Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

Purge server cache

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

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

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. jp×g 22:51, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===List of Supercouples===[reply]


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

Pointless list of fictional and non-fictional people which is not encyclopedic in any way, and is based only on people's opinons not facts.

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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Costa Rican economists[edit]

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

The list contains mainly red-links. Did a google check, the majority of names don't seem notable and have hardly any results. -- LaNicoya  •Talk•  00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Indiscriminate list, unsourced, no clue as to whether they're notable or even from Costa Rica; assuming that not all economists are equal, merely being Costa Rican and an economist would not be in itself notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Not good. Punkmorten (talk) 10:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Bardcom (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:53, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embry Riddle Resident Student Association[edit]

Embry Riddle Resident Student Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to satisfy notability criterion, specifically WP:ORG because it has no secondary sources and "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found". No independent sources were found on Google or the article itself. Noetic Sage 17:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  23:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac Dre Presents: Thizz Nation Vol. 11, Starring Johnny Ca$h[edit]

Mac Dre Presents: Thizz Nation Vol. 11, Starring Johnny Ca$h (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • This is the sole release on a minor record label by a non-notable artist who has died. The artist's page has been deleted and recreated several times, most recently by AfD today. There are no sources provided in this article, and an extensive google search reveals only local mention in the SF Bay area in a strictly local context. Does not meet WP:Music. No multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable sources, does not meet WP:N. Delete. JERRY talk contribs 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as there does not appear to be any basis for expanding the article, and the subject does not appear to meet notability guidelines. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —JERRY talk contribs 12:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon Productions[edit]

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

Contested prod, non-notable organisation. Only references provided are myspace, its own website and the record from the state of Louisiana to show that the organisation has been registered. A google search on the exact name comes back with 12 or so references, then lots of website where "abandon productions" is written somewhere in the text. Has been nominated for speedy and prod already today, but the creator keeps removing the tags without an admin being able to get to it. Roleplayer (talk) 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I oppose the deletion of Abandon Productions from wikipedia. This organization has been in existence for approximately 7 years and is doing great things in metropolitan New Orleans, LA, to provide hope to communities in need of so much more as they still recover from Hurricane Katrina. What kind of referential material is needed to justify this organization being listed on wikipedia? D-Ro New Orleans (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please read WP:ORG for more information on our standards for notability of organizations. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, rampant WP:COI, blatant advertising, no references, etc. etc. etc. --Yamla (talk) 02:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and credible sources, no matter how much good they've done. --Dhartung | Talk 05:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I added a reference from a secondary source for some of the work this organization has done with New Orleans City Park. I will look for more sources, but I suggest not deleting this organization. D-Ro New Orleans (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Invoking admin discretion, however, I'm going to redirect it to a quickie stub about the author (having published work in Atlantic Monthly passes my own sniff test), and invite anybody who knows more than I do about him to expand it. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of us are here against our will[edit]

Most of us are here against our will (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was tagged for CSD G11, but I'm not sure it meets the definition of spam. It seems to be a borderline notable subject; it does cite several reputable sources. Keilana|Parlez ici 23:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to "David S. Levinson". There really ought to be a disambiguation page for David Levinson, in that we already have articles abot David A. Levinson, David B. Levinson, and David N. Levinson. This newly published author, David Samuel Levinson, is none of the above. Mandsford (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and expand into a short article on the author and his work (David Levinson (author) would be my choice). His bio, plus the sources already mentioned, suggests a way of asserting notability here. (BTW, this is an informal offer to do some of the work here, not just a "keep and run".) --Sturm 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article needs to be about the guy to move it to his title, and there is little here to indicate that he is notable anyway. A search online doesn't provide much help in that respect either - I found his home page, which refers to a few awards, but none significant. This article is about the book, or to be more precise, the reviews it has received, and thus serves as little more than an advertisement. Hersfold (t/a/c) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable book Beeblbrox (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G12.

Three thug mice[edit]

Three thug mice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure about this one, questionable notability. The artist who created Three Thug Mice may be notable, but in any event the article itself is written like an ad and contains no independent sources. Violates WP:WEB, WP:RS, and WP:N Mr Senseless (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable. Nakon 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, notability, tone issues. Cheers. Trance addict 23:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article offers the information that is needed on the topic, the topic itself seems valid to be mentioned on WP. Possible issues with the tone of the article can be dealt with by editing the article instead of deleting it. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Judging by this (I'm linking to the Google cache because the site appears to be down) this looks, in part, to have copyright issues. --Sturm 23:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if not a copyvio, otherwise delete. It does need cleanup, but it does look notable to me. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Tagged, Its definitely a copyvio, almost word for word. Mr Senseless (talk) 05:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amjad J. Qaisen[edit]

Amjad J. Qaisen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor. Stub does not satisfy the primary notability criterion (non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources). Only one source provided, does not source dubious claims of near-uniqueness made in article, and really, having a "featured extra" bit part in one episode of a sitcom (his only known acting credit!) does not make for an encyclopedia-worthy personage. Already adequately covered at the (misnamed) List of Seinfeld recurring characters. Stub appears to have survived speedy deletion for no apparent reason, so I'm bringing it here. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete if that's the only thing he did. And surely there were American actors who portrayed Stalin or Hitler before Seinfeld ever aired... Maybe I don't understand the claim, but that seems like an absurd thing to say, and since that's the closest thing to notability he's got, definitely delete. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here's a whole page listing people who played Hitler, many of them Americans: [1] Given that this episode came out many years ago, and I'm not aware of any brouhaha over it, saying it is "potentially controversial" is silly. If it hasn't been controversial yet, it's not likely to be in the future, and why would it? Actors play evil people all the time, no one judges the actors for their character's real-life actions. Tuf-Kat (talk) 01:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It was funny, but it does not confer notability. --Dhartung | Talk 05:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too trivial to be notable. Anton Ego (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I agree with nomination, non notable actor. --SSman07 (talk) 21:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep by default. --PeaceNT (talk) 12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Roe[edit]

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

A non-notable TV episode, no real world references. Article is just an infobox and plot reprise. Polly (Parrot) 20:00, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - the consensus on Wikipedia is that all episodes of notable shows should have an article. It is done this way for many shows already like The Simpsons, South Park, Family Guy, etc. Law & Order: Criminal Intent is a pretty notable show. --Amlebede (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Secret account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - There is no such consensus on wikipedia, the episodes of some shows can be well sourced and make a good article, this however is only a stub and does not really need a seperate article. --neonwhite user page talk 03:11, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - stubs can be expanded. I think this page has a potential for expansion. --Amlebede (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 23:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge is the direction I would take this and similar types of articles. (jarbarf) (talk) 08:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note as this article was created after the injuction, I asked arbcom what to do with those articles. Thanks Secret account 15:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I don't understand several of the above !votes. What have ArbCom got to do with it? AndyJones (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Andy, Arbcom have put an injunction on (un)deleting/(un)merging characters and episodes of TV shows - you can see the injunction here. Re:Secret The injunction on the case says it was "Passed 4 to 0 at 02:07, 3 February 2008 (UTC). ", this article was created a few hours before that so does fall under the injunction from my reading of it. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' I have nothing to do with the ArbCom case, but I would say that irrespective of any injunction this should be kept anyway -- there is sufficient precedent already established on Wikipedia for individual episodes of notable TV dramas to get their own articles. --SJK (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The is no such consensus, and no such ArbCom ruling. This is nothing but a plot summary, fails WP:NOT#PLOT. Black Kite 12:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete:Fails WP:V, as the article is primarily based on self-published sources.Kww (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable plot. There is no consensus that every episode of every tv show gets an article. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes our notability and verfiability requirements. Episode from a notable TV series with notable actors. References are easily found. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that tv.com doesn't meet our standards for reliable sources, and the data from tvguide.com is just the plot summary provided by the production company. Care to try again for an actual source?Kww (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The show itself serves as a primary source and TV Guide can serve as a secondary source. Both the episode itself and TV Guide are reliable sources and TV Guide is a real world independent of the subject and a significant and notable source. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On that basis, every episode of every TV show, in every country in the world, could deserve an article, because sources could be found in local TV guides. Care to try again? Black Kite 19:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are independent reviews in TV Guide that serve as secondary sources. There is also episode summary listing that reproduces episode summaries written by the production companies ... those do not count as secondary sources. That's primary.Kww (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see no good reason why an online encyclopedia that anyone could edit should not have such articles on shows watched by millions of viewers on the original air date and as reruns and on DVD, so long as such sources exist and an article can be written. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As with all other articles on not independantly notable articles on television episodes, I suggest we merge and redirect to a List of Episodes. But since we have to wait until the ArbCom bothers to respond to the many questions about the injunction, just keep it. seresin | wasn't he just...? 18:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lacking any evidence of notability, or of having received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No good reason to delete this. Even the much derided WP:EPISODE says the article like these should be merged not deleted. Catchpole (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article cannot be deleted while the injunction is in effect, but after the injunction is over I still say keep. It's an episode of a show notable enough to have an article. It doesn't violate any policies. --Pixelface (talk) 20:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except WP:NOT#PLOT, of course. Luckily, the article rescue squadron are on the case!!. Black Kite 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would class details such as the series title, air dates, guest stars, writers and directors as giving real-world information. Catchpole (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This episode exists. These people wrote and starred in it. This is the plot." Um. Black Kite 20:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yep. Add a bit of formatting and wikification and Bob's your father's brother. Catchpole (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Er, no. The summary I gave above = Merge & Redirect to a list, or Delete. Black Kite 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except of course, plot summaries don't make Wikipedia an indiscriminate collection of information. --Pixelface (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This can easily be covered on a List of episodes. -- Ned Scott 06:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, to a list of episodes style article. This is not a particularly notable or exceptional episode of the series. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per normal practice; we do not split out separate articles for episodes unless there is enough sourced material to create an actual article about them. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the list of episodes. I owe JERRY an apology; at one time, I criticized his relisting of an article for further debate. JERRY's doing the exact right thing while the ArbComm injunction continues. Editors have been spoiled into thinking that TV episode articles--- surely, original research at its basest level-- are to be kept no matter what ("all episodes of notable shows should have an article"). Then there are others who think that the injunction means an automatic keep, when in reality, it means no decision for now. I'm glad to see that at least some standards of notability are being considered for TV episodes and TV characters. Mandsford (talk) 00:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd stay on the side of keep given past and existing consensus Fosnez (talk) 12:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Deakin[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has played in a competitive game between two fully-professional clubs (Football League Trophy, Walsall v Swansea). пﮟოьεԻ 57 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - this still results in the article failing WP:BIO, so the article remains non-notable. robwingfield «T•C» 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Number57. matt91486 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable lower-level footballer. One Football League Trophy game is obviously less notable than playing for England U-19 or sitting on the bench in the CL. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. To clarify, this is a case where "meeting one or more [criteria] does not guarantee that a subject should be included" (WP:BIO#Additional criteria, second sentence). Sebisthlm (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails notability Bardcom (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 13:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 01:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Tims[edit]

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

Article about a living person that doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO or WP:PROF. Also most of the content is unsourced. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 22:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO, since no notability is established by the article - Fritzpoll (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, also please note that the subject has requested the page be deleted (OTRS Ticket #2008021710012419) due to problems with defamatory vandalism. --Versageek 04:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, very marginal notability through position as headmaster of a notable school, but we don't blanket confer headmasters under WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 05:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Cottrill[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh wow. Was in Brum's squadlist for two seasons but never appeared professionally. Created the article over three years ago when he was set to make appearances, but never actually did so. I guess this falls under a db-creator-request, not that such a thing exists, but feel free to delete speedily. Bobo. 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not fall under "creator request", as you're not the sole contributor for this article. --Angelo (talk) 09:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I realized that at the time and thought it was unfortunate, even though, while he may have been able to achieve notability way back when I added the article, he failed to do so - thank you for clarifying, Angelo. Bobo. 11:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable lower-level footballer. Sebisthlm (talk) 10:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Maybe someone else will substantially improve the article. You never know. Take, for example, the thousands of villages in France the Blofeld of SPECTRE has created. Editors agreed to keep them, as I think they are unnecessary. At least this is about a real person, with some significance. ElisaEXPLOSiONtalk. 20:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - doesn't meet WP:BIO requirements ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BanRay 11:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oriental metal[edit]

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

Seems to be mostly composed of original research. Only one of the references provided uses the term "oriental metal", and that is only to list a very small amount of bands; I'd hardly class it as a reliable source. Most of the article seems to be about two or so bands (such as Orphaned Land) and using their style to create a whole new genre - there seem to be no definate sources claiming this genre exists, and I have certainly never heard of it outside of Wikipedia. If not a delete vote, I think it should be merged with another genre; most probably folk metal. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just revised the article, removing all the original research and adding only information that can be verified with references and citations. I trust that my work is satisfactory and that this nomination for deletion will not be necessary.--Bardin (talk) 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this subgenre exists indeed. MathKnight Gothic Israeli Jew 21:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Care to source this claim? The point is that there are hardly any sources for this genre existing. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I had already done that with my revision to the article. Here are some examples. Rockdetector's bio on Orphaned Land, Hard & Heavy interview with Khalas, Sonic Cathedral's interview with Distorted and Malestrom's interview with Forgotten Silence. These are professional websites (not made by fans) where you can find the precise term "oriental metal" in use in the context of an interview or article. The term is used more often in album reviews on various websites, for example Gothronic's review of Salem's Necessary Evil. There are other websites which use the term as well (Metal Observer, Metal Archives, Metalstorm, etc.) but for one reason or another, I did not use them in the article. The mainstream media hasn't picked up on the term yet but that's not surprising. You can't expect the same level of attention from the mainstream media or academia that you can find for grunge music or jazz rock fusion. We are talking of a relatively new and small subgenre of heavy metal localised in the middle east, largely in Israel. Not every localised or regional music genre can be a global phenonemon like reggae. That does not mean they do not have a place in wikipedia though. You can find articles or reviews in the mainstream media like All Music that pretty much describe a band like Orphaned Land or Melechesh as oriental metal without using the precise term, that is they describe the music as a mix of metal and middle eastern folk. --Bardin (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not less used than say Post-metal. Kakun (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barratt[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Gamble[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:26, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Wilkie[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BanRay 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gari Rowntree[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Darkspots (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy anointing oil[edit]

Holy anointing oil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The reason is that it is basically Original Research. Its trying to assert that the bible commands the use of cannabis, or other hallucinogens; this is certainly not a mainstream view. It is essentially a WP:POVFORK of Chrism and Shemen Afarsimon.

  • Delete. It should be deleted and replaced with a disambiguation page between the latter two articles. Clinkophonist (talk) 20:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is no original research in this article. It could use some expansion. It is not a POVFORK in that it is not the same subject matter as Chrism or Shemen Afarsimon and past discussions to merge these separate articles have been resolved against doing so.[2][3] —Whig (talk) 20:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked the parts of the bible and the short article is correct and should stay and can be expanded. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't see any reason to suspect this is a POV fork. AFAICT, all it does is describe what the oil is and where it is/was/legendarily-said-to-be used. I'd lean towards merging elsewhere unless someone can expand this article to show that it has some significance beyond being mentioned in the Bible a few times. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inclined to keep with a discussion of why this is not 100% identified with chrism (although some sources do so). There was much discussion of this in 19th-century Christian literature (see Great Awakenings) from a Google Books search and this could easily be expanded. There are also sufficient sources to show that at least one valid interpretation of kanabos is indeed cannabis (and sheesh, there are examples aplenty of religious use of psychotropics, so this is hardly revolutionary). --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - barely notable, but referenced. Not sure of what's the problem. Bearian (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - this is a genuine biblical subject, though the article is only a stub. The interpretation as to the identity of the ingredients may be controversial, but that is a question for correction or discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Deletion nomination quotes Original Research but the article has an external reference with the original text, and the article "translates" the ingredients into everyday english. I would prefer to see the article expanded. Bardcom (talk) 14:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article needs expansion not deletion. The other articles on the Holy oil disambiguation page do not deal directly with this subject. MishaPan (talk) 22:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albanians in Serbia[edit]

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

First, I apologize for the complexity of this report. This is the second time I am bringing this article to AFD. It was created by copy-paste merging Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia. The consensus of the previous AFD was that since Kosovo was a part of Serbia, the two articles should be merged until this was no longer the case. Now that Kosovo has declared independence, I think the articles should be split again. Recommend Deleting this article, and reverting to the previous edits on Albanians in Kosovo and Albanians in Central Serbia. I would also support Renaming Albanians in Central Serbia to Albanians in Serbia. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. I see no reason to delete this article. Nikola (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep::I agree, deletion does not seem justified. It does need to be updated regularly to keep it current, just like the other Kosovo-related articles, as contentious as those updates may be.
--Wikiscient (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep::: I agree, I am sure lot's of people would like to delete not only this article but many more. Albanians living in KOSOVO have to accept the fact that KOSOVO is still part of Serbia. This can only be changed by United Nations and I am sure we all know that. So, till now please restrain your self from adding inappropriate content.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.203.17.185 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 17 February 2008
  • Keep Article should stay as it is. Declaration of independance does not change the offcial status yet. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are still albanians in serbia (out of kosovo) , so instead of deleting this article I would suggest an update , where kosovo wont be mentioned but the article would be about albanians living in presevo , bujanovac etc. --Cradel 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Unless I'm misunderstanding something, the one that should be deleted is Albanians in Central Serbia (or that should be redirected here). Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps I'm not being clear. I don't want this article entirely deleted. I think the information on Kosovo should be split out into its own article. In fact it already is, but Albanians in Kosovo redirects to here. Also, I agree that Albanians in Central Serbia should either redirect or be outright moved to this page. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepBiophys (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep You Dchall realy seem to be a troll or POV creator. Kosovo-Metohia is Serbia, both officialy both defacto both de jure, if you have something against that go express your feelings somewhere else THIS IS WIKIPEDIA! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.202.112 (talk) 13:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - POV of any other person notwithstanding, this is a perfectly good article. It just needs trimming and updating, which are not subject to AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support nom, but that should not be an AFD. The status of Kosovo, since its declaration of independence and recognition by various countries is difficult. However, it is clearly a disticnt polity, having been a UN protectirate since 1999. Its status is analogous to Taiwan and Somaliland, which are de facto independent, but not recognised by certain others. The proposal seems to be to resplit, and I think that should be done. This is inevitably a controversial move. Albanians in Central Serbia should become a redirect to this page. My guess is that the new state will fail to control its three most northern divisions, with their Serb majority, but despite Serbian protests, the rest will sustain its independence. However, perhaps we should await developments. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

non-notable bible-division articles (various)[edit]

This AFD covers several articles and potential future articles within a defined limit. Specifically, it covers all articles about non-notable divisions of the bible, such as chapters which are insignificant in and of themselves like Mark 12, as well as lectionary-based divisions.

The primary grounds for this AfD are WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT (not "an indiscriminate repository of information" and not "a how-to guide"), and violation of consensus (see Wikipedia:Bible verses and Wikipedia:Centralized_discussion/200_verses_of_Matthew). A previous instance of the latter (on the same issue as this) seems to have even lead to a rare rebuke by the arbitration committee against one of its own members.

I'm a member of the Bible Wikiproject and this appears to be a concern of other members.

This is not about the notability of the content of the chapters, but about the notability of the chapter as a chapter; one chapter may cover a couple of notable articles - Mark 12 covers the Ministry of Jesus, The Wicked Husbandmen, Lesson of the widow's mite, and Genealogy of Jesus, articles for example, but it is not itself significant.

It is also important to note that a small minority of divisions, such as Mark 16, Psalm 51, John 21, Psalm 23, Psalm 74, Psalm 104, and John 3:16, are notable in their own right, and therefore do not fall under this AfD.

An additional concern is that the 1-chapter-at-a-time articles are setting up a religious bias and risk of dispute, against the Jewish-lectionary articles. For example, the potential article Exodus 20 would be a POVFORK of Tetzaveh. Noach (parsha) is either a POVFORK of Noah, or a chapter from a "summarised bible" - the latter being a book, not an encyclopedia article.

1 Corinthians 14 has recently been subject to AFD on similar grounds. The result was to merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clinkophonist (talk • contribs) 19:43, 17 February 2008

List of KNOWN Articles which would fall under this AFD[edit]

Comments/Discussion/Votes[edit]

  • Delete/Merge/Redirect/Transwiki (basically "not Keep") Clinkophonist (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this AfD is a guideline proposal disguised as an AfD. As far as I can tell, every tiny snippet of the bible will be proven to be notable under the general notability guideline. Each will have been the subject of multiple non-trivial mentions in reliable secondary sources. It's been around and read by millions annually for a couple thousand years. It has been studied and entire books written analyzing it. All parts of it. There are numerous books that do nothing but take each verse of the bible and analyze it, probably in every spoken language. This is an entire field of scholarly discipline. This AfD is rediculous. My briefest look for sources yields hundreds each, all would be considered reliable. Let's just take one at random; Vayeshev:
  • A Torah Commentary for Our Times - Page 91 by Harvey J. Fields
  • Frameworks by Matis Weinberg
  • The Linear Chumash - Page 224 by Pesach Goldberg, Bereishis Genesis
  • Truth in Numbers: Insights Into the Book of Bereshis - Page 44 by Reuven Wolfeld
  • Caesarea Under Roman Rule - Page 193 by Lee I. Levine
  • The Zohar =: Sefer Ha-Zohar - Page 155 by Daniel Chanan Matt
  • Encyclopedia of Jewish Medical Ethics: A Compilation of Jewish Medical Law ... - Page 633 by Avraham Steinberg
  • The Jewish Woman in Rabbinic Literature - Page 310 by Menachem M. Brayer
  • The Jewish Life Cycle: Rites of Passage from Biblical to Modern Times - Page 267 by Ivan G. Marcus
  • Restoration: Old Testament, Jewish, and Christian Perspectives - Page 234 by James M. Scott
  • A Commentary on Pseudo-Philo's Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, with Latin ... - Page 745 by Howard Jacobson
  • Em Habanim Semeha: Restoration of Zion As a Response During the Holocaust - Page 120 by Yiśakhar Shelomoh Ṭaikhṭel, Pesach Schindler
    JERRY     talk contribs 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Propose as guideline I never thought I'd consider a "Notability (Bible)" proposal, but this AfD seems to be the perfect rationale for it. -- RoninBK T C 10:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I checked several of the articles and think it is good that they are around since there are specific references to chapters. Lots of energy has been put into this articles and deleting them seems not appropriate. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and individually list Random selection of chapters like 1 Corinthians 13 gives sources. I suggest that the nom separate the Afd into individual ones so that we could judge each article by its merits and to avoid a trainwreck which this afd would likely be. --Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A random sampling of articles find every one of them well-written and well-sourced. I fail to see why they should be deleted based on any usual rationale for deletion. The nominator's reasons seem to be aimed at pumulgating a style guideline for how to organize biblical content, concerning which AfD is not place to do so -- take it to the relevent WikiProject to work out a consensus and then, if it ends up being different from how it currently is, merge them as needed. Which, I note, is not done through an AfD. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: I note that the parshah articles are mainly not single-chapter portions, and so would seem to be outside the stated scope of this AfD. Furthermore, given the nearly two millenia of commentary on the weekly Torah readings, I'd say those are emphatically notable divisions of the Bible, to the point that if I were not saying Keep on administrative grounds, I'll call for a Strong Keep of those articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: On a random sample, I've yet to find a single article covered under this nomination that has an AfD notice. This would seem to be an invalid nomination. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: as per Jerry and Quasirandom; there are also too many articles to adequately consider in this one nomination. There should be no doubt that there exists plenty of sources on each article, so notability is not an issue. I didn't see the nom's signature at the top. It should be there. Noroton (talk) 03:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To add to my comment: If the Bible WikiProject consensus can decide on a different organization of the material, then merges with redirects would help people find what they want, not deleted pages. Since so much Bible commentary and scholarship deals with specific chapters, or at least is organized by chapter, they seem to me like good boundaries for individual articles, although Bible WikiProject editors very likely have a better sense of that. If the nominated articles don't have AfD tags on them, how do BibleProject members know these articles are up for deletion? Noroton (talk) 03:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Neozoon and others; these are indeed useful articles and mass deleting them all would be a true shame. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and form and enforce the guidelines outside of this particular AfD process. AfDs should be based on existing, supported, consensus-backed policies guidelines, and have a definite scope in which articles are affected and which are not, all of them appropriately tagged and everyone editing them given a fair chance to participate in a discussion. We can't form a guideline through AfD discussion, much less one that may have a larger scope than even the nominator is aware of. By analogy, this AfD would be almost the same as amending CSD A7 to say "...or Bible book or section". We don't do that. So please, let's resolve notability consensus first and then bring articles that absolutely need to be taken through AfD through AfD, and merge the rest without invoking the Process. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - The content should probably be preserved, as most of it is probably acceptable. The organization into chapters, however, is and can be problematic. I was one of the editors on the talk page of the Bible project who agreed that it makes most sense to break up the content relating to books of the Bible not by chapters, which were arbitrarily placed in well after the books themselves were written, but rather by "story" contained in the books, where such is applicable. Clearly, with the Psalms and Proverbs, that would be a bit of a problem, but it makes more sense to break up the content into coherent stories than in almost randomly designated chapters. That would probably turn most of the existing pages into basically enhanced disambig pages, saying, in effect "Acts 56 contains the Acts of Zaphod, Acts of Trillian, and Acts of Vogon Prostetnic Jeltz stories," for instance, with most of the content on those related pages. Certain content relating explicitly to the chapter as a chapter might remain on the chapter page, but most of the rest of the content would be on the various "subpages" for the thematic stories, except in such cases where such is impossible. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, the Bible project should work out its own style guidelines for how to organize Bible articles -- making sure that you have the full buy-in of the Judiasm project -- and then reorganize (not delete) existing material along those lines. Then, if in the future an article that goes against those guidelines is created, you can then merge the content following that guideline (again, not delete, because almost certainly every chapter in the Bible is notable on shere metric tonnage of commentary). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close This is not a proper AfD in many ways, not specifying just what pages are to be deleted, except by example, with the pages that are specified being of a great variety of different types an notability. As for the main issue, it is absurd to declare in advance thata bible chapter is not likely to be notable, given the amount of commentary that has been published over the centuries. If there are any particular pages here to which exception can be taken, let let be nominated separately. Incidentally, commentary on the bible has historically been done by chapters and verses for at least the last 4 or 5 centuries, so such a division is not irrational. DGG (talk) 20:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and split into topical articles. The amount of material in the field of Biblical interpretation is enormous. It is both serious scholarship and considered notable; these articles should definitely not be deleted. The Psalm articles can be kept at their current locations. --Eliyak T·C 01:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. Propose a guideline and let's debate that in a civil, centralized fashion. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of these articles are on texts which have their own literary integrity (John 20 and the Psalms are obvious examples). Plus, any given text in the bible could have scholarly articles written on them, thus making them notable. StAnselm (talk) 10:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not convinced of the merit of summaries of New Testament chapters. Articles on particular parables, minracles, etc. might be appropriate, summarising scholarly discussion of them. There is a great deal of biblical commentary literature, but I am not sure WP ought to be competing with them. The division of the New Testament into chapters is only late medieval, but has become conventional. There is a problem over numbering Psalms as Christian tradition has split one of the early ones in two, so that all subsequent ones have alternative numbers. The Old Testament articles present a differnet problem in that the titles are in Hebrew (or possibly Yiddish), but I think we have to live with that. It may be that we have to have a parallel series of Christian articles on the Old Testament, and Jewish articles on the same text as Jewsih scriptures. However sicne we are both using the same holy book, this is difficult to avoid. On the whole I would say Keep and try to improve. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I've been watching this one for a while now and expected it to frankly be a no consensus. A consensus has emerged (NPI) however to merge them into one article instead of 10 separate (unexpandable) articles. Merging and redirecting doesn't need admin assistance. Please note, I will not be performing these actions as closer. Simply closing. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York City DOE Region 1[edit]

AfDs for this article:
New York City DOE Region 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Regions were disbanded. Schools in New York City no longer belong to regions. Templates and articles organizing NYC schools by region are anachronistic and confusing. Jd2718 (talk) 18:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

   I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

  :New York City DOE Region 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 5 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)   
  :New York City DOE Region 7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 8 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 9 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  :New York City DOE Region 10 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Short history

Districts: for several decades, NY City public schools were divided into districts. The districts were small geographic regions for elementary and middle schools (about two dozen in all) and 5 large districts for high schools.

Regions: In 2004 the districts were absorbed into 10 regions, and in 2006 they announced the Regions would be dissolved (happened June 2007).

Now: the districts exist (for one very minor task) and as identifiers. The Regions do not exist, and are not used as identifiers. Schools belong to "Learning Support Organizations" (LSO's) or "Professional Support Organizations" (PSO's) or "the Empowerment zone," non-geographic groupings based on who the school pays for support services. Schools may move from one LSO or PSO to another.

If we need a geographic organizer (and I am not convinced that we do), then either the old districts or the boroughs make sense. The regions simply do not exist. Jd2718 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to arguments that regions can be used as a navigational device: 1) The Department of Education organizes its schools on its website by Borough, District, or Zip Code, but not Region. 2) It has already become difficult to determine which region some schools belonged to, and 3) certainly the 20 new schools opened this year and the 20 to be opened in September will never have belonged to any of them. Jd2718 (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the fact that they no longer exist should not matter as to their notability. matt91486 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they are not notable makes them not notable. The fact that they no longer exist denies them the possibility of becoming notable in the future. The previous deletion debate resulted in "no consensus." The only argument put forward was that we use them as navigational tools. I would urge readers to read the two previous (quite brief) debates. Jd2718 (talk) 19:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them together, the navigational boxes can still refer to the main article, making a note as to which of the regions they belong, like this [[New York City DOE Regions]] (region 1) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Do not merge or redirect; the old articles seem to have no content worth saving. CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Even if these articles were ever useful, they no longer are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge - a record of which schools belonged to which region is sound historic information and the combined article should record not only the demise of the regions but the policy reasons behind the decision. TerriersFan (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whatever was noted historically remains notable. They were notable in the past, although the material may not yet have been adequately written for them here. That they no longer exists does not eliminate the sources already existing in NYC newspapers and elsewhere. New Amsterdam also no longer exists, but it has not therefore become un-notable. This continues to serve to tie the articles together for a very long and important period of their history. I note that very few of the NYC high schools have yet received articles--this will undoubtedly be corrected. But if TerriersFan wants to merge them properly, that's OK also.DGG (talk) 04:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I've also nominated the Region 9 Template for deletion Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_February_17#Template:New_York_City_DOE_Region9. Apparently each of these articles has an associated template. Jd2718 (talk) 05:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and optionally redirect all to New York City Department of Education. The content of these articles is essentially recursive (one sentence noting definition, one noting dissolution). We should phase out our use of this as a navigation scheme as well. Of course we can document but I don't see how these individually meet WP:ORG and their only utility is for navigation. If somehow there was content I could see keeping the stubs, but what content could there be? The DOE of one of the largest cities in the world has had more than one organizational scheme in its history and we don't need articles for every subgrouping they have ever created, especially if we offer nothing of value in those articles. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into New York City DOE Regions (or somesuch) and Redirect numbered articles to it, would seem the encyclopedic thing to do. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge per TerriersFan and DGG. --Daddy.twins (talk) 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge per TerriersFan. Noroton (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notability does not expire. A reader wanting information about these older districts for a historical perspective should be able to look to a world class encyclopedia for that information, not just a log page that says they were deleted because the districts restructured. KEEP. JERRY talk contribs 04:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bearian's suggestion which was in agreement with Exit2DOS2000. I did not see that the first time. Good idea! Let's do it! That of course requires a keep closure for GFDL, so I am not striking through my original !vote, but here's a bold Merge. JERRY talk contribs 21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge into one big article per Exit2DOS2000 et al. Bearian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian's suggestion is reasonable. However, they would still contain only a stubby amount of information. Perhaps they could make up a section in History of the New York City Department of Education. Jd2718 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Several editors have expressed the opinion "once notable, always notable." However, the claim that the Regions were ever notable is shaky at best; I would dispute it. Look, for instance, at the maximum extent of the articles being discussed. In the context of NYC, the Districts reached notability, and probably deserved articles. Some, including District 2 and District 26 have considerable history, culture, etc. Just not true for any of the regions.
Comment Tu quoque There have now been 3 nominations for deletions for these articles. In each of them the majority of the keep comments have been per DGG or per TerriersFan. (9 out of 12 keep comments altogether have been by or per these two editors.) Yet their reasons change over time and/or are demonstrably false. they will be a good place for listing some important information about less notable schools, They were used for many years (they were used for parts of three years, and never covered all schools), we now have an agreed use for these articles. (when asked what that use was, no reply was ever forthcoming), The reason for keeping them is the key information in the navigation boxes, which is where the individual schools are listed. (even though a substantial number of schools never belonged to a region, and today no schools do so), This continues to serve to tie the articles together for a very long and important period of their history. Jd2718 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note with substantial dissatisfaction that some commenters here have not familiarized themselves with the difference between Districts in NYC and Regions in NYC. Jd2718 (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was asked to respond. I have no quarrel with jd's very concise account of the historical record. But the sketch at New York City Department of Education will not provide much further information, nor will anything in WP. the defining event in its 20th century history, the 1968 school strike, is not covered in any WP article. Agreed there are problems in a rational description, for the Department of Education and its precursors are generally regarded in NYC as the acme of NYC's endemic dysfunctional complexity--and in educational circles as the most complicated way to organize public education yet invented, increasingly so in each successive incarnation. There is a need for giving an understandable account of it here, to the extent the material will allow of being understood. I do not despair of it being done, though I certainly do not want to personally do it. jd too has had the judgment to work on other topics. It is indicative that there are fewer articles on NYC public schools than in any other major urban area.
The way of clarifying such events is chronological, with each stage being separately described. The individual schools and the neighborhoods cut across the chronological framework in an non straightforward manner, , and can best be understood after knowing the basic historical sequence. Most established schools will have been in one or more districts, then in a region, and now in some other entity. Though the regions deservedly had a short life span, they are part of the record. The scheme needs to be set out, so that it can be expanded. We have a start at the framework, and we should keep it so we do not have to reconstruct it.
Where we do not yet have full articles, but have the possibility of them, we should not tear down what little we do have. That's one of the meanings of always notable, of historical notability. We build a comprehensive work by filling in the gaps. I apologize for having earlier given a less comprehensive account of the argument. DGG (talk) 03:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Characterisations such as "I note with substantial dissatisfaction that some commenters here have not familiarized themselves with the difference between Districts in NYC and Regions in NYC" simply demonstrates how weak the nominator's case is. Regions were the management bodies for schools and as such notable. The proposed solution, creating a combined article to which some much needed background can be added, is the constructive, positive way forward. Deletion achieves nothing. TerriersFan (talk) 04:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.

The fact that the scheme is disbanded should be of no consequence. History is especially appropriate to this encyclopaedia.

Further basic information needs to be added. What there is consists of “This districting scheme was officially phased out in 2007.” This requires a citation. The following questions should be answered: Why were they phased out? What were they replaced with? Where there any consequences, or was the change seamless. What history is there to the districting scheme (when & how was it introduced)? Jd2718’s short history is a good start.

Even if the regions were not notable, the article is important for navigation purposes and for expansion of the encyclopaedia. In this respect, the article is just like a list, only better presented. I expect that the articles will in time become organised differently, but this should be left to editors involved, not decided at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep the articles should make clear that these regions are essentially historical. But that isn't a reason to delete the articles. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tvuk[edit]

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

Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notability even asserted. Also crystalballism as this hasn't launched. eaolson (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A7SD. No assertion of notability is enough for a speedy. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as crystalish. Blueboy96 21:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The service is announced for 29.02.2008. The article seems to put together the official information available this time. Deletion seems hasty at this moment since it will get harder to put up and improve the article once it has been deleted.Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 23:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The site owner has released a statement confirming how the site is going to be ran and also which shows will be availiable. This removes any element of crystalballism and users will know what the expect come the launch. Joeyguy —Preceding comment was added at 16:52, 18 February 2008 (GMT)

  • Delete- there isn't any notability. Comment: If kept the page should be renamed to TV:UK instead of Tvuk. Rigby27 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxberry Limited[edit]

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

Non-notable one-man company. The article was created by the company's owner, who repeatedly removed db tags from the page. Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 19:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough Gary King (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORP. Less than 80 Google hits, none of which are reliable sources. Bláthnaid 20:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Borders on a G11 speedy, and WP:COI issues don't help the cause either. Blueboy96 21:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, should had received a A7 deletion, not to mention unsubstantiated claim of being a "leading company". Anton Ego (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Spires - Sheffield band[edit]

The Spires - Sheffield band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough Gary King (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7 Not only is there no notability proven, it isn't even asserted. Blueboy96 21:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no assertion of notability. Fails WP:MUSIC. EJF (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for not asserting, and apparently not having, notability. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, A7 per nominator. Anton Ego (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

West Midlands Bus Route 302[edit]

West Midlands Bus Route 302 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Created in error. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (renominating) non-notable. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment I have removed the speedy tag because it was placing all related deletion pages in the speedy category. I have no opinion on the article being discussed. JPG-GR (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyway Nominated in error? No, I think you were right the first time. Maybe you can merge all the West Midlands Bus Routes into one article, and when I have to go from Bloxwich to Walsall, and then back to Bloxwich, I can consult that. Mandsford (talk) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge & Redir - Unless there is something that provides notability to this perticular bus route. Merge into West Midlands. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think that is what we have done with bus routes elsewhere. These days they seem to be subject to frequent change. I took a differnet view on the low number London bus routes, which often have a long history of stability. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Addhoc (talk) 19:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United Hobo Fiefdom[edit]

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

Delete no verifiability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morte than verifiability is utter nonsense "United Hobo Fiefdom is located in the bed of its ruler, King Rufus I". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete speedily as it's tagged. My fiefdom is better, it's inhabited by dust bunnies! Travellingcari (talk) 19:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete WP:SNOW. JERRY talk contribs 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coyote grace[edit]

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

Delete no notability proved. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King of the Gypsies - Song for Bartley Gorman[edit]

King of the Gypsies - Song for Bartley Gorman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The Song exists The Band exist and are a touring and recording entity The man the song is about existed and was world famous and loved by many , there is a book about his life and a film rumoured to be in the early stages of production (Shane Meadows has been talking about making this film for years ).Therefore , the existence of a song about the great man would possibly be of interest to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmc321 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Gmc321 (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Is there a problem with reproducing a songs lyrics as a reference on wikipedia ? Gmc321 (talk) 19:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC) The song can be found on the bands myspace http://www.myspace.com/satellitesgb It comes out on itunes via Artists without a label on March 10th 2008 Two clips featuring a recording of the song appear on youtube It produces numerous results when googled It has appeared and been discussed on various message boards relating to Bartley Gorman .Such as Shanemeadows.com and paddyconsidine.com Gmc321 (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Hi. Yes, there is a problem with reproducing song lyrics as reference on Wikipedia. Unless the songs are in public domain, this constitute a copyright violation. Fair use allows quoting snippets of song lyrics in critiquing or describing songs, but we can't reproduce large chunks. You can read a bit more about that here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, unless someone can establish notability. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 21:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orang Utan Comics[edit]

Orang Utan Comics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a business plan type document for an apparently nn company. Ghits appear to be predominantly forum posts and blogs, nothing that shows any notability per WP:CORP. The sources in the article are almost entirely its own website and MySpace Travellingcari (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable enough Gary King (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's some independent indication of notability Mandsford (talk) 18:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, G11 In my view, business plans qualify as advertising. Blueboy96 21:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody Loves Eric Raymond[edit]

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

I'd like to throw this to AfD again because the references seem rather weak; not enough to satisfy WP:N. We have trivial mentions at the Creative Commands and Markham's blogs, a forum post, and a trivial mention at wiki.ubuntu.com; blogs, wikis and forums are not normally acceptable reliable sources and in any case, the single-sentence comments involved do not add up to notability. Marasmusine (talk) 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No notable third party coverage. Surely if it were notable at least a specialist Linux magazine would have said something about it. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I took the time and looked at a big number of the Google hits (more than 13000 international unique search results) for "Everybody Loves Eric Raymond". There are reviews, mentioning on blogs, citing the page. Since there is less printed material about Open Source (since it is available for free on the net - why buy it on paper) the likelyhood is less to get a printed reverence. Site seems to be well known (cited) in the Open Source community. I recommend to keep it. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 22:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you link to a review from a reliable source? Google estimates 13000 hits, but there are actually only 319; 279 if you exclude -wiki and -forum. Marasmusine (talk) 08:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up on Marasmusine's point, one would assume that any real coverage of the webcomic would include the name of the artist. A search for "everybody loves eric raymond" John Leach yields only 47 ghits. 8 of those are this article or copies of it. Another 5 are the comic itself or the artist's own blog and wiki. That leaves only 34 hits, most of which are directories, short blog entries, or ads for T shirts. Pburka (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- The amount of google hits is trivial per WP:GHITS. Rigby27 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that Wikipedia is a long list of websites. ;) Seriously, I think that this site is deserving of coverage, even if my site with cute toads isn't. Fooooooooooo (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only claim for notability seems to be that the characters parodied in it do know about it. And as the article itself says, for most of them that is only suggested by private email quotes, i.e. there is nothing like e.g. an interview with Linus Torvalds where he talks about how he is portrayed there (who are all those other people in it btw.? :P). So unless anyone already published an article talking about this web-comic which we could use as reference, Wikipedia shouldn't have an article either. --Minimaki (talk) 13:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- The problem is that there are no reliable, independent secondary sources available. Rigby27 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double Super Strong Delete- The Wikipedia page on ELER should really be deleted. It's far more difficult to maintain a sense of elitism when it's all spelt out for any n00b with a web browser. John Leach (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Highly amusing but does not meet notability criteria. We can always undelete or write a new article if the status changes. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete per general guidelines found at WP:BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Price[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. robwingfield «T•C» 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fuck It Off - has not appeared in a professional game and doesn't deserve to grace the world of Wikipedia, so lets get rid of it. End discussion here please, we all know the outcome. My suggestion is to burn this page!!! Thanks! Jonesy702 (talk) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. (Looks like Jonesy is testy today). Alexf42 18:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - what the hell is this fruit cake on about, testy? Jonesy702 (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't give two shits to be completely honest, but what's that got to do with anything? I never told anyone to fuck off. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My bad, I misread your comment. " what the hell is this fruit cake on about, testy?" borders on an attack; please be a little more civil. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was that an apology there? come on now, you can do better than that! lol. I don't believe my fruit cake comment was offensive, but if Alexf did, I am truly sorry, and promise it will never ever happen again. :-) Jonesy702 (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Been called worse by vandals. Wouldn't have the mop without a thick hide. Still don't get what are you upset about. Anyway there are more important things to do. Alexf42 21:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Did I miss something where we stopped using the new criteria right away? He played a game for Tamworth, which I believe is a professional side. matt91486 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - Doesn't count for shit unfortunatly buddy, although Tamworth are professional, the Conference National is only semi, because of a handful of teams. Jonesy702 (talk) 19:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aren't you a little profane today? About a week ago, the WikiProject made new notability criteria analyzing a team's professional status instead of by entire league. And unless this criteria has already been scrapped, making the whole exercise in making it kind of pointless, then he would meet it. matt91486 (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think it is clear by now that the general community disagrees with the project's criteria. But they can certainly try to set their specialized rules, and then see if they are accepted. These are not. DGG (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the notability guidelines are obviously meant only to prevent people from creating articles about their best friend who happens to play football for some Isthmian Premier League side. Keeping that in mind, why not lean towards the inclusionist side rather than the deletionist side of things? ugen64 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - the notability bar has to be set at a certain level, which has been set by the community at "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league" (taken from [[WP:BIO). This has been established by previous AFDs to mean, for footballers in England, that the player must have made a league appearance in Football League Two or higher. This player has only played in the Football Conference, and so therefore is not notable. If he were to go on to make a professional appearance, the article can be undeleted. robwingfield «T•C» 07:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Chris Smith (English footballer)[edit]

The result was keep (non-admin closure), new evidence coming to light means the person meets WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Smith (English footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not assert notability. English peasant 21:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seventy-nine League appearances. [4] ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played in a fully professional league, the Football League, between 1991 and 1994. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.70.158 (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - checks out, apart from dates of league games in article are wrong. - fchd (talk) 14:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Has played professionally. Added an infobox to help show this. Mattythewhite (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - fair enough. The article didn't reflect that when I nominated, and I couldn't find evidence to suggest that there had been professional appearances. Happy to withdraw this AFD. robwingfield «T•C» 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate Darwinism[edit]

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

This article has existed since 2006 without citations for its major claims. It appears to largely be a piece of opinion, claiming that a particular belief or ideology exists, or dominates, in "the business world", but offering no evidence for same. As a piece of opinion, it is nothing new -- just reiterating the usual claims that business is amoral and anti-moral; it presents this opinion as fact. FOo (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete How did this stay up for so long? Mandsford (talk) 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Shouldn't even exist Gary King (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or maybe, not fit enough to survive much longer... Mandsford (talk) 00:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the term has some use, not sure if there's enough to have an article though, in any case, what's here now is obviously not a start to an appropriate article, so delete. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marsh-Evans[edit]

Robert Marsh-Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BanRay 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 00:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ellerker[edit]

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:BIO. robwingfield «T•C» 17:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. BanRay 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Zencey[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO--no significant coverage aside from Amazon and other book reviews. Blueboy96 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Panama was reviewed by The Nation[5]. scholar.google.com finds several references to Zencey's writing in other books and academic journals (e.g. "Sublime Desire: History and Post-1960s Fiction ", "History Itself? Or, the Romance of Postmodernism"). Pburka (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable enough to keep Gary King (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added links, references and further information to the article. Panama was a bestseller novel. Should stay. Neozoon —Preceding comment was added at 22:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Belford[edit]

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

Still no league appearances in a fully professional league since last AFD, so still fails WP:BIO. Previous AFD resulted in no consensus as it was anticipated that Belford would shortly play for Bury, but this has no proven to be the case. robwingfield «T•C» 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no professional league appearances, and has now been sent out on loan to a Conference North side, Worcester City. - fchd (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Should never have been kept last time. пﮟოьεԻ 57 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Gary King (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. I think this is one of the more borderline cases, but as the rules currently are, it should go. John Hayestalk 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. BanRay 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Orbiter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NEO, WP:N, WP:OR etc. скоморохъ 17:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above Gary King (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete an non-notable. It seems like this one guy is the only person using the term.Beeblbrox (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--Tone 14:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arissa Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant and aspiring "actress" and "singer" Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Needs to become way more famous. External links are unsourced and some, like the biography, are actually a wiki, and could have been created by the person that created this page in order to generate fake notability. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely not notable enough Gary King (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. Only sources cited are blogs, IMDB and similar websites, and obvious self-published material. A search reveals nothing more encouraging. Hut 8.5 18:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The marvellous secrets of mary boden[edit]

The marvellous secrets of mary boden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BK as a self-publicated book. Author herself is not notable. fschoenm (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Lulu is a print-on-demand publisher in an updated version of vanity press; according to the link in the article, this is the 94,916th ranked book from Lulu, meaning that there are 94,915 Lulu titles that have sold better. Mandsford (talk) 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A clear failure of the notability guideline concerning books. The creation of a single purpose account. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per above. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lists are not inherently invalid — however, this was not being used as a properly formatted list, but as a template that was being transcluded back into the article. If you want a list, create a real list. Bearcat (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of University of Alberta current faculty[edit]

List of University of Alberta current faculty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can see no reason for this page to exist. It is a repeat of information already given in the university's article (see University of Alberta#Distinguished University of Alberta people. It might be a suitable basis for a category, but that already exists (Category:University of Alberta faculty) Emeraude (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No point in merging, if this is already there. This is a list of notable current faculty, rather than a list of all faculty, so it can remain a section in the article. Mandsford (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment' Normally a short list of this nature would be merged, and expanded into "List of U. of X people" if it got larger, and then eventually ,perhaps into separate ones for faculty and alumni. DGG (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have many lists of people associated with different universities here; in all cases, they should be lists of notable people rather than just everyone who fits. I would support a rename or merge to List of University of Alberta people for consistency with many of the other such lists. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is a template, and as such, is in the wrong space. It is also an improper template, since templates are not articles. Wikipedia is not a directory, this should be merged into the main article, instead of transcluded. If there's a WikiAlmanac it should go there, as this is a time-dependant list. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a directory listing -- Whpq (talk) 20:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are two similar context-less lists... List of University of Alberta past faculty and List of University of Alberta alumni 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of country codes on British diplomatic car number plates[edit]

List of country codes on British diplomatic car number plates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I've searched the net and Wikipedia, and can find no source for any of the "information" in this article. Plenty of sites copy the article, though :-) It appears to be a very elaborate hoax. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This article was started by an active administrator in apparently good standing; an accusation of hoaxing would be very serious. From my own Googling, I see this government document describes the format for such registration plates as "No. No. No. D or X No. No. No." and gives examples, "123 D 456 or 789 X 321"; this vehicle registration marketing site describes a similar format; and this trainspotter's plate enthusiast's site has photographs of what are claimed to be diplomatic plates. While this doesn't go as far as to verify each line of information in the article, I'm inclined to think this isn't a hoax. --Sturm 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Changing vote in light of sourcing being added. Regardless of how "important" the author is, this doesn't appear to be information of much good use. If one happens to be in England and one happens to see a car with licence plate number 915 X 102, one can consult the article and say, "It's driven by a member of the International Wheat Council". It's easy to see how this could be used for evil purposes, particularly if one is looking for a person from a particular nation. It's just not easy to see any good purpose for this list. Mandsford (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether you can see a good purpose to this article is beside the point. The fact is that there are groups of people who take an interest in such things (there's even a blog of diplomatic plates seen in Oxford!), and it is Wikipedia's purpose to make information available: Wikipedia is not censored - if an embassy is concerned about security issues, the system already permits them to take plates with codes in the 350 - 400 range, as the article states. We have many vehicle plate articles on different countries which enable their meaning to be deciphered, Irish vehicle registration plates, German car number plates, French vehicle registration plates with List of arrondissements of France, just as some examples. Administrators are not "important", but a claim that an administrator of 5 years' good standing has created a hoax article most certainly is a serious allegation, which I object to intensely, and I would thank Porcupine to retract that. Three years after the event, it's difficult to remember where the information originally came from, but this page looks familiar, and it's the sort of thing found in published handbooks. I point out that the pictures shown on the "trainspotters" page found by Sturm are consistent with the information in our article. In common with another longstanding and respected editor, Fuzheado, I wish people would spend more time creating articles, and not spend most of their time on AfD. -- Arwel (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query - under Wikipedia's verifiability policy, articles which cannot be independently verified in a third-party reliable source may not be included in the project. Could you maybe cite sources for each piece of info in the article, including the full list? Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • An article topic only fails WP:V if the content is unverifiable, not currently unverified. Certainly codes on government issued diplomatic car registration plates are verifiable, most certainly by government documents. --Oakshade (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't consider an article verifiable if it requires somebody to write to a government department under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, wait 20 days for them to consider the reqsuest, quite possibly have the request turned down on the grounds of health and safety... it's stupid. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 07:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting fictional scenario on acquiring government documentation ("quite possibly have the request turned down"?), but nonetheless you're validating the verifiability of this topic. You might term that "stupid", but your POV is not based on WP:V policy. --Oakshade (talk) 18:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just by being government issued plates means government verification exists. Whether a gambling Wikipedia editor such as yourself can successfully acquire related documents in a short amount of time is irrelevant to WP:V. There's no "Governments are secretive and therefore probably won't provide verification" clause in WP:V. --Oakshade (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as it appears to not be a hoax and is verifiable, even if it is not now verified. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, appears to be a useful list on a notable topic. I would suggest that the nominator needs to be more careful about what he writes in his nominations and should perhaps bring problems like a lack of references to the attention of other editors on the talk page first, rather than using AFD. Bob talk 10:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My point was - and is - that I can't find (and believe me, I've looked) a single reliable source for any of this information. Assuming that it is true, which is a fairly big assumption, the only way it could be verified by a member of the public would be to write to a government department (after finding which one - DVLA or FCO is relevant) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, wait 20 days for them to consider the reqsuest, quite possibly have the request turned down on the grounds of health and safety. So, if we're relying on excessive and unstable bureaucracy, or shoddy sources, it's scarcely going to have any place on this encylopedia. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point. I don't know whether "Paul Haynes' UK Plate Page" is considered authoritative. I'd figure that if this is the new birdwatching, there's got to be something official they're going by. Mandsford (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This encyclopedic list is discriminate and as it's entirely verifiable as these are government issued codes. --Oakshade (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You must provide a source. How do you know they are government issued and not something that was in place in the 1960s and no longer used? It CANNNOT be verified. I've tried, including emailing off to the government. Also, take a look at these mailing-list posts. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so, but I think you may have misunderstood the essay when you read it in full. It notes that we should, of course, "never ignore what Jimbo has to say on an issue", just not abuse his comments with "a haphazard interpretation of something he said on a semi-related matter several years ago". Plus, it's an essay, not policy or guideline. Plus, "he has the authority to create policy from scratch if he thinks it necessary". Plus, the condition "For this reason it is usually unacceptable to present something in a quote-like format without clearly indicating where you got the material for the quote. Preferably also add a hyperlink to where you got it, to make it easier for others to check whether the quote really occurred, and was not quoted out of context." has been fully satisfied, I believe. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 13:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're presenting Jimbo's words in order to forward an argument to have an article removed from Wikipedia. This post does not discuss the deletion of articles; this post does not discuss the deletion of articles. The policy from which you lifted the second quote outlines a more cautionary approach to giving people a chance to source things (outside of BLP concerns; and besides, this is hardly controversial material). I think it's more than possible that at least one of the editors who've commented here would like an opportunity to do that. What I think ought to have been done at the very beginning is to challenge the material via appropriate tagging, allied with a note on the talk page explaining your concerns. Then, after a reasonable space of time, if the sourcing had not improved, there would be an appropriate platform from which to build a case for deletion, instead of rushing into a foot-in-mouth situation where an experienced editor was implied to be a hoaxer. --Sturm 14:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Any editor who removes such things, and refuses to allow it back without an actual and appropriate source, should be the recipient of a barnstar". The article has no sources, so if I were to follow what Jimbo said, and that's an actual quote, then I'd have to blank or delete the article. Can you find a hole in that? "It is better to have no information than to have information with no sources". He doesn't say tag it, in fact, he specifically says not to tag it. Anyway, I've checked, and there ARE no sources, so what in heaven's name would be accomplished by tagging?! Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could try blanking the article, but I don't think a barnstar would be the result. Giving people the time to look for sources which you personally can't find has the potential to make the difference between "one editor thinks there are no sources" and "there probably aren't any sources". --Sturm 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There aren't any. And I'm going to re-nominate this article for AfD in two months, when still no sources will have been added. And they won't have been added because there aren't any - and I challenge you to find some rather than bicker with me :-) Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is perfectly valid, although a reference would be useful - perhaps someone could phone the Dept of Transport in the UK? Bardcom (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I emailed the DVLA already, and - surprise surprise - they've not replied. By extreme coincidence, in about 2hrs I'll be visiting someone in the DfT headquarters in London (!) but I think I'd look a bit odd asking questions like that... Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 16:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. Hardcore WP:OR going on there (I'm envious of the amount of spare time you have). Should your government bureaucracy adventure not be successful by the time this AfD ends, I won't be convinced that government car plates codes are unverifiable. Maybe you're looking in the wrong place. As these are diplomatic plates, perhaps you'd want to start with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Home Office would be my next stop. --Oakshade (talk) 06:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary... you've failed on two counts. Firstly, the Home Office is so completely unrelated to this issue the idea is almost laughable, and secondly, please answer this point: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". It's been challenged; I'm challenging it. I've written to two government agencies (and the right ones, this time!), neither of which has replied. It can't, therefore, be easily verified, and it should be removed. Please answer that point, Oakshade. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 08:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry but I don't subscribe to the "If Porcupine is incapable of finding government verification on its own car plates codes within 3 days (or 30 days for that matter), then there's no way anyone can find it" method to decide if a topic is verfiable. Your own strange WP:OR adventure is not going to change WP:CONSENSUS on this matter. --Oakshade (talk) 08:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What are the limits of verifiability, then? I'm sure that, say, Roswell is verifiable if I break into the DoD headquarters in Washington. But, suggest a course of action which a normal reader can take to verify the information, and one that would work, preferably one you've tried yourself. Also, you forgot to explain how this policy doesn't apply in this instance: "Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed". I've bolded the key terms. Please explain where my logic's gone wrong - I'm saying that since no reliable source has been provided, and the material has been challenged, it should be removed. Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 09:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And consensus currently appears to be saying you should give it some more time. The internet may give the impression that anything not immediately available doesn't exist, but I suspect there are, for example, a number of libraries out there which could disprove that. --Sturm 11:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comparing an alleged alien spacecraft crash landing in the 1940s to existing diplomatic country codes on car license plates? Now this debate is just getting silly. (And to think you laughed at me for the Home Office suggestion.) --Oakshade (talk) 17:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Porc, I think your idea of coming back in a couple of months is probably the better course of action. This discussion ran off on a tangent early on, being more about personalities than about the merits of the article. I think we can close by agreeing that Arwel Parry and Porcupine are both swell guys. If the article is still unsourced the next time it comes up, then it really should be deleted. Mandsford (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am going to throw in a likely citation, but The Stationery Office quotes a dispatch time of 1-4 weeks: "A History of Motor Vehicle Registration in the United Kingdom", L.H.Newall, Newby Books, 320pp, republished 20-01-2008, £16.95, ISBN 9781872686325. The publishers' blurb reads: "This is the long-awaited reprint of Les Newall's 'standard work' on vehicle registration, updated and illustrated. Les spent a lifetime researching the history of the UK registration system and this book is the product of his research.He tells the story of the development of 'ordinary' registration marks from their introduction in 1903 and also gives detailed information about trade plates, diplomatic marks, military registrations and the unique British cherished number system.A large part of the book is taken up with a council-by-council survey which includes dates of issue of all known pre-1963 two-letter and three-letter marks. In addition to the occasional illustrations in Les' original text, this edition features eight pages of photographs and a new chapter explaining how the current registration system introduced in 2001 has actually worked out in practice." -- Arwel (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's clear that the article creator is going to (successfully) work at the sourcing, putting himself out of pocket. Once again, print media triumphs over the internet. --Sturm 23:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Author has located a printed source. Hopefully, you can find it in the library when it comes out, since 16.95 pounds makes it a pretty expensive (not to mention really heavy) book. Mandsford (talk) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 with the caveat of needing cleanup and sourcing, tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack_Groselle[edit]

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

Neither notable nor objective, biographical — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mervyturp (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Gets a fair amount of ghits, article does establish some sort of notability, but I can't seem to find substabtial coverage from secondary indepenant sources...... Lack of objectivity is not a basis for deletion. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - swim coach and record holder, WP:RS:some cites, show notability. Clean it up. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic's Edusoft[edit]

Sonic's Edusoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The game is not notable (there's no reference to it), and may even be a fan created game  Doktor  Wilhelm  16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Game is not the subject of any reliable sources, and does indeed appear to be a fan-made game. Utterly fails notability guidelines as a result. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS. EJF (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As described in the article, it's either a hoax or some low-budget under-the-table thing; there might be a fan-made game made in support of the hoax, but I wouldn't say that was this article. If real, it might be notable, but it doesn't seem to be verifiable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wyvern (MMORPG)[edit]

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

This article is unreferenced aside from a link to the MMORPG, and it does not assert notability. A long "articleissues" template was recently removed. Initial discussion about deletion is already shown on the talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--Tone 14:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delightdeliveries.com[edit]

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

Reads like an advertisement, and is orphaned. Majorly (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - appears to fail WP:CORP. I don't think the 'awards' make it notable. Multiple reliable sources with significant coverage are needed per WP:N - and they do not appear to be available. EJF (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. David Fuchs (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sonico.com[edit]

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

No evidence it passes WP:WEB. As pointed out on the talk page this article was created only 2 months after the site was created and it seems the alexa rank was "bought" by putting well known sites in the sonico domain space. Blogs are rarely reliable and don't establish notability, even the techcrunch article admits no one has probably heard about it. Crossmr (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G11. References are very weak and don't have much to contribute to notability. Article is written like an advertisement and appears to be blatant WP:Spam (subsection headers cleverly used to make marketing points).--Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Alexa ranking and quoted articles prove that it is very notable. The fact that two of the references are in spanish, doesn't make them less valid than the single english reference from a well known website. Crossmr do you have citations proving your allegation about how they achieved a higher Alexa rank? The Techcrunch article in itself makes the site notable, the contents of the article itself have no weight on notability. --Xero (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alexa ranking doesn't establish notability, see WP:WEB. Quoted articles are blogs and are neither reliable nor do they establish notability. As for the ranking it was simply a concern raised on the talk page of the article, so I was mentioning it here as it seems like a legitimate concern as one of those sites has a ranking around 5000 just on its own. Combine those all in to one site registering all the traffic and its easy to put your ranking high. But as I said its immaterial. Alexa ranking is no longer recognized for notability.I see no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject.--Crossmr (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The escape fall[edit]

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

Does not meet any of the criteria set out in WP:MUSIC. Pairadox (talk) 14:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 01:19, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omega Red[edit]

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

This fictional comics supervillain is not even very notable within the X-Men series. It has no sources indicating notability to the outside world. Strandwolf (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Sometimes, people mistakes Afd for clean-up. If this article is not good, wikify it. And Omega Red appears in comic and TWO TV series (two or more episodes in each serie). Where is the Non-notability? Zerokitsune (talk) 16:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Colonel Warden's assertion needs some clarification. The injunction he points to is specific to television characters and episodes. Does that injunction include characters from other works of fiction that later been adapted to television shows? Point being that the article is about a comic book character with a small section accounting for the character being adapted for two television shows. - J Greb (talk) 16:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's different that basing a position on an ArbCom dictate that may not apply. If I read it right, the DGA is speaking to when the AfD has reached a close point, not on reason to close it. If a rough consensus is reached to delete this article, a closing admin that is unsure if the ArbCom applies here can fall back on WIDDD and close as a provisional "Keep"
    For this to be shut down as a speedy keep, the ArbCom injunction needs clarification. If the intent is that the injunction apply to all articles which in full or in part deal with characters featured in TV shows, then this AfD should be quickly closed without prejudice and revisited after the ArbCom ends. Otherwise... - J Greb (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even without the ArbCom injunction, I find the nomination to be patently false. JuJube (talk) 17:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. This is a notable comic book character. And yes, the injuction applies because this is a television character so the article cannot be deleted or redirected at this time. --Pixelface (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this has reasonable potential, and if not it would be dealt with in a merge of some kind. Either way the article itself won't be deleted. -- Ned Scott 04:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Charactor appeares in 3 different media (print,tv & interactives) so has a basic claim to notability. sourcing shouldnt be difficult. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as I was able to improve the article in regards to references. In addition to appearing on television (thus, the injunction definitely applies), a character that appears in cartoons, comics, and toys is unequivocally notable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - snowball, even, per all those who have voted Keep already. BOZ (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the notability of this character transcends far more than just a singular appearance in some comic book. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 02:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insanely easy Keep. One of the most important X-Men villains, with (as mentioned) three types of media appearances, toys, etc. And the rationale for deletion is patently false - Omega Red has been a key factor in several X-Men story arcs. Duncan1800 (talk) 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I came across the main article in accidental passing, and was surprised to see the AfD. While this article surely needs cleanup, I agree that this is an insanely easy Keep. I haven’t actively read comics for 10+ years, but I distinctly remember the character "Omega Red". Although his inclusions in comics were not lengthy, the importance of those storylines and the interactions with major Marvel Universe characters (especially Wolverine's origin storyline) is paramount. --Mespinola (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHAKE YOUR PEACE![edit]

SHAKE YOUR PEACE! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable band. Prod removed by creator because he thinks they are notable enough, i can't find any good sources (ie. not press releases etc.) or other indication of meeting WP:BAND. tomasz. 14:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as it is, though based on the info provided, it's very possible that they do meet WP:MUSIC. Unless someone can actually find evidence though, delete. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would incorporating more of the above into the article keep it from being deleted? biggins (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:39, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farmers' Science Congress[edit]

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

A prod that was inserted by an admin has been declined after expiration by another admin. I had initially tagged this article with {{importance}} on newpage patrol, long before the prod was added. The creator did respond to that, but was apparently unclear on that template's purpose, thinking it had something to do with the purpose (as opposed to the notoriety) of the convention. Did the convention achieve its stated goals? The article does not say. Therefore, Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 14:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, but with significant clean up. See press coverage [6], [7]. I suspect there was a lot more coverage in Hindi. Pburka (talk) 17:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A single congress of this sort is not notable. If they continue, then there will be a possible article for the series of them. DGG (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEWS - a one-time conference, without evidence of probable long-standing notability, does not merit inclusion in WP. Bearian (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Although I realize that many of the "keep" votes come from single purpose accounts, even disregarding them, this debate doesn't seem to have arrived at a consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 01:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace (Model)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Aisleyne Horgan-Wallace (Model) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Simply, another non-notable ex-reality TV contestant, has done nothing remarkable since leaving the house other than trivial appearances such as appearing as a contestant of a gameshow and other minor appearances, not to mention that pervious entries have been deleted in the past according to records Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Has a TV series to be aired later this year, a dress range and a part in a film.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 14:58, 17 February I2008 (UTC)
  • Yes she has a role in a film, but only a tiny part as a clubgoer, according to imdb; as for the TV show, does that mean the show will be aired on TV, not to mention that many TV shows made will never be aired on TV; not to mention that anybody can have have a clothes line these days, to add this up,how many fashion design students are there and how many fashion designers are there, plus how many of these designers gat their articles deleted, I'll tell you, lots. Another reason for deleting this is, recreation of a deleted article. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about all of her modeling work? Also I beg differ with your comment on it being easy to have a clothes range. All of her charity, radio and journalism work along with the aformentioned may all be little things but put together they make her very much notable. Oh, and details of her TV show can be found on the Red TV website stating it will be aired later this year as well as on her site.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • About her modeling work, where have I seen her, is it in Razzle (magazine), Club International, Men's World or Men Only, or did she post a photo of herself in Adult FriendFinder I think it is very likely to be these as I have not seen her elsewhere. As for charities, what do celebrities do them for, just to bring attetion to themselves, I don't see them ever do a charity to care about a concern. and what about the fashion, there is just 544 ghits to it, most of these are forums, therefore another not another notable fact. Simply another example of a low rent Z-Lister "celeb". Lets face it, she is just another example of a desparate celebrity. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is still regular press interest in Aisleyne - she is in the paper today, for example - and it's near enough two years since she became known, so she's passed the test of longevity which other former reality TV show contestants have failed. I think that the fact that she will soon be starring in her own television show, called merely 'Aisleyne', proves this notability and that there is still interest in her. Plenty of material, from a variety of sources, can be provided to provide a decent article on this individual. 86.146.82.254 (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 86.146.82.254 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Delete, per nom, recreated article. As I have nominated the articles twice to be deleted, which the user has twice got around and recreated the article. Has the show been broadcasted yet? Plus I don't buy into this longevity nonsense, as if that is the case, why is she put aside in favour of the newer contestants, also, not to mention that the article has been deleted a number of times. Didn't one nom said that established precedent that reality show contestants are not notable unless they've done something outside the show, what for, taking her clothes off in tacky mens magazine, plus anybody can be a patron for a charity these days, if they are minor Z-lister. I won't do the namedropping because I should, I got a "past it's sell by date" celeb as a patron (who is a reality TV contestant that personally I don't want) for my childrens' charity that I work for and all it took was a letter to him. Also not to mention that most of that was copied from the BB article. Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aisleyne is going from strength to strength at the moment. Her series is definitely going to be aired on Red TV shortly, and she has had a few programmes already aired from another series on the same channel (not exclusively about her). Her clothing range debuted to great acclaim at the 'Pure' show at Olympia last week, and she is taking it to Dublin in 10 days time. She has already been asked to bring out another range for the London fashion week in September. This is NOT the time to be talking about deleting this page! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Give any example why she is going from strength to strength at the moment. As Wikipedia is not a site for predicting the future, I don't think your comment is going to support why this article should not be deleted, not even for a single purpose account. Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave examples. The TV show and the clothes range. #[ http://www.fibre2fashion.com/news/fashion-news/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=50151&page=1 fibre2fashion] I don't understand this obsession to delete pages? Fair enough if it was a duplication of another page, but that isn't the case. Surely Wikipedia should be inclusive not exclusive. If people put "Aisleyne" into the search box they expect a page about her, and what she is doing currently, to come up. If it doesn't they will go elsewhere, and the Wiki will be all the poorer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ianbaxter43 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What did a nominator said, the fashion industry is a very competitive industry, therefore not everybody are guaranteed notability, I still don't buy into appearing in a not yet filmed, nevermind not yet aired on TV series as notable yet, also don't count trivial TV guest appearances as notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, she could do if that program comes on air, not to mention that how many fashio designers are out there and ratio wise how many of them are considered to be notable. and oh yeah, I almost forgotten about her as I was checking through articles as I heard about a reality contestant article been afded, this is util I came across this article, I just thought i just buggered off and stacked shelves at Asda. Metallicash (talk) 01:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think there is some serious biased arguements here. Some people just don't Like her (I personally think shes vile) and some of you just hate reality TV contestants. Also who cares if she actually cares about the charity. That doesn't manke it any less notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hiltonhampton (talk • contribs) 20:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what nominator has said over a number of comments above, also it is full of unsourced original research pieces. Also I would like to mention that to the creator, how big is the fashion industry, how many fashion designers are out there, how many people have their clothes line - will this make them instantly notable for every one of them - my verdict is, not yet. Anton Ego (talk) 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator, also why should we keep an article that is unsourced, therefore fails WP:V. Seanmcnamara (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nominator;s reasoning, not yet notable. Lauren Norton (talk) 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from Aisleyne’s aforementioned achievements in the media and fashion, she is notable for the contribution of the internet for her elevation. Aisleyne’s appearance in Big Brother 7 coincided with a time of record impressions on Digital Spy’s Big Brother Forum. Many of these impressions were supporting or challenging Aisleyne’s character during the show. This online debate has given rise to a dedicated online fan base that follow Aisleyne’s day to day achievement’s via her official website. Aisleyne has a great respect for these fans, regularly communicating with them via her website. The press and online magazines find Aisleyne noteworthy and she regularly appears on the dividend list of the BBC’s online Celebdaq game, where she is the only Big Brother 7 contestant to remain listed. My verdict is that Aisleyne must be referenced in a web based project such as this, due to her web based notability. InObs (talk) 14:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Can't see what you said is a valid fact, forums are not a reliable form of source, nor is blogs and none of these will ever be uses as a form of references. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 01:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your comment that forums are not a reliable form of source. However, the point I am making is that Aisleyne is notable because of the unique way her fan base grew on the web. During Big Brother 7, via both Digital Spy and the official Channel 4 (Eve Community) Big Brother Forums, an Aisleyne appreciation society known as FAKERS, evolved. This is documented on Aisleyne’s official web site in the section: “About the FAKERS“. The appreciation society is now an integral part of Aisleyne’s web site and the foundation of the Aisleyne brand. The web has continued to increase Aisleyne notability as is mentioned above. Obviously the web is utilised by many people, companies and organisations for promotion but I maintain that the evolution of the Aisleyne brand from debate over a reality show on web Forums, is notable. InObs (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see why this is useful, as all it is is just another forum, I'm sure there are plenty of forums and do most of these get a article, not at all, most of these get AfDed - therefore still not a valid reason. Also can anybody including this one stop calling her brand as this is nothing but fanboy musing.
  • Delete I don't see what she is famous for other than these too trivial claim of fame 84.13.157.242 (talk) 19:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" Aisleyne has done more notable things than some other former housemates who have pages on Wikipedia IMHO. Having her own clothing range which has already been released and a swim wear range which is shortly to follow is more than noteworthy. Plus she has been given her own exclusive show on RED TV (12 episodes worth of 60 minute shows) This is also significant and noteworthy. Having her own clothing range is particularly significant because it means that whether people like it or not she has now a skill/talent that can now be defined. She trained in fashion she worked in fashion a few years prior to entering big brother. She has teamed up with a reputable company who have given her the opportunity to bring out her own range. She has not just put her name to someone else's work,she has done the designing etc.. and she also models the clothes as well. Whatever people's personal views are on Aisleyne from the past her glamour work and appearance on BB7 she is moving onwards and upwards. I do not feel that it is fair that her page should be deleted just because people don't like her. If this was the case no one should have a page on wikipedia because quite frankly every person in the public eye has people who don't like them. If this was the case the same rule should be applied to everyone. Whatever people think of Aisleyne and whatever happens she is here to stay and that's what really matters. . Shalom07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shalom07 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "comment", I am very sick of saying this, but does having her own clothing range make her notable, I'm sure she wants it so she don't have to go back stacking shelves or appear in a front page of a porn magazine or draped on top of top of a Vauxhall Nova in some chavvy boy racer show. When will people not turn up to these arguments and use fanboy musing as a reason why we should keep this article.
My reason for nominating is not because I don't like her, it is, 1) this article has been recreated a number of times, 2)she still has done nothing totally remarkable, other that come up some fashion range that some newcomer dressmaker would and these articles are commonly speedy deletions candidates. In all, all you claimed for notability is that she has her own webforum, just because you were upset that the C4 and digitalspy forum users hade horrible comments about her and it upset you all so much that you started one dedicated to your hero, I don't think any of these keep nominations have changed my mind on my decision to nominate to have this article deleted, not to mention that these arguments are all the same. Therefore I would like to make clear that WP:ILIKEIT applies to all nominators. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 21:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment

I'm sorry but your words alone display your detest of Aisleyne IMHO. As I have said before regardless of what you or anyone else thinks at this present moment in time Aisleyne's public profile is still very much alive. Yes she was in BB7 in 2006 and she came 3RD it may seem a long time ago to some. However she is still very much active apart from recently making a name for herself in fashion she has HER OWN TV SHOW COMING UP ON RED TV. That's 12 episodes worth of 60 MINUTE SHOWS. As far as I am concerned that is quite an achievement for someone who has come out of Big Brother in 2006. It's interesting the way you jump to conclusions about the reasons why I like Aisleyne? Is there a law that says I should hate Aisleyne. By the way she's not my hero, she's just someone who I think should be treated fairly and given a chance like everyone else actually. She has done remarkably well recently considering the junk that has been thrown at her. I don't like or agree with all the things she has done in the past but it doesn't give me the right to be judgmental and it doesn't mean she shouldn't be given a chance IMHO. Thankfully there are people out there who will give her a chance, whether she has a page on wikipedia or not. I rest my case....

  • Comment The repeated unfounded suggestions that Aisleyne has appeared in porn magazines indicate that the nominators motive could well be I don't like her.InObs (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment personally, I think it should be merged as the show is not on air yet, plus plans for the show could fall through at any time, not to mention unverified facts, that is why I left a notability tag there. However, I do agree with the reasoning of the nominator, particularly the clothes bit. Dr Tobias Funke (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - placed in a reality show, some other credits, indicate probable notability. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Forbidden Fruit[edit]

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

Non-notable book. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Queen's University Belfast#Housing. Hut 8.5 15:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elms Village[edit]

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

Non-notable halls of residence. Could be incorporated into the main Queen's University Belfast article. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Snowball keep. JERRY talk contribs 23:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A. M. Juster[edit]

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

Non-notable; lack of references Ourmangwynn (talk) 13:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Award-winning, notable formalist poet; I can't understand the rationale behind this AfD nomination. I've added a cite to the article and did some smoothing--Wageless (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A solid ref. was added since nom; regardless, article appears to satisfy WP:Bio; awards & publications attributed to this poet are notable and establish a basis of notability here. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Award winning poet. 305K ghits. Pburka (talk) 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to be notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - meets notability. Stumps (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. BusterD (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delte, although a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:00, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane MacDougall[edit]

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

Lack of Notability and references. Ourmangwynn (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 01:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn by nominator Gwernol 14:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1998 in chess[edit]

1998 in chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wasn't sure if this warranted speedy deletion, but the material in this article is not, in of itself, enough to justify an article on the subject. Can I suggest that the material in this article be merged as appropriate into other articles on the topic? Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep Not sure what your argument is. If the concern is notability (A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.) then obviously this article is notable. It has received attention in 100s' of chess magazines, online articles and columns in newspapers. If the concern is that articles of this type are not encyclopaedic than you should take this issue elsewhere as they are 1000s of articles in the master category Category:Sports_by_year. Voorlandt (talk) 13:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was concerned about the fact that it was unencyclopaedic, but the existence of so many other similar articles clearly indicates that there is a consensus that I was unaware of in this area. Many apologies for clogging up AfD like this - please can someone close this for me? -- Fritzpoll (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete, although a small consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Road to WrestleMania Tournament[edit]

Road to WrestleMania Tournament (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable wrestling tournament. It has also been held twice, and therefore probably does not satisfy inclusion into this encyclopedia. D.M.N. (talk) 12:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- D.M.N. (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible merge?, I think the tournament as a whole probably isn't that notable. A quick google search brought up only wikipedia, WWE.com, and fansites. The 2005 version might be best merged into No Way Out (2005) or WrestleMania 21 and the 2006 version into WrestleMania 22. It definitely makes up part of the "Background" section on the expanded pay-per-views and is notable as part of the storylines that led up to said events. I'm not sure where the article should redirect to, though...perhaps just the general WrestleMania article? Nikki311 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as it fails the notability policy separate from the PPVs. It cannot respectably redirect to any one place, either. In the interest of the GFDL, the authors of the work should be notified, and they should insert the work into the other articles so they can receive the appropriate credit. If this is impossible, then the work should be scrapped and redone totally. This article cannot even exist as a redirect, that much is clear. SexySeaBass 02:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science[edit]

International Conference on Condensed Matter Nuclear Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a minor conference on one side of a debate at the fringes of science, cold fusion. We recently deleted a timeline of cold fusion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of cold fusion, largely because it gave undue weight to the pro-CF side; this does the same. In addition, there seem to be no significant sources independent of the conference and the small band of CF proponents. This is not in any way a significant conference. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • All traces wiped out? That's a very strange way of saying it - we mention it at cold fusion, so it's hardly wiped out. This is a conference of fringe advocates which has, as far as I can tell, no significant coverage outside of the world of those fringe advocates. The article appears to exist solely in order to boost the apparent significance of that fringe view. I don't see it's any more notable than this or this Guy (Help!) 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and then perhaps turn into a redirect to cold fusion. What coverage I can find is in publications which appear to have "got religion", so to speak (Infinite Energy Magazine, New Energy Times, ZPEnergy etc). I'm frankly surprised by this; I would've at least expected some coverage in the "comic cuts" sections of journals less engaged in polemics. As it stands, if one ignores the list of times and locations of past events, all that is left is that this is a conference which people interested in cold fusion attend, which is pretty much covered at cold fusion. --Sturm 10:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FRINGE. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:FRINGE addresses coverage of fringe and tiny minority points of view. An article on this very small conference exists only in order to promote a minority POV - we typically do not have articles on annual gatherings of a few people engaged in some fringe subject. Guy (Help!) 10:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Bearcat (talk) 01:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriela Córdova[edit]

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

I have to confess that South American literature is not something on which I am an expert. However, this article states that This article is the start of a series of articles about characters from the book "O que é o amor?" ("What is love"), not very known outside South America which is practically an admission of non-notability. I have not found any Wikipedia reference to the book, or to the promised series of articles on characters. The article was started on 2 May 2007 and has had no substantive edits since. Emeraude (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete no evidence of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, no main book article to merge to. скоморохъ 13:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

King Mathers (song)[edit]

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

WP:NOT a crystal ball. Originally submitted for speedy deletion, but WP:NOT and WP:CSD are incompatible.  Denelson83  10:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for now, assuming the single is still unconfirmed and no release date has been set. There's nothing here that can't easily be recreated once there is something to write an article about. PC78 (talk) 15:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Crystal unless solid reviews of song are currently referenceable.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there are not reliable sources which speak of this alleged single. Vacanzeromane (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:Crystal. Reverend X (talk) 11:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian screenwriters[edit]

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

Redundant to (and will never be as complete as) Category:Canadian screenwriters. •97198 talk 09:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, agree with nom that the category suits this purpose better than the incomplete listing - Dumelow (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, a list is inherently unmaintainable Travellingcari (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - usually I am all for keeping list of Articles in conjunction with :Categories ... however, they have to provide something that the plain vanilla :Category listing does not provide. In this case, sadly, it is not providing us with anything other than a copy of the Category list. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the list has three or four red links. Are the subjects notable enough to warrnat having an article. If they are the list serves the purpose of identifiying missing articles. If not, it should be deleted. No vote as I do not know enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no assertion of notability) DMacks (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camberley Auto Factors[edit]

Camberley Auto Factors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, with no references or sources. The only contributions by the page author have been this one, and an edit to List of auto parts to include this page (which I've since removed) - this would appear to indicate a potential WP:NPOV violation as well. I would have recommended this for a speedy delete as spam, but I've had my hands slapped a few times over being 'over-eager' to speedy delete articles, so thought I'd go for a consensus on this one :-) CultureDrone (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete - per G11 or A7: blatant spam, no evidence of notability. EJF (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dauntless Rogue[edit]

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

PROD concern was notability; this was contested by added references to the game manual, which is no assertion of notability at all. All of 15 ghits for "Dauntless Rogue" -forum -wiki suggest that independent, reliable coverage doesn't exist. Marasmusine (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as well. Having done some light proofing of the article myself, I could not locate any reliable sources that establish the notability of this particular game. D. Brodale (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:N. --MrStalker (talk) 09:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Notability established per consensus). Non admin closure Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rules and Regulations[edit]

Rules and Regulations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced non-notable album from potentially non-notable artist. [8] Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The album appears notable, especially considering consensus appears to be that the artist is notable. Maxamegalon2000 23:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The band is notable, the album has a suitable level of coverage to merit an article. --Sturm 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:06, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Thelen[edit]

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

A WP article for a not-notable web admin? All the external links go to his website. There is no single reliable source to back the verifiability policy. Dekisugi (talk) 07:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. Fails WP:BIO. Searching turned up no reliable sources. Also there appears to be a WP:COI per the author's username. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?)Delete. fails to establish notability per WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)*[reply]
  • Delete Obvious spam. Ourmangwynn (talk) 12:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take exception at the "Obvious spam" clause. However, I accept that I failed to establish notability. After reviewing the Wikipedia:BIO page, I agree that I would, at the very least, need to restructure the fundamental presentation of the Ed Thelen web page. Though, I'm not sure I've got any concrete notability reference to hang the entry on. I'll discuss the matter with Ed to see if I've missed anything of import which would settle the issue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rthelen (talk • contribs) 09:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Consensus establishes notability. Non admin closure. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiley (rapper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. Little outside source converage. Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Meets notability requirements.Ourmangwynn (talk) 12:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This page needs to be on Wikipedia. Wiley is founder of the Grime music scene.

The only thing that needs to be stopped is the constant editting of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.86.14.90 (talk) 12:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Refs added. He was indeed instrumental in creating the genre grime, and has received widespread coverage. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been having problems saving edits, on this and other articles. Widespread coverage in news sources does exist, crediting him with founding grime, starting Roll Deep, and verifying most of the removed material. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (Establishes notability) nonadmin closure Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Roll Deep[edit]

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

Lack of coverage in mainstream secondary sources - fails WP:NOTE and WP:MUSIC. [10] Wisdom89 (T / C) 07:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup I looked around for sources, and I found a few: confirmation of the two UK top 40 hits, which meets WP:MUSIC Criterion 2. A review from The BBC which helps meet Criterion 1. Coverage in Pitchfork Media not a review but coverage. Dizzee Rascal was a Former member from what I can gather (meets #6). The article does need more sources though. Doc Strange (talk) 07:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I recently came across this randomly and cleaned out the junk, and have since kept an eye on it. Considered nominating it myself, but coverage (BBC et al) and other factors (notable members, charted records etc) are clearly there for notability as defined on WP. Nomination fails to note that there are other criteria to be considered beyond the media coverage criterion, and given the fact there are sources out there I wonder if the nom didn't find them, or regards them as unreliable? Gary King also offers no context as to why he believes this should be deleted. I have no interest in this kind of music, and am having no fun reverting rubbish about mixtapes and the cast of thousands of redlinked hoodies who appear to be connected with the project, but it hits the right notes to have an article. Deiz talk 11:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also the ghit results were for "Roll Deep band" (or something similar), and they are not a band. I'm not much into this kind of music (a former - and very notable - former member of the group being one of the few exceptions), but it's obvious the band meets several criterion of WP:MUSIC. Doc Strange (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-strength keep per criteria #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8 at least. Ensemble has had at least 2 top-20 hits and has appeared on national television, national and international tours, been nominated for a MOBO.[11] скоморохъ 13:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that the band has charted on the UK Singles Chart is good enough for me, never mind the fact that they clearly meet other notability guidelines established at WP:BAND as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonable level of coverage provided by the BBC alone. --Sturm 16:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am surprised that anyone should consider this to lack significance. Roll Deep are a hugely influential grime collective. Some people may not like their music, but that is hardly the point. Cheers. Felix —Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix VI (talk • contribs) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly meets WP:MUSIC. Maxamegalon2000 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable as he has been mentioned a lot on numerous radio shows Metallicash (talk) 01:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was no consensus, default to keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tetuan, Zamboanga City[edit]

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

This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep geography based subjects should have inherent notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barangays aren't purely geography-based articles. --Howard the Duck 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:51, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. --Howard the Duck 02:48, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino. --seav (talk) 09:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - unlike the other ones you've mentioned, this one asserts some notability as the largest population in its particular city. matt91486 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Read the fine print: largest population in Zamboanga City's Eastern congressional district. Furthermore, there are 136 cities, and several of them are divided into 2 or more congressional districts (Manila has 6 districts and 800+ barangays (every block is a barangay)). If articles are to be created for each and every largest barangay in a city, there would be 200+ articles that could've been merged to their mother cities. Furthermore, I think this is the "poblacion" (town center), and every city and municipality has one (there are 1,494 municipalities) so an article for each and every poblacion is basically trash since it can never be expanded and be better of seen at the mother city/municipality article. --Howard the Duck 06:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial references (i.e., talks about the barangay itself, not just mentioning the barangay as an address) to this barangay. --seav (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seav and Howard--Lenticel (talk) 09:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "Zamboanga City". Although its webpage has detailed information including population and etymology, its only notability is that it is the location of Zamboanga City High School. Starczamora (talk) 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I'd usually agree that political units should have their own article like Oldak said above, but they'd still need to supply references. This article fails WP:RS and as such is not notable. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Zamboanga City per Starczamora. --Jojit (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 06:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - surely the right closing is the one which correctly interprets the consensus of the community, if you feel there is a pre-existing consensus that the article to be kept wouldn't it be better to give your reasoning rather than trying to stack votes to sway a closing admin - from your comment above you clearly have an opinion on the matter. Regarding your comment I would point out that nothing should be considered inherently notable without objective evidence and that articles on "inhabited places" such as roads and very small towns are routinely deleted. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A geographical location is notable if it appears on maps; and any political unit rather has to appear on maps (at least, local political maps). So a geographical location that is a political unit is necessarily notable. --FOo (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::You are quickly losing the argument, sir. Please continue. JERRY talk contribs 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC) Can you provide any example(s) to support your statement that "very small towns are routinely deleted"?[reply]

  • Everyone is talking about this established precedent and consensus for keeping inhabited places, it seems:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swalwell, Alberta
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battoni
  3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Funningsfjørður
  4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wren's Nest
  5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mattaur
  6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sedley, Saskatchewan
  7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Centerville, virginia
  8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Littleton, County Tipperary
  9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demqog
  • In fact, the closest I've seen to a delete on an inhabited place were kept with "no consensus" outcome:
  1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booth's Harbor, Ontario
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moorkanade

JERRY talk contribs 18:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apologies Quickly looking back at the deletion log for Febuary it does appear that I was mistaken. The only geographical deletion I noticed was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mishmahig and that had some copyright issues. Still it's interesting to see that summer camps and school halls which may have thousands of residents are regularly deleted (can definately provide examples for that) whereas towns and villages containing hundreds are kept or remain unchallenged. Still, as the article is completely unreferenced and no one has provided any evidence of notability I stand but my view that it should be deleted. I'm sorry about the mistake, when I made the claim I believed it to be accurate. Guest9999 (talk) 22:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I am sure it was made in good faith, and if it had been a factual statement, would have been very relevant to the discussion. Thank-you for updating this with your findings. JERRY talk contribs 22:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to zamboanga.com Tetuan has a population of more than 32,000, which is much more than some of the places JERRY has listed above. Geographical and political units are inherently notable. Also, as far as I can make out, this place has an independent history from Zamboanga. According to this book, Tetuan was a separate district from Zamboanga until 1901. This (disgusting IMO) New York Times article from 1900 calls it "a town some four miles or so from Zamboanga". There appears to have been a Spanish fort there at one stage. This place also had a part to play in the Philippine-American War, as the New York Times article above mentions. I couldn't find much information on the internet, but there are probably books and articles about the colonisation of the Philippines that mention this location. Bláthnaid 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy deleted WP:CSD#A7 and as possible hoax/ attack page. Article itself said this was a major official conspiracy and that's why we can't find any corroborative sources. No sources means delete. JERRY talk contribs 00:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chanyut Chokjanphen[edit]

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

I can't find a single reliable reference to corroborate anything mentioned in this article. Seems to be something floating around in forums, Tripod in particular. Dubious. Closedmouth (talk) 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack removed

  • Delete - Whether or not the person is real cannot be determined as there are no online sources. Appears to be a soapbox article to push a crusade onto another forum - Peripitus (Talk) 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
""Reply by Jameson Rosemont:""
Don't be difficult.
I have consulted Wikipedia often for several years. I do not find that you are applying the same standard to all websites. This is another example of unfairness. Thus, undeserving people and subjects get away with false advertising on Wikipedia because you fail to request valid supporting documentary evidence of the site poster and ignore valid, well-documented complauints from the public. Meanwhile worthwhile, well-documented subjects are deleted.
The matter of Chanyut Chokjanphen is well-known in parts of Thailand, Belgium, France and the United States. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesonr (talk • contribs) 07:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If this issue is well known in those countries, it should be easy to prove. --Closedmouth (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing in the news, nothing online except a set of Tripod.com sites, all of which appear to be related. The "This website has been posted in the hope..." image appears on most of them, for instance. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A more productive approach would be to persuade some journalists of the validity of these claims. Press coverage is more likely to influence the police, and would provide the verifiability required for a potential Wikipedia article. Pburka (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone by the name of Closedmouth is obsessed with this article and determined to delete it. Why? Who is he? A hacker? An employee of Wikipedia?

I have read through the websites suggested in the article as well as other related websites. There are some websites on Tripod and Geocities. The official documents posted on the websites indicate that the matter is real and serious. There was obvious criminal intent by the police and other government officials and personnel of non-governmental organizations in at least two countries. Closedmouth seems to have acted hastily without bothering to look carefully at the websites.

Naturally, I question Closedmouth's intentions. I suspect that he has personal reasons for wanting to delete the article. He might have emotional problems. He might be personally involved in the subject of the article.

Georg De Hoff, Antwerp, Belgium — De Hoof (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Geez, is it Insult Closedmouth Day today or what? All your concerns have been addressed. If you wish to make a point about police corruption, Wikipedia is not the place to do it. --Closedmouth (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowtime. --Haemo (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sequel to the solution of ax + by = c[edit]

Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:Whatlinkshere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Author insisted his very short formula was a solution to the Diophantine equation. When it was pointed out that it was not (the Diophantine equation requires integers, his solution uses reals), he created this article which is a solution he invented to a problem he invented with no particular application. Not notable. - Richfife (talk) 05:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If he just came up with it then delete for notability, it also is pure OR. Probably speedy deletion material. -Icewedge (talk) 05:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, please. It's original research in the extreme, as indicated by the sentence "For more knowlege on my theorem regarding this, one can consult my web-journal". --Orlady (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete G11. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per: "For more knowlege on my theorem regarding this , one can consult my web-journal........"--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Let's address certain points. First off, the article suffers from POV issues in overall scope, not just within the article. On the WP:CRYSTAL arguments, strong positions were taken, however the following passages: "It is not appropriate for an editor to insert their own opinions or analysis", and the "extrapolation, speculation, and future history" clause refute the condition that it's properly referenced. Let's take a piece from the lead: "The controversy over Kosovo independence includes not only the legality of the declaration itself but also a possible partition of Kosovo and inflammation of irredentism, impact on the international rule of law, and whether it sets a legal precedent for other separatist conflicts throughout the world." To partly justify this section, a single source is used. The entire page reads like op-ed, which does not an encyclopedic article make. If someone is interested in fixing the CRYSTAL and POV issues, I will be happy to paste the contents of the page into userspace for drafting into The Kosovo Precedent, although whether or not that will be better remains to be seen. David Fuchs (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible consequences of Kosovo independence[edit]

Possible consequences of Kosovo independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Currently renamed to Controversy over Kosovo independence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Devil's Advocate (talk • contribs)

(delete) – (View AfD) The article is thoroughly referenced, but at its core it's a speculative (though, again, well-argued) essay. It's not NPOV, because it only addresses negative consequences (it was titled Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent before I renamed it). I could just as easily make an article called "Potential synergies of Kosovo independence", but I believe they're both inappropriate subjects. Superm401 - Talk 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to 'The Kosovo Precedent' as per the discussion here. 'The Kosovo Precedent' is a notable term with plenty of references and an encyclopedic article can be made of it. As mentioned in the discussion linked, there are plenty of pages where the term has been used in wikipedia and the article would no longer be orphaned. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is, obviously, inherently not appropriate for an encyclopedia, and a different article in its vein is unnecessary. At best, its content may be merged with a current events section within the article concerning the declaration of independence -- but this article on its own is completely unacceptable and must be deleted ASAP and without argument. {Anonymous} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.198.29.19 (talk) 02:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Here we go again... :-)
Too much speculation in possible future developments for an encyclopedia.
Too much POV that Kosovo independence is a bad thing. For reference, the previous AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 wars of independence Here you can see that the editors who created and want to keep this article had originally called it "2008 wars of independence", and it has gone through a series of renames, "Potential military conflicts resulting from the Kosovo precedent", and "Potential crises resulting from the Kosovo precedent". How are those for negative-sounding names? wars, military conflicts and crises. A clear POV. --RenniePet (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has signifficantly changed since, which you seem not to notice. Nikola (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? Nikola (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the assortment of reasons I gave in the first AfD. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to "Kosovo Precedent". POV is a WP:PROBLEM, not a reason for deletion. This article has a notable topic, as established by reliable sources. If rewritten to include alternate points of view (such as those of independence activists, supportive liberal europeans, scholars), this article would not be a POV fork. From WP:CRYSTAL: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate. While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen. Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." (emphasis added). I think this article concerns credible research, and should therefore not be deleted on grounds that it is "speculative" (policy please?). скоморохъ 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • POV is a WP:PROBLEM. Inevitable POV by reason of the article's title and subject are an excellent reason for deletion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem...so the very subject of "The possible consequences" of a political event is POV? I await with baited breath your rationale for that judgement. скоморохъ 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's impossible to make a WP:WEIGHT determination on hypothetical events, therefore any weighting on hypothetical events related to a political event of this nature is going to be POV. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WEIGHT refers only to viewpoints, so I fail to see how it is relevant here. Is an article on the possible consequences of Kosova independence necessarily from a minority viewpoint? Absolutely not; there is no reason why the article could not include majority viewpoints on the consequences. Please explain your comment. скоморохъ 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep POV issues are not a reason for deletion, and there's plenty of academic sources on the subject to make a nice article. User:Krator (t c) 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV, polemical, speculative. Lantzy talk 15:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculative and crystal balling. --Allstar86 (talk) 16:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too much speculation.MastaFighta (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but edit heavily to only include referenced content. Some of this is speculation, but some of the speculation is quite notable; for example, the speculation about the precedent Kosovo independence might set for Georgian breakaway republics comes mainly from widely reported comments that Russian officials have made publicly. --Delirium (talk) 16:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Isn't there some limit as to how often could an article be proposed for deletion? Also, today this article is further away from being just speculations than when it was first proposed for deletion. Nikola (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, but doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Ledenierhomme (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I made this point before, but there is no speculation here or a POV. It's all just referenced comments from those directly concerned about what they plan to do or what they threaten to do in the event of a declaration of independence. I can't help but feel that the timing of this, the very day Kosovo declares its independence, is not coincidental. However this article could be merged with the article on Kosovo's declaration of independence if that will satisfy.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    > there is no speculation here
    Maybe this is an age thing, but after a long life of experience I have a very simple definition: if it's about the future, it is by definition speculation
    No matter how many references you show, no matter how many people promise that this or that will happen, it is the future and therefor it is not known for sure, i.e., it is speculation --RenniePet (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the policy: "we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions." скоморохъ 17:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NPOV, and is also almost all speculation RogueNinjatalk 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep For the many reasons outlines above. And additionally the article addresses a topic of great import. I would support consideration of a renaming, if more appropriate, but do not take a strong position on that point. Josephf (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --FOo (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. The concept is encyclopedic, it's well-sourced and likely to become more factual and less prophetic in the next days and weeks. —Nightstallion 18:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - "More likely" means that right now, it IS speculation, and should be deleted.RogueNinjatalk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there will be some sort of reaction to the Kosovo separation. Cwolfsheep (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - "When there is, feel free to write an article on it." RogueNinjatalk 18:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, speculation about something that has not happened. However the article has some useful content that can be moved to other articles about this topic. Grandmaster (talk) 19:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - speculative POV fork. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. EJF (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename Kosovo Precedent. While this may be speculative at the moment, this will certainly have an effect at a later date. Lord of Light (talk) 19:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very Strong Keep I also would like to see the article renamed to Kosovo Precedent. -- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 19:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultra Strong Delete Irreconcilable conflict with WP:CRYSTAL. Just because you put a lot of words together and source them that doesn't mean the product isn't a pile of crap. --Lemmey (talk) 20:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong - it is totally in line with WP:CRYSTAL - It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. --Richardb43 (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems a lot of delete voters would be satisfied with a renaming. It may be a worthwhile article, just in need of better identification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Qwertyqazqaz1 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Name: What part of Possible Consequences is not WP:CRYSTAL.--Lemmey (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think what Qwertyqazqaz1 is getting at is that there would be consensus to keep the article if it were moved to Kosovo Precedent. скоморохъ 21:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 'The Kosovo Precedent' per Pocopocopocopoco. It's also well-sourced and futhermore, there are tons of article on the net and in the media that use "The Kosovo Precedent" ever since the whole Kosovo affair. - Fedayee (talk) 21:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the Precident cause I don't really see one in Kosovo. If this happened in 1986 yes, but after so many breakaways from Russia no. Similarly I don't see a Precedent in the smaller realm of Yugoslovia. Several republics have broken away from each other. --Lemmey (talk) 21:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article itself on how Kosovo can set a precedent to other unrecognized nations. - Fedayee (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again those wouldn't be as a direct result of Kosovo but part of a larger fragmentation of the Soviet Union over the last 3 decades. Cyprus would be much more impacted by the on going EU-Turkey asseccion process --Lemmey (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kosovo Precedent:Reuters, Bloomberg, AFP, Moscow Times. This is not speculation on Wikipedia's part. It's in the sources, I suggest you read them. скоморохъ 22:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that those articles suggest is that people around the world watch the news. Any speculation for actual action of those based on the situation in Kosovo is WP:Crystal. Media heads like to connect everything and put it into pretty little boxes. Boxes that could kill you if you don't turn in for the 11o'clock news, but boxes none the less. Myth: Anna Nicole died of a drug overdose so thats a precident for Brittney Spears. Reuters: Here's a list of dead stars. Reality: hollywood types have been dieing for a long time. One is not precident for the other. --Lemmey (talk) 22:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't follow that. You asked what the Kosovo Precedent was; I showed you what reliable sources reported it to be. It has nothing to do with watching the news or celebrities. What "media heads" like to do is very important to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Regards, скоморохъ 22:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent per Pocopocopocopoco. Dance With The Devil (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article isn't supposed to be prophetic or making any predictions. It takes comments from the policy makers or implementers of policy on the specific issue of Kosovo and its impact for their area. Certainly when the head of the Russian Duma is talking about recognizing breakaway republics in Georgia and the President frequently hints at this it is not mere speculation, but a documentation of something factual and notable. Even if there was a POV that is something to be dealt with by edits. A few reports conclude Russia is actually bluffing to try and prevent independence. While it's difficult to consider this a notable perspective given the pervasiveness of the talks on a Kosovo precedent, it could be included to balance out part of this. However, there can be little doubt that those seeking recognition will try to use Kosovo as justification for their own recognition. There can also be little doubt about the reaction against such recognition, especially as it concerns Georgia and Azerbaijan. However, I think the best criticism would be that this should not be an independent article in which case I think merging it with the article on Kosovo's declaration of independence would be a good idea.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Content Probably rename to / incorporate into Kosovo Precedent. It clearly does not violateWP:CRYSTAL - It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. The future possible consequences of Kosovo Independence have been widely discussed beyond Wikipedia, by World leaders, and are referenced. There is no speculation about what has been said and "threatened".--Richardb43 (talk) 23:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-sourced, if a little slap-dash at the moment and plenty of useful information. Possibly rename alleged consequences of Kosovar independence or somesuch. I suppose that if Kosovo Precedent has currency, it should be the title per the most common name convention. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 00:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only speculations. It's like having an article "what if the sky is actually green" or "possible consequences of breaking intl. law/undermining UN". We should move the Intl. law section and various leaders/countries reactions to a new article, Reactions to 2008 Kosovo decl. of indep.. This way, possible consequences will be quotes, and not WP:SYN. adriatikus | talk 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence or other appropriate article. The article is fueled by POVism, but this is not a reason for deletion I think, rather it is a reason to edit the article and try to provide references to political leaders who talked about democracy or whatever. We should keep only content which references political leaders or other important sources who talked about this issue. It is not a problem to keep speculative content on Wikipedia as long as someone else outside Wikipedia said it, especially when that someone else is a political leader, as long as we provide a reference. Another possible solution would be to move a heavily edited version of the article to Wikinews as a news story detailing what political leaders said about this issue. NerdyNSK (talk) 02:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent. Well sourced and hardly speculative in any manner.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 03:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. Disruptive article prone to lots of non-neutral POV on various conflicts. Atabek (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth has that got to do with deletion? George W. Bush is "prone to lots of non-neutral POV on various conflicts" - do you propose we delete that article too?скоморохъ 05:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Major all powerful mega KEEP article is a clear non-violation of WP:CRYSTAL and could never triger and international incident ecause of its based, warranted speculation on matters of tremendous internaitonal import!!! AND wikiepdia is a soapbox for political leanings, rants, or other speculation based on personal opinion and reasonable conjeculations. Smith Jones (talk) 06:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the "political leanings" "personal opinions" and "wild conjeculations" of world leaders are highly notable. Wikipedia is not censored for the prohibition of international incidents either. The "baseless, unwarranted speculation" you refer to is professional journalism by the most reputable news organizations in the world - Reuters, International Herald Tribune, Der Spiegel, The Guardian, Financial Times etc.скоморохъ 06:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep per rationale of Devil's Advocate. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Rename per Pocopocopocopoco. VartanM (talk) 06:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Kosovo precedent per Pocopoco. The term "Kosovo precedent" is currently in use, as a Google News search indicates. [12] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete any article with such a stupid and Crystally title; some content could be moved into an article on the kosovo precedent but I think a lot would have to go and a major rewrite required --Pretty Green (talk) 08:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:Crystal Gnevin (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and our articles are supposed to cover only verifiable subjects from independent subjects. This is not the case. --Angelo (talk) 09:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal Ball. What's next? Possible consequences of Stephen Colbert being elected US president, Possible consequences of an alien invasion ? bogdan (talk) 10:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • One difference might be that Colbert was not elected president two days ago, and aliens did not invade two days ago, but Kosovo did declare independence two days ago. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic. And this is anything but a new phenomenon. Many nations across the globe arose in virtually the same way as Kosovo will. Lisa the Sociopath (talk) 11:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, the title is quite frankly awful, but this could potentially be a decent article if its properly sourced. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Kosovo Precedent. --Avala (talk) 12:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Kosovo Precedent--TheFEARgod (Ч) 12:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP is not a crystall ball, merge the useful stuf with relevant articles.--Pejman47 (talk) 12:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has nothing to do with crystall balls. It's about the voiced concerns and opinions of some world leaders regarding what might go wrong. It's criticism to the Kosovo independance, and there is no reason to remove criticism. --D3vi1 14:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Kosovo Precedent. Its sourced, factual info and surely is an important topic (possible for a long period). -- Andranikpasha (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article covers an important issue that could set a precedent, according to various experts and governments. As such, it is encyclopaedic. I'm fine with changing the title, but article should stand. Any problems with bias should be dealt with in the talk page, not through an AfD.--Conjoiner (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball. And if this article is kept, it might become a precedent itself, but for other essay-like articles for almost any political situation.--U.U. (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, original research.--07fan (talk) 14:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculation has no part in Wikipedia. The part of the article that is not speculation can be moved elsewhere. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly speculative original research that violates the policy against "new analysis or synthesis of published material." • Freechild'sup? 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Although interesting, I believe this article violates Wikipedia policies as it is based on POVs and is speculative. Yucina (talk) 20:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article would be better titled, "Bad things we wish we could inflict on the West now that our war crimes have cost us part of our territory." Don't Be Evil (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note to closing admin this comment was user's first edit. скоморохъ 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, it wasn't. It was posted by an anonymous IP address and then the signature was changed. --RenniePet (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, that's what I was referring to. скоморохъ 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you want to be completely accurate, the anonymous user had 22 prior posts going back over 11 months, so it was not "user's first edit". --RenniePet (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • That would be assuming the twain were one. Good-faith-assuming mofo's do not partake of such leaps.скоморохъ 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't think you understand what I'm saying. The comment was posted as edit no. 23 by an anonymous user with an 11-month history. That's a fact, irrespective of whether or not the person who changed the signature is the same person or not. --RenniePet (talk) 21:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cool! Finally someone who has figured it out! (I knew there was a hidden agenda behind this article.) --RenniePet (talk) 20:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • RenniePet, I'm curious about you're take on this. Your comment sounds sarcastic, but Canadian Atheist Danes usually agree with me. And yes, I changed the signature. Don't Be Evil (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I found your comment very funny, and refreshing after all the bickering. And I think too many Wikipedians are taking Wikipedia too seriously. That's all. (For the record, I think this article should be deleted, as I've explained above.) --RenniePet (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Kosovo Precedent. WP:CRYSTAL explicitly permits this, and it's a much better option than the trash-heap for a well-referenced, well-organized article like this. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Move to Kosovo Precedent. People above have made a pretty good case for this, which I don't need to reiterate. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I'll admit up front, I am not well-versed in the deletion policy or the intricacies of this particular case. I understand that there are many problems with this article in its current state. Rather than arguing the policies, I will make a broader request: that the information in this article be kept, regardless of what needs to be done to make that happen. Let me make myself clear: this is a very important topic. This is what actually matters. A declaration of independence means nothing outside of Kosovo and Serbia; it is the consequences that make this big news. If there has to be a compromise on this article, then hammer one out, but this information is simply too important to delete. There are surely enough reputable sources to make this work. For starters, a good number of countries have declared what they will do if Result A happens and what they will do if Result B happens: take Russia as just one example. Reporting Russia's declared intentions is not the same as being a crystal ball. At the very least, the article should remain with nothing but a discussion of declared positions (though in this case, a merge would most likely be in order). However, as far as I know, quoting the speculations of officials and pundits is a legitimate approach to writing an article. In short, the article should stay, no matter what it takes for that to happen. If it needs to be renamed, so be it; if it needs to undergo significant organizational revision, so be it; if it needs a complete rewrite, so be it. Anything is better than a flat-out deletion. Again, it is these consequences, not the actual declaration, that will make this event so significant. Twilight Realm (talk) 01:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • On one hand I agree with your well-written assessment of the Kosovo situation. The "Kosovo precedent" may well be a major turning point in world history, at least in terms of the last century or so. Hopefully, a positive turning point towards increased freedom and reduced subjugation of people.
  • But on the other hand I really can't see this article as having a place on Wikipedia. The whole tone of the article is trying to anticipate future problems based on what people are saying. What prominent people are saying now can be recorded for posterity in other articles that have a current events or political/historical slant. Not an article that presumes to tell the reader what is coming. --RenniePet (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not wikipedia's work to anticipate anything, as has been properly noted many times. However it is wikipedia's business to record that said neologism has entered common (at least common enough to be notable) usage. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, yes. But this article was created by editors who had a hidden agenda, and who would love to tell us how awful it is all going to be.
Quote: "Brittany, Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales
Kosovo's independence may cause an independence-seeking wave in these territories."
No references, just a warning that the world as we know it is going to disintegrate before our very eyes, and it's all because we let Kosovo declare their independence. --RenniePet (talk) 03:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And as has been also properly noted above: POV is a WP:PROBLEM, not a reason for deletion. :-) (Also, there isn't a secret agenda). --Michalis Famelis (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but the POV taken or that its there isn't the issue here: the aritcle could say Kosovo will head the start of the spread of an Islamic state across Europe, finally defeating the heathen colonial scummers and it wouldn't matter in this debate; rather, the article, in its very nature and by its very title, will encourage biased comments, which is a problem. It also encourages originial research and an unstable article condition, all of which are considered bad things. --Pretty Green (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is still not a reason for deletion. Biased comments and POV pushing is something a lot of Wikipedia articles attract by nature (such as most of the articles related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for example). As for original research, I don't see how this article encourages it more than other articles. It surely will attract its share, but that's something that will have to be fought off, not a reason for deletion.
My point is that, from what can be gathered from sources provided above (eg under Fedayee's vote), the term is an existent one. It may be a controversial or a cloudy one, and it may well attract a swarm of POV pushing and OR, but those have never made us hardy Wikipedians shy away. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just a fancy list of other groups with secessionist aspirations, which I'm certain we have elsewhere (here). Too early to determine if the "Kosovo Precedent" is a neologism deserving of its own article (i.e. content that can't be covered in the article about the declaration of independence and the sub-articles for international reactoin); my guess is not. Savidan 02:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- see the official policy. Articles whose purpose is to speculate about uncertain geopolitical future happenings have no place in the encyclopedia. Experience tells us that they are often thinly-veiled POV platforms. Majoreditor (talk) 04:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The topic (by whatever name) is inherently speculative, and no matter how many sources of speculation might be cited, it's still speculation. Let's wait to see what happens and document that. -JasonAQuest (talk) 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Speculative, unencyclopedic, chrystal ball, original research, tendentious. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That is original research --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep + Rename to The Kosovo Precedent as per Pocopocopocopoco - This article explains a major part of Kosovo's alleged independence and a reason for a lot of countries reactions. Without this article a major piece of the puzzle will be missing - making full comprehension of the situation impossible. ChrisDHDR 13:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Biased, speculative, non-academic (as per the definition of encyclopedia), prone to vandalism.--Arber (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - There is not a single reason to delete it, except the fact that Kosovo-Metohija is Serbia and some people here find it hard to understand it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.218.75 (talk) 16:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The political status of Kosovo is irrelevant to this AfD. Your argument has no basis in Wikipedia policy. Resolute 16:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments above. Speculation, blatantly biassed, etc. Also redundant to International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which already discusses the concerns expressed by other nations. This entire article could easily be pared down to a section on the international reaction article which discusses the statements expressed by several nations and wannabe nations regarding the Kosovo precident. All of the "what ifs..." are worthless in an encyclopedia. Resolute 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What is this? A platform for justifying ethnic separatism everywhere else in the world? Then lets also please include "the implications of Kosovo's independence on the separation of Hawaii" as well (Im not joking. See for yourself).--Zereshk (talk) 21:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Because wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It's clear policy. Handschuh-talk to me 00:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Strong Rename to Kosovo Precedent per Pocopocopocopoco. The article does not violate WP:CRYSTAL, which states that discussion of future events can be made so long as the editors do not include their own analysis. However, the article solely represents the view that the Kosovo Declaration of Independence will set a precedent for other independence movements and thus is not WP:NPOV.EdibleKarma (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (And I hardly ever express a deletionist view) The basic premise of this article is flawed as per WP:CRYSTAL. Some fragments of content might be used elewhere though. Greenshed (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All of the information is relevant the only question here seems to be whether the article itself should exist. Given the relevance of the information it would seem the argument to rename or merge is ultimately a great deal more reasonable than any argument to delete it. Honestly, much of this info is now outdated as it comes from before the declaration. Responses to the declaration with every one of these regions can now be given. However, it isn't suitable merely in international reaction as it really is a controversy in it of itself. I am also still at a loss how this can be accused of having any original research. All information is cited. I think outside of keeping it as is the only proper actions to take would be merging this article with another, most likely the one on the declaration of independence or international reaction to independence or renaming it to Kosovo Precedent, in that respect the page for Kosovo Precedent already exists as a redirect to the article. In a rename the information on Kosovo would most likely be best moved elsewhere. If the article isn't to be kept then a rename or merge would be best I think.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One possiblity is to have this renamed to controversy over Kosovo's declaration of independence or something to that effect and expand it to include other subjects. Then the talks of secession could remain largely the same but be part of the article under a section specifically for a Kosovo Precedent. The possibility of Kosovo being a precedent for secession is certainly not the only concern. There are also concerns about this deepening the rift between the West and Russia, reigniting conflict in the Balkans, encouraging irredentism, and taking away international law and effectively imposing law of the jungle. Each issue has a lot of ground to cover on it and positive and negatives can be given easily. There would certainly be less room for bias.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 08:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortunately this is an article of very POV nature and very speculative and made up entirely of opinions. This does not reflect well upon any encyclopedia. Khorshid (talk) 12:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name to IS THERE A KOSOVO PRECEDENT? Once people turned it into forum for discussion, it will be only fair to offer pro et contra views with rational arguments acceptable for discussion of international law and relations topic. Otherwise, delete. --Sahib-qiron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Holy cow, POVania. Bearian (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Crytall ball issues, yes, but the subject is widely discussed by political scientist and press, and there seem to be credible, reliable sources on that. We cannot speculate ourselves, of course, but we can have an article describing existing speculations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, otherwise you could write a possible consequences of anything (Britain converting to the euro for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge into 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence. It's regrettable, because this is a well-written and referenced article, but it's inappropriate for Wikipedia as its topic is unavoidably speculative (and contains more than a small degree of original research). Some of the content here is worth keeping (that which is actually factual rather than speculation), but it would be best presented as a subsection of the main article on the Kosovan declaration of independence, not as an independent article. (As a final note: if and when some of the consequences listed here actually occur, this article can always be recreated based on the historical facts.) Terraxos (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It would seem there are quite a few people here not assuming good faith. Almost every delete opinion cites POV as a reason and it seems those who cite POV consider the POV to be that Kosovo's independence is a bad thing. Since I created the article I think I have a pretty good grasp of why the article was created. I thought this situation or precedent was a very important bit of info and needed some place here. I knew there was going to be some conflict over it, and the article was incomplete, however I figured the problems could be settled through edits. I still think these problems can be resolved through editing, especially now that Kosovo has declared its independence. I'm made a few edits where there's contrary views on what the reaction will be, though undeniably there will be a reaction no matter what, and that's all that matters. An issue like this can't be considered POV just because the subject matter itself is generally a negative thing, we allow articles on wars which are generally considered negative, it's about whether the subject is notable and the article reflects a neutral view of it. On speculation there is none as I've said many times before, what there is are people's statements on what they will do and now there are mentions of what people are doing, have done, or are going to do, not exactly musings on the outlook of the world.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. The imperfections in the content of the article can be sorted out through the normal editorial process. But the "Kosovo Precedent" (probably a better name for the article) has generated so much coverage and debate that it would be wrong to delete this article just because some people are uncomfortable about Kosovan independence and its consequences, for whatever reason. You can't simply censor content because you dislike the subject matter being brought up.
Kosovo is an historical, legal and political precedent which is distinct from the anti-colonial struggles in Asia and Africa. It brings a whole new dimension to self-determination and created a new set of uncertainties. To delete this article would be to deny the importance of this issue.--Conjoiner (talk) 12:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Who is the set of academicians, experts that have, within a week since the declaration of independence, written a complete set of consequences? I believe this article must be deleted.--Arbër (Let's Talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The declaration of indepence for Kosovo hardly came as a surprise to the international community. Considerations of the implications of international recognition of Kosovo as a nation have been rife since 1999. Taemyr (talk) 14:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Last time, I was for deletion of the article. In the present state of it, I still think it should be deleted. However, if an article Kosovo precedent was written, it could include most of the content from this one. Still, it would need a very strong paragraph describing a viewpoint of those, who say that this is no precedent at all. --Tone 16:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean you could favour renaming the existing article and work on any editorial problems through standard procedures?--Conjoiner (talk) 17:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that the article can't stay in its present state. I propose someone writes a draft of Kosovo precedent article so that we have something to work on. I can help with editorial issues as much as my time and my knowledge of the situation allows. --Tone 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it is best to wait for the outcome of this vote before proceding with writing a draft of another article. Could you outline your suggestions on the talk page of the current article?--Conjoiner (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have briefly outlined my idea on the talkpage. I think it's easy to see what I propose. --Tone 23:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(From Navinsan) - my opinion is that this should remain - I have no real interest, but we should maintain consistency and a lack of bias - this article merely restates inarguable facts - it does not implicitly reference any obligatory rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.20.168.21 (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, or at least Don't rename. Delete because its crystal ballery of the worst sort, but if the content stays, it should stay at the NPOV name of Controversy. Considering the vast majority of the controversy is over whether or not it sets a precedent, naming it the kosovo precedent is, really, just plain silly. -Mask? 21:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Current title: Controversy over Kosovo independence) This is a severe fracture in international relations, and it is notable enough to be covered here. --Hereward77 (talk) 00:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To sum up the arguments against this article: too POV, too much original research, and most of all, too much crystal balling. I've done my research since my last comment, and here's what I found: The first two arguments (POV and OR) are very weak arguments indeed: they are problems to be corrected, not reasons for deletion. Allow me to drop a quote from WP:POV: "At Wikipedia, points of view (POVs) – cognitive perspectives – are often essential to articles which treat controversial subjects. The article should represent the POVs of the main scholars and specialists who have produced reliable sources on the issue." That is, indeed, what we are doing. The third and most prevalent argument, about crystal ballery, does have its merits. But again, let me drop a quote, this time from WP:CRYSTAL: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." This article falls (loosely, it is true) under the the category of "whether some development will occur." It looks to me like the established policies suggest keeping the article. And, as I said above, this article should remain in some form, whatever we need to do to make it acceptable. Twilight Realm (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Hereward77, with the name Controversy over Kosovo independence. Important subject of international relations. Tiphareth (talk) 18:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article regarding Kosovo Independence. Cleanup POV and speculation issues. TheWoody (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article regarding Kosovo Independence after cleaning up for NPOV. croll (talk) 05:14, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. It's an important international happening with significant possible consequences that can be verified, rendering WP:CRYSTAL moot. I don't object to a merge and/or renaming if people see fit to do so. Needs more citations, more NPOV, stripping away of any crystalballery or original research. But it's encyclopedic enough as a topic.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 12:48, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename and restructure - The article is largely about the possibility that the Kosovo unilateral declartation of independence becoming a precedent for other sessionist states, contrary to the principle that national borders should not be altered by force. This is speculative, but not mere speculation; it is a legitimate fear that has guided international policy, and led to certain countries not recognising Kosovo as independent. The article has evidently developed from something else, and needs its earlier sections substantially amending to focus it on its main issue. I presume there is a parallel article on Kosovo independence to provide the background. I would support something like Kosovo Precedent as a new name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For those who now want to keep it under the title, "Controversy over Kosovo independence", you should keep in mind that we already have International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence, which details what the international reactions have actually been to Kosovo's independence, as opposed to what they may quite possibly be at some indeterminate point in the future. Superm401 - Talk 15:35, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well the page for reaction seems to be mainly focusing on official statements regarding independence. Some have suggested merging that page with foreign relations of Kosovo so it may not be good to merge this page with that one. It also would clash with that page's overall structure.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced and non-POV material into Kosovo Independence. Rigby27 Talk 20:23, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is interesting and sourced article. I think it can be kept under the present title.Biophys (talk) 03:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do not merge. It's too long to merge; the merged article would inevitably be tagged for a split. The article needs work, but is not inherently deletion-worthy or ill-conceived. I question the political motivations of suggesting that it fits WP's deletion policy. It isn't POV that people care fundamentally more about negative consequences than positive ones, or that the article was not written with a mind toward "potential synergies". In fact, that's really fucking stupid. You are arguing epistemology. When was the last time you saw a news broadcast that told you that 6,602,074,175 people survived on a particular day, rather than that 150,000 people died? Current events which are worth talking about are, by definition, exceptional. So claiming it's POV because it's only talking about exceptional consequences is patently ridiculous. It may be POV for other reasons, and that would need to be fixed. But it is not a credible reason to delete the article. On an unrelated note, I think User:Superm401 should shut the fuck up. Not just here, but in general. I consider his contributions to be weak-reasoned, non sequitur, and usually childish. --76.217.93.102 (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I generally agree with your sentiments on the article please refrain from personal attacks.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, which defaults to Keep. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tumaga[edit]

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

This article is a barangay. A barangay is the smallest political unit in the Philippines, a part of either a city or municipality, so they are NOT towns. So given the small size of barangays, naturally, almost all of them would not be notable, even though they'd have high populations. The only barangays that should be notable may be barangays that have large significant literature about them. This barangay doesn't have any. --Howard the Duck 03:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Canley (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep geography based subjects should have inherent notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Barangays aren't purely geography-based articles. --Howard the Duck 05:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessarily. There comes a point when some geographical unit is too small or too trivial that it doesn't deserve its own article and should instead be aggregated elsewhere. A blanket statement like "X's have inherent notability" is not a good argument in itself. You have to back it up with more substantial arguments. --seav (talk) 01:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Geography:"Geological features named on maps, such as Willow Creek Pass (Montana), are verifiable and so acceptable".--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Barangays aren't just purely geographical areas. They are political units, made up of people. Willow Creek Pass (Montana) is a landform, barangays, not really. --Howard the Duck 02:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please note that Common Outcomes is not a guideline much less policy. It just documents what's been the result of many AfD and is not policy. So appealing to it is also not a convincing argument in itself. So it would be best if you argue about saving this article on the subject's merits. I have plainly stated my reasons being that there can be no reliable sources about these barangays from which to source a full article about it. Note that I haven't said that there shouldn't be any mention about these barangays in Wikipedia, just that barangays don't deserve individual articles. I should know, I'm Filipino. --seav (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search only turns up one non-trivial reference but it's not a reliable source. --seav (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Seav and Howard.--Lenticel (talk) 09:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a barangay isn't like a borough in New York City, it's more like a precinct. The only notable precinct in New York is the 87th. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "Zamboanga City". It does not have a separate population census like Sapangbato, and its only notability is that it has a river named after it, houses the high school campus of Ateneo de Zamboanga and the City Agriculturist Office (it does have its own web page though). Starczamora (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, political units in all countries should have articles. --Oldak Quill 02:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 03:10, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nn. I'm usually an inclusionist for places but this is not a city, suburb or town and fails WP:RS. Sting au Buzz Me... 05:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neigbourhoods in North American cities are routinely included. See Category:Neighbourhoods by country. It's not clear to me that a barangay is much different than a neighbourhood -- in fact it's probably more notable in that it has greater official recognition. Pburka (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
they are only included if they are of major significance within the city. Quite a number, even from NYC, have been deleted. DGG (talk) 20:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, assuming that its extent is certain. Often in Britain, the boundaries of a particular sururb are indequately defined, which makes it difficult to determine what should (and should not) be in the article. Unless the population is miniscule, there is no reason for not keeping it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{

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

The result was keep. John254 01:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlayRadioPlay![edit]

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

The only hint of notability comes from PlayRadioPlay!'s release of an EP titled "The Frequency" on April 27, 2007 which debuted #6 on Billboard's Electronic Chart. Since then, there are "MySpace Bulletins" that state full album will be released in March 2008. There are very vague sources throughout, referring to either obscure MySpace bulletins or blog postings, and a surmised "music video" that was filmed in only one weekend.

MySpace friend and play counts are also not reliable sources.

If the album is released and is a smashing success, and there are attempts to revise the article to be something less of a MySpace advertisment, then it can stand to see this article become a little more notable. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This article has been speedy deleted at least six times in the past. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The MySpace information is totally irrelevant to the notability of the article, but the article is still notable per WP:MUSIC criterion 2 and 5 Doc Strange (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep See chart exposure. Poor sourcing is not an excuse for deletion. Chubbles (talk) 23:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs to be rewritten, cleaned up, and cited. Plenty of articles come up when searching Google to make this happen.

--32.159.178.123 (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (although I was a participant in this AfD, and arguably the most major contributor to the article) I am closing this AfD procedurally, because the nominator removed the AfD notice from the article and struckthrough their nomination here. So my closing is really just documenting a non-admin closure by another party that was incomplete. JERRY talk contribs 17:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur per nom's comment here. No problem. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St. Lucie West Centennial High School[edit]

St. Lucie West Centennial High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Page reads like WP:TRIVIA ("Officials say the school smells of Elderberries.", etc) and its importance is not asserted. <3 bunny 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing my nomination after seeing improvements made in the article. I think it's a valid stub now, though it still needs some improvements. <3 bunny 16:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Grr, another school. Wisdom89 (T / C) 04:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blank the page and start over, but ultimately keep - The article should be kept, but there's not really any valid content in it at the moment. matt91486 (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This one should go. Read it carefully. Student joke. Not that an article could not be written about the school, but it should be started over. If anyone wants to speedy this one, I'd have no objection. DGG (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have CSD'ed this article (with category A7, but I feel G1 might work for it too), but the creator removed it on the basis schools do not qualify for CSD, and out of ignorance I put it on AFD instead. <3 bunny 04:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. The article is all POV --Antonio Lopez (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I removed the hoax material and marked the article as a stub. The artice's creator may attempt to restore some hoax material; please keep an eye on the article. --Eastmain (talk) 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Eastmain, I've had to undo your edit because you removed the CSD template. Please redo the edit, keeping the CSD template this time. <3 bunny 04:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment on Comment CyberSach, wouldn't it have been more effective to just restore the CSD template? --SSBohio 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Stubbify (ec³) No reason to delete has been stated or can readily be determined. I suggest we stubbify the article (assuming it's a real high school) and move on. --SSBohio 04:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man I just keep getting in trouble and told on. I'm getting my feelings hurt. I think you should just leave the page alone and edit a page that will actually get read. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Operationquietnoise (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just some advice, I would take the time to improve the article, flesh it out, establish more notability (even though most schools are inherently notable), and stop fighting with other editors. If you feel strongly about the article, focus your attention on copyediting and expanding it. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep - I always want to assume good faith, but I think page creator is pulling our chain. BusterD (talk) 05:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm pretty sure the school is real regardless of that. matt91486 (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Current version bears no resemblance to the coatrack for personal abuse I tried to G10 last night. BusterD (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just discovered that the edit button works on this article for some reason. JERRY talk contribs 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep on the general priniciple that nominating an article the minute it is created is bad faith Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment, however, having read Operationquietnoise's entire edit history, I am certain he is a vandal, and lying about teaching at the school as he claims on the talk page, so if there is a motion for any sort of block, I would be all for that. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have applied to WP:AIV that Operationquietnoise is a vandal account, and the account has now been blocked. I now have zero reservations about keeping this page, though I suspect we'll see this user return. BusterD (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a valid stub. Compare the version that was nominated for AfD with the current version and you will most likely agree. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:05, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Discount Telecommunications[edit]

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

non notable company Excariver (talk) 19:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete No prejudice against creating a new disambiguation page if necessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

German-Russian[edit]

German-Russian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Seems like all original research. Besides, all of this info is already covered in History of Germans in Russia and the Soviet Union. Veritas (talk) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment On what basis are you trying to argue that this is a neologism? Also, unreferenced material that is substantially correct just needs references. Original research refers to novel ideas and synthesis, particularly that try to advance a position. I would say weak keep at least as a disambiguation page since this is, despite your nomination, a widely-used term. --Dhartung | Talk 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But under the condition that references are provided. Ourmangwynn (talk) 12:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)— Ourmangwynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Maybe there should be a disambiguation page for this term. I can't say that this is a disambiguation page, any more than I can say that the Oxford English Dictionary is a list of spelling words. Mandsford (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:05, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gujjuweb[edit]

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

A highly-used ten year old website would have some coverage if it were notable, it doesn't. Ghits are forum posts and mentions of the software used to run it. Article claims its a source for a large Gujarati population, not that this population uses it. Per their own site, 'recent' comments were a minimum of three weeks old. No evidence this passes WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SorryGuy  Talk  04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ganzfeld[edit]

The Ganzfeld (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) – (View AfD)

The article cited an "upcoming" annual issue in 2007 and the magazine's official website is a dead myspace link. While a google search is somewhat challenging due to something called the Ganzfeld Effect/Ganzfeld Phenomenon, there doesn't appear to be anything substantial indicating that it was notable when it existed. Travellingcari (talk) 03:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment and the best bit... he didn't even leave that on the band's talk page because the band's page is a redlink. A for honesty. Travellingcari (talk) 04:15, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I find it odd that the official site is listed as a myspace page, when there exists an actual url [13]. There seems to be a few 3rd party references (following the google link provided by Travellingcari above). It's apparently an annual mag, so the 2008 isn't available yet. However, the website hasn't been updated, so the mag may be defunct. Some minor notability, based on the reviews alone. freshacconcispeaktome 18:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Link to the website corrected. Seems notable. Johnbod (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tyrenius (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete--Tone 14:22, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glen Maganzini[edit]

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

Nominating for AFD because it fails the basic criteria of WP:BIO. <3 bunny 04:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Could you please explain why this is a candidate for deletion? Perhaps, give some tips as to how to improve this article? I personally do not feel that it, content-wise, is not worthy of staying.

Comment. Please read the guidelines for WP:BIO (the part about notability/importance). <3 bunny 04:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Do you think perhaps the article would meet the criterion better if it stressed his accomplishments at such a young age? Creating a successful website at age 12, etc.. Gmags2003 (talk) 04:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC) -- Gmags2003 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmags2003 (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Discuss these things on the talk page, the AFD page isn't really for open discussions. <3 bunny 04:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "these things", like the subject's notability are supposed to be discussed right here on this page. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think in this case, you nominated the article for deletion, and the response is how to prevent it from being deleted. I think that's valid. matt91486 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are no secondary sources that assert said person's importance. Read WP:BIO, it's easier than me trying to summarize it. <3 bunny 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say I was asking. I said the person was. I've hung around AfD enough to know WP:BIO, and I didn't comment keep or delete in this matter. I was just clarifying someone else's point. matt91486 (talk) 04:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; "nesportsnews" only turns up 341 hits [14] and "Glen Maganzini" turns up 439 hits [15]. — Cuyler91093 - Соитяівцтіоиѕ 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 01:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopkinsville High School[edit]

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

No assertion of notability. Been tagged as unreferenced since November 2006 (!) Closedmouth (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of notability in the article or via a Google search [16]. While some editors argue that there is a consensus that all high schools are automatically notable, this is disputed and the relevant proposed guideline (WP:SCHOOLS) has not been adopted and has been rejected on several occasions. As such, WP:N needs to be met, and I don't think that that's the case here. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons noted above by ClosedMouth.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigFish (talk • contribs) 04:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Most schools have been written about enough to establish notability, but the evidence is not always available online, particularly for schools in smaller and poorer communities. Previous versions of the article might have been eligible for deletion as attack pages, but the current version of the article is an inoffensive stub. --Eastmain (talk) 04:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep high schools are notable, Merkinsmum 04:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as edits done since nomination make this high school article a valid stub. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 'Kay, I'll withdraw this nomination. Seemed like a good idea at the time. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't see any references which come close to meeting WP:N so the nomination still seems appropriate. All that's there is the school's website, its entry in a database and a trivial story about its basketball team winning a state competition over 22 years ago. Those hardly constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Nick Dowling (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable alumnus, state title, multple sources. TerriersFan (talk) 17:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has several reliable sources. Clearly a notable high school. EJF (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well, let's see... this is a high school, of course, and there are multiple reliable sources supporting the content of the article, which does assert notability in the usual sense; notable alumnus, state title. Everytime a high school article comes up, the deletes are the first ones to bring up WP:SCHOOL.... this seems a little strange to me. I bet if a high school ever does get deleted there will be champagne corks popping somewhere. Well, folks this one ain't it. JERRY talk contribs 01:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as clearly unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 02:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a read over WP:JNN, as you have just made one of those classic arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. JERRY talk contribs 12:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have said utterly nn school. Eusebeus (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to be a pest, but now you have wikilinked a proposed guideline that in-effect states that it is convenient to assume that all high schools are notable. So your rationale behind the !vote of delete is still quite unclear. Why are you suggesting this article should be deleted? JERRY talkcontribs 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, you are not the pest. We haven't heard much from him lately, but Eusebeus occasionally tries to push the position that schools are inherently not notable, regardless of their achievements and sources provided, and that Wikipedia:Notability standards are not even relevant to the discussion at hand. This screed of his that he links to insists that A school is notable only if it has attained some distinction for something other than its normal operation as a school. Somehow, while politicians are notable for being elected and enacting legislation, athletes for scoring goals and astronauts for flying into space, a school's achievements as a school, per Eusebeus, should be discarded, since generally they accrue to the school as a normal part of its function. This nonsense has been rejected repeatedly by the community and a broad consensus has been established that the qualities that Eusebeus demands be ignored are exactly the characteristics that make a school notable, as this AfD amply represents. Jerry (and all others here) would benefit from seeing exactly what it is that Eusebeus purports to justify as an excuse for deletion of this article and all other school articles. Alansohn (talk) 16:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, except I wouldn't call it a screed, but instead a well-reasoned and balanced exposition of my views. I know Alan, deep-down, agrees! Eusebeus (talk) 16:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My delete finger never itched so bad as when I read that flawed, inaccurate, garbagy essay. Complete and utter BS. Pure, unadulterated, concentrated ka-ka. JERRY talk contribs 01:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hey, hey, WP:CIVIL, please, Jerry. It's not as if you're gonna lose this one. It should be the easiest time in the world to sit back and let him have his say, right? Noroton (talk) 04:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but... I don't like it. JERRY talk contribs 05:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No need to call him on it: the worthless screed is total shit if you don't agree, for sure. What nonsense! Eusebeus (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to like this guy. JERRY talk contribs 11:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerry, take it from the horse's mouth: "the worthless screed is total shit". Eusebeus' modus operandi is to try to push positions like this one that he feels strongly about regardless of their lack of merit and to try stir up the pot. The best way to deal with this particular branch of his disruptive behavior is to keep on improving articles and ensure that the articles meet the broad consensus on school notability. Each AfD that ends as a keep, as this one will, adds to the body of evidence of inherent notability of such schools and adds another nail to the coffin of irrelevance for his demands of school non-notability. There's no need to get angry and get dragged into his chronic incivility when Eusebeus is doing such a wonderful job digging his own grave. Let him dig on his own. Alansohn (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really regret making this AfD. --Closedmouth (talk) 13:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another Wikidrama I see. Who needs to buy cheap novels. Just log on here and have a laugh :-) Sting au Buzz Me... 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Expanded and sourced nicely by Gene93k and TerriersFan. Meets inclusion criteria of WP:V and WP:NPOV. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Above and beyond the fact that there is a clear consensus of WP:Inherent notability for all high schools, the multiple independent reliable and verifiable sources establishing multiple sports championships and distinguished alumni satisfies the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Inherent notability regarding high schools has not yet reached consensus, so that is a moot point. As for sports championships and distinguished alumni, if that information is added to the article, I will gladly change my vote.TheBigFish (talk) 01:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • When AfDs for high schools lead to retention some 99% of the time, the consensus on inherent notability seems rather clear. This AfD will only add further to the body of evidence. You may want to review the article for details regarding sports championships and distinguished alumni. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (UpdatedAs quite a bit of information has been added to the article since I entered this AfD, I will change my vote as stated above to Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBigFish (talk • contribs) 14:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:N/WP:ORG. Noroton (talk) 04:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per the above. I also did a bit of easy math, and found that it has over 1,000 students. So I added that information to the summary. Big high schools are per se notable. The good references, controversy, sports titles, etc. clinch the deal. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rancho Cucamonga Public Library[edit]

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

The page is a copy of http://www.rcpl.lib.ca.us/history.htm DeeKenn (talk) 02:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. The page is no longer a copyvio. Perhaps some references can be found for the article other than the library's own wbsite. --Eastmain (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Local libraries are almost never notable. There;s nothing special said about this one, nor was there really anything adequate in the copyvio that could be used. DGG (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As mentioned above, there really is nothing notable about the RCPL. DeeKenn (talk) 06:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Rancho Cucamonga, California. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Notable architecture for a library bulding or significant holdings of special collections not easily duplicated elsewhere would establish notability. I don't think this library has either, but these points should be considered the next time a library's notability is discussed. --Eastmain (talk) 08:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if there's a local-library system article in which it can be included, otherwise delete. Travellingcari (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is basically an article about the library system and not one building. So, it is in effect the merge target suggested above. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:RS, and therefore failing WP:V and WP:N. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 11:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G. Edward Griffin (2nd nomination)[edit]

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

Self-publishing conspiracy theorist. Nominated for deletion and kept in December 2006, but none of the fundamental flaws -- complete lack of sourcing, evidence of real-world notability or impact, or even proof of public attention -- has been fixed. It's been over a year, and faith-based assertions of notability don't cut it.

Calton | Talk 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Mr. Griffin is a professional investigative researcher. His work reflects that title. He does not make sweeping, unfounded statements or claims; his research is well detailed. After reading "World Without Cancer" I felt I understood the presentation as to the physiological mechanism of cancer growth in the human body. I've never seen where that mechanism has been disproven. What I don't understand is orthodoxy's theory of cancer. It does not appear to have one. How can we treat cancer without understanding its cause or onset? Yet we do. Whether we do so effectively or intelligently is another matter entirely. There are plenty of other authors who echo Mr. Griffin's views on cancer in the human body. Are we to systematically delete their work as well because it may challenge the assumptions of the status quo? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimveda (talk • contribs) — Jimveda (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Keep I am very befuddled by all this interest to delete Edward Griffin's page. He has written very important factual books which are obviously notable by their Amazon sales ranking (February 22, 2008):

The Creature from Jekyll Island: #22,156
World Without Cancer: #17,412
If there are any remaining issues regarding third-party verification, please notify this community of the inconsistencies. However, in the meantime, it would be a grave error to delete this entry. --Rosco999 (talk) 06:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Rosco999 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep G. Edward Griffin's work from 1950s-2008 just in the category of videos is extensive and the following is a sampling:

G Edward Griffin - Creature From Jekyll Island A Second Look at the Federal Reserve
G. Edward Griffin - A World Without Cancer - The Story Of Vitamin B17
An Idea Whose Time Has Come - G. Edward Griffin - Freedom Force International
G. Edward Griffin - Inflation
The Science and Politics of Cancer, G. Edward Griffin 2005
Edward Griffin - Seduction of a Generation (Sensitivity Training, Brainwashing)
G. Edward Griffin- On Individualism v Collectivism
America Bastion of Freedom - Willis E. Stone and G. Edward Griffin
G. Edward Griffin speech Tea Party Los Angeles 2007
Who Shall Teach by G. Edward Griffin
FIAT EMPIRE - Why the Federal Reserve Violates the U.S. Constitution
The Capitalist Conspiracy: An Inside View of International Banking by G. Edward Griffin
Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press - 1984
Invisible Ballots, Electronic Voting Machine Fraud
These are ALL available for free viewing on Google Video at http://video.google.com.
There are many many more. To see the full catalogue of books and videos by Griffin and his associates and all others offered, go to the site http://realityzone.com.
There are many reliable sources on the Internet as well as book stores and major publications that can be referenced at university and public libraries across America.
This falls well within Wikipedia's verifiability policy.
You will also find many radio and video interviews of G. Edward Griffin and by people at political rallies and events on the Internet as well and he is a regular speaker at Presidential candidate and ten term Texas Republican Congressman Dr. Ron Paul MD. --Jeff Smith08 (Much Respect) — Preceding comment signed as by Jeff Smith08 (talk · contribs) actually added by 74.128.181.67 (talk · contribs)

  • Keep He's a documentary film maker and has been exposing corruption since the 1950s with many titles to his credit, of which include many concerning the monetary condition that is ruining our dollar right now.

I would suggest you watch some of them if you love your country and family. He's also author of many books as well and been listed in whose who of America several times. Even some of the old school educational film strips were are still are many Griffin fan's favorites, like the film strip entitled "Inflation" which outlines the true relationship between printing money and the rising of prices which devalues the dollar itself, which we are experiencing today, which was made some time in the 1960s. G. Edward Griffin founded Freedom Force International and the Coalition for Visible Ballots. There is no lack of notability. Where Ed Griffin is concerned we're drowning in it. What do we have to do, write a new wiki to prove the current one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.181.67 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC) — 74.128.181.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Delete. This article fails verifiability policy because it lacks any third-party reliable sources. There are some citations, but, upon glancing over them, they all seem to come from a group that Griffin himself founded, and thus have no independence — they basically amount to Griffin talking himself up. This is a vanity article. *** Crotalus *** 04:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no information indicating he is notable for anything. He has published a variety of his own lectures in various media,. some of them have something to do with various existing conspiracy theories and medical frauds, but there isn't anything to show he is actually important with respect to any of them.DGG (talk) 05:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources show any significant coverage (the old afd is a testemant to how sometimes afd's can get out of control with pile on votes). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — I encountered this fellow in my nomination of another deleted conspiracy theory article, and thought it wasn't notable and didn't have sources. I'm glad other people agree. --Haemo (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is well-written and informative.Ourmangwynn (talk) 12:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC) — Ourmangwynn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • The first isn't a criterion, and the second -- since the article's not backed by anything resembling reliable sources -- is untrue. --Calton | Talk 13:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's an author of at least a dozen books, in particular two books ranked pretty highly in specific categories on Amazon.com. His book on the World Without Cancer is ranked number 1 in the category of vitamins in alternative medicine and his book "The Creature from Jekyll Island" is highly-ranked in the banking and monetary categories. Also it is of some note that he's founded various organizations including the Coalition for Visible Ballots which is involved in quite a few ballot integrity campaigns of note like in Ohio. The Cancer Cure Foundation seems to be mentioned around quite a bit by those talking about alternative medicine. I think it's safe to say those calling for this article's deletion do not traffic in conspiracy theories or alternative medicine treatment for cancer. Notability in the field is important and it seems he's noted a lot among various circles. He's produced movies and books which are distributed widely in the community he's part of, it would seem he does meet notability standards. It's possible you won't find him by looking for his name, but look for his organizations, books, or movie and you're likely to find plenty of him. He was featured in America: Freedom to Fascism a notable film about the IRS and Federal Reserve, a subject Griffin discusses frequently. Altogether I think the notability standard is met.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given how variable and easily gamed Amazon category rankings are -- especially when you draw the boundaries narrowly enough -- that means very little. Of course, Amazon rankings/listings are completely meaningless to begin with: actual reliable, third-party sources attesting to actual real-world notice and/or impact is what counts. And where's the evidence that "America: Freedom to Fascism" is "a notable film"? Even if so (which I doubt), notability isn't contagious, especially since you don't say the film is ABOUT him. So, no, the notability standard is not even close to being met, overall or otherwise. --Calton | Talk 09:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
America: Freedom to Fascism has its own article on Wikipedia and is certainly notable. Notability doesn't mean the person is notable in the general public, but notable in a field. All things considered he certainly meets that standard. Organizations he founded are mentioned in several reliable third party sources. The Cancer Cure Foundation is mentioned in several places, The Coalition for Visible Ballots is also mentioned because of its involvement in several actions for ballot integrity and counts Bev Harris as a member, who is notable enough to warrant her own article on Wikipedia, and while association doesn't mean notability, the notability of his organizations the fact he's interviewed for a film on the IRS/Federal Reserve means he is regarded as a notable source for that subject, fact his book is highly ranked on Amazon in a similar field certainly just further emphasizes his notability in that area of discussion.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Read his books and you will know, The Creature from Jekyll Island, World Without Cancer and many more. It is difficult to hear the bad history but it does not mean it is conspiracy theories. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LakeOswego (talk • contribs) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Based on the deletion policies of Wikipedia, the article regarding the individual G. Edward Griffin does warrant deletion. The user “Crotalus” stated the article lacks any third-party reliable sources. The “third party” clause does not fall under the deletion policies of Wikipedia. The comments made by user “DDG” are personal opinion, and irrelevant to the deletion from Wikipedia. The article is about an individual, who is involved in social activism, has authored many books, and produced many video documentaries. Whether or not people think they are notable is a matter of personal opinion.
  • After reading Wikipedia’s deletion policy, I do not see any argument already given that would warrant deletion. In most articles in Wikipedia, there is often a section for criticism. Critics of G. Edward Griffin’s personal views, books, theories should add to the article to dispute his assertions. Requesting deletion is not rational. Critics of Mr. Griffin’s notability should provide arguments for what makes a person and their accomplishments notable enough to be included in Wikipedia. If they do no present such arguments for criteria, their personal opinions are irrelevant.

Epictatus (talk • contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 01:41, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Epictatus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep Funny how those four 'Delete' entries above were made on the same day within few hours of each other (it's that "Conspiracy theorist" in me -- sorry). You want to remove Griffin based on the above 'delete' comments? You've got to be kidding! None of them give a hint of any familiarity with Griffin's extensive work. Be real. He's an excellent source of well-balanced & objective information on exeptionally wide range of important topics. American-style self-sensorship at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.89.98.17 (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — 65.89.98.17 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - Before siting that G Edward Griffen doesn't pay attention to facts, it would be a very good idea to read his material, including that which he has developed (both in video and book form) on cancer. He does indeed provide much in the way of sourcing. I have personally read two of Griffen's books on Cancer, and found them very useful tools in making important decisions about my family's health. Regarding his politics, and his exposure of fraud, there is plenty of evidence to back up much of what he says, and although I don't agree with everything he stands for, I think he is an important dissenting voice. Steve —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.126.104.68 (talk) 19:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — 216.126.104.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment -- I don't see any of the opposes addressing the fact that there are no reliable sources independent of the subject which establish notability. I do see a lot of bad faith accusations, misunderstanding of policy, and blanket I like it or it's useful assertions. --Haemo (talk)
I addressed it. I pointed out that he was interviewed for America: Freedom to Fascism, the organizations he founded, at least Cancer Cure Foundation and Coalition for Visible Ballots, are mentioned in several places because of their involvement in those specific fields. He's also interviewed in the movie Fiat Empire and has many articles written about him on the John Birch Society website. He's cited several times by them, in particular his book the Creature from Jekyll Island is cited quite a bit and he's noted by them as having the most notable biography of their founder Robert Welch Jr. As I said, he's notable in his area, which I presume is an area none of those calling for this article's deletion are involved in.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you provided citations to those interviews and articles about him, and the citations referred to reliable sources, then I would vote keep. However the current article does not cite these sources. JackSchmidt (talk) 20:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except deletion policy does not say an article lacking sources should be deleted, but that an article lacking sources should have sources. You can't justify deletion on the sole basis that the article doesn't presently have sources if there are plentiful sources to verify the information or the notability of the information.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point being made is that the exact same argument was made last time, and the article was not improved nor were sources added. The continual claim that "sources exist" without said sources being put forward can't be used more than once with a straight face. --Haemo (talk) 23:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someones popularity is not the question nor is their published works. I believe Hitler had some self published works so should we delete all entry's with information about him? People may disagree with Griffin but he has accomplished much that would be worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cvsvideo (talk • contribs) 23:07, 22 February 2008 (UTC) — Cvsvideo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep This man brings to our attention, important and highly relevant material that many have a great interest in hearing. He does not promote quack theories but merely warns us of what is going on in the world that will affect all of us. It would be a great loss for all of us if we were to lose the exposure that a wiki article brings to him and his contributions to society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.164.156.182 (talk) 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — 189.164.156.182 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep Read "World Without Cancer" and it will become clear why Mr. Griffin publishes his own work, and why my public library will not accept a donated copy. His work will make readers think rather than blindly accept, and there are indeed many who (for financial gain perhaps) would prefer otherwise. Maybe it's not just a theory ... Mcws (talk) 02:03, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Mcws (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I came here looking to see if there was something of interest in Mr. Griffin's work that I have not yet seen. Imagine my disapointment had this article already been deleted. I have found Mr. Griffin's work informative, enlightening, and entertaining. Mr. Griffin gave me inspiration to conduct my own research into several subjects that I had previously viewed as dry, boring, and just plain uninteresting. I would hate to lose being able to point others to Wikipedia for a substantive introduction and a launching pad for deeper delving into Mr. Griffin's work. Let's hear it for self-publishing. Thank God that we are no longer dependent upon big corporations with hidden agendas to satisfy our desire to have material published. I'm far more suspicious of those who hastily wish to employ Winston's incinerator than of Mr. Griffin's work. --dicktater —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — dicktater (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep I came here looking to see if there was something of interest in Mr. Griffin's work that I have not yet seen. Imagine my disapointment had this article already been deleted. I have found Mr. Griffin's work informative, enlightening, and entertaining. Mr. Griffin gave me inspiration to conduct my own research into several subjects that I had previously viewed as dry, boring, and just plain uninteresting. I would hate to lose being able to point others to Wikipedia for a substantive introduction and a launching pad for deeper delving into Mr. Griffin's work. Let's hear it for self-publishing. Thank God that we are no longer dependent upon big corporations with hidden agendas to satisfy our desire to have material published. I'm far more suspicious of those who hastily wish to employ Winston's incinerator than of Mr. Griffin's work. --dicktater —Preceding comment was added at 03:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have come to respect Wikipedia as a viable source of information on almost any subject. Any sensible user knows that any media such as Wikipedia, where any one can submit or edit articles may not always be reliable. Removing the article about Griffin has no useful purpose except the censoring of information which many users may seek. Griffin is a writer and producer of many works. These works command decent prices even years after publication on sites such as Amazon and eBay. Check me on this. If he were an insignificant writer, certainly his works would not be in demand and if available at all, would be sold for pennies. Wikipedia needs to have this information available if they are to be considered a viable objective source of information. Griffin is controversial as well as most, if not all other great men. Just because many don't like him or his works is not a reason to deny the honest inquirer of the information. And if the skeptics would just read his works instead of babbling about deletion, they may just learn some of the many vital truths Mr. Griffin brings out. He is just trying to help our great Nation to not destroy itself. —Preceding comment was added at 04:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC) DuaneCWilson — DuanceCWilson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep I like Wikipedia and I think that expunging this information is a conspiracy. G. Edward Griffin is a man of integrity and courage. I have met him and read some of his books and viewed his videos. Those who would consider voting one way or the other should make themselves available to his body of work. I think you may be very impressed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesclark830 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — Jamesclark830 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep As independent source which establishes notability, a reference to "Who's Who in America" should be included. I verified that the volumes from 1991 to 1994 contain an entry about G. Edward Griffin. The volume from 1991 was the earliest I had access to. I posted the information provided in "Who's Who in America 1994" on my talk page.
Another evidence for "real-world notability" is Congressman Ron Paul's comment on Griffin's book "The Creature from Jekyll Island — A Second Look at the Federal Reserve":
A superb analysis. Be prepared for one heck of a journey through time and mind.
I cannot judge whether this information is reliable or not, since I found it on the cover of Griffin's book, but given the comment was authentic, it would not only constitute an acknowledgment by an independent source, but also an approval of the book's contents by a person who serves the congress as expert on monetary issues. Is it possible to reference such comments from book covers? FeelFreeToBe (talk) 07:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC) — FeelFreeToBe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete. When I read this nomination and the article I was sure that somewhere in there must be a notable subject. One or two contributors above have suggested that reliable sources existed, and I thought that a Google search must reveal at least one objective piece from an independent source to go along with the multitude of walled garden references between conspiracy sites. Sadly, after 15 pages of Google hits the references to Griffin started to run out and there were still no independent source. None of the keep contributions above have produced evidence to assert that the article passes WP:BIO, nor have the promised references appeared in the article itself. It's a shame because I think he's an interesting-sounding subject. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 09:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regina Freedman[edit]

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

Questionable failure of CSD:A7 for possible notability of multiple roles. Roles, however, do not assert significance or importance of subject (the actual test, as explicitly stated in A7); notability does not appear to be asserted, as "appeared" is not, say, "starred"; no discussion of roles, no references provided, etc. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, Eastmain has a good understanding of the criteria. A "questionable failure of A7" is a failure of A7. Speedy is only for the unquestionable deletions. I have no opinion on whether the roles are important, but it was certainly enough to assert them. DGG (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not focus on my wording, but on policy. I added "questionable" as nice way of saying "inappropriate and entirely wrong". Misinterpretation of the criterion does not a legitimate failure make. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 12:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that there's a keep !vote here already indicates to me that it would have been inappropriate to speedily delete the article. Speedy deletion is only for those cases that are so obvious that there is no need to waste everyone's time with a debate. As with DGG, I express no opinion at this time on whether the article should actually be kept, but I think a full debate is appropriate. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Hut 8.5 16:04, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Breshna Orya[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article was originally PRODded by User:Edcolins with "Sources requested since September 2007, to establish notability, but in vain. She has written a cookbook, alright (this is supported by a source), but this is clearly not enough to have an article on Wikipedia." Article was {{rescue}} tagged and deprodded (in a malformed way,) by User:Ajmalpaghman, and a discussion commenced on the Talk page. I am merely nominating this to hold discussion in the proper venue, and am therefore neutral unless I state otherwise below RoninBK T C 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Some of the claims in the article appear to be incorrect. The cookbook's author is given as Helen Saberi , not Breshna Orya , at the Library of Congress at http://lccn.loc.gov/00058200 and at the publisher's website at http://www.hippocrenebooks.com/book.aspx?id=1077 I found a posting from Breshna Orya about an airport in the Central African Republic, which makes the claim that she lived there plausible. The Afghan Women's Association International at http://www.awai.org is based in California rather than Switzerland according to its website, although I wouldn't exclude the possibility that Breshna Orya is the head of some other association of Afghan women. I can't find a listing for her in the catalogue of the British Library at http://catalogue.bl.uk or of the Library of Congress at http://catalog.loc.gov although I did find a listing for Shaima Breshna, listed as a co-author of the cookbook. --Eastmain (talk) 03:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:BIO and possible WP:HOAX. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are plenty of food writers in wikipedia. While I understand that "other stuff exists" is not a rationale, I maintain that based on a Common law approach, precedents and practice must also count. Hence if we remove this article, we should also haunt for all other article about food writers who are not more notable than this. --Ajmalpaghman (talk) 12:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not based upon common law. (Which is good because I don't want to have to get a law degree to edit Wikipedia.) The problem with the "other stuff exists" argument is that it is a subjective comparison, saying that this article is just like those that were kept. It is much preferable to apply an objective standard, such as whether it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. And in this case, the article does not appear to meet that standard, ergo Delete. -- RoninBK T C 14:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the admin closing the debate: please consider whether or not to take into account Ajmalpaghman's opinion here, in view of his recent contributions. Thanks. --Edcolins (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact that this is the user's first article should not be held against them, unless you are accusing them of sockpuppetry. If anything, it is evidence that WP:BITE applies. -- RoninBK T C 02:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can whack me with a trout! You are right! I withdraw my stupid note, and thanks for your vigilance. Cheers --Edcolins (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. (I proded the article.) Fails WP:BIO. The claim that she would have written the cookbook cannot even be verified by other sources. Google book (here) does not mention her as author, but Helen Saberi. --Edcolins (talk) 17:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A country is a country and should have the same status in wikipedia. I mean, if someone is notable in Tuvalu or Burkina Faso for being a local writer or singer (even though those countries have very low population), this is the same as if someone is notable in the US for being a notable writer or singer. True, a US notable singer is known worldwide too, while a Burkina Faso notable singer is probably not known outside. But for wikipedia, I don't think this matters. So, as a writer of Afghan food books (and there are not so many !), she is notable for wikipedia.--Afghanking (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Welcome to Wikipedia! And thanks for your interest and contribution to the debate. The problem is that, as I have mentioned above, the claim that she would have written the book cannot be verified. But, in my opinion, even if it could be verified, the person would still need to be notable, and not all authors of cookbooks can be considered notable. --Edcolins (talk) 20:36, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:10, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willy (whale)[edit]

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

A whale skeleton? How is that notable? Clarityfiend (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so a skeleton could be notable, I'm still going to have to stay with delete for the lack of notability, reliable sources, and the fact that it was stuffed in a warehouse for a few decades. Jd027chat 14:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no independent attribution of notability. While a skeleton certainly can be notable (see Sue (dinosaur)), there is nothing in Google News Archive to indicate this skeleton ever received significant secondary coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hate using words like "nothing" when a single GNHit [17] from this [18] can prove the statement false. -- RoninBK T C 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hey, I can be wrong. I believe I searched on "willy" instead of "whale", which would have found any articles about the naming. --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. unnotable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete My question is why would a whale skeleton be named after a movie that was released only 20 years later? Other than that, seems to be an on-campus oddity only notable within that school. Nate • (chatter) 07:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because according to the university's website, the skeleton spent most of those twenty years boxed up in a warehouse, and only after it was assembled and displayed that it was named. -- RoninBK T C 10:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ahh, didn't understand it at first (and the reasoning was buried in a part of the article I wouldn't normally place it in). Thanks for pointing me to where it came from. Nate • (chatter) 06:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single exhibit in a museum (or in this case, a university) is rarely notable, and this one has not received a lot of attention. Actually, when I saw the title, I was expecting to see an article on Keiko (orca), the whale which actually performed in Free Willy, and this whale caused a bit of a stir when it wound up in a Norwegian fjord at the end of its life. Suggest redirect there afterwards. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable dead baby whale! WWGB (talk) 06:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brianna Denison[edit]

Brianna Denison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Notable only for her disappearance/death. Fails notability under WP:ONEEVENT. This is news, not encyclopedic. Seems like another MWWS case. WWGB (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You will notice, however, that at MWWS#Possible_instances_of_MWWS, missing white women who drew major media coverage are almost always considered notable enough for their own articles. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 01:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sad, but still a one-timer and clearly not notable. Pundit|utter 03:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Maybe a wiki entry can be redone after the case is settle, or future case development. TheAsianGURU (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing to set it apart from other disappearances. GregorB (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She may have been a missing white woman, but she is and was more than a mere syndrome. jengod (talk) 05:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does anyone really care? Lots of other people go missing and get murdered, but only when a rich White girl goes missing do people start caring? DELETE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guitarmasterpwn (talk • contribs) 03:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - this is massive ongoing news in Reno. If we need to rename this Brianna Denison murder or something, to point out that it's the murder, rather than the girl, that is notable, that would be fine. But Brianna's disappearance has been on the front page of every newspaper in town for over a month, has caused the formation of massive search groups, has changed all kinds of policies at University of Nevada, Reno, has inspired the Westboro Baptist Church to come picket her funeral - it's clearly a notable event. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a more appropriate article for "Renopedia"? WWGB (talk) 02:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that anything of major importance to half a million people is notable enough for Wikipedia. There are undoubtedly more Renoites following Denison's case intently than there are people worldwide who have noted half the articles on Wikipedia (articles for single television episodes! articles for obscure collectible card games! articles for each character of animes with a fan base of maybe two thousand English speakers!). Incidentally, the fact that articles like Jennifer Strange routinely survive AfDs while Denison's heads for deletion really does show how utterly broken this process is. --66.214.221.166 (talk) 04:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I created the article - I've attempted to improve the article as much as I could with appropriate citations and I personally believe it's notable enough. --James Bond (talk) 00:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Under Water[edit]

This article only confirms the cast, name, distributor and bla bla bla. No summary is contained within this article resulting in people not being able to learn much about the subject. There was also a "Credits" section in the article but i deleted the section so you know. Mythdon (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep it exists per IMDb but no clear reason why this particular movie is WP:N. Would like to see links to reviews etc. JJL (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of supercouples[edit]

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

A ridiculous article that has no encyclopedic merit at all, it is not based on fact, simply people's opinions Paul75 (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep This is not a case of WP:OR (as I inferred from the nomination). The term "supercouple" is defined in cited sources and in the associated article Supercouple. Article needs revision to more clearly establish importance. Note: I tried to access several online sources cited in the introduction to this article, and this was the only link that worked. --Orlady (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Pretty much a canonical example of original research. Supercouple looks a right mess, too, with lots of references to its examples, but I'm not seeing actual refs to the term itsownself. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. How is this article based on opinion? It's not. As Orlady points out, this is not a case of WP:OR. If the public, media, and critics don't define who is a supercouple, then who will? When it comes to lists on Wikipdedia, this is one of the better ones, considering that most lists on Wikipedia are unreferenced or mostly unreferenced. It's not an opinion which couples are supercouples, but a fact. Just like the Associated Press points out that it is fact that Spider-Man (Peter Parker) and Mary Jane Watson are a supercouple.[19] This list was originally in the Supercouple article to give readers a more in-depth view and history of the many supercouples that have come and gone, or are still present today. That's what this article does, with valid references. It was too big to stay in the Supercouple article and needed its own article. It's not that different than having a List of fictional anti-heroes. Except that this list is better formatted. As for only one reference in the lead working, I'll check on that. The others should work, but two of them may not be able to be viewed anymore due to needing to buy the books to read those two sources online. Other than that, there is no reason that this list shouldn't exist. And the Supercouple article a right mess? Not the mess it was before I got to it. It's not in bad shape at all, and is no worse shape than than the Superhero article. It needs an origin of the term section and some tweaks, but that's about it. But, really, the origin is already stated in the lead. There isn't much more to state than that. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is too broad of a category to exist as a list. For example, the list currently lists Kate from Lost as being a "supercouple" with both Sawyer and Jack. However, she is not "dating" either man. It's more of a sexual tension/love triangle situation. The article also lists platonic couples such as Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert. This section could grow to ridiculous proportions. To cite another "Lost" example. Kate had a platonic relationship with Hurley, Locke, Ben, and every other character on the show who is not a love interest. In other words, this list is an indiscriminate list of information. Lovelac7 03:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Criteria very vague, notability very much in question. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this will tend to be OR due to lack of criteria and RS. Majoreditor (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mixing fictional and non-fictional couples as well as broad inclusion criteria makes this list a mess. JJL (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the reason for such a list to exist.TheBigFish (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list will not get out of hand. Lovelac7 points out that Kate is not dating either of the men Lovelac mentioned. I point out that just because a character is not dating the half of the pair that makes the supercouple doesn't mean that they are any less a supercouple. Secondly, I point out that Kate is not listed as a supercouple with anyone on this list. Those two couples you mentioned in concerns to her are listed as notable couples, not supercouples. Lastly, just the fact that this article might need to be cut down on sections doesn't mean that it should be deleted. It is a well-referenced article, for the most part, and can be managed...just like the List of fictional anti-heroes article is. In fact, this article is managed all the time. There is no original research here (unless you count some of the unreferenced entries in the Comic book section), and I cannot see the point in deleting an article that is well-referenced for the most part, and informative on the years, dates, etc. of supercouples and notable couples that got together, ended, whatever. This is an article that informs readers on the history of supercouples in the way that the Supercouple article cannot. If this list needs to be pared down, then fine. But that doesn't equate to deletion.
  • The criteria for inclusion? The criteria is being listed as a supercouple or cited as a notable couple. This article can easily be cut down to just include soap opera, celebrity, and comic book supercouples, and that's a great criteria, since those areas mention the term Supercouple the most. If this article is deleted, I may make a list like that, as I feel that that would be better justified. Either that, or I suggest a List of fictional supercouples. Not sure about a List of celebrity supercouples, since some would probably feel that that is more subjective. The reason for either type of list to exist? I've explained above. Saying a list about supercouples shouldn't exist is no different than saying a list about various other things shouldn't either. Flyer22 (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. You say that the couples I mentioned above are notable couples, not supercouples. What is the difference? I am unclear on the definition of supercouples and notable couples. Lovelac7 05:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer. A supercouple is a couple that causes much mania and intrigue, like Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer or TomKat. Yes, those couples, are, of course, notable. But the difference between a supercouple and either of the two couples you mentioned in reference to Kate is that those couples, while notable as well, are without all the mania and media fascination or super obsession by the public; they have also not been named supercouples. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you for the clarification. Lovelac7 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The four criteria for inclusion constitute original research and I don't see any way this can be fixed without gutting the list. The only acceptable criterion would be that the people were specifically described as supercouples by a reliable source, which doesn't appear to be the case for most entries. *** Crotalus *** 04:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't feel that the four critera for inclusion is original research at all. And most of the entries are reliable sources, ranging from Soap Opera Digest to Entertainment Weekly, and various other valid sources. If you mean the real-life supercouples, I suppose you mean something other than Hollywood.com, which is still a reliable source either way. Not to mention, most of the celebrity supercouples in this article have valid sources to their entries, other than Hollywood.com. And if the criteria for inclusion is what needs to be fixed concerning this article, I still don't see a valid reason for this article to be deleted. But either way, I came back to this debate to say, "To hell with it". Go ahead and delete it, as it's apparent that it will be anyway. I mean, it's obvious that even a well-sourced list that provides additional, great information can get deleted...while unsourced or mostly unsourced, unkept, bullet-style, and more so trivia lists get to remain. I have other matters that need my attention more so than this, like the Supercouple article, for instance, before someone ups and nominates that again for deletion, as if Supercouples are just something pulled out of air and made up. I won't make any other list of supercouples, and I'm glad that I didn't make this one, even though I kind of did. I've saved the material in this article, just in case it's allowed here one day, or someone else wants to make a supercouple list out of one of the three main types of supercouple genres. I must be psychic as well, because even though I and others who worked on this article with me long saw this deletion debate coming (for reasons I'd rather not voice here), today, in particular, I envisioned it being nominated for deletion. Oh well. Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though I do not think this article is salvageable, some of the information you've worked so hard on is still useful to Wikipedia. I would suggest a much more specific article, like List of soap opera supercouples. However, since there is indeed a difference between a "notable couple" and a "supercouple", you should probably remove all "notable couples" from the list. Stick to sources that specifically say "supercouple", and you should be relatively safe from any original research claims. Lovelac7 05:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought about that, but it might be brought up that a List of soap opera supercouples is redundant...because there's already a Category:Soap opera supercouples, even though a list (well, the type in this article) would inform on years. But I'd point out that while there would be some redundancy with both existing, the list allows for couples to be listed who don't have articles. It's not that some of the couples who don't have articles aren't notable...but rather that not much of an article can be made about them, or they are only notable to the soap opera medium rather than outside press as well. However, I think that there was already a list consisting of soap opera supercouples and it was deleted. Although, it was more so deleted due to being unreferenced and un-maintained, I'm not sure that I want to create another one...even though it would be a better version. Flyer22 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please cite a reason. Lovelac7 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep although the appellation may be somewhat arbitrary, it is nonetheless a real phenomenon in such fictional drama series. Any disagreements on individual couples listed should be handled separately, but the whole page should not be discarded. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It may be a real phenomenon, but the fact that this page mixes fictional and non-fictional characters shows that the topic is way too broad. It would be like making a page called List of food that included not only real-life food, like ice cream and hamburgers, but also fictional foods like Soylent Green and Klingon Gagh. Such broad topics do not do any good and should be deleted. Lovelac7 15:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Which is why it would work as separate lists for the main three types of supercouples...or rather four, if you count comic book supercouples. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep this was part of the Supercouple article that was nominated for deletion but kept. It was broken out only because the article was loading slowly. It's well referenced and there are no couples on it that don't have a reference. KellyAna (talk) 18:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It's not using objective criteria. (Note that I originally forgot the "not"). нмŵוτнτ 19:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hmwith, I'm surprised that you put in a delete "vote". You, just as much as most versed in the knowledge of supercouple topics, understands the existence of this list. And if it's using objective criteria, that's not as much a bad thing. It's the subjective criteria, that would be more so bad. Although, I don't feel that this article is using objective or subjective criteria. It's using (mostly) valid sources. Flyer22 (talk) 19:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, even if I like it, personally, I try not to let my personal biases affect my editing or comments on XfDs. I definitely see the need for a supercouple article, and I see a need for articles on certain actual supercouples. However, the list is unneeded, in my opinion. I've brought up on the talk page some idea of how it could have been fixed, but, I now realize that there is nothing worth keeping, besides maybe a few (5 or so) of the most notable couples mentioned, in prose, in the article. However, that's already done, so no need to keep this article. нмŵוτнτ 23:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I try not to let my personal biases affect my editing or comments either. I disagree with you about this article not being needed. Certain aspects of this article are needed (I'll further address this below). And there is plenty in this article worth keeping. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly broad and original research. AniMate 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and reference better, its only original research if I make the decision, when the tabloids add the moniker, ist verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Not that I care about this article staying anymore, as I've already pointed out, but to state that this article should be deleted because of original research is false. There are many valid sources in this article naming couples as supercouples or notable couples. This article may be deleted for mixing fictional and non-fictional couples, but original research certainly isn't a prominent factor in this debate. Flyer22 (talk) 21:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete To make a more broader statement on why I believe this article is ripe for deletion is whichever way you look at it, this article IS based on personal opinion ONLY - no-one is a supercouple by fact, only by gossip, innuendo and in the case of fiction, by writers. "Supercouple" is a phrase coined by the media, and bandied about to whoever the editor of any magazine wants to throw it at. It is entirely objective - a "supercouple" in an American soap is a "who the hell are they?" to the rest of the world's population. Is the list going to include supercouples from Ukrainian soap operas? If the local newspaper in Scotland calls Fred and Ethel from the local radio programme a supercouple, can they be included? Where does it end? Should every couple in every novel of note be included? Are the Queen and Prince Philip a supercouple? Are couples from last century supercouples? And if so where is the evidence as the term is only a recent invention? This list is non-encylcopedic and entirely subjective as the country the writer lives in will influence their input, resulting in an non-NPOV article, which is against Wikipedia conventions. Paul75 (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You nominated the article, that's you "delete" comment chance. You don't get to keep adding "delete" comments like that. KellyAna (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In response to Paul75, you are completely wrong. This article IS NOT based on personal opinion ONLY or personal opinion whatsoever. Nor is the Supercouple article. You act as though anyone can be deemed a supercouple or is. That is not the case. Yes, couples are supercouples by fact. It's not just "by gossip, innuendo and in the case of fiction, by writers." No, no, and a thousand times...no. It surprises me, really, at times that people miscontrue what a supercouple is. But I'll make it clear again: The public is what makes supercouples. Supercouples are made by the public and media's fascination with a couple beyond normal reason. Writers and gossips magazines don't just name a couple a supercouple and they become one. Although there is criticism over whether Luke Snyder and Noah Mayer deserve the title of supercouple, the public made them a supercouple before they were given the title. The main reason they were even given that title, even though early, is because of the absolute mania they caused. More than one editor or fans have deemed them a supercouple. The public made Tad Martin and Dixie Cooney a supercouple, not the media or critics. They are even written about in books and cited as a supercouple there as well. The public made Jesse Hubbard and Angie Baxter a supercouple, not the media and critics. The media and critics just cited it, as the many valid links in this article as well as the Supercouple article showcases. "Supercouple" is not some new term. "Supercouple" is not solely a phrase coined by the media, and it most certainly is not "bandied about" to whoever the editor of any magazine wants to throw it at. That editor doesn't throw that name at any couple until they are a supercouple first. TomKat became a supercouple due to the public, not just the media's, insane obsession with that couple. They are cited as a supercouple in many valid sources and often. The same for Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. It's not just one source calling them supercouples. It's many sources calling them supercouples. Not all or most fictional couples can be or are titled supercouples, and not all and certainly not most celebrity couples are titled supercouples. And, yes, this article could include supercouples from non-American countries, as it already includes Posh and Becks. But this article will be deleted anyway. If you want to delete this article, as clearly you do, then fine. But don't act as though a supercouple is just something made up in fairy tale land. Because, clearly, that is not the case. Flyer22 (talk) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JJL and TheBigFish. The fact that most of the entries are sourced signifies to me not that having a "list of supercouples" is encyclopedic, but rather that some members of the media use the term "supercouple" indiscriminately. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. And as I just stated above, that is not the case. The couples listed as supercouples in this article can be found cited as supercouples constantly. It is not a matter of every couple being titled a supercouple. Not at all. But oh well. I've mainly stated what I have to state concerning this topic...er debate. I need to go further improve the Supercouple article and other articles on Wikipedia. Fight vandalism. Whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, I take back part of the last sentence. In fact, some of the cited sources don't actually use the word "supercouple", which means that applying the term "supercouple" to the couples in question is original research, which doesn't belong on Wikipedia. It also contradicts the statement in the article that "Each of these examples has been identified by scholars, critics and press as defining a supercouple". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. The couples that are not cited as supercouples in this article are not listed as supercouples. If you notice, they are listed as notable romances/romances often cited as great love stories. Sure, that probably shouldn't be in this article, but I don't see it as misleading or original research...because they aren't listed as supercouples. But again, I don't quite see the point in taking it out now, since this article will obviously be deleted. Flyer22 (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, both Siskel & Ebert and Ebert & Roeper are currently listed in this article. But the citations for them don't describe them as "supercouples", and they certainly don't describe them as notable romances or great love stories. So it's not clear what they are doing in this article at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, well, that's a flaw. Flaws like that in Wikipedia articles can be corrected, of course. But listing those four as supercouples had more to do with the citations showing them as notable duos. Either way, most of the couples listed as supercouples in this article are cited as supercouples in this article. But as I stated below, I'm now more focused on creating a list of fictional supercouples when it comes to a list of supercouple anything. Flyer22 (talk) 02:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although newer, the term is no less well-defined than deus ex machina, the entries are well-sourced, and the parent article has survived an AfD making a "list of" article appropriate for inclusion. —Torc. (Talk.) 06:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As long as Supercouple remains a viable Article, this List of will also remain a viable Article (and no, that is not based on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To those who argue that it should exist because a parent article exists: Why can't the few (5-10) most notable simply be merged into that article, or have a passing mention there? нмŵוτнτ 08:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Supercouple article already does what you suggest, Hmwith. But this article gives a more in-depth look at the history of supercouples. Anyway, I've come back to this debate once again to mostly state that I will be making a List of soap opera supercouples or a List of fictional supercouples, since, as I've stated more than once now, this article will be deleted. I'm still not sure about making a List of celebrity supercouples. You might want to try that one, Hmwith, but I really don't need the stress of people acting as though it's arbitrary and subjective, as if every celebrity couple that comes along is named a supercouple, thus I will stick with focusing on a list of fictional supercouples, if I am going to create any list of supercouples...and I am. The main concern with this article is how it mixes fictional and non-fictional supercouples...because, let's face it, this certainly is not an original research matter. Thus the logical thing to do is to separate them from each other...as in not existing in the same article. Even though, hey, the main four types of supercouples exist in the Supercouple article. But oh well. There you have it, my plans.
  • Also, the Supercouple article will be getting a nice expansion very, very soon, which will consist of an introduction section called Defining a supercouple...and expansion of the Film section, etc., so it's all good. Peace again. Flyer22 (talk) 09:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Well sourced article. Not an OR. Europe22 (talk) 12:54, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Of course reliable sources are arbitrary, they are written by individuals and it is the opinions of these individuals with which we verify. We aren't concerned with so-called facts over everything else. The inclusion criteria are clear and you can debate them on the talk page (the second criterion isn't disputable for a list with this name). You can argue for removing certain entries, and if there aren't enough left to warrant a stand-alone list, then talk about deletion. A split based on the scope issues attacked by the nom would also be an editorial decision. –Pomte 01:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Southeastern Skate Supply[edit]

Southeastern Skate Supply (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to be a notable business. Article was created with the in-progress tag over a week ago, but no improvements have been made to the article. No sources that establish notability are provided in the article, very few people link to their website, and this article is the sole contribution by User:Seskate. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete, G11 Nothing more than an ad masquerading as an article. WP:COI issues don't help the cause either. Blueboy96 02:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails to establish notability per WP:CORP. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on Skates, as it were. Just another company, just another ad. Besides, skates are an endangered fish, and I can't believe these people are supplying them. Utgard Loki (talk) 18:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was - Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:50, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Talarico di Capace[edit]

Grace Talarico di Capace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

At first glance, this article seems to be reasonably well written and sourced (and surprisingly detailed); but if one reads it carefully, one will notice that it never actually manages to say that the subject has ever done anything notable. That's not the main problem, though. I've examined all of the sources cited in the article, save one, and none of them contains a single mention of this woman or her family or any member thereof. (The one I haven't looked at is the vaguely cited "American Society of Portrait Artists." This, however, is used only to establish that the woman once had a portrait painted of herself, which, whether or not it's true, is not enough to write an article around.) Moreover, every one of the 19 unique Google hits for "Grace Talarico di Capace" or "Grazia Talarico di Capace" is WP, a WP mirror, or a link to WP. In short, what we have here is, in the most generous possible interpretation, a mass of unverifiable original research disguised by deceptive references. Deor (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per excellent nom rationale. If it's not a hoax (as the lack of sourcing would lead me to believe), then this person was certainly not notable anyway. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete thanks to well-researched nom. No real demonstration of the notability of the subject is made in the article. Darkspots (talk) 02:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete
  • Hey Deor howz it goin!
  • I became interested in Grace TdC because of the artist J. Zangwell Gilbert. Gilbert is an important Alumni of the American Academy of Art who also shared his time teaching kids about art at O. A. Thorp Academy. Grace's portrait and her bio was listed in the American Society of Portrait artists published in unison with Utrect, a prominent art supply company.
  • She and her family were essential to Pucci's Roman salon during the 60's and she is well talked about in Roma the appendage to that Florentine exhibition book on Pucci. I was super interested in her because she is from a visagoth family, how cool is that !!!, and she was involved with pucci as a teenager, and I am a BIG BIG fan of Pucci! She was also linked to the artist Roulle who I also love!!! This ex-surfer dude is a sucker for anything 60's, Mod, and with water, as you already know, especially Venice- the only city surfin on Water!!!
  • I first created articles on Thorp Academy and Ruolle, and then moved on to this one which isn't fully polished yet. I want to add pics to both this one and the Ruolle one, but checking on copy rights- any who. 1st, anyone intersted in Italian fashion designers will appreciate the additional info contained within the article about the pucci Roman salon- it is also written in a great context to other fashion topics too, like Battistioni which has no info on wikipedia, people into fashion will apperciate that. 2nd, there is a nice tie in to give some Visagoth info as well-which is also useful info for Wikipedia. It is just a great little article that gives some super info about Pucci's Roman salon, and the crucial people that made the important fashions out it- there is additional info to Gina Lollobridgida- it's all worthwhile info. I'll polish it more, Deor, but ya gotta give me a chance to rest now and then, researching is hard work. Any who, kudos to the dude that put up the picture to my Nymphaeun section I wrote on the Villa Barbaro page- Looks great! See if someone can also track down a pic of the Timpietto too! Oh well, great talkin to ya Deor, gotta get a bite to eat, haven't eaten dinner yet! Talk to ya soon Deor, McTMctrain (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice catch by the nominator. The large number of references that don't actually mention the subject strongly indicates a hoax, but even if the informations is correct there's no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 04:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me, "gubbergirl" and "stylestarry" are my daughters, which I told them that if they wanted to voice their opinion about this article- that they would have to create their own account not to be confussed with mine. They are not sock puppets, nor is this a hoax- I am a well documented contributor to wikipedia. Thank youMctrain (talk) 05:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note that the enlistment of meatpuppets is, for all practical purposes, the same as sockpuppetry. —Travistalk 19:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the person who painted her portrait may be notable, but there's no evidence she is. It's a wikimirror farm! Travellingcari (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move and revise DELETE to Talarico di Capace. The material looks more like an overview of a minorly notable family, but completely fails to assert the singular notability of 'Grace'. IF this were all moved to a page for the family, the sourcing and such might meet notability standards, and if not, should be examined for that distinct criteria ('is the talarico di capace family notable enough, in toto, for a page?' ) ThuranX (talk) 19:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. And what sources do you recommend using? Deor (talk) 19:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The article as stands has seven unique sources. Seems something useful can be culled from that. As for the attitude you're throwing around, watching you poke and provoke another editor as you've been doing is quickly looking like a Bad Faith/POINT violation, with a salting of stalking. There's no evidence of sockpuppetry, as he freely admits to the identities of the two other editors, and the closing admin can take that for wahtever it's worth; you still have yet to show that this is a hoax, and not just a non-notable figure. but you sure love dropping those accusations left and right. No clue what your problem with Mctrain is, but it sure reads to me like you're going after him. I recommend you back off fast. ThuranX (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article has no sources that contain information about anyone named Talarico di Capace. And I've said nothing about sockpuppetry or hoaxes. Deor (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In light of the later evidence that there is a long term, wide ranging hoax going on here, I've changed to Delete. ThuranX (talk) 06:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Hoax, as an examination of the evidence shows. And the article creator's argumentative tone seems somewhat familar. --Calton | Talk 11:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The premise of the argument for deletion is based, first and foremost, on an untruth. She is completelty talked about in both sources of Pucci within the "Roma" atelier appendage, with even photos of her and her work, and in the American Society of Portrait Artists. The google search theory of notariety is completely unacceptable for any basis of importance. Go google Messina footwear, you will get nothing, go google Battistoni, you will bearly get anything too, yet I was able to finsd a link and even a reference to it in a well known movie. The very source that was also used in the article stresses how important the Messina footwear alteier is to Milan. Mctrain (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


There is No Rational Argument for Deletion[edit]

It is an excellent fashion related articel that talks about many valid sources of information, It is completely written and cited from the sources given, and it is an article that many people interested in fashion would get a lot out of.Mctrain (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at the 29 results from a google search under "Grace Talarico" was interesting, and there's a realtor in Chicago who, if not a fashion designer, is "the amazing home closer". Whether this is real or not real, it's not a well-constructed article, jumping back and forth between the person and her family, and J. Zangwell Gilbert. I'm wondering now about whether the article on Julian Z. Gilbert (5 ghits) shouldn't be nominated for a review as well. Mandsford (talk) 18:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • yeah, and go google Messina, which gets nothing as well as Caraceni and Battistoni, which would barely get anything too, and go read what Flusser says about those establishments and how important they were, are ,and continuwe to be- I love this "google as standard of importance", theory. Popularity and importance are two differnt things, and it was suppose to be an article talkning about her/her family's importance to Pucci's impact in Roman fashion during the 60's.Mctrain (talk) 19:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, her name is "Talarico di Capace", and not realted to any Talaricos- you would benifit from the article that talks about the difference between the two- further proof of the value of its existence. Mctrain (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are People so Mean Spirited and Quick to Destroy information is only for the good of everyone, the less you have access to , the less you will know about life- period.Mctrain (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I really had enough of this, because the basis of all of this is nothing more than some people's interest in hoaxes, and I don't have time to waste with that any more.Mctrain (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no opinion on the AfD, but I find it personally offensive that the article creator got his children involved in this oh-so-important Internets debate. JuJube (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • They asked if they could post too, is a parent suppose to say no to that- how ridiculous.Mctrain (talk) 21:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. As an aside, I find there to often be a correlation between the number of comments by an article's creator and the lack of notability of its subject. Maxamegalon2000 00:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax, part of the whole Vitus Barbaro hoaxage from last year. Once again resolving to the Chicago area. What a surprise. Corvus cornixtalk 00:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what anyone says, no matter what anyone proves, no matter that the premise of this page is based on a lie(she is fully listed in two sources given), no matter even when evidence is given- hoax garbage starts all over again. There is not a single thing more that I can say that I haven't already said- and let's see if the blood thirsy mob chops the head off of this completely just article. I'll hope for the best"Mctrain (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC) Wow Hah. I just found this in looking through the history of this coordinated hoax: The current legitimate holder of the Albergo branch's titled names is Vitus Sebastian Barbaro (born on July 27, 1973). His father is Sebastiano (born on July 18, 1935). His mother is Baronessa Grazia Talarico di Capace (born on July 2, 1946).. So this whole article and all of the supposed family members, is just one more link in the ridiculous hoax. It makes my wonder why, if "Vitus Sebastian Barbaro" is really a famous Italian prince, this article doesn't mention him or his father? Corvus cornixtalk 01:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

65.141.156.175 (talk · contribs), one of the major contributors to this article, resolves to Chicago, the center of the whole Fenwick High School/Vitus Barbaro/Pugalist Club/Skull and Crescent hoax. Corvus cornixtalk 01:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Wow e Wow What a great find- the case is cracked! I even told Deor that when I started editing this article, that I was interested in the current family and that I knew a little about them, but that I wanted to learn more about the current members. I also know that Vitus worked for the Art Institute of Chicago on the Bruce Goff Exhibition, that I wanted to add, but didn't because Deor said it would fuel hoax rumors, which are here anyways, and I can even cite him in the exhibition catalogue too with an ISBN number, and I also told Deor that Grace was linked to Lucien Ruolle previously, and I worked on the Thorp Academy article because Julian Gilbert was involved with teaching kids there too. You are the only one who want to believe that real people are a hoax. The only hoax is that stupid scared order skull BS where someone put his name into that. Everthing else about the guy and his family is real- and of course there is going to be other people out there writing about him and his family too- it is proof that they are significant, that is surprising to you and constitutes a hoax? I wrote about all of these articles at the same time: lucien ruolle and Grace TdC, and Thorp Academy, and Julian Gilbert etc. because the sources were simliar, and had overlap and because all of theses people and topics are interelated. I have also written about baseball, basketball and other sports at the same time too, because all of those topics are interelated. I have also written about fly fishing, creels, wicker, and bamboo at the same time too because all of those topics are interelated. Pretty logical isn't it, it makes pulling out sources from the library easier when you can use the same ones to write about many similar topics at the same time, but I guess logic here is not in high demand Mctrain (talk) 01:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete as fundamentally unverifiable. Hoax or not is irrelevant, WP:V is the key here. Guy (Help!) 12:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This woman is listed as well as her family in the sources given!!!!! Completely verifiable in the sources given!!!! And this topic is a topic that has been targeted unfairly by Deor from day one based on Deor's untruth at the top of this page. The House of Borghese page is sitting right now, for years, with no references, no citations, has persons of Rod Borghese and Justin listed as a notible person who is not even relatated to the family, and nothing is done about that. But this page and certain others are constantley attacked and scutinized, ENOUGH! This page is perfectly fine and has been unfairly targeted as well as others, such the Julian Gilbert page, that has even been targeted for its pictures, which have even been added by one of his own relatives. ENOUGH, of the stalking and trouble making and lies that have been occuring here. She is completely verifiable in the sources given! Deor started this page with an untruth. He never fully checked a single source, as he said he did, because if he had, she is FULLY listed in two of those sources given. So why should I tolerate all of the talk about a hoax, when it is not a hoax, or talk of being unverifiable, when it is completely verifiable, or talk of irrelevance, when it is completely relavent to the topics of: fashion, and Pucci , and Messina, and Battistoni, and Alaric, and nobility in general, and cinecitta, Gina Lollobridgida and the Roman film industry- it has information pertaining to all of these RELEVANT topics- I am sick of blood thirsty people that all they want to do is destroy, basing an argument on lies- when truth is glossed over, and countless other articles sitting with no sources or citations or even relevance is left alone. This is nothing more than Wikipedia sending an honest article to the gas chambers. And it is the principlae of it all that pisses me off more than anything- a person puts in hard work and time putting together a honest article, and this is how they are treated for it- not a thank you for giving additional knowledge, but rather destruction. I am sick and tired of that!Mctrain (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


This is very telling. Mctrain is behind all of the 65.xxx... anons who originate in Chicago, home of the real estate agent Grace Talarico, the non-notable school boy Vito Albergo aka Vitus Barbaro, and Fenwick High School. Corvus cornixtalk 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This will be one for the books :| Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gas it! Gas that Julian Z. Gilbert one too! We don't need to glorify the likes of him Wikipedia.Cancanit (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC) — Cancanit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete Oh how sweet it is! Say bye bye to this one too! — 65.141.156.67 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

      • Excuse me, This is Mctrain, and I did not write the stupid comments listed above. Why would I vote to destroy something that I am fighting to save. Someone else is posting with a 65 IP, or hacking and labeling with a 65 IP or something, because the two foolish comments above sure isn't me. I was told that a 65 IP is a general IP used for central time-zone services, but I have no clue- nor do I care. I also stand by my decision to no longer be editing on Wikipedia- someone left a message for me on my talk page to re-write the article and post it to be checked- why should I do that. I wrote a perfectly fine article- with perfectly fine sourced material that can all be checked. I will not do additional work based on the premise on a lie, or based on some false accusations of someone else' 65 IP's or whatever. I am Mctrain and no one else. So as I said before goodbye, and goodbye means goodbye- I do not put up with false accusations or stupidity, and if someone is playing games with 65IP's they can go to hell too, because it seems like they have caused enough damage around here.Mctrain (talk) 15:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also have one last thing to say. I just noticed that there is someone claiming to post from the Chicago Public Library on the O.A. Thorp Scholastic Acadmey talk page. That was not me, nor did I add that buglow source, but I just checked the book out at Barnes and Noble just now, and the source is legit, you can verify for yourself at the store, there is an old black and white photo of the school and talk about it's namesake Ole A Thorp- so that is an OK source that can stay, and that 65 poster seems to be legit too. But I suspect you have a hacker at play here for some time. I use a Midwest internet service that posts with a 65 IP- you should check into possible hacking situations- it seems like 65IP's all pertain to the Midwest- and someone must known that.Mctrain (talk) 16:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete full of unsourced statements, with no references to verify them. Only verifiable sources are for for statements not related to the topic the article tries to illustrate --Enric Naval (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The Short-Timers. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 02:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James T. "Joker" Davis[edit]

James T. "Joker" Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Has only appeared in one film, the article contains only information that is already in the film's article.--The Dominator (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing though, should it redirect to the book or the film? The character's name is the same although the names of the work are completely different, I suppose the book came first, but there's much more information on the character in the film article.The Dominator (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suggested the book because the movie was based on the book and the book came first........but if there's more info on him in the movie then maybe the movie.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps a disambiguation page would be appropriate? TheBigFish (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A whole seperate dab page on a barely notable character pointing readers to info on him in a book and a movie would be inappropoate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah, I don't think a disambig is appropriate as there is only one meaning for the term, what would it look like?

"James T. "Joker" Davis can refer to:

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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Starbucks Beverages[edit]

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

Advertising-like commercial information lacking notability. Wikipedia is not a directory, a how-to guide, nor a repository of restaurant menus. Orlady (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment User:Orlady did try speedying it, and I declined on the basis that it didn't seem blatant enough for a G11 speedy. Indeed, there are quite a few other comparable articles on Wikipedia that nobody seems to have problems with (see, for example, Ben & Jerry's flavors - not that I'm pulling a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but I don't think it can be reasonably argued that any article that lists a company's product is necessarily blatant advertising). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification: I am not the one who requested speedy deletion of this article. It was Dendodge who requested speedy deletion. About half an hour after you declined speedy deletion, I saw the article in Special:Newpages, reviewed the history, and decided it was a candidate for AfD. --Orlady (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in the current state the article is in substub form, and the urging need for having the topic covered has not been established (although I'd say that hypothetically, a good article on Starbucks coffees would perhaps be more considerable to be kept). Pundit|utter 01:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not a menu. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above comments. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A textbook vio of WP:DIRECTORY. WP:DIRECTORY: "[Wikipedia articles are not:] Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business." Jd027chat 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if expanded. if the place is notable enough, its menu can be important. As the various things available there are typically referred to not just individually, but as a class of culturally significant objects, I think this could be a possible article. Compare McDonald's products (international) and the many similar aticlesDGG (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a directory. I can see a notable beverage listed on the main page, similar to how Big Mac revolutionized McDonald's line-up, but Starbucks has none of that outside of... coffee. In comparison, the Big Mac has history, specialized drinks rarely, if ever, do. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Gary King (talk) 09:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, advertising listcruft. This is not an encyclopedic list. What's next - List of KFC meals??? EJF (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, It's blatant advertising. Starbucks sells this, this and this. It's like a TV ad. Wikipedia is not a restaurant directory. If we kept a copy of every restaurant menu in the world Wikipedia's webspace would be used up in a year! Thanks, George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp and assistance 00:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps a list like this might have potential per DGG (McDonalds and Burger King have reasonably well developed articles about their products), but when in the current state, the article is not useful to the readers. It is basically saying that a coffee shop chain sells four common types of coffee, and that was fairly obvious. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Axl (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per most of the above. Sorry DGG. Many re-create later under a different title. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if there's no room in the main article for this then there's no room on Wikipedia for it. This is not an encyclopedic topic. Perhaps in 50 years, when Starbucks has become an entirely different business, there will be some historical interest in what products they used to sell. But right now, this is free advertisement for the chain. Pichpich (talk) 00:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:43, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Young Merc[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. According to the only reference, artist has not released any albums to date. Barely meets stub requirements. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:BLP and WP:SNOW. Nick Dowling (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UFC Champions Drug Abuse List[edit]

UFC Champions Drug Abuse List (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced list claiming drug abuse of living people. I know most of these could be sourced, I believe this topic could be better handled on each person listed here's own article. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 00:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a list like this needs meticulous sourcing, per WP:BLP. This article does not have that. Aside from that, I agree with the nominator that this information, even when sourced, would probably be better served on each individual athlete's biography page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete, I found it interesting, but the list is just asking for a lawsuit. If the list had citations for each entry I would say keep, because banned substances in mixed martial arts is a hot topic — but the list contains no citations and these are living people so I think WP:BLP applies. Of the 9 people that appear on the list, I did see mention of the drugs on the articles Josh Barnett (no citation), Tim Sylvia[20], Vitor Belfort (URLs down), Sean Sherk[21], and Ricco Rodriguez[22]. Those citations could be added to the list, but the title of the article is not quite neutral and limiting it to UFC champions is kind of arbitrary. The list does not specify if the fighter was taking the drug when they won the title so it's misleading. Looking at the article history, it looks like the article is a magnet for speculation. If the page is meant to disparage these people, it could even be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G10. --Pixelface (talk) 01:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete yes there's smoke [23] but the claims of fire here need reliable sources to back them up due to WP:BLP concerns. JJL (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge sourced info into criticism section in Ultimate Fighting Championship. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BLP (technically the article should be blanked since BLP violations should be deleted right away). TJ Spyke 02:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted. -- Longhair\talk 06:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hippo Works[edit]

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

The cartoon may be notable (but it doesn't have an article so there's no place to merge) but there's no evidence that the website meets WP:WEB Travellingcari (talk) 20:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was - DeleteChrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janice N. Wittschiebe[edit]

Janice N. Wittschiebe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail WP:Notability. I speedied this a while back then withdrew. On a second look, although the subject of the article is the "first female President of the Georgia Tech Alumni Association, and was a member of the Georgia Tech Foundation Board," I'm not sure that either of these organizations positions convey enough notability in themselves to allow Janice Wittschiebe to qualify for the "first xxx person" clause in WP:Notability Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. IMO, both the Alumni Association and the Foundation are notable organizations (and therefore leading them contributes nontrivial notability); the former was established in the 1910s and plays a huge role on and off campus, and the latter manages hundreds of millions of dollars. Also, as far as I can tell, she's the "principal" of a local architecture firm. I'd compare that to being the CEO of a small to medium-sized company. I'll agree that this is isn't a clear-cut case of notability, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Hmmm. . .are alumni associations and school foundations notable independently of the schools they belong to? I don't think so, although I may have overlooked a section in WP:N that indicates otherwise. Also, it's not clear that the architecture firm she is associated with is notable; as you have said, it is a "local" architecture firm. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And by the way, I'm the primary editor of the article. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 14:47, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indicators of notability attributable to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:56, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither position is the least notable. Being the president the university would be, but not of the Alumni Association DGG (talk) 01:29, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No coverage in independant sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Needs more references. Gary King (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "Sources" are not important. The problem is that this is not a biography, and yet it wants to be one. It is also not one to offer a rationale for the importance of the person. If the firm is significant, then the firm will say, "Led by Janice Wittschiebe," and that's that. You do NOT offer up a biography and just say, "Heads company X." That's an accomplishment, not a life. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete If anyone is interested in a transwiki to an appropriate place, please ask for the contents on my talkpage. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linux for translators[edit]

Linux for translators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be contrary to WP:Not, specifically WP:NOT#MANUAL and maybe other contraindications within WP:Not, possibly including WP:Original research. I'm not a computer software expert, but the language, layout, and purpose of this page seem highly unencyclopedic. It would be great if some linux experts could weigh in on this. Pgagnon999 (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment A little digging turned up this User talk:Letconex#Welcome to Wikipedia. But...; it looks like the original editor had his/her talk page prodded & simply cut and pasted moved the prodded talk page material into a new article, Linux for translators.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 19:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a Linux expert. It's not original research, and it's a genuinely useful article. Just not sure if it's a legitimate encyclopaedia entry. jamesgibbon 21:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Perhaps it can be merged into another linux article then, or distillted, then merged. Any suggestions?--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I think the article can be retained. However, only certain entries should be included (e.g. software that are just translators, not just any software with a built-in dictionary) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenchou0722 (talk • contribs) 02:21, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stephenchou0722, can you be specific about why you think the article should be retained? --Pgagnon999 (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider transwiki to Wikibooks or another similar wiki where the content might be more appropriate. *** Crotalus *** 04:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per the nomination, this article is a self-confessed manual: "These pages are intended primarily for any translators who are using Linux in their day-to-day work..." If there is an appropriate venue for transwiki, then that should certainly be done, as the usefulness of the page can't be disputed. Unfortunately, it doesn't belong here. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete: Merge or create article at Transwiki or other approperiate wiki, and delete this article, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the information is sufficient for an article. Gary King (talk) 09:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a manual, also fails WP:NOT because it's a directory of resources, also fails WP:EL because it's a disguised external link directory. Also, the info on those items is already on wiki articles for each topic, like Skype Open Office, etc. It could be reworked to a wikilink list, but then it would be still be a director with no encyclopaedic content. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia is not a /man page, and Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. ChetblongT C 01:44, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen Borgman[edit]

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

I'm sure he was a very nice man, albeit an utterly non-notable one. I do believe every one of those hits is a Wiki mirror farm Travellingcari (talk) 18:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, fails WP:BIO. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while it certainly seems from the article as though this guy did a ton of stuff, he never did anything really substantial. His main claim to notability is that he was a postmaster, which isn't exactly an uncommon position, seeing as how there is one for every individual post office. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable, per nom. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Gary King (talk) 09:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. The related article on Charles B. Gregg should probably be deleted as well.BWH76 (talk) 09:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done actually tagged it for speedy since that one doesn't even assert any notability Travellingcari (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete--Tone 14:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Allar[edit]

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

Allar is non-notable actor who had very minor role in the series Prison Break and he appeared in only four episodes. According to his IMDB page, he has not had any major roles in films or tv shows. Reverend X (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep (and cleanup), tagged as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Construction foreman[edit]

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

Dicdef with a side of OR. It essentially exists as the 1. def on Wiktionary for foreman. Travellingcari (talk) 18:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep notable topic, weak article. Needs more on how they are trained/selected/employed etc. but it's appropriate to have such an article. JJL (talk) 04:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep stub that can be expanded and sourced. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. It's more than a simple definition, and the bits that could be read as OR could be easily re-written and referenced. Hersfold (t/a/c) 05:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Would be nice to see it expanded. Gary King (talk) 09:52, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It is a dictionary definition with the addition of incorrect information. I.e. the only way to "expand" it is to add specifics, as has been done here, that will apply solely to one nation or state or market. This is why we don't have articles on "maintenance engineer" and "marketing director" and the like. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Transwiki. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it is only a stub, but a legitimate one. We also need an article on foreman, covering the lowest level of management in industry. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. -- Longhair\talk 06:27, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Seyss-Inquart[edit]

Arthur Seyss-Inquart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insignificant figure. Relatively unknown Spainhereicome (talk) 04:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:43, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Chop Tops[edit]

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

Not sufficiently notable for inclusion, even if this isn't a speedy. Addhoc (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete no evidence that this meets WP:MUSIC.Keep per Shoessss below: meets WP:N. скоморохъ 14:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Looks like an unsigned band or a vanity pressing. Probably fun music, definitely not encyclopedic. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I originally tagged article as CSD). Only point of note is winning competition. Every town in the western world has its own battle of the bands; this doesn't mean that every winner is notable and therefore needs an article. Fails WP:MUSIC on all counts, as far as I can see. Oli Filth(talk) 18:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Found several reliable – credible - secondary sources here [24]. If you notice they include San Francisco Chronicle and the Times-Standard just in the first few cites. Shoessss |  Chat  00:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, based mostly on this, which notes that they opened for Brian Setzer's comeback tour (he's very notable). I'm not finding a source at the moment that says that was a national tour, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't, meaning they'd meet WP:MUSIC. In any case, Shoessss has pointed out multiple non-trivial references to them in reliable sources, so keep on that basis. Tuf-Kat (talk) 00:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_February_17&oldid=1116721394"