you not even tried (as far as I can see) to talk to the closing admin (MBisanz (talk · contribs)) nor did you try DRV. Re-nominating for deletion because you disagree with the outcome shortly after the last discussion is specifically discouraged by the deletion policy. Regards SoWhy 09:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are no reviews of the film, nor are there any notable sources provided. Furthermore, there is no evidence provided in the article that the film was widely distributed. There is now good sourcing; seems to have been distributed by Image Entertainment. I think there's enough there now to keep it. SERSeanCrane (talk) 03:42, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, for the reasons mentioned above. Some users should focus on actually improving articles or fighting vandalism/POV instead of trying to get articles deleted through repeated nominations. Laurent paris (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep... Again... just as I opined 4 weeks ago. Improvement was easy per WP:ATD. SO have just finished expanding and sourcing the article. Am actually a bit impressed by the voice cast of the English version. And the fact that it survived an AfD just 4 weeks agor does not take away the fact that cast is award winning. The nom, in ignoring last month's AfD, is perhaps counting on the difficulty in finding reviews for a 16-year-old children's direct-to-dvd animated film. Luckily, just as was pointed out last month, WP:FILM allows us to consider the significant involvement of award-winning cast in context with the making of this film. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No reliable sources are in the article that show notability. WP:NF says that notable cast only makes a movie notable if it's a major role and a major part of their career. There are no sources that shows that it is. Schuym1 (talk) 09:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Vote changed to keep: per the review that Schmidt found. Schuym1 (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep C'mon, we just went through this a month ago. — BQZip01 — talk 23:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep "sour grapes" is not a valid deletion reason. Artw (talk) 00:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G11, most of the content is a list of links, which in themselves are nothing more than an advertisement. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Commerce revision[edit]

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

    A collection of links to website with commerce coursework. Speedy declined. While it claims to be "world's leading online resource for preparing GCSE exam", its hosted on webhosting-for-free.com (that just mystifies me) -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 06:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is only meant to spread free books, and promote self study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hassanlhr (talk • contribs)
    • Comment: I declined the CSD only because of the sweeping (but unsourced) assertion of significance along with a lack of otherwise blatant advertising spin, but if I see a consensus here for an A7 speedy deletion I'll do so. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete' I'm okay with speedy. What assertion of significance? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Nevermind my question, I see what you meant. Proceed with deletion. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a basis for a speedy would be merely a list of websites. DGG (talk) 08:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. discounting the WP:SPA Secret account 00:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations[edit]

    Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Possible hoax. Will retract deletion request with inline references to reliable, published, third party, sources. For more information see email and notes at VRTS ticket # 2008120410019856. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t06:49z 06:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep Delete Not sure what is thought to be a hoax. Much of the article belongs in the main Council on Foreign Relations article. The Manhattan Committee has a site here. My guess is it just started calling itself "Manhattan" rather than "New York", accounting for paucity of refs under that name. That there were local committees set up by the CFR in 1938 in several cities is easily checked, by looking at these search results. Here's a book on these committees. Here's an encyclopedia article on the Louisville committee. I think we should try to have articles on the overarching organization affiliated to the CFR, the American Committees on Foreign Relations and each local group.John Z (talk) 10:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      [48] is not a third party source, and none of the other refs are for this organization. Google News has nothing [49], and Google only has WP clones, [50], and this discussion about it being a possible scam. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-06t11:20z
      There's no question there's a NYC committee, the question seems to be whether the nyccfr.org site and the name "manhattan committee ..." is associated with it, or is some kind of scam. The latter seems to be likely, but unproved. My keep was more directed to the real organizations which don't have any articles and to get more information about the nomination. The 1964 book on the committees does not have the word manhattan on any page according to google, so "Manhattan Committee ..." was not in use then, increasing the likelihood of it being unconnected to the CFR.John Z (talk) 12:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It seems pretty clear now that the "Manhattan Committee on Foreign relations" is a (non-notable) hoax as suspected. Here is the official list of all the local ACFR committees. The Manhattan Committee is not on it, nor is there a local NYC committee, because the main Council on Foreign Relations has always been headquartered there, and so there apparently was no need for a local affiliate.John Z (talk) 23:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It seems clear that the CFR and the NYCFR are entirely distinct organizations. The only legitimate hit on the NYCFR is its website, which suggests that nobody really cares. Mangoe (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The only dispute regarding this page is the fact that the MCFR is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations. The summary states that "the committees on foreign relations were founded by the council on foreign relations in 1938" that is a completely verifiable fact Here. The Manhattan Chapter is a chapter of the American Committees on Foreign Relations Here. Furthermore, if that is the only problem with this entry, why not just edit that portion out? Then we can all get back to doing more important, constructive, and fulfilling things. • createawiki (talk) 03:24, 9 December 2008
      • [51] is not a reliable, published, third party source. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t21:42z
    • Delete It does seem that this committee is in some extended sense a child of the CFR, being na regional chapter of the ACFR. The problem, nonetheless, is that it isn't notable. Googling consistently fails to turn up anything of note. I can't even get something to turn up on the ACFR. The best hits I get merely trace these chapters back (through linkages) to the CFR. There is an article on at least one other regional chapter, and it has the same issues. If American Committees on Foreign Relations can be made viable, then perhaps these regional chapters can be redirected to it; at this point that doesn't appear possible. Mangoe (talk) 21:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I now agree with your original delete, not this one. :-) The MCFR seems to be a proven hoax which has no relation to the CFR or the ACFR, real and notable organizations with plenty of refs, although only the first has an article here. As above, the MCFR, or any NYC committee is NOT on the complete list of all committees of the ACFR.John Z (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It appears that all the committees that are part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations have the same claim to be founded by the Council on Foreign Relations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 just to name a few!! The Manhattan Committee on Foreign Relations is no exception Here. Additionally it could not use the name Committee on Foreign Relations without authorization from the ACFR Here. I see know fraud on this entry, at worst it may simply need some editing!!! • wikieraser 03:49, 9 December 2008
      • Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links? -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
        • The last link seems nonexistent, too.John Z (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Many of User:Wikieraser's external links have extra slashes at the end, if you remove them the links work, e.g. the last link should be [52]. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-10t11:51z
    • Keep There is no problem with the viability of the American Committees on Foreign Relations and google turns up over 1,500 searches. Reference This Book on the ACFR, Here, Here, and These 34 Committee websites. Additionally there are independent sources for each committee Reuters and North Florida Committee on Foreign Relations and Lastly this • wikieraser 04:15, 9 December 2008
      • Where is the Manahttan committee mentioned in these links?
      • Also, please don't change or delete other editors' votes and comments: [53], [54], [55]. -- Jeandré, 2008-12-09t23:06z
        • The Last post was about the American Committees on Foreign Policy NOT the Manhattan Committee. It was in reference to the earlier post about the ACFR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:27:23z, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.140.14 (talk • contribs) 2008-12-09t23:28:12z

    This is getting too confused[edit]

    This has gotten to be a complete mish-mash, so let me try to lay out the issues:

    • Is the Manhattan Committee independently notable? That is what it needs to have an article. My personal conclusion is that it is not. As I said, I could pull up nothing more than the most minimal signs of it.
    • Is it the same as the Council on Foreign Relations? This it clearly is not. It has a different website, different physical offices, and different officers. This is my biggest issue with the content of the current article: it is borrowing notability from the CFR through the use of a list of references, non of which mention the Manhattan Committee.
    • Is it part of the American Committees on Foreign Relations? That isn't entirely clear. I'm inclined to believe that the ACFR website has a mistake and that the Manhattan Committee is a chapter of the ACFR. Nevertheless, the problem then is that the ACFR doesn't have an article and is of questionable notability itself.

    When all the unsourced and CFR-related material is removed from the article, the only thing left is the opening paragraph; and I think at this point that's all we can get. At that point, we don't have to answer the issues about the ACFR. The lack of independent notability is good enough reason to delete the article, or at best redirect it back to the parent organization. When push comes to shove, it is nothing more than a regional chapter of some larger organization. Mangoe (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaye Saint John[edit]

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

    This article makes no attempt to relay its importance. It reads as a possible WP:COI submission. There are no reliable sources that substantially discuss the article's topic. ju66l3r (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'd say keep, but the article borders on incomprehensible, and is possibly original research. It states that the person is an artist, then a fictional character. Who "may or may not" be the writer of the work of fiction. This is totally meaningless. Therefore delete without prejudice to recreation using reliable sources (e.g. [56] [57] [58] [59]). JulesH (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhhhh the subject seems notable (scary thought that) but the article is really awful. Mangoe (talk) 17:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No assertion of notability, no sources - even the website is defunct (ok, thanks JulesH for those above - but none are in the article yet). Probable COI, largely gibberish. An article on the film would be the way to go I think, while Shaye makes up her mind whethjer she exists or not. Johnbod (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe there are two films (although I've only found reliable sources regarding one of them... it could be the other, which is titled Shaye St John - The Triggers Compilation, is a new release), which suggests an article on the character/persona/whatever this is seems more appropriate. Still not sure what any of this is really about, though. JulesH (talk) 08:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete I can't find a single source that shows notability. Even if this person is an artist, he or she has not drawn criticism from a notable sourceMrathel (talk) 07:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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


    BRING SHAYE BACK!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.116.190.222 (talk) 14:41, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Secret account 14:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Awaydays (film)[edit]

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

    Unremarkable film. Unable to identify any significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. Bongomatic 05:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Gummies. The current content is brief and unsourced, but may be merged from the history if so desired.  Sandstein  19:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fizzy Blue Bottles[edit]

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

    Delicious no doubt but not an appropriate topic for an encyclopedia entry. Non-notable. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Bongomatic 05:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Not really notable. Although I do suddenly have a craving for some, they are nice--Jac16888 (talk) 05:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google turns up lots of sales sites and a couple of YouTubes, but no sign of independent coverage in reliable secondary sources. Rklear (talk) 05:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Surely there are books on candy. Who makes this product? What is the history? I lean towards concluding it's notable, despite the lack of web based coverage available on the subject. Where is a knowledgable sweet tooth when we need one? At worst I would think it would be best to merge it somewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay I dug a little and it appears to have been a candy made by Lutti, which was bought by Leaf SAS [60], the French division of Leaf Candy Company, which has itself been subsequently been sold to a couple private investment companies. I think it would be worth including as one of their candies maybe? Here's a nice pic of the candies to inspire [61]. Or perhaps someone could create a expand the Pick n mix article? Not to be confused with the Pick 'n' Mix album by Lolly (singer). ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My tireless work on this important subject hasn't stopped. There is also a Cola bottles article on the candiies. Can it be merged there? ChildofMidnight (talk) 11:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/redirect to Pick n mix per ChildofMidnight. The candy is non-notable, but the company is, so I see no harm in merging the candy article to the company article. Cunard (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Pick n mix discusses a sales technique for general merchandise, not a particular company or product line. It's not obvious how appropriate such a merge would be. Rklear (talk) 05:04, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to merge/redirect to either Cola bottles or Leaf Candy Company. A short sentence in the Cola bottles article would suffice. I don't know much about this type of candy or these companies. A search on Google doesn't enlighten me either, so if a merge to one of these articles is implausible, I would support a delete as a last resort. Cunard (talk) 05:21, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe, but that topic may not be notable. Boston (talk · contribs) has placed a prod on it. I've done some searches on sources for cola bottles and so far have found no reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I just removed the tag (before reading your comment). One step at a time. Let's combine these two articles and then consider a merge with the parent company. I'd like a chance to look into the subjects.ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cola Bottles are made by multiple companies - not all make Fizzy Blue Bottles - so I would oppose and merge to a company on that basis. These sweets(candy) need to be show that they are notable or maybe could be listed in an article on gum sweets. Nuttah (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good piont. I think a Gummies article makes sense and the first step of that is to combine these two. I'm open on whether to change the Gummi bear article to Gummies or Gummy candies or something like that, or whether to take out the other types of gummy candy fromt hat article and put those all together with these for a new article. But I think there's no reason to delete the history of these stubby articles that are best merged. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Once they are combined there is also the possibility of merging it with a "Gummies" article. Right now the only article is Gummi bears which mentions the other types. But a renamed more general article (including gummi bears) or a separate article on the various types seems appropriate. There are of course books on these candies, so these are notable topics. I think a merge is quite reasonable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 09:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support the speedy close. Great job on saving this savory delectable from an unsavory deletion! Cunard (talk) 06:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hurrah! The fizzy bottles have been rescued! 169.229.109.115 (talk) 07:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Compton (musician)[edit]

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

    Apparently entirely non-notable beyond playing with a few notable artists? No sources other than links to website/fan group. MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Norman Thomas Miller[edit]

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

    Seems more of a copy-paste from a personal site - notability not attested. —La Pianista (T•C•S) 05:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pat Flynn[edit]

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

    Non-notable beyond his role as a member of New Grass Revival? In addition, the primary source is from his own biography on his website? MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 05:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. From the article: "During his tenure with NGR, Pat was voted 'Best Acoustic Guitarist' five years in a row by FRETS magazine's National Readers Poll." [...] "In recent years, Flynn has received over stories in Flatpicking Guitar and Bluegrass Now magazines,a and he was chosen as Tom T Hall's musical director and guitarist for Hall’s recent “Artist In Residence” month at The Country Music Hall of Fame in Nashville, a retrospective of Tom T Hall's incredible musical career." OK, sources need to be found for these, but I'd that's clear notability. JulesH (talk) 10:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is FRETS notable enough for a Wikipedia entry and to fit the standards of a credible award? There are a lot of talented musicians, but that doesn't make them notable.MyGrassIsBlue (talk) 22:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to New Grass Revival. This is a good place to start, but I'm not certain that he has enough notability outside the band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 00:35, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. It's a poorly-written, poorly sourced article that needs a lot of work, but he's suficiently notable for inclusion apart from his work in NGR on the basis of 1) awards from FRETS Magazine (these may or may not be sufficient on their own), 2) authorship of many recorded songs, including a song charting at #13 on country charts and #69 on pop charts ("Do What You Gotta Do"), 3) two solo albums, and 4) a massive body of work as a session artist. Cmadler (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "FRETS" is not a notable publication apparently, no wiki. Having songs recorded is not a basis for having a Wiki, and do we really want to create a page for someone who writes 1 song ? He's not notable beyond a short bio in the New Grass Revival Wiki. In addition his bio is almost verbatim from his website.
            • I have heard of FRETS, but am not familiar with it. That doesn't mean it's not notable. It's not in Wikipedia, but that also doesn't mean the award is non-notable; Wikipedia is not complete. He's written many recorded songs, I gave one example that went high on the charts. As I mentioned, he also has two solo albums and a huge body of work as a session artist. I agree that this article is poorly written. If you were to suggest that the article is so bad that it should be complete scrapped and written from scratch, I might almost agree with you. But I do believe that Flynn is sufficiently notable to merit his own article, separate from NGR. Cmadler (talk) 13:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy delete g7, blanked by author. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Norman McGuire[edit]

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

    nn actor, played bit parts in a few TV shows. Does not pass WP:ENTERTAINER, no sources to pass WP:BIO. gnfnrf (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Addendum In a response to this AfD, the article creator identified themselves as the subject's agent, so add a major WP:COI problem to the situation. gnfnrf (talk) 06:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've cleaned it up a little bit. There was a bit of namedropping going on, and inflationary language ('...has worked with Emmy nominated actor...') - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that the original author has now blanked the page (after some edit and reversion warring with myself and others). If an admin chooses to close this early, please note that there is an image attached to this page: Image:Norman-mcguire-1.JPG - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bernward Malaka[edit]

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

    If the subject of this article is notable at all (which doesn't seem obvious from the article or a GS), it is for a single event, which is adequately covered at the appropriate article. Bongomatic 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Being a member of Die Krupps establishes notability. Events beyond the band justify a separate article rather than a paragraph in the band article. Some references wouldn't go amiss though. Nuttah (talk) 10:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Notability can also be based on Wikipedia inclusion in the German language . Being founder of Die Krupps and founder of now-in.org, an innovative event search engine covering the USA, the UK and other English language countries, justifies notability in the English speaking world, too.Gretchen goethe (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)Primary author of the article[reply]
    • There are some references here that further support notability. According to the British NME he was not only founder, but also spokesman of Die Krupps: [66]. Before that he was founder of the early (1976) German punk band de:Male (Band) at the age of 14. The band recorded Germany's first punk album [67] and some more records before he and Jürgen Engler started Die Krupps [68]. The British "Bookseller" commented on how his later role as head of German Book Publishing in the Egmont Group evolved: [69]. In 2002 he contributed to the book de:Verschwende Deine Jugend with a long interview about the rise of punk culture of the 1970s in Germany. This book was accompanied by a double cd containing material that credits him as author and songwriter. He took part in a recent interview series with the leading German web 2.0 experts with roots in the publishing sector [70]. Gretchen goethe (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Primary author of the article.[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    Donofrio v. Wells[edit]

    The result was Merged into Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. I'm going to exercise administrative discretion here and end this discussion early. Following a discussion on the fringe theories noticeboard about how to deal with a metastizing series of articles relating to Obama's citizenship, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories has been created to provide a home for these fringey-but-notable issues. Donofrio v. Wells and similar subsections of Andy Martin (U.S. politician), Philip J. Berg and Alan Keyes have been condensed and merged into a roundup of legal cases on this issue; see Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories#Litigation. ChrisO (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Donofrio v. Wells (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    There is really nothing here. The case doesn't have significant history with which to provide context. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. This article violates WP:RECENT. Evb-wiki (talk) 04:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - Wikipedia is not news. Grsz11 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reiterate Delete per Supreme Court rejection. Grsz11 18:39, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It's not even a supreme court case. If it is taken up by the Supreme Court, then it will be valid. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 04:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The court did not announce today they are hearing this case, which presumably means they have decided not to hear it. The full list including cases that were denied hearing will be available Monday, 12/8. At that point, this article will be about either 1) a frivolous case the Supreme Court rejected (extremely likely) or 2) an historic attempt to subvert the outcome of a US presidential election (extremely unlikely). I suggest simply waiting until Monday. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Well, this AfD will still be open on Monday unless it snowballs. Grsz11 04:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then I guess we'll wait, since that will apparently affect votes, so WP:SNOW is more or less out the window anyway... Beeblebrox (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete depending on the final outcome of the Supreme Court case. It's a P0V content fork whose only purpose would be to keep a fringe theory alive, although I don't question the sincerity of its creator as such - it just doesn't belong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Handle such questions the same way as in the McCain article: "McCain, having been born in the (Panama) Canal Zone, would if elected have become the first president who was born outside the current 50 states. This raised a potential legal issue, since the United States Constitution requires the president to be a natural-born citizen of the United States. A bipartisan legal review[214] and a unanimous but non-binding Senate resolution[215] both concluded that he is a natural-born citizen, but the matter is still a subject of some legal controversy.[216]" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abstain I did not create this article POV. I indeed do not understand what this really means, and turned to Wikipedia to know what was going on. Since the article was missing, I created it. I guess we can wait until they decide whether to hear it or not. Tony (talk) 04:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge into broader article about the various legal attempts to stop Barack Obama from becoming president. The Supreme Court did not accept this case today - Monday will simply confirm that. Frivolous lawsuits brought to the Supreme Court are not worthy of their own Wikipedia article. Priyanath talk 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I can see Wikidemon's point below, and agree that the content of this article could go into a larger article about the fringe theories that people will believe about Obama (he is going to provide alot of fodder for the supermarket tabloids for eight years). By keeping this article, though, it only gives credibility to a fringey lawsuit. It's only notability is its nuttability. Priyanath talk 14:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep but consider merging into a broader article about lawsuits or possibly conspiracy theories and lawsuits about Obama's citizenship and eligibility for the presidency. The subject is notable, perhaps not in the way intended by its author, but as documentation of a fringe theory. The LA times and UPI sources, significant mentions in mainstream major second party sources, amply demonstrate notability. Wikidemon (talk) 05:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and to answer Priyanath, frivolous lawsuits do sometimes get covered here. It all depends on whether they are of interest to the point of notability (as demonstrated by sources). The attacks on Obama's eligibility are vexatious to the extreme, but the issue brought up by the case - the exact definition of natural-born citizen, which has not been adjudicated - is interesting and the fact that people keep trying this is itself a curious social/political phenomenon. Wikidemon (talk) 05:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If there's a place for it, it's probably within the natural born citizen article, if it can be presented fairly - and balanced with questions that were raised about McCain's eligibility, if that's not already in the article. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Historical example of political and legal idiocy, and will be quoted in hstoryies of the campaign forever. There's already enough material.DGG (talk) 08:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a take on it that I hadn't considered - Category:Political and legal idiocy. That might face a POV challenge, though. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep(see below) Oddly, the nominator has convinced me we should keep it. The phrase "the case has gained undue importance for people unschooled in how the court works" , which was added to the article by the same user who nommed it for deletion, indicates the notability that this case has attained, and, though the case seems spurious and it is highly unlikely, according to FactCheck.org article, that it has any merit at all, this concept of obsessively trying to unseat the President-elect with these challenges seems to have captured the public imagination, as well as drawing the attention of the Supreme Court and the media. How it became notable, and whether or not "educated people" believe a word of it doesn't change the basic decision we face here, which is if the article meets the general notability guideline. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:00, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have also discovered this case was mentioned today on NPR, hardly your usual source of right wing, anti-Obama fringe theories. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge: Even if it's news-y, the subject matter means its will probably be seen as a big deal (as already demonstrated in the article itself and in Beeblebrox's comment above mine). If it absolutely must be deleted, most of the content can at least be moved to Natural-born citizen#Cases in other courts relating specifically to the "natural born citizen" clause or another subsection of that page. —Politizer talk/contribs 09:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Merge too. I feel that while this and the other cases have no merit as also agreed by a variety if legal watchers. Yet, with the supreme court deciding not to hear this case, we will still continue to hear about this case/idea. Someone will always be bring this back up and at one point in the very near future, this will take the status of a small conspiracy theory. My thoughts are that we should treat it as such and either keep it with notations that it is a theory, or merge it into the appropriate pages that would better deal with it. Brothejr (talk) 10:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment My guess is that the whole reason they are considering this case at all is so they can make a ruling that Barack Obama is legally qualified to be president, rendering all such lawsuits moot... Beeblebrox (talk) 10:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's the idea of having a final court of appeal, isn't it? They make a final decision and then it's decided that way for good (or, in the United States, until judges are replaced by the other party and the balance of power changes :) ). - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This has to be a notable legal case, whether the SCOTUS hands down judgments or not. The question of whether Obama is legally qualified to be president is of critical importance. The argument in this case, while it may be unlikely to succeed, is a notable legal argument and has received non-trivial coverage all over the place. I bet that US legal journals will be carrying this over the next few months. - Richard Cavell (talk) 13:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:CRYSTAL -- how do we know journals will be talking about this? There is no assertion in the article that it is a notable legal argument. The only assertion of notability is that this concerns Obama. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete this fringe conspiracy theory, filed by a nut, about to be kicked into the dustbin etc.... (i noticed this articles creation because of a redirect created from the deleted berg v. obama article, which was still on my watchlist).Bali ultimate (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Wait to see how the Supreme Court acts in the next few days. Keep if the court decides to hear the case; but if they refuse to hear the case, this article should be deleted and any info of more general interest should be incorporated into Natural-born citizen. Richwales (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete — Now that the Supreme Court has refused to hear Donofrio v. Wells (read here, there is no valid reason for a separate article about this case. Any info worth keeping in the article should be incorporated as appropriate, either into the Natural-born citizen article, or into some other article devoted to objections of this sort in general. Richwales (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This article goes beyond "news." It relates to one of the most important elections of this decade, and i cant fathom how someone would justify its removal. I believe this afd is politically motivated, but that's my opinion. also, it's sufficiently sourced. if need be, i can link 40+ articles that fall well below the quality and notability standards of this article....Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - because there are articles out there of less quality and notability does not improve either variable for this article. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - A frivolous and unfounded lawsuit does not go "beyond news." It's removal is simple based on the fact that if there were wikipages for every idiotic lawsuit there would be millions of articles lacking notability. This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 01:49, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per NOTNEWS, RECENT and FRINGE. Or perhaps Merge to whichever article we discuss the Secret Muslim, Granny is an Illegal Alien, and the Pals Around With Terrorists memes. --guyzero | talk 01:58, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note this article is heavily sourced by WND and the LA Times Blog, hardly reliable sources. The only assertion of notability appears to be that it concerns Obama. Dozens and dozens of cases are not heard by SCOTUS each year so the fact that they may hear this does not assert notability on its own. No mention is given of who Wells or Donofrio are and the logistics around why Wells is being sued instead of Obama. --guyzero | talk 02:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in six months this idiocy will be as forgotten as Joe the Plumber. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would be the one. And in 6 months, barring any new developments, such as Joe's appointment to OSHA or something, that article should also probably go up for deletion. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:41, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Thanks to Beeblebrox for removing my previous comment. At least, I think it's him, as he is the only editor in history. Clearly this discussion has become more politically-charged than I anticipated, which has snowballed to become a text-book bandwagon. We need to separate the supportors of Obama and those who question his status as a natural-born citizen. Whether this case is frivolous or not is entirely irrelevant. It's notability is what justifies its existence. It is also one of the few cases being argued that actually contains any traces of true evidence. Remember - wikipedia is NOT about the truth. Wikifan12345 (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You had mistakenly duplicated the entire text from this section, and he reverted it. You're reading things into the arguments. Wikipedia has a responsibility to not lend too much credence to fringe theories, no matter how much momentary publicity they get. If the Court hears it, then it might be worth discussing. If not, it's kaput. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yeah, that was an accident. However, in doing the revert, he also erased my comment. The reason behind the duplication was there was an editing conflict when I clicked submit, and somehow I pasted my comment over again and that carried over the entire page. Weird. Anyways - since when is there a stipulation that requires a court case be actually "heard" before it is acceptable to be on wikipedia. It's been recognized by the United States Supreme Court, and even commented on my Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, what more do you need? Obviously this is yet another politically-driven bandwagon fueled by partisan politics. If this was any other topic no one would care even in the slightest. Wikifan12345 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just for the record, Bugs is correct, I undid your edit because you duplicated the entire conversation. It had nothing to do with politics or POV pushing, just that you messed up the AfD. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the court doesn't choose to hear it, then by implication it has no merit, and continuing to make a thing out of it here, especially an entire article's worth, is POV-pushing. It would be fair to give it a sentence or two in the article about natural-born citizenry, next to a line or two about the similar situation with McCain. One thing that's interesting is that questions were raised about both candidates' natural-born qualifications, which I suspect is rare. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:33, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well of course you think it's POV pushing, you disagree with the case itself. Just because something is controversial does not mean it should be sandbagged. These are the arguments I see: A) No merit - plenty of cases being pushed to challenge Obama's presidency, this is just another futile attempt. B) Article is blasted with bias and political opinion. C) Sources provided do not adhere to the standards of wikipedia. In my opinion, these are the ideas that need to be scrutinized. Simply shouting, "It's frivolous, just another neo-con conspiracy, POV pushing, etc..." doesn't mean anything. Saying it over and over and over again just makes you look even more politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The case is supported by reliable and verifiable sources to support notability. The case will be unlikely to determine that Obama is ineligible to serve as President and far more likely to establish the guidelines for what it means to be natural born. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's already an article on natural born citizenry. Why does this case (especially if it gets rejected) merit an entire article? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because the case itself has drawn attention from reliable and verifiable sources, independent of the concept of the natural-born citizen. I do agree that Donofrio v. Wells should be referenced there. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep — Whether or not the idea of the suit is a fringe theory and complete stupid (It is, just admit it), the article itself needs to be kept. The suit has been mentioned by enough reliable sources, including NPR, to merit its own article. - NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Regardless of whether it reaches the Supreme Court or anything else, its several reliable sources demonstrate its notability. If you think it's too minor to have its own article, request a merge or something like that; but it definitely shouldn't be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Instead of just outright keeping an article on this one case, why not roll it into another article? I have a feeling that while this case might probably be closed tomorrow with the supreme court rejecting it, we are not going to hear the last of this. This most likely will morph into some type of theory that various web blogs and such will keep alive like any other conspiracy theory. My thinking is that instead of having an article on it's own, why not create a much larger article covering the theories just like we have for all the JFK conspiracies, 9/11 conspiracies, and so on. That way if someone wants to know about this case they will see it listed on the same page as a variety of other cases. Then if this case becomes so notable to outlast the recent attention it is getting now, then an article should be written then. This case/issue still falls under the WP:RECENT policy and the only reason the article was created in the first case was due to the fact it was not included any where else. So lets give this case a home where it should be included instead of being it's own article. Brothejr (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suspect that once he gets inaugurated, this nonsense will be sufficiently marginalized as to be irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:44, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I agree with Brothejr's comment (just above). Donofrio vs. Wells is not notable on its own merits, but only as part of a larger series of lawsuits and conspiracy claims. That is what the article should be about, and Donofrio vs. Wells belongs there. For example, Berg (of Berg vs. Obama) is a big 9/11 truther who also sued to have Bush and Cheney charged with a few thousand counts of murder for 9/11. These should all be lumped into one article about the various citizenship/birth/Kenya/Indonesia theories and lawsuits, and the characters driving them. Priyanath talk 22:50, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like that idea. Merge into a to-be-created article dealing with the general topic of anti-Obama lawsuits. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I would be amenable to the hypothetical larger article about the "Obama birth certificate truther movement" or whatever we might call these nutjobs; the Donofrio v. Wells article could be the seed for such a larger article, which would of course be appropriately retitled. Until that article exists, though, this one should be kept. DemocraplypseNow argues, "This article is only notable to those with a partisan agenda...." I agree that it is notable only to such persons, but there are enough such persons to justify a Wikipedia article. The merits of the lawsuit have only tangential relevance to its notability. JamesMLane t c 02:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep Has multiple reliable sources. Is clearly more than just a short news article. I agree with some comments that it may make more sense to merge into a larger article about challenges to Obama's citizenship and ability to become President but that's a separate issue. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - WP:FRINGE nutjobbery relying on unreliable sources for a story that fizzled like a firecracker in a rainstorm. Tarc (talk) 15:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CNN, etc...only note the fact that it was a failed court case, and little more. The "unreliably sourced" was in reference to the worldnetdailies and the like that were used in an attempt to assert the notability of the court case. Tarc (talk) 17:47, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to broader article about challenges to Obama's citizenship. Donofrio v. Wells is a news story from the WP:FRINGE. The case is going nowhere.[71] It is all too easy to get a burst of press attention with a fringe petition like this. This Obama-is-not-a-citizen nutjobbery may notable as a whole, but not every individual assertion merits a Wikipedia article. • Gene93k (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • cmt- Now that SCOTUS declined to hear Donofrio v. Wells, [72] this should be a footnote in Natural-born citizen (with the others), at best. --Evb-wiki (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment snowball it already. Case not heard, nor ever well be heard, in any US court of law. Only claim to notability is that famous people were named in a suit that courts refused to hear at every level.
    • We are nowhere near a WP:SNOW situation. There are numerous votes to keep and merge. Notability of legal cases is not based on the merits of the case, but on coverage in reliable sources, like any other topic. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No precedent, important or otherwise, was set. Refusing to hear a case without comment sets no precedent.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This case set no federal precedent, and is merely a state case. If we accept a whole article about this case, then there's no reason not to accept whole articles about each of the other cases on Obama's eligibility. If someone wants to write an article that describes all of those other cases, then it would be fine to include some info about Donofrio's case. But this whole article for one state case is excessive, IMHO.Ferrylodge (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge - The conspiracy theory surrounding Obama's natural-born citizenship status has gotten enough coverage in reliable source to make the conspiracy theory notable enough to be included in its own article in a manner similar to how 9/11 conspiracy theories and Kennedy assassination conspiracy theories is treated. This particular lawsuit may not be large enough to warrant its own stand-alone article, but it has been covered in numerous reliable sources and is verifiable enough to include on Wikipedia. I see a number of people tossing WP:FRINGE out as a reason as to why this article should be deleted, but the usage of WP:FRINGE for this purpose is contradicted by the guideline itself. According to WP:FRINGE, conspiracy theories are not to be given undue weight, but may be included in articles as long as they are verifiable via reliable sources. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Bobblehead is 100% correct about WP:Fringe. Wikipedia has tons of articles about fringe theories that describe the theories without endorsing them. But I don't see how the present article can currently be merged, if there's nothing to merge it into. Additionally, I'm very skeptical that a consolidated article about Obama-eligibility theories will be written neutrally or accurately, but people are more than welcome to try. Judging from discussion at the Barack Obama talk page, it would be very difficult to overcome misconceptions about the fringe theories.[73]Ferrylodge (talk) 19:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Even the NY Times is covering it, also as a fringe meme: "This is the kind of doubt-bending thing that lives independently online, but from the looks of today’s decision by the highest court in the land, the accusation isn’t gaining much ground in the realm of reality."[74] An article about this movement should focus on the fringieness of the theories and the wackiness of the people filing the suits, since that's what is being covered by mainstream sources. Also see Change They Can Litigate: The fringe movement to keep Barack Obama from becoming president Priyanath talk 19:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fringe and only got only media attention because the media are desperate for new things to talk about. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a media archive and we don't have articles on numerous silly season matters. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Thanks everyone for all the help and additional information. I would like this article to stay for the useful information, or at the very least Merge. Tony (talk) 20:15, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge -- if no catch-all available, keep. Tons of people believe or at least question the President-elect's -- eligibility to be; and Wikipedia provides a public service by any article it sponsors, subjecting such hyped-up concerns to impartial scrutiny. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thought bows deeply … 20:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Supreme court tossed the case, and with it they tossed any chance it had a notability. l'aquatique || talk 20:43, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - As expected, the SCOTUS rejected this. It would only be notable if they had taken it up. Frivolous lawsuits based on fringe theories are filed all the time. They only become notable if the judiciary is receptive to their arguments. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Since when? Plenty of rejected court cases are featured on wikipedia. Find me rule for that statement. Also - all these cases have been rejected based off technicallities, not merit. Remember that when you're arguing notability. Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. It's dead. Bereft of life, let it rest in peace. Unless the petitioner is going to claim that Obama is not a natural-born citizen because of a Caesarean section, its fifteen minutes of fame are finished. Not only is it Beyond the Fringe, there is no purpose for giving this absurdity undue weight. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 22:13, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Lol. You clearly did not research the case. the court offered no reason for denial or the willingness for commentary. as stated, it can be assumed there was a technical reason, as the petitioner had no standing. it takes more than merit to appeal to the supreme court. after all, theyre going to be dealing with 20+ more cases being submitted (especially by notable politician alan keys). if anything, this article offers and easy reference for the rest of the cases being considered. the article is sourced and commented by mainstream media, so at this point we're beyond fringe and conspiracy...that's a moot argument. Wikifan12345 (talk) 22:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge into a general article on Obama fringe/conspiracy theories. The Obama fringe theories are notable enough as a political and social phenomina, but separate articles in the individual theories gives them undue weight and distorts the context in which they have arisen. --Ramsey2006 (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but that is a terrible suggestion. It is bad enough that pages like this exist or that POV vandals keep inserting the conspiracy nuttery into the main Obama article. I'd rather not see all of the fringe junk collated and collected into a standalone article. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's already been proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory. Therefore, dismissing this article as such is simply naive, ignorant, and/or politically motivated. so let's drop the conspiracy theory argument (not that it isnt true) and focus on the core problems. repeating the same excuses over and over and over again only makes you look stupid. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    also, i will add the the tally stands at 14 keeps to 13 deletes. im not familiar with the exact rules in what results in a total delete... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifan12345 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only is it not "proven that this is more than a conspiracy theory", it's not even up to that level. It's more on the level of the morons who think the Apollo program was faked. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Lol. Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Apollo Moon Landing hoax conspiracy theories has its own article. If kept, this nonsense should be merged into Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories. It is becoming a notable conspiracy theory, and looks to have legs. Priyanath talk 23:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it does, and it efficiently shoots down every one of the so-called "theories" about the Apollo program. Barack Obama birth hoax conspiracy theories could be handled the same way. The difference is, there are a lot of idiots who think we didn't go to the moon, and only a few who think (or wish) Obama wasn't born in Hawaii. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I Agree Baseball Bugs here. This case should be rolled into a page with all the other cases and whatever else that had not made it to the courts. While yes this did make it to all the news stations, the cases and other cases notability is not about a real question of Obama's validity but instead of the absurdness of the cases. We have more then enough reliable sources that debunk these cases that we could easily write an article on these conspiracy theories and handle it the same way as the other hoax pages. Maybe we can just simply rewrite this article into such an article. Brothejr (talk) 00:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Reducing this article to hoax is beyond absurd. The article provides a proven and sourced outlook questioning the validity of Obama's citizenship. rejection by the supreme court does not dismiss the merit nor the notability of this article. wikipedia is NOT about truth. it's an actual court case that made it all the way to the highest judicial branch in the country - meaning the case had to go through other courts before hand, as far as i know. anyways, we're running in circles here, and at this point i dont think it would be appropriate to merge/delete or move this article anywhere this early. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    also, the name calling is completely inexcusable. stop it. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    NO, there is no proof whatsoever that these stories have any validity. And what name-calling are you referring to??? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, there's plenty of proof that these stories have validity, especially considering the fact that Obama has spent over a million dollars in campaign money to prevent the release of his real authentic birth certificate. but that's besides the point. the point is, this article is well sourced, and ur belief that it is a conspiracy theory or a hoax is not an opinion shared by all. calling people lunatics, fundamentalists, nutcases, nutjobs, or any force of dismissive tone that would reduce the opposing opinion is not the cordial way to settle things. anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (outdent)I've already !voted so I won't do it again, but if it is merged it should be into a more narrow category with some reasonable focus, such as attacks / theories on Obama's citizenship and eligibility. That is a moderately notable subject per a fair number of reliable sources, and actually an interesting topic - why do people get this idea in their heads? No doubt political scientists, sociologists, psychologists, historians, etc., will be publishing articles on it here and there. An all purposes "fringe theories about Obama" or "political attacks on Obama' article would be too broad and risks becoming a mess. Having said that, a "merge" outcome is essentially a "keep" outcome because it means keeping the content. As of now there is no other article to merge the content into so essentially we would have to retitle this one and then allow people to add other legal challenges and notable fringe theories. Good luck patrolling that article :) Wikidemon (talk) 01:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge The court dismissed this with no comment. Why don't we wait until we hear what the Supremes have to say about the Berg and Keyes lawsuit, if they do, before we decide? Tundrabuggy (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment* I moved the ot section to the discussion. continue ranting there. Wikifan12345 (talk) 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are no fun at all. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yeah, must be because im a conspiracy theory-supporting nutcase.Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Humor is lacking in a wide variety of different people. Not just conspiracy theorists. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep or Merge. There is enough here to attain some notability, even if it results in a fairly short article. Grandmasterka 06:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep - I'm looking up the article right now after finding out the case got thrown out, and it seems that this article has enough context to stand, given this article quotes a legal scholar and a couple of other commentators. I mean, if wikipedia can have so many articles about untalented one-hit wonders/short-lived TV shows/unsuccessful movies, then a failed supreme court case article can stay if there's enough coverage to warrant. --Andrewlp1991 (talk) 06:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge or (less preferable) Delete. This case did attract a certain amount of media attention, although virtually no one in the mainstream media took it seriously; but I'm sympathetic to the WP:NOTNEWS arguments that in six months' time, it will have been forgotten entirely. As the Supreme Court refused to hear the case, I don't think there's a strong argument for keeping this as a separate article; but it would be appropriate, I believe, as part of a larger article on rumours/conspiracy theories about Obama (or even as part of his article, though there would be definite WP:BLP issues there). That would probably be the best way of handling this, preferable to outright deletion. Terraxos (talk) 09:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. And salt the earth, so it does not get recreated - should be done even if it gets merged. This uis news and respectable sources are only reporting on it because it is silly hoax/conspiracy/nuttiness/fundiness/craziness. And we need better guidelines on that sort of thing in news. --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and salt well - the article is a POV fork to start with (not to mention violating WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS). The article is a running political commentary dressed up in the form of a WP:SYNTHESIS. Move away, there's nothing to see here. The assertion (unsupported by reliable sources) of a person "spending ... millions of dollars" to prevent the State of Hawaii from releasing his birth records (which, under Hawaii state law, are public records) does not add anything credible to this discussion in terms of Wikipedia policy and editorial guidelines. Again, the court case is dead - the same should be true of the tempest in a teapot that some people are trying to push as a "valid" article despite Wikipedia policies stated above. B.Wind (talk) 13:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Votes shouldn't count if you don't know about the case you're voting on. The issue in this case was not about a birth certificate.LedRush (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and expand. The issue has gotten a lot of mainstream press and is notable for that reason alone. Also, this is an interesting constitutional issue that probably won't be answered any time soon.LedRush (talk) 21:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - This case sets no legal precedent and brings up no constitutional issues. Obama is a natural born citizen, McCain had a congressional vote allowing him to run. This is a state case that was thrown out at both the state and national level. It is only of importance to people on the fringe. This is not encyclopedic content. Furthermore, its not news. Sure a few news outlets have reported on it. They also reported on a woman in Bloomington, Illinois who makes Christmas Ornaments out of deer droppings. Where is the article for that? It should be removed completely, or altered into a list of conspiracy theories. This isn't worthy of its own page. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Your opinion that the case doesn't bring up constitutional issues is odd, because that is the only type of issue covered in the case. Also, while there is no precedent (because the case was not accepted) it doesn't mean that important issues aren't raised by it. The fact that mainstream media has picked up on the issue and admitted that it makes an interesting, if biased and lunatic fringe, argument concerning the consitutional issues demonstrates that it is notable.LedRush (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Theres a constitutional issue with the White House being White. Sure, Im just saying it. I swear, Ill create blogs, and the news will eventually report it, can someone tell me how to create the page for it? This case brings up constitutional issues that DO NOT EXIST. Period. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You are just plain wrong. There is a constitutional debate regarding what it means to be a "natural born citizen". The White House isn't in the constitution, and so your comparison is just silly.LedRush (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This whole arguement is silly. NBC has always been interpreted to mean "Born on U.S. Soil" Obama was, therefore Natural Born Citizen. You are just plain wrong. --DemocraplypseNow (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, everyone calm down. I think at this point it is more than obvious that no administrator is going to rule towards a delete or merge. considering that, we should be spending our time actually revising the article instead of bickering over its merit/notability/etc...Wikifan12345 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, one thing's for sure. Regardless of whether this article is kept, expanded, or merged, the resulting article will never be mentioned, summarized, wikilinked, or footnoted in any of the Obama sub-articles.[75] But, if this article is kept, expanded, or merged then it may be appropriate to include some of the material that is already located at Alan_Keyes#Obama_citizenship_lawsuit. Incidentally, I still think this article ought to be deleted, even though some of the contrary arguments seem reasonable. I should also add that Donofrio is already mentioned at the article Natural-born citizen, which seems like plenty to me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cmt - Natural-born citizen seems like a good place for it to me. --Evb-wiki (talk) 00:37, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Peru–Romania relations[edit]

    Peru–Romania relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Yet another Groubani special. (For those who don't know him, Groubani is an editor who knows little English, and whose idea of "improving" the encyclopedia is in authoring countless stubs on bilateral relations, replete with grammatical mistakes and violations of the MOS. These are either absurd (Chile–Malta relations, Colombia–Estonia relations) or about 20 times shorter than they should be (Hungary–Romania relations, Germany–Italy relations). Either way they're pretty worthless.) Let's see here. Bucharest and Lima are 7453 miles apart. Virtually no Peruvians live in Romania, and vice versa. The countries have about zero historic or political ties, and minimal economic ones. The existence of their diplomatic relations is attested at List of diplomatic missions in Romania and List of diplomatic missions in Peru. It's pretty clear that beyond this, the relationship lacks notability, and thus the article should be deleted. Biruitorul Talk 04:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete no info. here, and while a Country X-Country Y relations article is probably defensible in a great many combination it's senseless without an actual article. JJL (talk) 04:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per longstanding precedent for these articles: there's nothing inherently notable about relations between two specific countries. By the way, the Germany-Italy article wasn't Groubani's creation. Nyttend (talk) 05:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Rather than creating articles like this, the better course would be to improve articles like Diplomatic missions of Peru, List of diplomatic missions in Peru, Diplomatic missions of Romania and List of diplomatic missions in Romania. The date of establishing relations (supposedly November 9, 1969) could be added to those articles. Mandsford (talk) 17:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is part of a series of articles where editors simply try to match each all country names with one another. Leave it to other to fill in the blanks, no matter how obscure or trivial the subject... The very principle behind having such articles to begin with is dubious, but at least some of the articles could actually help a reader or two. Dahn (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, this article ought to have a scope for expansion. Peru had a leftist government orientation back in the 1970s, i think it obtained closer diplomatic linkages with the eastern bloc at the time. --Soman (talk) 20:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Soviets had a rapprochement with various Latin American nations starting in the late 1960s. I don't know the extent to which the Romanians did (other than by establishing relations), but I will note they were much closer to Africa than to Latin America. Do you perhaps have any sources to help us out? - Biruitorul Talk 22:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Usually I would relist this, but article is a WP:BLP violation and a copyvio, should have been speedied. Secret account 22:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Chris Landry (football scout)[edit]

    Chris Landry (football scout) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Biographical information is copied from here, so that's a copyright violation. Landry is not a widely known writer or scout and since notability is not temporary (i.e. the plagiarism controversy between him, nationalfootballpost.com, and profootballtalk.com), he does not meet WP:BIO. Pats1 T/C 03:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    This guy is on Multiple radio shows and TV programs. I submit that he is known to a wide audience. Just type "Chris Landry scout" into google and see how many places he either has directly provided content or is cited as a source. Sorry I have not entered this in the standard format; please consider reformatting it instead of summarily deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.200.51 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Race for the galaxy[edit]

    Race for the galaxy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Non-notable card game and reads like an advertisement. Clubmarx (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete spammity spam spam. JuJube (talk) 18:34, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I have rewritten the article adding a source to demonstrate notability and formatting the article in a standard NPOV style. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. No evidence of the non trivial coverage in reliable sources required to establish notability. Nuttah (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Won Boardgamegeek's Golden Geek Award for best card game [76] and was named by the magazine Tric Trac as "LE jeu de cartes de cette année 2008" (THE card game of the year 2008) [77]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep game has received lots of third-party press; the amount quoted in the article, while only a fraction of it, is sufficient to pass WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sennon[edit]

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

    This fictional location does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • comment what the material on this series needs is a decent job of writing, starting over entirely. I'm not even going to say my usual keep and improve, because what is needed is a description of the actual books in the first place, much more than fussing about how to handle the background. The possible need for specific articles is for later. DGG (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. I was sorely tempted to !vote keep per nom. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:48, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (or merge) even within the series itself the country is not that notable and the Age of the Five series is not all that notable. Little or no real world impact, "sennon" "Ithiana" gets twenty Google hits. Icewedge (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or redirect--sorry if that sounds contradictory. I don't know this 'series' (whatever it is) so I can't decide if this is a likely search term (you all make the call). Now, even without the benefit of knowledge about this topic, the content of the article is pretty much, ahem, not so good. Hence my delete, if the search term is deemed not likely enough. I hope I made myself clear! Drmies (talk) 04:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect The main article is short enough for a reduced amount of information on the fictional places to be merged with the main article. If no one can be bothered, it's still a reasonable search term. - Mgm|(talk) 08:54, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that Somrey has already been redirected and that the others probably would have been if they didn't have different meanings as well. - Mgm|(talk) 08:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dreamweaver (disambiguation). MBisanz talk 01:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dreamweavers[edit]

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

    This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment not that I defend this article, but the nomination does not seem to match the article. Far from unnecessary plot details, there is not even the minimum of plot information whatever to give any idea of what's going on or any but the vaguest impression of what role the figures might have. 04:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
    • I was notified about this deletion request because the requestor saw me listed as creator. In fact, I did not create the article in place now; I had made a redirect page under that title to The Dream Weavers. If you do delete this article, I wish to have the redirect page that I originally put there restored. -- BRG (talk) 18:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • improve, merge, redirect. Content should be saved for a rewrite. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirct to the dab page Dreamweaver (disambiguation). There don't appear to even be articles on the books, if so why should element of the books have articles? 76.66.195.159 (talk) 06:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Plot details that don't support real world context are unnecessary. Jay32183 (talk) 23:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and I agree about the above point for the dab. Eusebeus (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    John Falcone[edit]

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

    This article does not meet any of the notability criteria for a musician (or ensemble) to be listen on Wikipedia. Daniel Musto (talk) 03:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The White[edit]

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

    This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • merge into an article on the fictional universe. We ned to try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail above. Just deleting is not constructive. But this nomination doesn't fit the article -- there are no fictional plot details here at all. I wish they would be done itn so specificaway as to make it clear that the actual individual article has been read and considered. Although I havent the least interest in the topic I am at least trying to read thearticles as I go and see how they might be used; I consider that only fair to those who have been working on them. . DGG (talk)
    • improve, merge, redirect per DGG -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not much worth merging. Eusebeus (talk) 00:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dannyl[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • merge into an article on the fictional universe. We ned to try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail above. Just deleting is not constructive. But this nomination doesn't fit the article -- there are no fictional plot details here at all. I wish they would be done itn so specificaway as to make it clear that the actual individual article has been read and considered. DGG (talk) 08:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge as per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(fiction)#Characters and also because "just deleting is not constructive", which TTN should keep in mind. Enough information has been lost and work wasted because of his crusade. Laurent paris (talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • improve, merge, redirect. And fully agree with Laurent paris. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Circlian[edit]

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

    This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Jay32183 (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as above. Eusebeus (talk) 00:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Auraya of the White[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • First, WP:FICT is a proposed guideline and thus toothless for the moment, so citing it is the equivalent of citing an essay. Next you're heavily misconstruing the intent of the section, which is to indicate that main characters in works are the ones that tend to get articles; it does not give editors carte blanche to create articles on all main characters for every work because many are simply not notable. In any case, from FICT:
    "Real world information: the subject must contain information aside from plot. Real-world information means that the article has content about the development of the subject, its influences, its design, and critical, commercial, or cultural impact. Sources not independent of the subject, such as developer commentary, may be used in accordance with the policy on self-published sources to provide some of the above information. Articles are expected to conform to an out-of-universe perspective, according to the writing about fiction guideline."
    • There's zilch, nada, zero in terms of any real-world content here. Please don't misrepresent stuff in the future, especially FICT, which has been carved out through compromises from discussion that have gone on through months, and I would hate for their work to be misused in this fashion. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge. Content does not need to be deleted, rather remade into one or more comprehensive Age of the Five article(s). -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete – no assertion of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the topic. No opposition to a merge to the appropriate place. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 11:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect: So as to save the article's content. I too would not oppose a merging of this article, it just needs to have a place to be merged too. Ryan4314 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as in-universe cruft with no notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notable due to coverage in reliable sources. Passes WP:FICT and "cruft" is never a valid reason for deletion. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:29, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Danjin Spear[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail below. Just deleting is not constructive. DGG (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge. Agree with DGG. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • delete The merge would only put this information somewhere else.Mrathel (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:49, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Mirar[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail below. Just deleting is not constructive. This particular article is the first I've seen which gives me some idea of t he actual plot. So far from excessive plot information, its the others which are inadequate. DGG (talk) 08:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not establish notability through significant coverage of real world context in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject. Merging will not result in real world context, so that doesn't solve the problem. Jay32183 (talk) 23:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:NOT as plot + no real-world assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 23:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Age of the Five. MBisanz talk 01:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Pentadrians[edit]

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

    This fictional group does not establish notability independent of Age of the Five through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Merge and try to get some decent general article out of these --as explained in detail below. Just deleting is not constructive. DGG (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge. Agree with DGG. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as notability has not been established. Boston (talk) 03:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Percy Jackson & The Olympians. MBisanz talk 01:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Anaklusmos[edit]

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

    This fictional weapon does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete- fancruft supported by only a single primary source. No notability established. This is simply not what an encyclopedia is for. Reyk YO!
    • Merge I agree this article is useless as is, but i do not understand the nomination: i see no excessive plot summary. What is called OR is likely to just be description--I don't eeally see synthesis. The article cannot stand on its own unless the weapons and the series were both of great significance, which seems unlikely. (I fail to understand the last sentence, as usual; I ask once more TTN to word it differently, as nobody has yet proposed what it means) But this whole group of articles needs some careful attention,--its being done wrong, and we should rather be conserving and merging he fragments in the hope of getting the start for one decent article on the series Ditto for all the related articles. This is not the way to build the encyclopedia--help for those working on the topic is the way. Unconstructive nomination in terms of really improving the encycopedia. DGG (talk) 08:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per DGG.John Z (talk) 13:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • merge per DGG. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as more cruft (i.e. per nom). Eusebeus (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bulimia Banquet[edit]

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

    not notable; fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't really understand why this is being questioned. I had references. They were a very influential punk band from the 80's..I'll continue to work on the page to improve it. ScarTissueBloodBlister (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Percy Jackson & The Olympians. Also delete; the current content is useless anyway.  Sandstein  19:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Percy Jackson[edit]

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

    This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am also nominating another version of the same topic:
    Percy Jackson (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete- nominator is correct. Neither article has any sources, or establishes the subject's notability outside the book series. Reyk YO! 07:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I agree this article is useless as is, but i do not understand the nomination: i see no excessive plot summary, just a poor plot summary that seems to incomplete to represent his likely actual role. . The character is the hero, and thus very likely to be notable if the work is important. (I fail to understand the last sentence, as usual; I ask once more TTN to word it differently, as nobody has yet proposed what it means) But this whole group of articles needs some careful attention,--its being done wrong, and we should rather be conserving and merging he fragments in the hope of getting the start for one decent article on the series Ditto for all the related articles. This is not the way to build the encyclopedia--help for those working on the topic is the way. DGG (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think he means that; "no one has attempted to improve that article, and therefore probably never will". I'm not condemning or condoning this logic in this particular debate, just honestly trying to answer your question. That's just my perception of what he said, so don't shoot the messenger, peace n love. :D Ryan4314 (talk) 05:56, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Percy Jackson & The Olympians. MBisanz talk 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sally Jackson (Percy Jackson)[edit]

    Sally Jackson (Percy Jackson) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This character does not establish notability independent of Percy Jackson & The Olympians through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom. --DAJF (talk) 03:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge I agree this article is useless, but i do not understand the nomination: i see no plot summary, excessive or otherwise, and I fail to understand the last sentence. Whether the character is notable depends on the importance of the book, and the articles on it don't even make that clear. This whole group of articles needs some careful attention, and scattered deletion isn't going to do it--we should rather be conserving and merging he fragments in the hope of getting the start for one decent article on the series Ditto for all the related. This is not the way to build the encyclopedia--more help for those struggled with this is the way. DGG (talk) 07:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per DGG.John Z (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge, for the same reasons Laurent paris (talk) 21:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge per DGG. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 22:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Max.Blog[edit]

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

    Does not establish notability. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate software articles.ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaahin Espahbodi[edit]

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

    non-notable architect. It is borderline speedy delete, but it does say he had a 'silver medial' for his PhD thesis. Clubmarx (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I'm also moving the disambig page Secret account 17:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Garib[edit]

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

    Appears to be a dictionary definition of a word, sourced only to other wikipedia articles. This may have some sources indicating some encyclopedic content could be written, but I don't feel competent to check (As a comprehensive source check would include a non-english search). I declined the speedy deletion of this article in order to send it here, but I have no preference for its disposition (no "per nom" here!). Thank you. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This page can be a disambig page that points to encyclopedic terms that contain the word Garib such as Garib Rath and so on. =Nichalp «Talk»= 16:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP-This article speaks to the provenance of the term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.166.191.38 (talk • contribs) (From the article's talk page).
    • Delete. This article says absolutely nothing; it's useless even as a dicdef. What language is this word in? What does it mean? "[I]t is presently utilized in Hindi and some Semitic languages to mean a variety of things" implies merely that several languages have different, probably unrelated, words that sound vaguely like "garib" and mean several different things. That's probably true for a great many consonant-vowel-consonant-vowel-consonant sequences. The article is unsourced and its content is either original research or a hoax. —Angr 19:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Garib mean poor in Hindi, and other Indic-related languages. This text though, I can't understand. =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make into Disambig- Angr is correct about the current state of the article. It is sourceless and, when you actually read it through, contentless. However, there are several notable people and things named Garib:
    and maybe others. Reyk YO! 21:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: it's garbage; reads like a confused child trying to write a proper grown-up essay. If the topic is worthy of an article, it will need to be done from scratch. 86.131.91.163 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I've created Garib (disambiguation), which can be moved to (or since I'm the only content contributor, just copy/pasted over w/ an appropriate summary) Garib if that is the outcome of this discussion. Protonk (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Move the disambig to Garib page: Delete the existing text, just write the meaning of Garib - poor and the disambig. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marked as patrolled

    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Aftermath chicago[edit]

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

    Declined speedy. There is clearly an assertion of something here, though I don't know if it is importance or significance. The article claims that they are on "A to Z of thrash Metal" though no page number or links (save a link to the book itself). Likewise it is claimed that they were featured on a notable compilation but the source for that is another wikipedia article. I don't have an opinion on this either way (so no "per nom" this time), but some sourcing needs to be confirmed or disconfirmed (I can't believe that is actually a word). Protonk (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *Delete Per Ohnoitsjamie above. Article fails WP:MUSIC. Trusilver 16:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Change to neutral. I think that the involvement with a lawsuit creeps up a little bit on WP:BLP1E. Even so, I see enough here to make me unwilling to delete the article but not really enough to satisfy my belief that it passes [[WP:BAND].] Trusilver 19:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Got an email from the author, who is username blocked right now. I told him to register a different username so he should be on shortly. He claims that they are on pp. 9-10 of Garry Sharpe-Young's A-Z of Thrash Metal, were featured in various thrash metal mags (including Kerrang, RIP, Metal Maniacs, Metal Hammer, Metal Forces and Raw) and released an album before their Interscope album on Big Chief Records/Warners entitled "Eyes of Tomorrow". Also (as I think the article claims), they were involved in some lawsuit w/ the Doctor--though I'm not sure that produced any publicity. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The band signed with Big Chief/ Warners recorded their "Eyes of Tomorrow" that was released on Thermometer and later re-released on Black Lotus Records http://www.rhapsody.com/aftermath-2/eyes-of-tomorrow and released its subsequent record on Interscope Records in 1998 as Mother God Moviestar http://www.amazon.com/Mother-God-Moviestar/dp/B0000061Q6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1228149689&sr=8- .

    The name change resulted after the band lost its trademark battle with the rapper Dr. Dre. The band sued Dr. Dre for trademark infringment case citation Tsiolis v. Interscope. Records. Inc., 946 F.Supp. 1344, 1349 (N.D.III. 1996) The case has been referenced in law review article and journals on the issue of tradmark dilution. http://books.google.com/books?id=e67o2-S_riMC&pg=PA28&lpg=PA28&dq=%22TSIOLIS+V+INTERSCOPE%22&source=web&ots=EtR0w9ZV_V&sig=KScYi4a3viSDK0fACnu7RzR7uao&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result

    The band also appeared on the Metal Forces' compilation "Sream Your Brains Out" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metal_Forces Reviewed and featured in numerous issues of Kerrang, Metal Forces, Metal Hammer, Rip, etc.Zoident (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It The trademark case is in federal court against Dr. Dre should be enough, but when you consider that the band was included in the only compilation record ever released by Metal Forces magazine, then you really see a significance in terms of music. The Metal Forces compilation featured only 5 bands from around the world, Aftermath's inclusion on this exclusive list is truly impressive. Finally, the band did release 2 records one on an indie and the other on Interscope (major). Zoident (talk) 19:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kelly Craighead[edit]

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

    The subject does not meet WP:BIO. Her greatest claim to notability was as senior adviser to First Lady Hillary Clinton. Has not been the subject of any profiles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *DELETE! No brainer. Living person. Dosent meet the Bio requirements. Also a quick googling can confirm that this isnt a person who has chosen to step into the public eye, and thus isnt fair game.

    • Keep - She does seem to pass WP:BIO as being the subject of multiple secondary sources. Here are a few ... [82][http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=56710][83]. WP:BIO does not require that a topic be the specific subject of "profiles." --Oakshade (talk) 06:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though she's mentioned in those articles, they don't contain enough biographical information for an article, IMO. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of these (and more) go beyond the scope of "passing mention," the type of coverage that would not pass WP:BIO. --Oakshade (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Remove The secondary sources repeat themselves and she's not been profiled in the print media or books. It's littering really.--WeakWinterSon (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)— WeakWinterSon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 02:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I may be willing to change my vote should substantive sources emerge. I have looked through the three sources above, and all three only have a passing mention of this person. Being named in a newspaper article is not in itself enough to establish notability, and I can't see where this person has received any independent, significant coverage. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:54, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Oakshade's comments. Boston (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DaishoCon[edit]

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

    Article is about an apparently non-notable convention. It does have a few references, but so far every one of them is to information published by the convention itself, or by people associated with it. There are also a few blogs that talk about the convention, but there is nothing that would qualify as an independent reliable source as required by the notability guidelines Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note Original creator attempted a copy&paste move to Daisho Con. I have restored the original article and redirected the copy to the original. --Farix (Talk) 02:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: Was previously deleted via AFD as Daisho Con. While I think the reasons in that AFD no longer apply (thus speedy G4 does not apply), I would say weak delete unless more than one reliable source is found. Kesac (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable (refs amount to nothing more than self refs) ukexpat (talk) 03:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Delete I was going to hold off from commenting since I had that spat with the article's original creator. (He took his anger out on me because I initially tagged the article for A7 speedy deletion.) However, the nominator and Kesac make good points. The article is also getting filled with original research and appear to be used by the con as an information platform. --Farix (Talk) 03:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an open community where anyone can make or adjust an entry. This entry was not created by the convention staff, and that should be kept in mind when making assumptions as to its purpose. I see a lot of sloppy references posted as well as misinformation. As much as I'd like to see this article kept clean until a detailed one is compiled/sourced....it likely won't happen due to the notoriety the convention has received amongst attendees. Please be patient while post-con excitement causes a few "quick and dirty" articles to be posted. (delete as necessary) VicFlik (talk 06:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep, the Wausau Daily Herald is not a blog or self-published, and the source would appear to meet the WP:RS criteria. However, it was the only such source I was able to locate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:16, 6 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • Weak Keep I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here:[84] does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette:[85] Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) VicFlik (talk) 07:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC) — VicFlik (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • In practice, we like to have at least two independent sources or one nationally published source. As for the Nan Desu Kan article, there are actually two independent sources listed on its talk page which haven't been incorporated into the article yet. --Farix (Talk) 12:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't bring up Nan Desu Kan. I cited No Brand Con which only has references from animecons.com. Even on its talk page the only other mentioned references are from the campus newspaper, which were likely submitted/written by people dealing with the convention.VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no minimum to article quantity for inclusion criteria. You say that there is a minimum of two in practice, but it doesn't appear to be so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Capitocapito (talk • contribs) 02:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Backing In another effort to give reasons for my Weak Keep stance, I think Daisho Con has notability as an organization as well. WP:CORP states that "an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities including interest groups. Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, etc." Daisho Con is student run organization[86] which has created the third largest convention of this type in Wisconsin (as of right now) which gives the group a fairly large amount of notability and has had a notable/demonstrable effect on the anime/manga/sci-fi/etc. culture in that area. WP:CORP also makes particular that: "Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." VicFlik (talk) 07:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It appears this convention has been held exactly once, and not even a month ago. Isn't there some inclusion criteria where it has to be a repeating event? Does a one-off get an article?76.116.247.15 (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, there's not. Also, many events that have only happened once have wikipedia articles. VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Perhaps, if they have one next year, there will be more sources but until then... L0b0t (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Again, there is nothing in the inclusion criteria that says there is a minimum number of acceptable sources. The con could run for 6 years and still have no 3rd party references, as is the case with No Brand Con (which no one has taken an issue with) Furthermore, how long ago the con happened and the number of times it has happened are not areas of concern under Wikipedia's notability requirement. Please stop bringing up the fact that it has only happened once. VicFlik (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, Wikipedia's decisions are based on a rough consensus developed by discussion. This is especially true for guidelines, such as WP:NOTE where the interpretation of significant coverage is left to the community. To argue that the exact wording of a guideline somehow trumps consensus is considered Wikilawyering and frowned upon. It is also inappropriate to respond to every "delete" comment with the same arguments. --Farix (Talk) 21:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A couple things regarding those arguments. First, if the community decides what is "significant coverage" then it is well worth at least pointing out that there is no minimum in the guidelines. Second, it seems that you missed my argument that the duration of the convention and how long ago it happened are irrelevant to Wikipedia's notability standards. Let's stick to arguing the legitimacy of the article rather than trying to patronize me on what you deem to be appropriate action. VicFlik (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    JN-QC-SPOT TB[edit]

    JN-QC-SPOT TB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Reads like a manual/science paper/treatment guide, too technical, about the actual disease in some sections, seems like copied, really confusing naming, etc. Wikipedia is not a place for science journals, or manuals. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 02:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Frontenac Mall[edit]

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

    Delete Fails current notability standards and even based on the level of the failed WP:MALL (WP:MALL is just used as a barometer for discussion) Yanksox (talk) 04:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I expanded the article a bit. -- Eastmain (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I fail to see how the expansion proved it's actual notability. Yanksox (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Nor can I. Mere information about a subject does not make it notable. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- I agree with Yanksox. This article fails notability guidelines, even with the expansion. It contains a lot of trivial and uninteresting detail about the mall's doings but there is no indication of why this mall is different from the countless non-notable businesses or shopping areas in the world. Reyk YO! 05:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- The mall is a significant structure in the City of Kingston and considering that Yansox is not even an administrator, this article is no different than hundreds of other articles on shopping malls. OOODDD (talk) 19:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Excuse me? I used to be an administrator. And my no longer being an admin has no merit here. This is an Ad Hominem attack and it actually stings since it has nothing to do with the argument. I suggest you retract that statement please. Also, my goal is to help slim down the articles that don't merit their own and move it to the town page like it should be. Yanksox (talk) 21:02, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The sources provided are insufficient to establish notability. It should be noted that any logged-in Wikipedia editor can nominate an article for deletion; I had been doing so for years before I became an admin. It may also be relevant that User:OOODDD is the editor who created this article, although they did not mention that above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I was unable to find any information that would qualify this mall notable. The mall exists, it just doesn't pass the notability requirements for malls. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The sources are only trivial mentions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source I added (Kennedy, Patrick. "Frontenac Mall to get $2 million renovation and facelift", Kingston Whig-Standard, 1987-04-16, p. 1) is not trivial. It's a fairly lengthy article entirely about the mall. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. We already have muliple secondary sources which is the definition of notability. A long article entirely about the mall clinches it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, does not. There can and will be many independent sources about certain establishments. An example can be a bar. There are many articles written about a very popular bar near my scchool that Obama drank at when he went to Harvard Law, but it doesn't merit a Wikipedia article for good reason. Just because it's discussed heavily does not mean it warrants its own article. It can merely be condensed and placed on the main relevant page. Yanksox (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's what the policy says. Arguments for deletion have to be based on policy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:IAR, Your attitude sounds something surprisingly similar to that of Jonestown. Yanksox (talk) 11:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, only votes for delete are allowed to quote policy now? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No, first off it is never a vote, it's a discussion, so your argument is null in that regard. 85% of the time, it's strictly policy but the rest of the time you need to put on your thinking cap and let common sense dictate. Yanksox (talk) 10:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The front page Kingston Whig-Standard article does seem substantial and it is an independent reliable source, thus this topic passed the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 21:41, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It's a renovation on a local paper. It's not like it was the cover of the New York Times. Look at the size of the article you cite. I think your logic is slightly flawed for this process. Yanksox (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete nn mall, and being mentioned in the local newspaper isn't a claim to notability neither. Secret account 15:03, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's far more than a "mention" and local references are not and have never been banned as evidence of notability per WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Power's brewery[edit]

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

    Pretty blatantly fails WP:CORP- very few sources or information available online, article is somewhat spammy. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 06:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DEK Computer Center[edit]

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

    I repeat my PROD rationale: A company with 60 employees would typically not be notable. There's no evidence that this one is an exception - many external links are given, but I don't see substantial and independent coverage. Worse, this article was apparently created in WP:COI by the company itself. Thus, if notability can be established at all per WP:CORP, it would be better to restart the article from scratch. B. Wolterding (talk) 08:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Weak Keep It is notable, on that basis, if there is evidence of it, though I could not find it among the references given. Have the creators of the article been asked to supply a source for it---they should be able to. I. . DGG (talk) 17:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The creators have been notified of this discussion on their talk page, plus the notability tag has informed them of the problem for more than a year. That being said, I do not like the idea of companies writing encyclopedia articles about themselves, and I think we shouldn't encourage it. --B. Wolterding (talk) 14:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Guy Morris[edit]

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

    non notable radio presenter - last afd no consensus... very few google hits, and only for minor regional radio station. Richard Hock (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MadPunK[edit]

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

    non-notable spoken word artist, very few google hits other than self-published sources Richard Hock (talk) 12:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No doubt a fine performer, but no evidence of notability per Wikipedia guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: notability not established, as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ray Lavender[edit]

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

    Non-notable per WP:MUSIC. No albums, no charting singles, no significant coverage. SummerPhD (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Esko Martinez[edit]

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

    Non-notable per WP:MUSIC No albums, no charting singles, no reliable references, and no significant coverage. Daz11R (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Robyn Anderson[edit]

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

    Person notable for only one event; the information summarized here should and can be summarized in the parent shooting articles. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Glint (band)[edit]

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

    Doesn't meet criteria in WP:MUSIC --fvw* 17:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep This article does satisfy the requirements for musician inclusion:

    1. Glint has been the the subject of non-trivial published works. The band was written in Billboard Magazine, Deli Magazine, The Westchester Magazine, The Inquirer Mirror (Newspaper), High Times Magazine, Rockland Journal News

    Glint has also had a video on the CBS Early Show. The band has been interviewed by Matt Pinfield and Noahm (well known NYC Blogger)

    6. Jase is a notable musician and former famous actor, see his IMDB

    7. Winning the 2007 IMWS showed how prominent Glint is in the local scene of NYC underground, the band was also one of the "smallest" to play live on a major radio station, perform at the Apple Soho Store, and get featured on the homepage of the itunes music store in July 2008.

    9. Glint has won or placed in a major music competition, the Independent Music World Series of 2007, in which Billboard Magazine hand picked Glint out of 1300+ bands — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glint (band) (talk • contribs)

    • Keep Google Glint Jase, a ton comes up. Second, the first thing was a mistake, the band's management thought to start a wiki page you create it by a user. Rely Records and fans made the Glint (band) a second time following proper instructions, we want to delete that older user: Glint (band). Plus, Jase does have a lot of notability, he was in Titanic and Stanley (broadway plays) and casted in several motion pictures and tv, including Station Agent (look on the DVD COVER!) the Cosby Show, Conan O'Brien, Snow In August, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk)
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relisting comment One of the keep voters appears to have a conflict of interest. His comments are welcome and shouldn't be discounted but this debate could use a few more neutral opinions. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete None of the sources provided above is substantial in coverage save for Deli magazine. I also see no proof of the competition being notable, and Jase's notability has no bearing on the band, neither does playing at the Apple Store or being on iTunes. I should also note that the IP vote seems to be the same user as the first voter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dunno, being written about in Billboard is a pretty big step towards notability in my view. The Westchester article is non-trivial; The Inquirer and Mirror article is non-trivial; the High Times article is non-trivial. And the Journal News one is a long interview with the band. That's enough there for WP:MUSIC criterion #1, so I recommend keep. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not the Billboard one. And the others: partially, not entirely. They are not of a press-release nature. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Coverage is just sufficient to meet notability guidelines.--Michig (talk) 09:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I feel they squeak through WP:MUSIC#C1.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmmm. How peculiar. My comment 1 seems to have disappeared from the AFD discussion! Here it is, back again!
    • Delete I can't find very much online about them, the article seems to have been written by user "Glint (band)" (no relation) and much as Jase has a formidable iMDB page with roles such as "Store Customer" I'm not sure if that counts as notability. Richard Hock (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Not only do i agree with the Billboard comment above (having sufficient evidence for WP:MUSIC#C1), but also having an interview and performance with Matt Pinfield on 101.9 Rxp is notable as well. See video here [88] The recording is also referenced on the wiki page. The reason the page was first written by Glint (band) was a mistake, I work for Rely Records and have verified all content. I also included all appropriate citations. I also happen to think that many bands are significant if they had front page advertisement on the iTunes homepage, see screenshot here [89]. Winning the competition that was judged by Billboard awarded the band $50,000 in cash and prizes, I think that is fairly significant as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 00:11, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: articles written by record labels, the artists themselves and press releases shouldn't be counted towards notability. I believe there is insufficient grounds for this article to be kept as per WP:MUSIC. JamesBurns (talk) 01:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep How could this not be notability if they had a story in Billboard Magazine, raving about their "air tight" live show and Jase Blankfort as an "irresistible frontman? Take the time and explore all references and attachments before making a decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.87.216 (talk) 04:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Although an AFD isn't a vote collection, that's the third Keep vote from 68.193.87.216... Richard Hock (talk) 10:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I think its not the strongest keep, but according to the guidelines this band does pass for WP:MUSIC#C1, especially with the story i found on google of Glint in Billboard. Just my two cents —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.65.168 (talk) 00:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Geolocate indicates both 68.193.87.216 and 69.116.65.168 are from the same area. JamesBurns (talk) 05:02, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LightSpire[edit]

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

    The articles seems to be about an upcoming gaming mod which has yet to be fully developed and does not appear to have received coverage from reliable sources. The information from the article comes from a forum post by the mod's creators and all the sources I can find using Google[90] seem to be from forums or self promotion and do not show the kind of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources required to meet the general notability criteria or to verify the information within the article. Guest9999 (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - sources given not reliable or indepdendent enough to establish notability. I don't think game mods are notale on their own anyway (unless they pass the general notability guidelines).--Boffob (talk) 17:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 06:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cirt (talk) 14:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Courtship Connection[edit]

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

    There do not seem to be independent, reliable sources to use as the basis for this article. It was created by an IP editor back in the days when that was allowed, and no registered users have made substantive edits, so I have not been able to notify or discuss with them. Matchups 17:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Hmmm There seems to be a dearth of hard news references to it, but it seems well-known in Christian home-schooling circles. Mangoe (talk) 00:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Plainly nothing of notability, as websites don't automatically become notable. Nyttend (talk) 05:11, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google news search reveals no indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: No reliable sources that show notability per WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 06:50, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The Role of Interest Groups in International Relations[edit]

    The Role of Interest Groups in International Relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Disputed PROD. Uencyclopaedic essay that states, in a nutshell, that groups interested in shaping policy... shape policy. 9Nak (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe that your statement is a very oversimplified summary of my article. I discuss how interest groups have risen due to international phenominon, the different types of interest groups, how these groups function, and I also provide historical examples of the roles of interest groups in international relations. I do state that interest groups are very effective in shaping policies, however I made it clear that not all achieve their goals.concernedcavalier (concernedcavalier)

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is pure OR. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Some of this seems to be based on reliable sources, so these sources could be mined to produced useful information on other articles, but this article is plainly improper for the stated reasons. Not a likely redirect target, so delete. Nyttend (talk) 05:13, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ted & Francis[edit]

    Ted & Francis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Doesn't fulfil WP:MUSIC criteria --fvw* 18:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 01:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Scientific Equipment Optician[edit]

    Scientific Equipment Optician (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Listcruft, is as usefull/relevant as "1984 Volvo mechanic" Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete The inventors and relevant history are treated at History of optics, and for the others the category suffices. By the stated inclusion criteria, I qualify for the list - this is neat, but not notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, but change stated inclusion criteria either to list designers or at least only people whose notability is partially dependent on their contributions to the field of optical equipment design or manufacture (at least most of the list already fits). - Eldereft (cont.) 17:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral Meh, once it is retitled and retargeted ... - Eldereft (cont.) 17:52, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep A list of notable subjects seems to be useful for the encyclopedia. This is a specialized field. I will consider what others have to say, but seems notable to me. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:29, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Highly appropriate list. All of the important in either science of technology .wE could use most customary terminology and call them a list of notable microscope and telescope makers, but the existing title, though unfamiliar , will do. Considerable information can and should be quickly added to show why its better than a category (years of activity is the principal orienting element toadd, though nationality would be a good idea as well.). They are every one of them extremely important in the development of science, and there are books & articlescovering them as a group. I could suggest a few other groups, such as survying instrument makers. DGG (talk) 08:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is a poor way of providing information about the persons who contributed to the development of the telescope and the microscope -- obscurely titled, uninformative, and difficult to locate. If someone wants to make this more than what a category would accomplish, then it might serve a purpose. A list of notable subjects has the potential to be useful for an encylcopedia; this list does not live up to that potential. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Google searching shows this to be a neologism. I get no hits that aren't catch-all search pages or mirrors of Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If someone does attempt a fix, the silly title would be the first change. Describing Anton Von Leeuwenhoek as a "scientific equipment optician" makes him sound like "Tony from our quality control department" ("and G.G. here is our SEO for long-range visuals"). However, moving the article to something different won't make this less indiscriminate. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    NASCAR Kart Racing[edit]

    NASCAR Kart Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unsure about this article, may just need expansion, reliable sources and verification, and a good general clean-up Doomsday2029 (talk) 18:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete - does not currently have the coverage required for the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 14:54, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Google pulls up a large number of hits including trailers, press releases, etc. The article needs expansion, not deletion. --Teancum (talk) 18:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepAgreed about needing to be improved, but more info will come out soon (the game was just recently announced). TJ Spyke 01:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, most definitely notable. The article will improve as it comes closer to game's release (but it's not a crystal ball). Arbitrarily0 (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It's announced, it's Electronic Arts, it's already getting attention. We'd literally be deleting it for the sake of waiting a matter weeks before recreating it, waste of time. Someoneanother 08:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Just because and article needs help it doesn't mean delete.--Iamawesome800 17:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Eric Hoplin[edit]

    Eric_Hoplin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

    The subject is not notable. He has never held public office, no longer holds any college republican or state republican party positions and is currently a full-time student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scholar58888888 (talk • contribs) 2008/11/29 00:06:26

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Whether or not he held public office, he has received significant coverage in the newsmedia (see googlenews results[91], 80 hits, quite a few with specific and detailed coverage, e.g. [92][93][94]). The coverage is spread over the period of several years, so this is not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. The fact that he is no longer actively involved in politics is not relevant per WP:NTEMP. Passes WP:BIO based on existing coverage. Nsk92 (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Even if the office does not make Hoplin inherently notable, his tenure got RS attention for causing controversy.[95] He also has RS interest over time in what he has to say.[96] • Gene93k (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep He's had a couple notable roles now. WOrth including. Article could use cleaning up. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 19:11, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carlos Florez[edit]

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

    Non notable; no context within article LH (talk) 09:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No substantial coverage of achievments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:35, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, same person and/or IP wrote this and links on Maryland Institute College of Art. I can't find anything to connect this person with the awards listed, so far. --MaNeMeBasat (talk) 15:35, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Unless someone can prove the awards aren't bullshit, and if they're significant. interesting what you said about the IPs. Ryan4314 (talk) 06:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Git Fresh (album)[edit]

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

    Non-notable unreleased album with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. A song that may or may not appear on the album when/if the album is released almost charted on the Billboard R&B/Hip-Hop chart. Almost. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete: All that can be said should be said in the artist's article.—Kww(talk) 03:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Speedy Delete per CSD A9. Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    December's Keep[edit]

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

    The article does not claim any notability for this song. A google search proves that it exists, but no information is available to establish that it is important or significant in any way. Speedy and prod were both contested. —BradV 19:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 22:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Clifton family[edit]

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

    I can't see how this family is notable. According to the article: Cuthbert bought land, John was a wealthy squire, and Henry was an inheritor. Tavix (talk) 23:38, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Looks like genealogy to me. Mangoe (talk) 23:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Too little coverage to justify notability. The third entry (Henry Talbot de Vere Clifton) reads like an attack article. Nsk92 (talk) 03:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WIkipedia is not a geneology project. But if there isn't a geneology wiki there should be one... ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:37, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:56, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per above. Mandsford (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- We have an article on Lytham Hall. The article claims that members of the family were Members of Parliament. It aslo refers to two baronetcies. All of these would warrant individuals in the family mhaving an article. The present article consists of stubs on three of them. Catholicism was significant on the Fylde penninsula and it is suggested that this was supported by Catholic landowners granting tenancies to Catholic farmers. There is plenty of potential for the developemtn of this article, which is currently in the nature of a stub (or 4 stubs). It is not mere genealogy. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, without prejudice to later re-creation. BLG suggests the two knights of the shire were in the 1300s. Only one of the Clifton Baronetcies was created for this family. (For Sir John Clifton, born 1628, created baronet 1662, died 1694 and baronetcy extinct.) I don't think there's enough material in the intervening eleven generations to really warrant an article from what I've seen. Any new creation should at least do a better job of tying them together. Choess (talk) 01:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (without prejudice) per Choess. Currently merely a geneology, thus not notable, but it could be something more. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MBisanz talk 03:06, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Up The Irons[edit]

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

    A local Iron Maiden tribute band that don't appear to be particularly notable in any way. Has been primarily edited by Uptheironsnc (talk · contribs) suggesting a possible conflict of interest with the subject. ~ mazca t|c 00:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:49, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Ross Newell[edit]

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

    Tagged for doubtful notability since sept 2007 and hasn't improved much since. There are the usual MySpace and YouTube links, but not much else. I can't find anything notable about the man. Fails WP:N.    SIS  00:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The Sophie Ellis-Bextor official site credits Ross Newell with playing guitar, bass and keyboards and also as a co-writer.[97][98][99][100][101][102] He is also apparently for artist Stella Vine "the love of her life".[103] If the article is not kept, I suggest including minimal information in Read My Lips (album) and redirecting to there. That article, at variance with the Ellis-Bextor site, credits "Allen Newell". Ty 16:47, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I was going by the Wikipedia article (which I now realise was a huge mistake). I now checked all music which credits those songs to Ross Newell. However the Guitar & keyboards credits are given to Roger Newell (Another Newell). The web results otherwise can't be trusted as most of them seem to derive information from Wikipedia. Anyways, in any of these cases I don't see this person passing WP:CREATIVE. LeaveSleaves talk 17:32, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Presumably the official Ellis-Bextor site should have the correct info. I agree as things stand this article does not have sufficient sources to merit retention. However, per WP:NNC it would be informative, as I've mentioned above, to include some minimal info in Read My Lips (album). Some of the material would be valid there. Ty 19:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That would be good. Particularly since it now appears that the song credits in that article are completely wrong. LeaveSleaves talk 19:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge pertinent information to Read My Lips (album) and redirect, per talk above. Ty 20:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: sections are unverifiable, notability not established. JamesBurns (talk) 04:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • His contribution to Read My Lips (album) is verifiable, as above. Is there any reason why there should not be a redirect there? Ty 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to wherever the hell you think this needs to go ;) Ryan4314 (talk) 06:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Secret account 14:46, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Trinity Morgana[edit]

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

    No reliable independent sources, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Carolyn Monroe[edit]

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

    No significant reliable sources found, and doesn't pass the criteria at WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 00:05, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_December_6&oldid=1081103541"