Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 February 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 27 February 29 >

Purge server cache


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

The result was keep on procedural grounds. I'm interpreting the nominator's removal of the AfD notice, ten minutes after adding it, as a withdrawal of the nomination. If that is incorrect and the nominator still wants it deleted after seeing Bm gub's comment, a new AfD may be started. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picnic, Lightning[edit]

Picnic, Lightning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable collection of poems. Although the author of this collection of poetry himself appears to be highly notable, and I'm certainly not disputing that, wikipedia policy states that notability is not inherited so this article needs to provide sources to show that it is notable on its own, which it does not Tx17777 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep He had only written four mainstream books at the time he was named Laureate; it sold 50,000 copies (http://www.nytimes.com/library/books/121999collins-publish-war.html), almost unheard of for a book of poetry; it was widely reviewed and discussed (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9402EFDE153BF93BA25752C1A9679C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1); it gets 3,000 ghits. I will edit the article to reflect this. Bm gub (talk) 02:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, um? Did the nominator delete the AFD notice? Bm gub (talk) 02:40, 29 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 21:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bellywashers[edit]

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

Fails WP:PRODUCT. It has already been Prodded per same reason, but creator removed the tag. Victao lopes (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only notability of product is getting parents to pay $3 for 12 ounces of juice because the bottle is in the shape of Cartoon Network characters. Without that deal it's just another juice drink. Nate • (chatter) 02:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was the "PRODer" of this unsourced article about this non notable juice drink made by a non-notable company. I think that about sums it up Beeblbrox (talk) 16:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not establish notability via refs. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, considering Pgagnon999's arguments. Nousernamesleftcopper, not wood 03:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Company[edit]

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

Original research Ros0709 (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the above feedback the entry has been rewritten to include references which demonstrate that the entry is not original research. The community company business model was first developed in the 1970's in Devon, England and implemented in many real live businesses. The structure and principles of the community company business model were formally presented in papers in 1977, 1983 and 1996. Various academic and other research into how the community company works were also carried out. The entry is an attampt to summarise this.Nicholas 00:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasJMoore (talk • contribs)
  • Comment Although it is difficult to evaluate the print references you provided, I think it is important to WP:Assume good faith and believe that they do indeed refer to this model. However, I think it would be important to determine if this is a model that received significant enough notability in the '70s and '80s as well as a legacy of inherited notability that makes it important today and not just a vague artifact. If it is an artifact, the material might be moved to a broader article about the subject matter. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 05:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Unless the new sources can be shown to be false I see no particular reason for deletion (although the article needs more work). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 20:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Stick Man[edit]

Super Stick Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I wish there were a speedy category for this but it doesn't look like there is (although the email address may make db-spam appropriate [address now removed]); the prod was removed by the author. Unencyclopedic article about an aparrently unpublished comic for which no references were found and none are offered. I think I might be being a bit fierce towards some enthusiastic kids, but the article, regrettably, has no place here. Ros0709 (talk) 23:08, 28 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 and redirect. Let me explain: many keep arguments were based on assumption that an executive of some notable organisation is automatically notable, which fails to comply with WP:BIO#Basic criteria that requires independent sources. Also, third-party sources are required by WP:V and WP:BLP, and the article has none of them. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Shell[edit]

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

Appears to not meet our current notability standards. Having reviewed the recent AFD of another Wikipedia volunteer staffer, I came across this article. Appears to be an executive of a company of minor notability Bomis (removing Wikipedia from the equation limits their notability substantially), that provided initial seed money and hosting for Wikipedia. Which is makes Bomis arguably notable, but not this individual. Searching for him under relevant bits turns up extremely minimal independent sourcing. WP:BLP1E also likely applies, as this private individual only appears to have attracted some extremely minimal news attention in passing because the company he was a figure at did at one point support Wikipedia in it's early days. Independently, I see no indication that he meets WP:BIO. Relevant searches: Tim Shell & Wikipedia; Tim Shell & Bomis; Tim Shell & Wikipedia. Delete per failing WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Note: in previous deletion discussions, the argument was advanced incorrectly that a connection to Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation "enhances" notability somehow. It simply does not, and is not part of any notability guideline I have seen on this website. Lawrence § t/e 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. There were a total of four !votes previously, and the article is practically speedy-able as there is insufficient sourcing. This is a valid AFD. We have no evidence of notability or compliance with WP:BIO. Lawrence § t/e 19:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't a month generally considered to be the reasonable minimum time period between AfDs? Guest9999 (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I thought. Lawrence § t/e 19:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The timeline isn't as important, persay, as the result of the prior noms. Seeing as how both prior AfDs resulted in "Non consensus" with a minimal draw of editors, I agree this is a good faith nom. One month seems to be ample time to allow for improvements to the article. That being said, this article is drawing the attention of people and motivating them enough to continue to nominate it for deletion, which of course begs the question: has anyone attempted to improve the article between now and the last AfD, and closely related, is it improvable? General questions, not aimed at any editor in particular. Abstaining from a !vote here (I haven't even looked at the article, how could I know?) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The first AfD for the article took place over two years ago, since then no independent sources have been added. Currently of the three sources used in the article two are from the subjects personal website and one is an internal company document that names him as a trustee. Independently produced, reliable sources are required to establish the notability of a subject, I do not think that such sources exist to support this article. Guest9999 (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge/redirect to Bomis. He doesn't meet WP:BIO and any relevant information can be mentioned at the Bomis article. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bomis. No notability outside of Wikipedia history, but substantial notability in that history. Deleting would create a large number of redlinks; redirecting preserves the main bits of information. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see an advantage in deletion rather than redirecting? It would seem that we should modify the template anyways if we make this a redirect since Bomis is on the template, but I don't see any advantage in outright deletion. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That idea has theoretical merit; lets see how consensus forms. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just because other similar material exists (links to essay) it doesn't mean that this article or even those articles meet with the current policies and guidelines. Consensus can change and every article should be judged on its own merits. In this case the comparison made seems dubious, the article on Jimmy Wales has over fifty references and the one on Larry Sanger has almost double that - many from reliable, independent sources. There may be some questions over the other articles mentioned but that should not be relevent to this discussion. If the article was about any buissness person not related to Wikipedia which was referenced entirely by their personal website and internal company documents it would be deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 14:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed what I say. Where are the multiple, independent sources that assert or show his notability? Current or former status or involvement with Wikipedia has no extra value in and of itself in establishing notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Bomis per the points I made in my prior nomination. Picaroon (t) 00:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bomis is a significant internet company regardless of its relationship to us, and therefore its CEO is notable. DGG (talk) 16:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the independent coverage for this person? Notability for a private individual of a borderline notable company is not a sufficient demonstration of notability. Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Bomis. Company is notable, but not true of the CEO independently, which can be amply covered at the company's main article. Eusebeus (talk) 17:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable CEO of a notable firm who played a key role at a major not-for-profit company that is responsible for the largest, fastest-growing and most popular general reference work currently available on the Internet. Alansohn (talk) 03:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His past service to Wikipedia/WMF is irrelevant to notability; we don't reward service here with articles ever. How is "Tim Shell" notable? Lawrence § t/e 14:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect There seem to be some confusion about the use of the word "notable". Notability and fame might be considered synonyms by some, but in wikipedia policies the words have very different meanings. From Wikipedia:Notability: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. Note WP:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."" The crucial question is not if we think he is important, it is if we think that we can find "substantial coverage in reliable sources". Since the article has been up for quite some time and there is still not a single proper reference (just 2 links to his personal website and 1 link to a document he signed), my conclusion is that there seem to be no such sources. If reliable sources are found I'd be happy to change my mind. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge→Wikimedia Foundation: from a brief search and looking at the spare article as it stands, Mr. Shell's notability rests upon his relationship to Bomis and, subsequently, Wikimedia/Wikipedia. I have not come across mentions of Mr. Shell which are not in connection to one or both of these organizations. Also, as for reliable sources, these are hard to come by; consider adding http://features.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/18/164213&from=rss, which is on the borderline of reliability ... at least it is not a self-published website. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't this be an identical argument for merging Jimmy Wales, an individual for whom it would be nearly impossible to find a source that doesn't mention Wikipedia? After all, doesn't Mr. Wales' notability rest exclusively on Wikipedia? Alansohn (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the first half of Ceyockek's argument is weak, it doesn't matter if a person is famous for just a single thing. What does matter (and what Ceyockek also mentions) is reliable sources. The Jimmy Wales article has plenty and the Tim Shell has not a single one. No sources=no article, that's basic Wikipedia policy (WP:PROVEIT). Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 05:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think there is a significant difference in the scope of activities of Wales vs. Shell. Trying to say that Wales is associated with a single thing is denying the obvious. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, should have been deleted long ago; and would have, I suspect, if not for a certain vain assumption that all Wikipedia-related execs are notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:33, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note For the folks implying that notability is inherited for CEOs, is it really? Doubtful. Bomis is only really notable for helping Wikipedia once. Add in that we have literally no real independent coverage of Tim Shell, how does Wikipedia or readers benefit from a perma-stub about a non-notable fellow from a company that is almost never in the news? Past service to Wikipedia is not rewarded with an article. Lawrence § t/e 14:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as stubified per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 17:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, not valid or applicable. No sources appear to exist that we can use to expand this. Shell gets no ongoing coverage. Lawrence § t/e 17:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making Waves Educational Program[edit]

Making Waves Educational Program (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete no indication that this organization is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 28 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 WP:CSD#A7(bio)/ article does not assert any significance or importance of the subject. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Conover[edit]

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

Managing editor of a newspaper in Paducah, Kentucky. Doesn't appear to have done anything notable or been recognized for anything notable. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:20, 28 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 00:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time-Domain Thermoreflectance[edit]

Time-Domain Thermoreflectance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another instance of someone uploading their college paper onto Wikipedia. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 22:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per nom. Keep I missed the refs first time around. Serves me right for procrastinating papers by using wikipedia. RogueNinjatalk 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hang on, this is not for speedy deletion. I reads like sound science and it has references. How do you know it is a college paper? That, on its own, is not a reason for deletion. Is it notable? I suggest asking some of the science projects for input. Maybe it overlaps with other articles and should be merged. Maybe it should be kept. It should not be deleted without further attention. --Bduke (talk) 00:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A small amount of googling [1] reveals 52 mentions in scholarly sources so the topic is more than a "college paper", and from following one of the links the origins of it seem to go back to 1986 (shame the article's refs don't but early days). It seems to be mainly a current interest of very few research groups though and I suspect the authors of this article belong to one of them so WP:NPOV is of concern, but that alone is not a reason to delete when it's only 3 days old. Related to Thermal conductivity#Measurement but there's already enough here that merging it there would unbalance the coverage of that article and this is at a much higher technical level. Qwfp (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems to be a notable technique, with multiple mentions in journals and books. The article just needs some cleanup and wikification. --Itub (talk) 10:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article could be cleaned up, but it definitely serves a purpose and should be kept. Jgebis (talk) 16:00, 29 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 Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Estrella Falls[edit]

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

I'm aware of the general controversy/debate about the notability of malls but this one won't even open for another two years. No evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 22:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fact that it won't open for a while seems to be immaterial. I did find this and this which seem to be decent sources. Also, given the sheer size of the mall (it's not just a mall actually; there will be residential space and a hotel), it's very likely to be even more notable when it opens. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might have notability in the future. Right now, it does not. RogueNinjatalk 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This appears to be the subject of secondary sources and not WP:CRYSTAL as it is verified. --Oakshade (talk) 01:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If it opens, it can be considered for an article. That its opening has been delayed until two years hence suggests that it may never open. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems to have satisfied the "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" portion of WP:N. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Great job in rescuing a potential article. Bearian (talk) 20:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture[edit]

Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Extremely inappropriate, pure fancruft and WP:Trivia that has no notability on its own. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete in popular culture This is nothing but a big laundry list of mostly trivial mentions of Xena. The only "sources" are individual episodes of whatever show happened to mention her. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No deleteCan stopping, has nothing illegal in Article Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture, there is this type of page to other series because I can not stay? This is not just! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brazil 23 (talk • contribs) 00:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of this to the main Xena article. I can understand Brazil 23's complaint that it's not fair that other series seem to have this type of page, but this type of "in popular culture" article is discouraged. As X-lb. says, it's mostly a list of occasions where Xena was mentioned on another television show. If you want a real article about Xena in popular culture, write about how she inspired girls of all ages and was popular with viewers regardless of gender. Mandsford (talk) 02:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To note: a much smaller version of this was part of the Xena article and removed because it was still just a trivia list and no one wanted to actually do the discussion of how the series affected the popular discussion. Collectonian (talk) 02:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that ther are other similarly trivial "this guy said pop culture thing" articles is not an excuse to keep this article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - indiscriminate listing and directory of things that have no relationship whatsoever to each other beyond happening to reference Xena in some way. "This one time on TV somebody said Xena" does not form th basis of an encyclopedic article. Otto4711 (talk) 02:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keep good work Addhoc, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles et al.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Maybe you should actually read WP:TRIVIA and see what it says, since it very explicitly does not include criteria for removal, as you seem to believe it does. EDIT Thank you. --NickPenguin(contribs) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this appropriate, discriminate, and encyclopedic article. The topic has attracted serious scholarly attention. For example, see Kim Tolley, "Xena, Warrior Princess, or Judith, Sexual Warrior? The Search for a Liberating Image of Women's Power in Popular Culture" History of Education Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 337-342 and Tough Girls: Women Warriors and Wonder Women in Popular Culture by Sherrie Inness. The way the article is presented should simply be improved upon based on these sources and others, but the topic of Xena in popular culture from an academic standpoint is certainly a worthy one to be developed. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - If you remove all of the trivia, and write a decent scholarly paragraph based on those citations, then I'll consider changing my opinion. Addhoc (talk) 00:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I started to do so, but my brother is here now, so I'll have to resume the effort in a few hours. Feel free to see if you can do anything with the sources until I come back. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if you want to write a decent scholarly paragraph, I still think this should be deleted, but the paragraph, with the sources, would be welcome in the main article. Collectonian (talk) 00:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My brother could only stay for a few minutes. Actually, it looks like Addhoc has already taken that initiative. Kudos to him! Anyway, another source that we can possibly use for further revisions is Michelle Erica Green's "Xenademia: The Warrior Princess Goes To College", which seems to place the topic in some context as well. I'm not sure what to make of this one though. Another one that I'll see what I can do with is Frustrating Female Heroism: Mixed Messages in Xena, Nikita, and Buffy. By: MAGOULICK, MARY. Journal of Popular Culture, Oct2006, Vol. 39 Issue 5, p729-755, 27p; DOI: 10.1111/j. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 01:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Transwiki'd, poorly. -LtNOWIS (talk) 23:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequately sourced and demonstrably notable. If it weren't for the phrase in popular culture in the title this would be a speedy keep. DurovaCharge! 02:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looks well-sourced to me. I can't see any policies it violates. --Pixelface (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Another barely-disguised WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. WP:TRIVIA does not in any way advocate the deletion of "popular culture" lists or articles, and in fact explicitly excludes them when focused, organized, and sourced. It's bad enough to wikilawyer policy, but it's utterly audacious to pretend that policy supports what you're saying when it doesn't.--Father Goose (talk) 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You really need to work on WP:CIVILITY. And, FYI, the article has been dramatically changed since the nomination. Collectonian (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest a toned-down approach here? The page is tagged for rescue and the rescue crew did a very good job. DurovaCharge! 03:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize for the strenuousness of my comments; I will redact portions of it. However, given that the improvements you mention have not prompted you to withdraw the nomination, my points remain the same.--Father Goose (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really...please note above that I suggested that with the improvements, it could be better served by being merged into the main article, as I do not feel it meets WP:N on its own. Collectonian (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact that there is a dwarf planet named after Xena makes it worth keeping. I don't think this article is "trivial" in the least. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in its current form. The previous version was correctly tagged for deletion, but after the rewrite, it actually looks like an encyclopedia article--and a decent one too. Now, if you will allow me to mount my soabox.... WP:TRIVIA is complete bullshit. It's muddled, watered-down, contradictory and confusing and was based on a very weak consensus at best. Whoever labeled this poorly formulated mish-mash of deletionist and inclusionist suggestions a "guideline" was joking, I'm sure. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect Since it has been completely rewritten (is there anything left from the former version)? I see it is basically a copy (or original?) of Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence, so I'd also strongly consider redirecting there. – sgeureka t•c 07:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect back to Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence; whomever is trying to "rescue" this title by copy-pasting; note the refs with "Retrieved on" dates (oldid) from years before this article was created. Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand what's being described here.--Father Goose (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The version on this article nominated looks nothing like the current version; it the current version does, however, look an awful lot like a section of Xena: Warrior Princess#Influence i.e. copy-pasted, including the refs with old dates. I've opined delete and redirect which I know is quite unusual; in this case the contrib history that would be lost actually exists in the redirect target I suggest. In short, this was a bogus "rescue" — such gaming of the system should not be rewarded with a keep. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you are assuming bad faith. I did the removal of the trivia, plus copy and paste. I haven't 'voted' keep, in fact I suggested delete. I'm not part of the WP:RESCUE project. In my humble opinion, the title isn't a plausible redirect, and I don't begin to understand why you think I should care about keeping the contribution history. What I did was merge the influence section of Xena: Warrior Princess with this article, and then merged the resulting text into Xena in order to improve the article. Addhoc (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't look at the details such as who did what, and I didn't see the copy in the Xena article. I agree that the title is not a good title for a redirect (are there many inbound links?). The history I was referring to was history, in this article, that I didn't see as needing keeping as it existed in whichever article it was copied from. What I'm now concerned about is that this is all being covered three times now and I feel once is plenty.How about once in one of the other two, and call it good? Please excuse any impression of bad faith. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very fair point. I've summarized the "Influence" sections in Xena and Xena: Warrior Princess and added a pointer in each to Xena: Warrior Princess in popular culture. I've shuttled the Sexuality section to the Xena (character) article only. And I've restored, sorted, and copyedited the list of popular references from the other two articles that were recently clipped, as they are appropriate for a stand-alone IPC article.--Father Goose (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - way more notable (with indep refs) than many pop culture articles. Nice small influence bit on original article and bigger on daughter article. Nice save Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Le Grande Roi's excellent efforts. McJeff (talk) 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm stuck on another project for the next day or so, but a quick scan of Google scholar gave stacks of useful references - enough so that I'd probably enjoy helping develop this article if it is survives AfD. Xena had a large impact on popular culture (in much the same way that Buffy did after it), and there is a wealth of academic material to draw upon. - Bilby (talk) 08:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 21:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crow face[edit]

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

AfD'd for another user. Article apparently is WP:OR. I have no opinion on it, just listing per a private request. ScarianCall me Pat 21:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - per it being an orphaned article and being full of original research. This part may be my own POV, but this article is ridiculous and is not even true. Not to mention it's really short. Did I mention it's not true? Sounds like someone made it up and then a few others added stuff in thinking it was a real term. Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 01:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:22, 29 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 20:29, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Theatre Company[edit]

Signature Theatre Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Theatre company with no evidence of notability (speedy replaced by prod by admin to allow time for author to give evidence of notability, prod then removed)  —  Tivedshambo  (t|c) 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless notability evidence, pursuiant to WP:N and WP:CORP can be provided. I see no evidence of that yet. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the admin that denied the speedy and put up the prod. Since this shows no evidence yet of notability, I am voting delete for now. If that evidence materializes in the next 5 days, I will change my vote. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, probably. I see some trace of notability but it's hard to get past all the PR/ad stuff to be sure. Mangoe (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pork Stories[edit]

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

Contested prod. Web collection of stories, published in 2008, of questionable notability. A google search on "Pork Stories" with "Fratire" returns just two hits. Roleplayer (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Some of the sources in the article do not seem to mention the subject at all, and do nothing to help notability. The Huffington Post articles Misogyny For Sale: The New "Frat-Lit" Trend [2] and Pass the Beer: In Defense of "Fratire" [3] have no mention whatsoever of the website, just "fratire" in general. Neither does the FT article The return of the real man do so [4] (a glance at that article indicated the subject to be something entirely unrelated). My attempts to search for any substantial coverage about the website have been fruitless. The website does not pass WP:WEB at all, not even by a long shot, and adding sources which do not verify the subject of the article does not help either. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Despite the protestations of two users on the talk page (who obviously aren't the same person or related to the site at all), one of which claiming that it gets thousands of hits a day, Alexa suggests it has a rank of 11,528,221. Which is ten and a half million worse (lower? higher?) than a forum I frequent with just ten active users, and ~5 posts a day. Blatantly not notable. Dreaded Walrus t c 08:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah this is pretty clearly spam/vandalism. 66.215.247.21 (talk) 00:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of divided nations[edit]

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

This list makes no sense. The first bit is not a list of divided nations: it's a list of divided ethnic groups. Division of ethnic groups is perfectly natural: are we saying all ethnic groups should be confined to the same region? Second section is a POV minefield, nationalist edit-warrior's paradise, and makes little sense either: "divided nations" are not nations any more, are they? The term is an oxymoron. So what's India doing here? Modern India is not a "divided nation": at least, almost nobody thinks of it in that way. Third section seems irrelevant, and the fourth bit is is true but of limited utility. Moreschi (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no way to define the term in a non-OR way, no way to avoid it becoming POV and no way avoiding the article becoming a never-ending edit-war battleground. --Laveol T 21:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, has been a playground for POV-pushers from various sides to promote their pet irredentist causes, and lacks any coherent definition of what a "divided" nation is in the first place. Note that "List of X" articles typically work only as subarticles to articles about "X" itself, but of course we do not have (and I believe never had) any article about "divided nation". Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the above; this is definitely going to be hard to keep NPOV, especially with no clear qualifications for what should be on the list or not. With enough imagination, just about any country could be put on here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OR & POV magnet. No way to tell which countries should be on the list or not, and as for ethnic group - every ethnic group of more than a few tens of thousands of people can be found in more than one country. And the point is??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I quite like the content but the article has no sources at all and that won't do for this sort of tendentious material. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete POV mindfield is a mild word for it. Canyouhearmenow 23:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete blatant OR. Bogdan що? 01:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No way to verify, strong POV, and possible OR. Tiptoety talk 02:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not such a bad idea. But this is the "horse designed by a committee", going all different directions with divided ethnic groups who don't have their own nation, nations that have been broken up, nations that used to be part of a larger group, etc. When you think about all the changes in national boundaries in the history of civilization, every nation that ever was could fit in this list. On a project like this, it's helpful to have some ground rules to prevent an editing war between people who think they know more than anyone elseMandsford (talk) 02:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divided- sorry for the pun, but got mixed feelings on it. The part of the ethnic groups should be on it's own & not included here. Only that in the later part is fine (even in the historical aspect), but as the original author stated "was initially for nations that were divided, like Korea". So delete most, but not all as a bit is correctly used. That-Vela-Fella (talk) 11:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarrez46 et al. Too bad, as it is such a nice and pretty list. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirected to Zulqarnain by User:Eastmain. No need for this to stay open; legit redirect now. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.Zulqarnain.zaidi[edit]

S.Zulqarnain.zaidi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Autobiography apparently of a cricket player which is wholly unsourced but if believed would likely be notable. Since there are no sources, its assertion of notability prevents speedy deletion but needs to be verified to survive here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 28 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 per WP:MUSIC criteria #6. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 00:35, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brothers Grym[edit]

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

Delete distilling the long ode to the band that passes for an encyclopedia article shows no indication of meeting WP:BAND. Lots of name dropping but nothing showing these guys actually did anything notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:24, 29 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. As the debate has progressed, initial objections have been addressed and the early deleters have not returned to assert otherwise. Ty 02:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Johanson[edit]

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

Delete unsourced bio about nn artist fails WP:BIO, being a student of notables doesn't make one notable. Note: her husband is up for deletion down below. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no sources, no indication of notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help assess Johanson's notability or lack thereof I've added one published source (a news obituary) and some additional information about Johanson's public pieces and career to the article. I'll be checking to see if she's listed in Who's Who in American Art over the weekend. Xine11 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think there's something here. Her papers are held in the University of Washington Libraries [5] (they have a portrait as well: [6]). I'll hold my !vote though until I see what Xine11 can come up with over the weekend.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added a few more sources mentioning her, including one book calling her "among the foremost in the use of sandcast pebble mosaics". —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sources revealing much detail are thin on the ground, but that's to be expected for an artist of this period. Although the verifiable facts are presently sketchy, the whole picture rings true to me. A similar, admittedly minor, artist working today would have a number of online newspaper reviews, exhibition notices etc enough to fully meet WP:BIO. I'm willing to err on the side of inclusion in the hope that Xine11 can do a bit of old-fashioned library research to add to the article.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per mural and links. - Modernist (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete, so keep. This reference from Emporis says it's the 5th-largest architectural practice in the world, so clearly it's notable. Elkman (Elkspeak) 16:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NBBJ[edit]

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

Delete nn architecture firm sourced to its own website. No indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating its founders:
  • Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not my area of expertise by a long shot, but NBBJ is indeed a significant architectural firm (they have, for example, won a number of AIA Honor Awards). I edited the article a few days ago mostly to remove non-objective content I found offensive--but I will do a search for relevant citations over the weekend as well.Xine11 (talk) 03:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I added a few more articles dealing with the firm as a whole from the numerous citations I found in architectural journals and such. (Many individual buildings have been published in these journals as well.) NBBJ clearly deserves a better article than has yet been written, but I hope adding these citations will at least help toward establishing its notability. Xine11 (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have expanded each of the founder biographies (which I added as stubs) to include reference sections and a few citations and, where I had verifiable information to provide, a little more about their careers. Note that Naramore, Bain, and Johanson were FAIA. Xine11 (talk) 22:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just discovered that William J. Bain, Sr. has a more extensive existing page at William J. Bain--I'm not sure how I missed it when I went to add my stub. Perhaps in this particular case merging the two pages would be a better option? He should be listed as Sr. if he remains--his son, Jr., is also a prominent architect and FAIA. Xine11 (talk) 23:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think it probably goes without saying that this would be my vote. I did edit this article before it was added to the AfD, and add the four founder biography stubs, but I am not the original author (and am in no way associated with the firm). Xine11 (talk) 18:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 03:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lil D Vs. Droppin Sickness[edit]

Lil D Vs. Droppin Sickness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable mixtape of a non-notable rapper on a non-notable label. "Contested" PROD. Risker (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:25, 29 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 per improvements by User:Jerry. Adding an expand tag for further article building. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tommaso Ziffer[edit]

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

Is this interior designer notable? It sounds like the hotel he designed probably is, so there's a possibility that notability can be proved for him, but at the moment it reads like a WP:COI FlagSteward (talk) 12:51, 20 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, —αlεx•mullεr 20:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this person fails WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 14:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is a requirement for editors who are thinking about nominating articles for deletion on the basis of notability to actually themselves look for sources. This should be mentioned in the nomination statement. I looked for sources and easily found 3. I added them to the article. I have absolutely no interest in the subject of the article, so I don't plan on adding more, but an interested editor should be able to find lots. This is a notable interior designer. See improved article and references I added. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 06:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abu Mohammed[edit]

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

The only source on this Guantanamo detainee is from the transcript of another detainee's tribunal. We don't even know his detainee number. Therefore this article fails to satisfy the requirements of WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete IMHO, Guantanamo detainee's aren't notable for inclusion into WP. ArcAngel (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind if it is deleted - I would like to turn it into a redirect to Ayman al-Zawahiri since that was the name of an alias he used. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete it the redirect will not provide any useful purpose to a reader. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Simply being a detainee at GB is not notable, and no assertion of notability is made. The article claims "somali bio" but there's not even an indication of place and date of birth - a bio should have that as a minimum. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 16:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect after figuring out which detainee this transcript was referring to. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 02:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclaimer -- I started this article. Note: I started it long before WP:BLP was instituted. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When to fix up minor errors in our references? -- Lots of contributors routinely silently fix minor typographical, grammar, transliteration or punctuation problems. I don't do this any more when those errors concern the identity of GWOT captives or suspects. I don't think we should do this, because the scale of the number of errors is so large. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Background -- Lots of Guantanamo captives were mentioned in the allegations against other captives -- or were mentioned during the testimony their testimony. I was able to figure out the real names of most of them. But I wasn't able to figure out Abu Mohammed's real name.
    • The DoD's official documents name approximately thirty percent of the Guantanamo captives inconsistently. Some times it was a (probable) transliteration difference. But many times the other name is markedly different. In a significant number of the captives the alternate name bears so little resemblance to the earlier name that no one could possibly guess the DoD thought they were a single individual.
    • Some Guantanamo captives are held mainly because some intelligence analyst, who doesn't speak Arabic, thought their name, or "known alias", is close to that of a suspect on a suspicious list. So
    • JTF-GTMO seems to have failed to figure out how to keep track of who the captives were. Many captives requested the testimony of witnesses, and had that testimony ruled "not reasonably available", because the camp authorities thought those witnesses were off-Island, when their witnesses were, in fact, also held at Guantanamo.
    • The case of Abdullah Khan is a significant one. He was apprehended by American forces during a visit to the south, after he was denounced. His denunciators told the Americans he was not who he claimed. They claimed he was really a former Taliban Governor, and commander of the Taliban's three main air-bases. American interrogators in Afghanistan told him they KNEW he was lying about his real identity, and threatened to send him to a worse place. And sure enough, they sent him to Guantanamo a few months later. This is when his case should have been turned around. Other captives told him that the real Khirullah Khairkhwa not only had been captured by the Americans over a year before he was captured, but he too was also in Guantanamo. Khan testified to his Tribunal that every time his interrogators insisted they knew he was lying about his identity he urged them to check the prison roster to confirm that they already held the real Khirullah Khairkhwa. It still shocks me that none of his interrogators were willing or able to check an accurate, reliable prison roster to confirm the truth of Khan's claim.
    • When the DoD claimed three men committed suicide on June 10 2006 they initially insisted that none of them had attorneys working to help them file habeas corpus requests. Untrue. Mani Al-Utaybi is one of the men named inconsistently by the DoD. His lawyers had spent almost a year trying to contact him. The DoD would not forward their mail to him -- based on the claim that they didn't hold any captives under his name. They changed the spelling of his name in the three weeks between when they released the full official list of captive's names, and the day they reported his death. His lawyers were never able to contact him. He died without learning he had been cleared for release. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many captives testified before their Combatant Status Review Tribunals that the allegations they faced on their Summary of Evidence (CSRT) memos were new to them -- that they were not topics their interrogators had ever asked them about. These captives asked their Tribunals to consider that their file might have been mixed up with that of someone else. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect -- I don't think there is enough information known about this captive -- under this name. He may have a full article under his real name. If we ever figure out who this really refers to we can redirect this to their. Meanwhile however it should be redirected somewhere useful. Guantanamo captives missing from the official list is one candidate. I don't really see how redirecting to Ayman al-Zawahiri makes sense. None of the links to this article are from articles where Ayman al-Zawahiri is who is intended. "Abu X" is a nickname. It means "Father of X". There may be some value in creating something like List of individuals known by the nickname "Abu". This would be extremely useful for disambiguation. In another embarrassing gaff there have been multiple al Qaeda suspects named some variation of "Abu X Al Libi" who were called al-Qaeda's third in command. There was an Egyptian al Qaeda leader known as "Abu X El Masri" who was killed in an air strike. It was only after his death that it turned out that the picture of him on the US Government's "Reward for Justice" was actually an early picture of Abu Hamza al-Masri, before his lost an eye. Redirection to this disambiguation page would be useful to distinguish the alias of Ayman al-Zawahiri and the Guantanamo captive. Geo Swan (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 13:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EGLN Radio[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable internet radio station. Ghits are forums, blogs and nother non reliable sources, no evidence of notability. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Since the Internet is dynamic, just as some world radio stadions aren't notable enough for inclusion into WP, the same holds true for Internet stations. ArcAngel (talk) 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Searching yields virtually no results, let alone mention in anything apart from forums or blogs. Fails WP:NOTE. Wisdom89 (T / C) 05:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 22:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie and mummy[edit]

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

Claims to be a "significant piece of artwork"; however, the artist doesn't have a page, and none of the sources seem to meet WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Curse - per WP:NFT; from the talk page, "THIS ARTICLE is for our class project so please do not delete page!" Even though the topic is not made up, the article is, and the class project does not currently conform to notability and WP:RS standards. ◄Zahakiel► 19:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The artist does actually have a page (Olia Lialina) - interesting images. Guest9999 (talk) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and salt. This isn't the place for class projects. I've also flagged Olia Lialina for notability too. (Emperor (talk) 03:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. I followed the links and looked at a couple of the cartoons. They are distinctly non-notable. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what do you mean when you say salt —Preceding unsigned comment added by L.graham21 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Salt" means that the topic cannot be re-created without administrative permission. It indicates that not only is the topic not notable, but it is not likely to become so in the immediate future, so it is prevented from being re-created until a persuasive argument can be made that it is suitable for inclusion. ◄Zahakiel► 20:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article also needs expansion based on new sources added to article, so tagged. 18:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Natasha Vojinovich[edit]

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

absolutely no Google hits whatsoever; dubious source - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disclaimer: MY work ISP does not allow access to the resource, claiming it is blocked due to "adult content". - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment FYI, it's a SFW b&w fashion photo of her, no caption but her name. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 28 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) 00:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Greenwich Hockey[edit]

East Greenwich Hockey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apart from being a vandalism magnet, this is apparently a locally notable HS hockey team. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This article is nothing more than a high school hockey team's 2007 state title win, which has now been added to the high school's article. Fails WP:NOT#NEWS too. • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per Gene93k this win is not significant enough to have its own page, particularly when it has been mentioned on the school's page - Dumelow (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non Notable Canyouhearmenow 23:50, 28 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. Pretty clear cut case of Future album. No citations. Title will be redirected to Kutless where it is already mentioned in greater detail. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Know That You're Alive[edit]

AfDs for this article:
To Know That You're Alive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Also question of WP:CRYSTAL. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:03, 28 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 clear consensus, which defaults to Keep.....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet O'Neill[edit]

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

This is basically a biography article for a person who had only one notable event happen to them. There's simply nothing else notable that this reporter has done other than things directly linked to having her home raided by the RCMP concerning the Maher Arar case. And the article on that case already discusses it (and I just added in whatever additional information THIS article had into the section there, which was not much). A biography article should not be centered around one solitary event...especially since most of the discussion of that event concerns the repercussions in the police/courts, not the actual actions that O'Neill took. In short, doing one notable thing so far is not enough reason for an article, especially when that one notable thing already has sufficient coverage elsewhere. Someone reading Maher Arar will see the Juliet O'Neill's name in blue, click on it, and learn...absolutely nothing, because everything notable about her has already been covered in the article they WERE reading. Unless somone can come up with anything else notable that she's done, this is better served as a redirect into Maher Arar: Initial media controversy. --Ig8887 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom and BLP1E. There's no value added to this article and I can't find any sources not related to the covered issue. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. ArcAngel (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it seems counter-intuitive to say "Nothing notable happened...oh, and the article is just filled with reports of the legal fall-out after her incident" - O'Neill is most easily compared to the Canadian version of Judith Miller (journalist), the fact the article in its current state bothers you should push you to improve the article, not try to have it deleted. There are 4,000 news articles about her role in the Arar case (notice these are articles about O'Neill, not written by her) - so if you can't find any sources, I'm afraid you're either blind or not looking. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 20:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dig to the next pages on Google [7] and the number falls to <450, all of which are about the Arar issue and many of which are duplicated content - check your glasses. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any coverage about her work OUTSIDE of the Arar case? Because I looked, and didn't find anything. I fully acknowledge that her involvement with the Arar case was notable, I simply do not think that there is enough notability to warrant a biography of her. She is not a notable person, it was a notable event that happened to involve her, and the event is already well-covered on Wikipedia. It is not the current state of the article that bothers me, per se, it is the fact that she is not notable beyond one event. 4000 references to that same one event does not change that. If you can find multiple reliable sources that support her notability beyond the Arar case, I welcome its inclusion. I don't believe they can be found, but feel free to prove me wrong. This is a textbook case of WP: ONEEVENT, which everyone should be familiar with. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And a brief read of Judith Miller (journalist) tells me that she is notable for several different events, such as the coverage of the WMD case, the Plame affair, and writing several books on subjects unrelated to either of those cases. If you can provide the same breadth of notability for Juliet O'Neill, then I will agree with you that she should have her own biography. --Ig8887 (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added details on her 1986 flash of fame as the only reporter to capture Gotlieb's slap, and publish the story - leading to "international" attention. But really, what do you call "working on" a story, she's "worked on" the Chalk River story the same Miller "worked on" the WMDs story -- I don't really see a grand difference between the two. Ultimately, they are both best-known for a single "event", but because that event had political and judicial consequence, they are meritable. I mean even Ziad Jarrah is only notable for "a single event". Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not other biographies suffer from this problem doesn't affect this one. Sidetracking this AfD into whether or not Judith Miller is an appropriate biography doesn't change the fact that this one isn't, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The information you added doesn't really tell us anything about O'Neill, other than that yes, she has reported on other stories, which I guess confirms that she's a reporter. Was she a significant part of that other story, or was she just there? Because the link you provided literally says nothing other than, "She was there and reported it." --Ig8887 (talk) 04:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Sherurcij. Is notable for multiple events. I'd also suggest that given the non-negative nature of the the involvement with the Arar case and the extreme attention that that got it might be enough to override BLP1E issues anyways. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable subject in her homeland, connected with a very notable case. However I urge all information to be carefully policed to make sure it's WP:BLP-compliant. That includes possibly locking down the article to non-registered editors. Wikipedia does not avoid controversial topics or articles on people involved in legal issues, but this one has the potential to cause problems if not handled correctly. 23skidoo (talk) 15:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the Ahar case. She isn't independently notable. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would be giving undue weight to a single legal action in the Arar case, to waste five paragraphs out of thirty, discussing the reporter was had a legal battle of her own in his article, imho Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I was already able to boil eveything that wasn't already in the Maher Arar article down into a single additional two-sentence paragraph, then. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the freedom of press issue is sufficient notability. It will be a permanent precedent & possibly in other countries also.DGG (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable in her own right; brief if intense media attention thanks to the infamy of the Arar case up here in Canada, but beyond that completely unknown. Fails WP:BIO/BLP1E + NOTNEWS for good measure. Eusebeus (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article provides multiple reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability based on multiple events, including an ongoing legal battle that transcends any one individual incident used as a flimsy pretense to trot out the usual WP:BLP1E excuse. The Wikipedia:Notability standard is clearly satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 g1, patent nonsense. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urgurburgerfurger[edit]

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

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 28 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 a7 (for the third time). No indication of notability other than uncited "reviews". NawlinWiki (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odd Child Uprising[edit]

Odd Child Uprising (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Google search shows only 10 ghits [8]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:14, 28 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) 00:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shadows of Isildur[edit]

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

No evidence from reliable third-party sources that this MUD is notable. Jfire (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's been on my watchlist for a while now, and the only coverage I've found is from directory entries and forum discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marasmusine (talk • contribs) 18:10, 28 February 2008


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

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 03:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Skyaking[edit]

Hey, hang on a minute, folks. I put this on, and I can assure you that the sport is genuine: there are a lot of people pushing the limits of what can be done in skydiving: as well as kayaks, there are folks skydiving on snowboards, and there's even a guy done it on skis. If that particular video is a spoof (and I've no reason to think that it is:it's from the playak website, which is pretty reputable)there are plenty more - just have a look on Youtube. I just put that one on as an example: I wasn't trying to park anything anywhere as the guy below suggested. Here's another one [9]

I'm really surprised by people's hostile reaction to this: I'm just a kayaker like the rest of you: it's just that my interest is more in toward the extreme end of finding out what you can do in a boat. If you don't believe the skyacking, have a search around for snow kayaking - downhill, slalom and luge. It's good fun and is really taking off. Indeed, some people are beginning to modify boats for this. And if you still don't believe in the extreme, take a look at the hydrofoil kayak, the "flyack" or "flyak".

And then, of course, there's Shaun Baker's jet-powered kayak which was shown on the BBC TV programme "Top Gear".


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

This is made up stuff, for sure, but I can't justify it for a speedy delete. Gary King (talk) 17:44, 28 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 all a7, no plausible claims of notability, no sources, apparent hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cerebral Stroke[edit]

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

Also included in this nomination:

Non-notable unsigned band. Absolutely no relevant Ghits (not even a Myspace) and no news coverage. No secondary source coverage. No reason to believe this band is notable. No evidence of claims they have achieved "worldwide fame" because of a tour in Japan or that they are even well known in Serbia. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BAND. There's a possible WP:COI issue here, too. Redfarmer (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF!!!!!! - Why is this even a discussion? This is obvious vandalism...There shouldn't even be an AfD discussion about this. Those pages should be deleted outright and that user blocked. I say give the retard a boot in the ass, the one with a hard leather steel-tipped toes...oh yeah and DELETE! Blizzard Beast $ODIN$ 21:36, 28 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 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ed McLane[edit]

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

The guy played in 1 game in 1907 -- does that qualify as notable? ukexpat (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Not notable. George D. Watson (Dendodge).TalkHelp 17:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable baseball player. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Major league baseball players have always been considered notable on Wikipedia no matter how short their careers. Kinston eagle (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Professional athletes are notable per WP:BIO and Major league baseball players are notable if they appeared in at least one game per WP:BASEBALL notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Played in the majors. But, I'm seeing more and more one-game articles popping up lately. Why can't "we" first create articles for people who had real careers? There are plenty of Hall of Famers whose articles are barely past stub status - why not expand those first? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's notable per current guidelines, as was discussed in a recent AfD. It's hard to delete based on a guideline change in the future. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable per current guidelines at WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, annoyedly. Hopefully someday the one-game-is-all-it-takes guideline will go away, but until then we're stuck with it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, not annoyedly at all. A major league player is a major league player, regardless of the length of his career. I went ahead and added a source to the article, expanding it a (little) bit. I don't have time right now to do more, but even one-game stubs CAN be expanded, if you're willing to put in the work. Remember: just because you yourself may not want to do something doesn't mean that it's impossible for anyone, anywhere to do it. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 19:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:BIO says "Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league" are notable. Athletes today who have played in only one MLB game still get quite a bit of press, so it's reasonable to assume that in past years, when newspapers had much larger sports sections, the same would hold true and that plenty of coverage will be found when someone takes the time to go to the newspaper archive. (Which is why WP:BIO says what it says.) --Fabrictramp (talk) 19:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - played in major league baseball, therefore meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - satisfies notability criteria in WP:BIO#Athletes. I've added another paragraph on his major league game. BRMo (talk) 00:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - yes, it does. --Canley (talk) 01:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - current WP criteria says keep. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets, WP:BIO#Athletes and WP:BASEBALL notability criteria. --Borgardetalk 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:BIO#Athletes among others. It's also an example of where Wikipedia shines the best in turning the spotlight on unique topics. 23skidoo (talk) 15:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He played in the majors -- why in the world would you delete this?Jgebis (talk) 16:03, 29 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Soundtrack to My Life (G.A.G.E. album)[edit]

The Soundtrack to My Life (G.A.G.E. album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about an unreleased album and does not cite any sources. Unreleased albums are generally non-notable. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I found zero reliable sources. The sources I did find were from 2006 with this album as an "upcoming" release. No indication G.A.G.E. is notable. So, pick a reason: 1)No reliable sources. 2) No substantial coverage. 3) Non-notable artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MUSIC and WP:RS. Besides, common sense tells us that if the musician isn't notable, their music isn't either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ——Torc. (Talk.) 06:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe | Talk 04:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Brier[edit]

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

notability of individual unclear - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:11, 28 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, meets speedy keep as no other commenters supporting deletion. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duff Beer (The Simpsons)[edit]

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

Doesn't merit it's own article by a long way, I saw that there are more than 600 articles on 'The Simpsons' no way does one tv show of any kind need that many articles about it, no matter how many people on Wikipedia happen to like The Simpsons (I like the Simpsons) Restepc (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

To clarify, my point is that this is not important enough to warrant it's own seperate article....I know that millions of people have heard of Duff Beer via the show, but that doesn't mean it should have it's own article, it's a part of the highly notable Simpsons tv show, but it doesn't stand up on its own IMO Restepc (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further investigation it seems that the Duff Beer brand is well known and notable at least in the usa, and not simply a random fictional product like Krusty-Os or...whatever. I'm withdrawing my nomination....as far as I can tell this page will automatically be removed in a few days, if there's anything I need/could do to withdraw this just say on this page. Restepc (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep No case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has significant out-of-universe notability, as proven by the sources. EJF (talk) 17:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


So who decides this in the end? an Administrator? Restepc (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It depends, if there is a clear consensus to keep, a non-administator may close it; but yes, normally an administrator decides whether there is a consensus to keep or delete. If there is no consensus, the article is kept. Normally the discussion will last around 5 days, although sometimes it can last only a few hours if there is a snowball consensus. EJF (talk) 17:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd really prefer an admin to decide this one as I suspect that a lot of Simpsons fans may just pile on the keep votes without any actual arguments....like the first two votes for example. Restepc (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually read WP:FICT? Your argument for deletion has nothing to do with policy or guidelines, it's basically "The Simpsons has a lot of articles about it, so this should be deleted."

No no, that's not my argument at all, my argument is that it is not notable in itself, it is a part of the simpsons which is notable, but being a part of something notable doesn't make it notable. Restepc (talk) 17:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People have tried to gain off the popularity of Duff Beer by making their own Duff Beer and marketing it (and there are sources to prove it) and have been sued in the process. That right there is real world notability. -- Scorpion0422 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To EJF, I disagree.....there are plenty of sources for this because there are plenty of sources on the simpsons, but I doubt there are many or any sources about Duff Beer that do not mention the simpsons.

It is a PART of something notable, but it is not notable by itself. Restepc (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Nowhere in notability guidelines does it say the sources have to not mention the primary thing which gave the article in question exposure, in this case, The Simpsons. Redfarmer (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and we've been trying to tell you that the article quotes sources outside the show. Redfarmer (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scorpion, could you provide me with some links about that, perhaps Duff Beer is more individually noted on that side of the pond in which case I'll withdraw my nomination......travellingcar, as I specifically said that I like the simpsons I think your claims are more than tenuos. Restepc (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read anything in the "Duff beer scams" section of the article, a lot of it is sourced. As for the individual notability and your argument about everything about Duff Beer, I highly doubt that any source about Homer or Bart or Matt Groening would not mention the show. -- Scorpion0422 18:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I disagree, I am sure Homer Simpson or Bart Simpson have been referenced hundreds of times without saying (from the Simpsons) afterwards.....I doubt....or had previously severely doubted, that there would be any sources simply saying 'Duff Beer' without saying 'from the simpsons' or something similar. Restepc (talk) 18:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To EJF, I apologise for saying that you didn't have an argument, I'm not familiar with wikislang and assumed you were simply making a joke....I even went to look at the article expecting to see that one of the sources was a website claiming to be from another dimension or something.... Restepc (talk) 18:24, 28 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. - Philippe | Talk 04:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laut[edit]

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

Disambiguation page with only one legitimate entry: Laut Island. The rest violate WP:DISAMBIG#Partial title matches. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • replace with redirect per nom. Mangoe (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Not a lot of interest in this AfD but what we got (even after a relisting) was adequate in my view to come to the view that a simple deletion of material and a redirect would suffice to cover the material (which is already in the redirected to article) and still allow others to return material from the previous version. --VS talk 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Germanic IAL[edit]

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

Discusses a very abstract concept and sounds a lot like original research. Such an article could be written about a "Dravidian IAL", too. All the examples are non-notable, except possibly Tutonish, which the article claims to be "a famous historical example from 1902". If it is indeed notable, then an article could be written about it, but i don't think that there should be an article about this abstract concept of "Germanic IAL". Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • In my opinion, the article in question is weak in its current form. That shouldn't necessarily be a reason to delete it, but at this moment I'd say merge and redirect to International auxiliary language would be a good temporary solution. There is definitely more that can be said about the subject, though. I disagree with the entirely subjective statement that "all the example are non-notable": that's not for you to decide, Amir. And I have to say, I feel a growing dissatisfaction with the way the word notability is being abused recently. Even if a subject may not be notable enough for its own article, that shouldn't mean that it is forbidden to mention it elsewhere. To give an example, I've often heard the argument that "Language X is not notable enough for an article on its own, so let's move this stuff to a broader article that discusses the whole genre." Subsequently, someone else says: "Hey, that article was deleted, so it shouldn't be here either." And what remains is an article without major examples of the subject. Not really worthy of preserving it either. Is that how deletionists achieve their goals? If I recall correctly, that is precisely how the article on Germanic IALs came into being. Even if the article may not exactly be a masterpiece, and even if the potential value of an article on Germanic or Dravidian IALs is questionable, I don't like the process used here. From this point of view I really regret that somebody speedily deleted an article about Slavic IAL recently, without even giving a single reason; because this is definitely a notable topic with a history long enough for a good and interesting article. —IJzeren Jan Uszkiełtu? 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I nominated the Slavic IAL article for speedy deletion, because it was essentially the deleted Slovio article with a different opening paragraph. You may start a deletion review on it.
Slovio and Folkspraak were not cases of "delete and merge", but "delete". There is a difference between subjects which aren't important enough for an article, but can be mentioned in other articles and subjects which shouldn't be mentioned anywhere. A red link to Folkspraak in another article in the main space is an invitation to write the article; but when someone goes to write the article, he sees a big notice saying "You are re-creating a page that was deleted." I think that this shouldn't happen. It's important, however, that you'll understand that it is my opinion and not the Wikipedia party line; i'd be glad to see more discussion about it. You may bring it up at Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy.
As for merging Germanic IAL into International auxiliary language - i don't see what is here that can be merged. The main IAL article already says: "The ongoing Folkspraak project aims at creating a pan-Germanic IAL, whilst Europaio is based on the northern dialects of proto-Indo-European languages." Everything else in the Germanic IAL article is original research. If it wasn't original research, i wouldn't think that it should be deleted, and it would even be a pretty good, albeit short, article. (In the first place, AfD isn't supposed to judge how well an article is written, but whether the subject should be included in Wikipedia.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as above until better sources appear. We can't hang an article on a Geocities page. This could be summarized in a sentence or two, excising the original research. --Dhartung | Talk 18:45, 28 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 determined. Default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dance Mixes[edit]

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

This article is a hoax part of a sprawling garden of inaccurate information that has largely been removed by speedy (and otherwise) deletion at this point. The article was rejected for CSD G3 with encouragement to fix it; removal of the hoax material results in an article that would fail CSD A1. However, this mess is probably better suited to AFD. The remix album pictured is not by DJ Raiden, was not released on RCA, and was not released in 2008. Its track listing is not what is listed. In fact, the track listing is easy to confirm as a hoax, since the back cover of the album is conveniently pictured, with different (and fewer) tracks! In fact, there is probably no DJ Raiden at all (under AFD, here as a hoax). In fact, there are no shortage of associated hoaxes. This AN/I thread revealed more problems with a doctored image file for the now-speedied Wena Naty (song) article and a now-speedied redirect to the Main Page. Meanwhile, back to this article, the actual remix album pictured does not meet inclusion requirements. It was a low-quality, low-fi album "released" by self-claimed label BumHong Records[10] (which does not appear in anything even remotely close to a reliable source) in 2005. So, we're left to choose between an article with patently false information, an article with no hope of notability, or deletion. Serpent's Choice (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment : I removed the false information. Europe22 (talk) 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deliberately false information added by MisterWiki, which is considered vandalism. What guarantees there are that this will not be repeated in the future?. Jespinos (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand, but it's the same thing for all articles on WP : we're not sure that information given is true. We must keep an eye on each article, including this one. Europe22 (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Because the disc is real, was released by RCA records, see the references in the article. --MisterWiki humour talking! :-D - 01:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Yes, the album was released, but this article needs to be expanded (charts, critical reception, credits...). Europe22 (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Davewild (talk) 22:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater communication project at NJIT[edit]

Underwater communication project at NJIT (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable university project. Nearly speedable but it had a prod which an IP removed. • Anakin (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per RHaworth RogueNinjatalk 22:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Same topic as Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea, which was created earlier and has much more content so takes priority. Regardless of whether that survives AfD or not, we don't need two articles on the same topic. (neither of them has the right title but we're not discussing what the right title is). Qwfp (talk) 20:12, 29 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Investigative auditing[edit]

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

This is an expanded version of previously deleted material; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Investigative auditing. The article remains a neologism for which no notability has been shown; while I haven't checked every link, and the author has used many external links where Wikilinks would be more appropriate, the only real references given are to search engine results for the phrase "investigative auditing" in a medical publication database. The author seems to want to draw some sort of distinction between "investigative auditing" and the better-established phrase forensic accounting, but the distinction seems elusive. This may be intended to promote a commercial business; previous versions contained a logo. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as a tautologous neologism. The whole point of auditing is that it is investigative. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:08, 29 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 00:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Abidi[edit]

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

Repeatedly speedied and contested on the grounds that being an IEEE fellow is an automatic qualification for notability (which it clearly isn't, there are over five thousand such fellows, my uncle is a fellow of the comparable IET and I'm not going to be writing an article on him any time soon). What we need for an article are substantial non-trivial independent sources. What we have here are two sources, one IEEE and one at the subject's university, so neither of which are independent. Guy (Help!) 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - seems to meet the standards at WP:PROF; it needs improvement, not deletion this early in the game. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (after edit conflict) member of the National Academy of Engineering which is a peer-elected body recognising substantial/significant contributions. Fellowship of IEEE also tends towards notability as also peer-elected. References given in the article also list various prizes/awards. Guy's editorial intentions regarding his family are irrelevant. Dean of School at a university, full professor at UCLA, these also are "above the average" in terms of academic notability. Sources can be improved, but deletion would prevent this and thus damage encyclopædia building. IEEE would be the only reliable source for fellowship. DuncanHill (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite lack of independent sources is an invalid !vote per WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Feel free to add sources. Guy (Help!) 16:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NAE membership directory added as a source. Needing to improve refs is a lousy reason for deletion. Keep for notability is perfectly valid as a !vote. DuncanHill (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would also refer to Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Editing which would seem to address Guy's statements about sources. DuncanHill (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Satisfies #2 & #6 of WP:PROF per ref given in article & [11]. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm afraid being a dean is notable, if accurate. IEEE Fellow and NAE member seem not to be signifcant recognition, though. "He is one of the only two Pakistani-origin members of the NAE" might be evidence of notability, except that that information seems to have been written by him. His being "the first Dean of LUMS SSE", which seems to have been written by the interviewer, seems more notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would say that being a Fellow of IEEE is notable as their website states:
"The grade of Fellow recognizes unusual distinction in the profession and shall be conferred by the Board of Directors upon a person with an extraordinary record of accomplishments in any of the IEEE fields of interest. The accomplishments that are being honored shall have contributed importantly to the advancement or application of engineering, science and technology, bringing the realization of significant value to society. [...] The IEEE Fellows are an elite group from around the globe. The IEEE looks to the Fellows for guidance and leadership as the world of electrical and electronic technology continues to evolve."[12]
I also believe that membership of NAE is notable as their website state:
"The procedures for nomination and election [...] involve a search in all fields of engineering by present members of the NAE for outstanding engineers with identifiable contributions or accomplishments in one or both of the following categories:
- Engineering research, practice, or education, including, where appropriate, significant contributions to the engineering literature.
- Pioneering of new and developing fields of technology, making major advancements in traditional fields of engineering, or developing/implementing innovative approaches to engineering education."[13]
Both of which, I believe, show he is "regarded as an important figure by independent notable academics in the same field" as per point 2 of WP:PROF. --JD554 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per Arthur. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Dean, fellow of IEEE, member of NAE, and the two IEEE awards, are all accomplishments which individually would be enough to convince me that the article should be kept as a pass of WP:PROF. Put all five together and the case is clear. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per comments above.Noor Aalam (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all above. Meets criterion 2 and 6 of WP:PROF. The speedy deletion tag was actually removed by the user who added it after the article had been improved. That same user even removed the notability tag. That this article was nominated within 1 1/2 hours of its creation and after all the improvements to boot is disruptive and only discourages new editors. --Oakshade (talk) 06:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NAE is the exact equivalent of the NAS and is notability. We should work on getting articles for all of them. IEEE Fellow needs further consideration--its not nearly at the same level; I dont think it would necessarily be enough by itself, but in this case it isnt by itself. The Deanship and it would be sufficient. But given NAE, the rest is irrelevant. I think its time to add : myself/my uncle/etc. is/isnt notable/non-notable as an argument not to be used for AfD. DGG (talk) 17:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete - Philippe | Talk 04:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hirofumi Nohara[edit]

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

Non-notable Ratagonia (talk) 16:10, 28 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 to delete. Default to Keep. - Philippe | Talk 04:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Combat![edit]

Ultimate Combat! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable collectible card game. no assertion of notability. No reliable, verifiable, or independent sources that go any further than show the game exists. Of the links provided, one is a wiki, two are dead, and the last is a retailer site. DarkAudit (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have added an assertion of notability with relevant citations. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That book is still only a single source. The wiki and retailer are not generally considered reliable sources, and are not truly independent of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 16:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider Boardgame Geek to be highly reliable (better than Wikipedia). Anyway, I have added another citation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:12, 28 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, geesh, not these people again. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ruddi and the Gays[edit]

Ruddi and the Gays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Might be a hoax, no valid sources (links to Homestar Runner, Urban dictionary, and other unrelated items) Google and IMDB searchs turn up with nothing related. Mr Senseless (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This must be a mistake, I have the first couple of seasons at my house. How have you not seen it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nooblet1 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 28 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 admittedly a small consensus, it is a convincing one. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mal Reynols[edit]

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

Unable to locate on Google any non-wiki-related or independent confirmation of the existence of any radio presenter named Mal Reynols or Mal Reynolds. Lyttlewoman (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no notability regardless of wether he exists or not Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:16, 29 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 possibly expand with valid sources. (Tagged as such) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drainage channel[edit]

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

A dicdef that's already been transwikied to wiktionary. I see no encyclopedic content or notability from which to create an article. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Wiktionary is the right place for this, and it's already there. JohnCD (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Drainage is a prerequisite for agriculture in vast areas of the globe e.g. the Fenlands in the UK. There's an article to be written here covering design of channels to achieve desired flow rates &c. This rather poor stub is a placeholder for that article. Failing a keep, I'd suggest a redirect into one of the better general drainage articles. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Call your cable TV provider to receive The Drainage Channel. Mandsford (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a dictionary. Article has already been transwikied.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is already more than a dictionary definition - the materials from which drainage channels are made is encyclopedic information, not part of the definition of the term. And, as Nunquam Dormio says, there is plenty more that could be written about the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Article is more than a dictionary defition already, as stubby -- and lordy is it stubby -- as it is. You can do whole courses in civil engineering on drainage channels, which means there is the clear possibility of expanding into an encyclopedic discussion of the subject. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest Redirect to ditch which seems to cover the same territory in fewer syllables. Mangoe (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. GlassCobra 10:43, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley's Corner[edit]

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

I know that all places are generally notable per this proposal but this appears to be a truck stop/rest area, not a town/village. I find no evidence that it's in any way a notable rest area. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:49, 28 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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vector (physical)[edit]

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

A content fork of User:Firefly322's from Vector (spatial). Despite clear consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new fork should be moved out of the main article space, the author created a new, virtually identical fork Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) (also with very little actual content). I recommend deletion. Let's have at most one unsanctioned content fork at a time, please. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as nominator. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but WP:CFORK doesn't seem to be a speedy critereon. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, I was not invited by the nominator. I just happened to be watching the "article". — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. WP:CFORK is not a speedy criterion, but No content is. Also, the same lack of content was completely copied to a separate location. It seems a fairly uncontroversial case for speedy. Silly rabbit (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has references and a lead paragraph. I doubt that would satisfy CSD A1 or CSD A3. --Sturm 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    Clear consensus has not been reach. I think the facts clearly show that few to no editors understand the difference between a physical vector entity as described in a 1st year physics text and a mathematical vector as found in a linear algebra text. The motivation behind vector (physical) is to focus on vectors as physical entities. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Morever, the article on Vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) is completely different. It in fact is an article about vectors conforming to the Gibbs-Heaviside vectorial system (a mathematical entity obeying specifc mathematical rules, whereas a physical vector obeys physical laws justifying the article vector (physical) ). --Firefly322 (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I created these articles when it became clear that the majority of editors of vector (spatial) were unable to see the obvious distinction between these two very different meanings of the word vector. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The distinction is between an arbitrary vector space and a contravariant vector (informally, a vector corresponding to a "direction" in space), a distinction you have demonstrated you don't understand (e.g. you claimed momentum was not a spatial/contravariant vector). Nor is defining "vectors" as things in physical laws useful, as a huge variety of vector spaces (including very abstract mathematical vector spaces that have nothing to do with spatial "directions") are used in physical laws. None of which you appear to comprehend, as it has been explained to you repeatedly. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both forks. This has been discussed to death on Talk:Vector (spatial) and there is no justification for a fork. Firefly has nonstandard notions about vectors that do not belong in Wikipedia. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think Mr. Steven Johnson is wrong and I wish to appeal to someone who can be more objective: someone who didn't create the term vector (spatial). Specifically, Mr. Johnson apparently claims that a vector as a physical quantity is a nonstandard notion. He further seems unable to see differences between various mathematical vectorial systems such as the conventional Gibbs-Heaviside Vectorial System and others which arise as a consequence of mathematical vector spaces. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sigh. I never claimed that vectors in physical laws are nonstandard notions; what I have explained repeatedly is that it is neither useful nor standard to define a "vector" as something described by physical laws. Real numbers are used in physical laws too, but that doesn't mean we need a real number (physics) article. But I'm not going to repeat the whole debate again here. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet standard physics texts, calculus texts, and even dictionaries define vectors as something described by physical laws. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No they don't. Even in the quotes you provided to "prove" your point, they say that there are things in physics which are described by vectors, which is correct and uncontroversial, not that all vectors are things in physics. The mere fact that many students first learn about vectors in a physics class doesn't change this. Many students first learn about derivatives in a physics class too, and derivatives often appear in physical laws, but that doesn't mean derivatives are defined as operations appearing in physical laws. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes they do. The quotes provided state that there are physical quantities called vectors and that these physical quantities obey mathematical laws (i.e., physical laws). They don't state that there are mathematical entities called vectors, which may or may not obey physical laws. Yet they nor I am denying the reality or value of mathematical vectors. And, as an analogy, just as the "space" in a "vector space" or in a "Hilbert space" has nothing to do with a dimensional definition of physical space, this mathematical borrowing and defining of the word "space" doesn’t mean that physical space defined by experimental fact is non-standard. Many students first learn about the experimentally verified properties of physical space in physics class as well, and physical space is part of all standard physical law, but that doesn't mean that a useful mathematical definition of a "vector space" or a "Hilbert space" can or should exclude or depreciate a standard definition of physical space or its properties. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete duplicate, contentless content fork. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. When people disagree they should talk and obey consensus, rather than creating forks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sigh. Usually, good intellectual manners would prevent such a comment like Cheeser's or Alexandrov's without some subject-related reason or at least some imagination. I believe my argument on the grounds of intellectual fairness deserves that much. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No useful content. As noted above, the creator has nonstandard ideas about vectors, has flooded the talk page of vector (spatial) by quotes whose meaning he doesn't understand, but having failed to make a coherent argument, proceeded with creating the forks that reflect his unique view. Evidently, hopes to prevail by attrition (started to flood this page, too). Arcfrk (talk) 21:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not advocated a seance with Netwon. I have not used comments I don't understand. Nor have I failed to make a coherent argument. On this page, I have tried to show Mr. Johnson and the entire mathematics community reverence and respect, by putting forth a very logical and sound position for standard physical thought. I believe the possibility for deletion of my work deserves a fair response to the facts of my position. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There isn't any difference between a mathematical vector and a vector you're using in Phyiscs -- THEY'RE THE SAME THING. If you're advocating a new position, that's original research and isn't allowed on wikipedia (WP:NOR) JoeD80 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That is nonsense There are lots of "vectors" in mathematics that have no physical interpretation. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My point was that a vector in physics follows the same rules as those in math, not that all math vectors are used in physics. JoeD80 (talk) 22:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is not a content fork in that Vector (spatial) is mainly a mathematical treatment while this article proposes a treatment from the standpoint of physics/engineering, which, from the outline section headings, seems to be quite different. The competing article Vector (spatial) seems to explain the topic poorly and, for example, has almost no inline citations to support its detailed content. It also seems to be too much of a how to. We have a variety of even worse articles such as Coordinate vector (which has no sources at all) and so the contention that this subject must be covered within a single article seems overdone. There is some contention within the talk page for Vector (spatial) as to the best name for the article and this further supports the idea that other article titles and treatments are worth trying. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Figuring out how to translate physical problems into vectors is an issue, but the vector math is identical. JoeD80 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment One issue that you failed to address is whether there is need for the virtually identical forks vector (physical) and vector (Gibbs-Heaviside), both created around the same time by the same author. Would you be in favor of keeping one and deleting the other? Silly rabbit (talk) 22:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The outline for vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) indicates that it is a historical treatment which is different again. I'm not sure the title is the best but it's hard to say without seeing more. If User:Firefly322 wishes to exert himself in that direction and the fine list of sources that he has prepared stands up, then why should we stand in his way? Colonel Warden (talk) 23:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The alternative of userifying the articles, given the rather broad consensus at Talk:Vector (spatial) that the new article(s) emerged as a POV/content-fork was rejected by Firefly322. I would be willing to allow the articles to be userified until they have some content to speak of. This, it seems, would grant the editor the ability to progress the articles without contentiously cluttering the mainspace with perceived forks. Would you support a vote of userify? Silly rabbit (talk) 23:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of us agree that the current vector (spatial) article needs improvement, but that's not a justification for confused forking into poorly-defined and almost content-free articles using nonstandard definitions. We should stand in his way because his list of sources does not support his position, and his understanding of this subject is fundamentally confused. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no difference between mathematical and physical vectors. One is a subset of the other RogueNinjatalk 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There are differences, as explained in some of the existing content - units and notation, for example. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You'd be hard-pressed to find a notation for vector spaces used in mathematics that is not also used in the physical sciences, or vice versa; I don't see any example in "the existing content". As for the use of units, the same argument could be applied to fork almost every single article in mathematics that applies to a subject used in physical sciences; should we have a real number (physics) article because in physics most real numbers come with units? The real problem is that "vector (physics)" is not specific in any useful way for an article, because there are so many types of vector spaces used in the physical sciences, nor is Firefly's definition supported by the references (despite his assertions to the contrary, which are based on a flawed understanding on his part). —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notation example I was thinking of from the existing content is Note: In introductory physics classes, these three special vectors are often instead denoted i, j, k at Vector (spatial)#Representation of a vector. There will be other notations in other domains such as navigation. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bad example: that notation is also often used in calculus classes etcetera, so it is hardly unique to physics. Conversely, physicists often use other notations too. —Steven G. Johnson (talk) 23:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the i, j, k notation comes from William Rowan Hamilton's quaternions. The letters were introduced for this purpose by Hamilton himself (though I think he used capital I, J, and K). And this notation is still used almost universally in both mathematics and physics for its original designated purpose. Silly rabbit (talk) 23:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So this is another example of the weakness of the Vector (spatial) article? Going back to that, I note the point about Covariance and contravariance of vectors in which the language of physics and mathematics is said to be different and contradictory. Since these articles are too obscure for a general readership, better clarity is needed and this may well be served by the distinct treatments envisaged by Firefly. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Index notation indicates a tensor, while i, j, k notation indicates a vector. Thus, Vector (spatial)'s preference of the index notation e1, e2, e3 over the Hamiltonian-Gibbs-Heaviside notation of i, j, k indicates an unstated predilection for tensor analysis. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I am the author) Though I'm certainly not claiming to be an all-knowning, omniscient, divine being or anything close, I maintain that these definitions are not vague nor flawed and that their purpose is to define a vector as a quantity obeying physical laws. It's especially important to add that neither they nor I am denying the reality or value of the mathematical or physical entity that has, is, or will be described in vector (spatial). --Firefly322 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm just curious, how does a quantity obey physical laws? The only things that obey physical laws are physical objects. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Physical laws govern energy and matter through space and time. In scientific usage, particles and quantities refer to different magnitudes and multitudes of mass as well as energy. A physical vector as a quantity would be a quantity of some kind of energy. --Firefly322 (talk) 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I afford you all due respect and all good faith, but I have no idea what any of what you just said means. Once again, a vector is not a physical object, it is an abstract representation of a physical object (or of particular physical circumstances). If I have four apples, the apples obey the laws of physics - "four" does not. If I am traveling 40mph east in my car, my car obeys the laws of physics - "40mph east" does not. --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    On page 10 of Introduction to Electrodynamics by David J. Griffiths (a well-respected physicist in good standing), there's a comment that even though a set of 1X3 matrixes with the of components of X pears, Y apples, and Z bananas add like a vector, "it's obviously not a vector, in the physicist's sense of the word, because it doesn't really have a direction." --Firefly322 (talk) 14:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with my question. Do you or do you not understand the fact that vectors do not obey the laws of physics? The physical objects or circumstances they describe are what obey the laws of physics. Vectors are abstract representations of such objects/circumstances. Do you believe there are physical objects called vectors that one could, say, pick up and put into a sack or something? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's funny you should say that because I was just observing that the Vector (spatial) article starts by saying that a vector is an object. The more I look at that article, the less I like it. Anyway, I suppose that Firefly's point is that a physical vector has dimensions such as length/time and that these attributes go beyond the abstract geometrical concept. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If I were generous, or perhaps under other circumstances, I'd have assumed that (or something like that) is what he meant. However, even if we disregard the lack of content, the forking, whatever other issues, he just substantiated the existence of this article by asserting that this was a different topic than vector (spatial). --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article makes multiple errors in the very first sentence, and the error rate does not diminish. For example: A vector is a quantity with direction conforming to physical laws... eh? Vectors are often used express physical laws, but certainly do not conform to them; vectors are abstract objects. ...physical laws such as quantities of displacement, velocity, and field strength. Displacement, velocity and field strength are not "physical laws" in any shape or form. Vector here refers to a measurable quantity and should not be confused with the mathematical symbol also called a vector vector (Gibbs-Heaviside) Huh? The vectors in physics are the same as the vectors in mathematics, and should be confused with one another! That is the whole point! The rest of the article is equally hopeless; delete the thing post-haste. linas (talk) 04:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary fork. I find the argument that this is equivalent to having a equally useless "Number (physics)" compelling. The only thing here that might conceivably be useful would be a list such as List of physical quantities represented by vectors. --Itub (talk) 10:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The standard wording for this apparently, compellingly useless number (physical) analysis is unit analysis or dimensional analysis (these are woking links). Do the respectable Mr. Johnson and the respectable Mr. Linas propose the deletion of the wikipedia entry on experimentally-based, scientific dimensional analysis, since Mr. Johnson's argument "proves" his point that it is a fork of proof-based mathematic numbers? --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take as another example of the analysis of a quantity vector analysis (i.e. "the analysis of quantities having magnitude and direction" from 2002 Encyclopedia America). This also as standard as physical unit analysis and in fact a google search or a book title search or even looking through a Britanica ("quantities such as velocity") or Encyclopedia America reveals vector analysis as entries. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We do have a legitimate article on vector analysis (actually a redirect to vector calculus), which is not the same as your unnecessary fork of vector (spatial). --Itub (talk) 14:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Try Mathematical constant vs Physical constant. It's like the difference between Applied Mathematics and Pure Mathematics. There's a reason that these are different articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it is an accepted standard on Wikipedia that such argument by analogy (or what one sometimes calls WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not really a compelling reason to, say, keep this "vector (physical)" article. We should not be arguing by analogy, nor by the existence of some other math/physics duality, nor by Firefly's preferred hyperbolic strawman argument. I will point out that dimensional analysis is not a fork in any way shape or form from number, not in the sense that Itub clearly intended. --Cheeser1 (talk) 17:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point at issue here is Itub's Delete rationale. This is the converse which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS gives as:
Delete We do not have an article on y, so we should not have an article on this.
So, Itub's rationale is weak. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so even if article like vector (spatial) has existed for 5 or so years, its mere length of time in existance isn't proof that there wasn't justifiable grounds for its deletion, if I understand the legal nuances of this wikipedia sticking point, correctly. Not that I'm saying there are such grounds for the deletion of vector (spatial), just that its mere existance shouldn't be used to agrue against the existence of vector (physical). --Firefly322 (talk) 17:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, Itub used an example to explain his rationale, not as his rationale. On the other hand Firefly decided "fine, then why don't we delete all physics-related articles that have a math equivalent?" (paraphrase) which smacks of strawmanning and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. For example, I think the eminent Mr. Colonel Warden has even listed excellent reasons that would satisfy wiki deletion policy if someone did nominate vector (spatial) for deletion. As a further example, Mr. Steven G. Johnson's membership among the faculty at MIT doesn't mean that he can use a weak rationale as the basis of existence or non-existence (inculding vector (spatial)). --Firefly322 (talk) 18:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So you think we should delete vector (spatial) too?? Also, please refrain from taking shots at people and their real-life occupation or circumstances. It is unwarranted and irrelevant. And why do you insist on constantly using irrelevant and unnecessary honorifics like "eminent" and "respectable"? --Cheeser1 (talk) 18:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, this comes close to Number (physics): Physical quantity. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you could say that physical quantity is, in a sense, a "physical number". But there is a difference: "physical quantity" (or just "quantity") is a well-known term in common use, seen for example in authoritative sources such as the SI brochures. On the other hand, a "physical vector" is something made up for this article, not a distinction commonly made in the real world. --Itub (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said of "spatial vector". See the latest talk on Vector (spatial) for more discussion of the difficulty of naming and scoping this topic. Note also that it is unclear whether mathematical concepts like continuous and real number are true of the physical universe in which a quantum/discrete nature is found at small scales. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, the precise title of the article can be debated, but that's because vectors are called simply "vectors" and we need to disambiguate them in some way from other uses of the same word in biology, computer science, etc. However, that doesn't negate that "physical vectors" are not different from normal "spatial" vectors in any way. --Itub (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion at Vector (spatial) indicates that vectors are not simple, alas. One point raised by Steven is the property of covariance which term is used with different meanings in physics and maths. See Covariance and contravariance of vectors for more details. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say vectors were simple, just that they are "called simply" (that is, using just one word) vectors. But there's no point continuing this ping-pong debate. I'll leave it to the closing admin to evaluate the consensus. This will be my last comment here. --Itub (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Steven G Johnson rationale. Tparameter (talk) 23:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Colonel Warden's rationale above specifically that this is from the standpoint of physics/engineering. Although I see the other argument in favour of deletion and there is some overlap, it is significant enough to merit a fork.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 16:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia operates by consensus. There is no consensus for separate articles. I have followed the many discussions that have dominated the talk pages for the last few weeks, and, per WP:CFORK, I remain unconvinced that separate articles are necessary. - Neparis (talk) 00:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To the closing admin: may I suggest that the article be userfied? - Neparis (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that userifying has been suggested at the talk page(s) in question, and above more than once. --Cheeser1 (talk) 00:37, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Independent comments have independent weight! - Neparis (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both forks per WP:CFORK. -- Fropuff (talk) 05:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character. JacquesNguyen (talk) 06:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It has not been established that this is the case. Furthermore, it has not been established that a vector is, in fact, something physical. Could you please expand on your rationale? --Cheeser1 (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jacques' point seems clear enough to me. But since you don't understand it, please could you expand on your first sentence. What has not been established? Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Thanks not-Jacques. It has not been established that this ("everything about physical should have their own page, separate from mathematically, despite same character") is the case. When someone uses the word "this" it generally refers to the most obvious thing. For example, if you said "I think we should delete the Main Page" and then I say "This is a bad idea" what do you think I'm talking about? --Cheeser1 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum Bob (singer)[edit]

Maximum Bob (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Very tenuous claim to notability. Articles states the subject worked with two notable artists on their albums, but does not state in what capacity. I speedily deleted an earlier incarnation of this article a week or so prior to its recreation as an A7. Caknuck (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Where's the substance? Where's the main event? The article says pretty much nothing, and asserts that with the statement of Esentially, nothing is known about Maximum Bob. An earlier sentence also claims he may release some solo material. Yngvarr (c) 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Changed info on his contribution to Deli Creeps, lead vocals. Not much is known about him as, like Buckethead, he uses a stage name to seperate his work from his private life. This, in itself, is not that important when talking about his notability as a singer. Duffbeerforme (talk) 10:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to above as you noted, his stage and real name is not relevant to notability as a singer, but unlike the Buckethead article, the nominated article is pretty much empty. It basically says he may release a solo album, and has worked with Delicreeps and Buckethead. Beyond that, there's no information. If nothing other than this can be presented, it would simply be better to merge this text into the Delicreeps and Buckethead article. If you were to remove the Discography (which ultimately is not his, and should not be credited as such) and the infobox, you'd end up with an article of about two sentences. While length may not be a requirement, the previous concern that WP:MUSIC is not satisfied with this article is still valid. Yngvarr (c) 16:04, 29 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, article has been renamed to Cassie's second studio album. GlassCobra 10:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Connecticut Fever[edit]

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

no sources, pure crystal ball violation Kww (talk) 15:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Clarification: No source for title, not enough information from its one source to get beyond a stub. Thus, it's a stub that can't justify existing under this name.Kww (talk) 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "No sources" is not true—almost all of the information is taken from an article in Billboard that is specifically about the album. Before I !vote, I'd like to see if anyone can add a little more coverage. Unlike most "forthcoming album" articles, this one isn't full of speculation and rumor (except for the title) and does have at least one piece of non-trivial coverage. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Cassie or, at the very least, move to Cassie's second album (or similar). One article is slim coverage, but it's reliable and Hello Control has done a good job cleaning out much of the cruft. (Incidentally, if we can't find a source for it in this article Official Girl should probably go away.) This article was likely created with this title because of the earlier deletion of other articles that seem to have been out there (IIRC) at one point Untitled Cassie Album, Still Cassie, Cassie's Sophmore Album, etc. In any case, without a source for the title, it has to at least move. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I definitely agree re: the move. I put a cite req on the title and was going to give it a few days before moving it. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It would seem that if Kww agrees the sourced info is solid, we can just merge this bad boy and all go home happy. (Incidentally, an earlier version was axed. A look at that Talk page leaves me with little hope we'll find a source for the title "Connecticut Fever".) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This album is being released on May 20, so right now, there's no real reason to have it. Everything on this page is on Cassie's page anyway. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 10:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't really think that merge is an appropriate answer, here. After merging, a redirect is left in place from the old title to the new. In this case, the unsourced information is the title itself ... there should be no redirected from Connecticut Fever to anything at all.Kww (talk) 15:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is dispute over the tracks every 5 seconds. Delete the page. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 04:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Page has been protected for 2 days to prevent IPs adding incorrect information per a protection request at RFP. Rudget. 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to an untitled album. The Billboard article is a sufficient source for album notability and means that the article is not WP:CRYSTAL (nothing in the article is unverified speculation). —Torc. (Talk.) 05:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 under [[WP:CSD|G11] criteria. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 20:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MAIA Intelligence[edit]

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

This article is blatant SPAM Lancet (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree. It is also a wholly unreferenced article about a software business that makes absolutely no claim to notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable company; cites no secondary resources. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the above reasons - I would have G11'd it.--ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spam and tagged as such for speedy deletion. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - pure spam, NN corporation with all those red links! Bearian (talk) 22:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article is not at all spam. Its from the secured resource, from a company into business intellignec, who has a mission to democratize Business Intelligence (BI) and make it available to masses. Business Intelligence (BI) was only meant for few expert users like analysts & top management in an organization. But with software like 1KEY BI, the business users at the operational level can make use of BI. Request the administrator to rethink on this.Therainsmail (talk) 08:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Therainsmail, If this were so you could have created an article about the democratization of BI, or better, added an entry about this subject to the existing Business intelligence article. What I think you won't get is the democratisation of free advertisement for your company on the Wikipedia. It would be a better start if you created a user page that allows others to talk to you. Cheers. Lancet (talk) 08:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lancet75, have edited the article page, added references, & still want to add knowledge to the Wiki users. But while viewing other articles I found many others are also doing such Free Advertisement like SAS System, MicroStrategy to name a few. Although I donot want to get in that debate. Please guide me as to how improve the content & make it knwoledge rich.Therainsmail (talk) 10:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Therainsmail, please read this Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). If you think that other articles are spam, you are free to nominate them for deletion as I did with this one. In the end it's the editor's community and the administrators who decide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancet75 (talk • contribs) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • We do not want to get into that argument. Why I referred other articles was, rationale behaviour. If the other articles are up and accepted to the moderator, why not this article. We have made the changes & still open to modify as per the policy. Your suggestions to the current article would be highly appreciated.Therainsmail (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the other articles are up and accepted it because of two possible reasons: (1)They are not spam or (2) They are spam but have until now escaped to the scrutiny of the editors and administrators. As for my suggestions, I have already formulated them above: If you interest is in the democratisation of BI, making BI "available to the masses" you should add an entry on the subject, and eventually a link, to the existing Business intelligence article. As for my view, MAIA Intelligence doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria of notability and the articles content being the advertisement of MAIA Intelligence's products and services meets clearly Wikipedia's criteria for spam thus for speedy deletion. Cheers Lancet (talk) 13:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 00:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Pleasant[edit]

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

Article about a character someone made on the Sims 2. Belinrahs (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'd like to add some weight behind this opinion, but seriously, what else can I say? Yngvarr (c) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a directory of useless, trivial information about someone's personal character video game. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious delete. Nice test page by the author, but unfortunately the subject is inherently impossibly non-notable. • Anakin (talk) 18:04, 28 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 (for now) based on article improvements. No prejudice againsta a re-nom at a later date. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Lewis[edit]

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

Three sentence bio of the founder of Philosophy Now. No other assertions of notability, no refs. Failed WP:CSD#A7. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing beyond him founding a magazine, and that event is already listed in the magazine article. Yngvarr (c) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've just expanded this article to include refs and extra evidence of subject's notability, ie (1) first to get a philosophy mag onto ordinary newsstands and (2) his role in introducing philosophy cafes into the UK. This article was only created yesterday and may well be a work in progress anyway, quite apart from my own contributions just now. I've therefore also added an underconstruction tag. (Can I do that?) Dungate (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I only just created this article; I'm still working on it. Ilpiu (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • suggest withdrawing this and reconsider at a later time. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Philippe | Talk 21:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smile 012[edit]

Smile 012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company is not notable. Should have been deleted a while ago, and could have been speedied, but wanted to get community input. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:01, 28 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:N, WP:ORG specifically, and WP:RS. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knoxville Racquet Club[edit]

Knoxville Racquet Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this tennis/swimming club notable? Doesn't look like it to me. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 13:58, 28 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 Notability is usually demonstrated by the presence of multiple independent sources and/or inherent notability from their role or position. I'm not seeing any [[18]] of inherent notability for this individual and COS of a regional command does not seem particularly notable. We therefore go back to multiple independent sources. Since these are not present policy mandates deletion. The article can be undeleted at any time on presentation of the requisite sources. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Douglas Tom[edit]

Stephen Douglas Tom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable subject Awotter (talk) 12:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Blatant copyvio, have tagged it as such for speedy delete. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The article was already reviewed for speedy deletion and that was rejected, the material is from the US government and isn't subject to copyright, I just didn't think there was any notability.Awotter (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, I've nominated other military bios that were lifted as a copy paste from the same site before and they've been speedied without question as there's no license for the text. We'll see what happens with this one. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 17:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well apparently, it depends on who's reviewing as the tag was just removed again. Oh well TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is actually an historical precedent for the complete or partial incorporation of PD material published by the US government with the extensive (and legitimate) use of DANFS. Saying that, there is no compelling, independent assertion of notability for this person. SoLando (Talk) 19:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, chief of staff is an important position but not particularly notable. Does not really satisfy WP:MILMOS#NOTE. --Dhartung | Talk 22:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Chief of Staff of Pacific Command is a notable position. Recommend the article be rewritten so copyvio worries (and/or misconceptions) are addressed. I've added the WP:BLP banner, too. 23skidoo (talk) 15:28, 29 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 as redirect - Philippe | Talk 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beth El Synagogue[edit]

Beth El Synagogue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Beth El, if my Hebrew is correct means "House of God". A list of Synagogues which have been named as such is about as non-notable, unmaintabable and indiscriminate as "List of Churches called St Peters" or "List of mosques named for the prophet". Prod removed without reasoning. Docg 12:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

If the synagogues are worth keeping in Wikipedia, then they should have their own articles, or be organised by geography etc. Organising them together because they happen to share a name makes little sense. Might as well have "List of Pizza houses called Tony's".--Docg 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as indicated--Docg 21:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Each synagogue should have its own article if notable. Dreamspy (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would have voted keep if there were sources for this article. Unfortunately as none exist, I'll have to vote weak delete.Vice regent 14:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's essentially a list of towns that have a synagogue that happens to be called "Beth El Synagogue"... Southbury, Baltimore, Minneapolis, etc.... you could do a similar article about which towns have a "First Presbyterian Church", but I'm not sure what purpose it would serve. Mandsford (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is,[19] and it is all redlinks. dvdrw 22:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Incredible. I don't see any purpose for this type of article other than for a churchgoer to say, "Hey, they have an 'Immanuel Baptist Church' in _____town, just like we do!" Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. No reliable evidence of notability, claim of notability appears to be WP:OR.) Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC See comment below --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep pending improvement, conversion to dab page or redirect. I see nothing more fitting for a list than arrangement according to name, maybe that is just too obvious. I think this would make a fine dab page if anyone took the time to improve it rather than simply trying to delete any synagogue page that shows some sign of weakness. Dab pages, which is what this article is in my opinion or could be easily converted to, do not have the same requirements for references. If converted to dab conventions, perhaps this would be mostly red links at first along the lines of Temple Beth-El or other examples, but there is a subtlety between "synagogue" and "temple" that I think should be preserved. I'm not sure if the editors who have listed these establishments have taken this into account or not, or if they are truly interchangeable, but if no one is going to improve this article in the time of this afd then I think it should be redirected to Temple Beth-El. dvdrw 22:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with ability to Reinstate Beth El is like "Young Israel" or "Hebrew Institute" or "Shira Hadasha" it originally meant a specific type of synagogue, in this case a theology of Conservative Judiasm that was not the same as a "Jewish Center". This article did not address the topic at all. --Jayrav (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone created an article such as you suggest, if would be different entirely and would not qualify for a deletion as a repost. I'd undelete it myself if anyone tried to speedy it,--Docg 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. The name is not Beth El - the name is Beth El Synagogue or Beth El Temple. A Beth El Temple is Reform, a Beth El Synagogue started as mixed seating orthodox, that become Conservative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayrav (talk • contribs) 15:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and expend, this is a great idea to list all the great houses of worship with this holy name, thanks--YY (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Strong Delete Anyone saying keep doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. If any of the synagogues named "Beth El Synagogue" are notable for inclusion in Wikipedia, they should have their own articles at "Beth El Synagogue (City)". Then, the page "Beth El Synagogue" would serve as a disambiguation page for those articles. Wikipedia is not a place for lists of places of worship. I encourge everyone who wants to keep this page to write articles on all the notable Beth El Synagogues. Then we can make this page a disambiguation page. Dgf32 (talk) 21:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

* Nomination for Speedy Deletion per CSD A3. Article has no meaningful content. It is a list of synagogues which may not be notable as none of them have articles on Wikipedia. This page could be recreated as a disambiguation page if it is needed to disambiguate between multiple listings of Beth El Synagogues, but as of now a disambiguation page is not needed here. Dgf32 (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if the synagogues listed had individual articles, this could be a disambiguation page, however at the moment, all I could suggest is a redirect. Addhoc (talk) 22:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to make the page into a redirect page or a disambiguation page, but there are no articles on a "Beth El Synagogue" to redirect to or disambiguate to. That's why it has to be deleted. Dgf32 (talk) 22:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy - there's no real content. Mangoe (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I left a message on the article's talk page. If no one objects, I'm going to change the page to serve as a redirect to Temple Beth El, which is an existing disambiguation page. It can always be made into a disambiguation page for "Beth El Synagogue" in the future. That we can avoid deletion. Dgf32 (talk) 06:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Converted to a redirect. Dgf32 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Page now serves as a redirect to Temple Beth-El because there were no "Beth El Synagogue" articles to disambiguate to. Dgf32 (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the newly added redirect which, as noted above, does disambiguate several similarly named synagogues that have existing articles. --MPerel 03:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Do we have any reliable sources for the comments made at this AfD by Jayrav and others tha a "Beth El Synagogue" is not simply a random name for a synagogue, but originally meant a specific type -- a mixed seating Orthodox synagogue? If so, and if we could change the article accordingly, this would change my view. What sources do we have for this claim? If this is sourced, then, (a) It would be worth a keep, (b) a merge or redirect to Temple Beth El would be inappropriate since the latter is an institution in Reform Judaism or the left (rather than the right) wing of Conservative Judaism, and (c) it might be worth mentioning in Conservadox Judaism as well. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, ah, at any rate it does appear the redirect to Tempel Beth El is inappropriate since as Shirahadasha says it appears all the Beth El Synagogues on the list belong to the Conservative movement and Temple Beth El is Reform. --MPerel 05:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • CommentActually, Synagogue Naming Practices might be a good topic for an article. Did you know that the Talmud condemns those who name their synagogues Beth Am.... which is a popular synagogue name? Yudel (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE: The term "Beth el" or "Beth-el" or "Bethel" is used by Reform and Conservative synagogues, (and sometimes Orthodox ones too, minus the word "Temple"), so that perhaps the Temple Beth-El page should istelf be renamed Synagogues named Beth-El that would be a legitimate disambiguation page for all such synagogues, and it be required that all articles about synagogues name their geographic locations in their titles. IZAK (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because as of now all it is, is a redirect page to Temple Beth-El, which in turn is a valid disambiguation page. IZAK (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the redirect page. Addhoc (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator, I am happy to see this kept as a redirect to a useful dab page, providing we remember that disambigs are for disambiging articles we have and not creating crufty lists by the back door. So keep it.--Docg 20:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:OR, WP:BIO, WP:N, WP:RS, and WP:V. This is essentially an unsourced, unverifiable biography with some claims possibly based on family stories or hearsay. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gwen Kaae[edit]

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

Despite the claim of being America's first stuntwoman, I am having difficulty finding sources for this article, and believe that if the information in the article cannot be derived from reliable, published sources, it should not be on Wikipedia. Google searches of ["Gwen Kaae"] gives 23 Wikipedia-mirror hits. Full first name married surname ["Gwendlyn Kaae"] gives zilch, as does short first name maiden surname ["Gwen Gillaspy"] [20], and full first name maiden surname ["Gwendlyn Gillaspy"] [21]. Google Scholar has got nothing either

Also, the article was written in very emotional terms, and the more I tried to clean it up, the more I realised that this woman may not pass Wikipedia:Notability (people), even if the information could be sourced. She appeared as a stunt woman in a single film at age 12 and had (to quote the earlier version of the article) "a typical Leave it to Beaver life" before passing away. Fine for the family's personal website or genealogy profile, but without sources, I don't think it makes the cut on Wikipedia. -- saberwyn 12:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Unsourced as per nom. You would think someone who was the first "stunt girl" in Hollywood woudl have something written about her? Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, smacks of a family legend. The first stuntwoman in Hollywood was Helen Gibson, who has reams written about her. The claim here, that she was the first stunt "girl", presumably meaning underage, is dubious. Plenty of movies had been made by 1938, and it's hard to believe there was no precedent, and the claim that a little person was the only other option also seems a bit dubious. --Dhartung | Talk 18:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced biography per WP:BIO. The subject is not even listed in the Internet Movie Database, even though her claim to notability is based on being a stunt girl in a movie. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:18, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Dhartung, Metropolitan. Edward321 (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Philippe | Talk 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Scare Factor[edit]

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

The article is about an out-of-print script, not a production of the play. A search is almost impossible due to same name syndrome, but I find no evidence of this script's notability. Travellingcari (talk) 15:21, 20 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, --VS talk 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article seems to admit it has never been produced. Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus to delete. Default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 21:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tallulah Morton[edit]

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

tagged for notability since July 07, no real claim to notability, WP:BIO Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No clear claim to notability. Dreamspy (talk) 12:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although her notability appears to pertain to her modelling credentials at an early age, nonetheless there appear to be sufficient references in mainstream independent Australian (and NZ) press to support retention. Article currently needs work and has an advertorial feel (and I may make some edits in this direction), but subject appears to be of sufficient substance. Murtoa (talk) 11:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits now made Murtoa (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bloody Disgusting. GlassCobra 10:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Disgusting[edit]

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

Article was tagged for speedy deletion with the reason being "Article is about a real person, who is advertising his website, which constitutes blatant advertising." Hang-on request placed and probably is worth discussion. This is a procedural nomination by the admin considering Speedy/Hang-on requests. --VS talk 06:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reason is ridiculous. We'd have to go ahead and delete the articles for every internet celebrity or web journalist. I'll go ahead and add more biographical information, will that satisfy the burden? TheRegicider (talk) 06:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Look more closely TheRegicider - this is a procedural nomination because you placed a hang-on tag on the page and I have just come along as the admin and decided to give it a chance to improve. You can as you wish edit the article as you say and hopefully convince others including the person tagging it for deletion that it is not just an article that seeks to advertise a web-site. To do that however you will probably have to read carefully some of the guidelines on how to write articles that have been provided to you on your talk page.--VS talk 07:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Two of the article's sources (Gelf Magazine [though it claims to be 'looking over the overlooked', suggesting a lack of coverage of notable topics?] and Cinematical.com) look as though they could use articles of their own; they at least give the appearance of being established and perhaps notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:36, 22 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, --VS talk 10:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect with Bloody-Disgusting.com. The website is notable, but Miska isn't really discussed in sources, even if he occasionally contributes a quote to an article in, say, the NYT. TheRegicider, please see WP:WAX. Other articles may or may not meet our standards. We are judging this one in particular. (Also, I agree that Gelf and Cinematical may meet WP:N. I think Cinematical has had some linkspam issues and Gelf came up last year in something, but I can't find it.) --Dhartung | Talk 19:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Mr. D.......ng (sorry, couldn't resist that, Dhartung) Mandsford (talk) 21:52, 28 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 AfD was cut short and the article deleted as a copy of this page at kennedy-center.org.

(Although it has no direct bearing on the deletion of this article, TAIKOPROJECT too was, after redirection to TaikoProject, deleted as a copyright violation.) Hoary (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Fujii[edit]

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

I'm not quite sure I see the notability here; the sourcing seems to be primary and the article of the group that she is a member of, TAIKOPROJECT, suffers from similar problems. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 20:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to TAIKOPROJECT (which maybe should be at a normal capitalisation like Taikiproject or TaikiProject per WP:MOSTM). GNews search for TaikoProject [22] shows non-trivial news coverage; search for the woman herself [23]shows mainly brief mentions in relation to her role with the project, and no sources actually about her. cab (talk) 00:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since when was {{find}} modified to not show pay sources?!? cab (talk) 00:36, 20 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, --VS talk 06:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete altogether - non-notable, not sure the project is notable either. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:22, 28 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.

I created the WINTER page and believe they are definitely worthy a listing on wikipedia Styk901 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe | Talk 21:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winter - Irish Progressive Rock Band[edit]

Winter - Irish Progressive Rock Band (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable band Mystery12312 (talk) 06:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Winter are one of the very few progressive rock bands to emerge from Ireland and the album they released 'Across the Circles Edge' has become a cult favourite among progressive rock followers. It regularly appears in prog rock artist lists and on the likes of eBay and Amazon shops. Therefore they are worthy of a Wikipedia listing.(Styk901 (talk) 08:56, 19 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, --VS talk 10:50, 28 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. GlassCobra 10:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Drenner[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable, per WP:MOVIE. The films that this director has made have not been widely distributed, thus not satisfying the notability guidelines laid out. Gary King (talk) 07:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, the SPIDER BABY DVD in which Drenner's documentary has been a large seller for Dark Sky Films, has been noted by Fangoria as one of the best retrospective documentaries ever made for a cult film,

See Paragraphs 7 and 8: http://www.fangoria.com/dvd_review.php?id=5236

and has been nomintaed for multiple genre DVD awards:

http://rondoaward.com/

Additionally, a film which Drenner appeared in, PLANETFALL, has been available for over one year. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diabolik6 (talk • contribs) 09:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nonnotable. The additional references given here are helpful but still don't put him over the threshold. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Non-notable Dreamspy (talk) 12:56, 28 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, --VS talk 10:50, 28 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 faithless (speak) 12:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Center Software[edit]

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

Article was tagged for speedy delete as being an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. (CSD A7). Hang-on placed - this is a procedural nomination. --VS talk 09:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, likely speedy delete. Seems likely to be re-creation of deleted material. In any case, this is a tech business that contains no indicia of notability. The single weblink cited as a source goes to a blank page for me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was created as an original entry, not a re-creation of deleted materials. Article is currently in the process of being fact-checked before adding more notable information. The weblink was updated to direct to the correct page. Additional sources are also being checked and added. - User:Cooper56 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2008
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS talk 10:53, 28 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LitMinds[edit]

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

A run-of-the-mill website. I do not see where the notability is with this one. Per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 16:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks for this opportunity to further discuss the issue. Your issue with the LitMinds entry seems to be around notability. Allow us to address that.

It can be difficult to judge an organization by simply looking at it’s web-site. And you are right that on a cursory glance, LitMinds web-site won’t appear to be notable. In fact, we don’t claim to have a sophisticated web-site with fancy features. LitMinds does claim to be a notable organization which is engaged in several notable activities. Among them – 1) Telling the stories of literary innovators who are doing unique, interesting, and pioneering work to promote reading and literature. We do this through our acclaimed Literary Innovators Interviews which can be found on our blog. www.litminds.org/blog/ 2) Work with schools and colleges to help young readers discover books and the art of conversation through social networking. 3) Perform the above activities without any commercial motivations (ala advertisements, subscriptions fees, affiliate kick-backs). In summary, we think LitMinds is a notable mission-driven organization with fairly unique goals and focus.

Next, let us address the issue of “coverage” i.e. who else thinks we are doing anything notable? Here is some press we have received from the American Booksellers Association, San Francisco Business Journal, Publisher’s Weekly, New York Review of Books, and San Jose State University http://news.bookweb.org/features/5520.html http://washington.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2007/08/20/story5.html?jst=s_cn_hl http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6449438.html http://nyrb.typepad.com/classics/2007/06/index.html http://sanjose.metblogs.com/archives/2007/07/litmindsorg_teams_with_sjsu.phtml

Also, here is some discussions of LitMinds in the blogosphere: http://marksarvas.blogs.com/elegvar/2007/03/litminds_interv.html http://bookchase.blogspot.com/2007/03/litminds-interview.html http://caribousmom.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2007/4/16/2884137.html http://www.thebookbeat.com/backroom/index.php

Last, after reading Wikipedia’s notability guidelines, we have an observation we would like to share. The guidelines say “A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” In our humble opinion, strict application of this guideline poses significant risk of turning Wikipedia into a site that only summarizes what the mass media is reporting on. Let’s take a couple of examples from our world – the world of literature. The mass media has been obsessing about stories of independent bookstores closing around the country. There has been a real lack of coverage in the mass media about stories where independent bookstores are surviving and thriving while chain stores in the same neighborhoods are retrenching. Similarly, the mass media continues to report about the apparent decline of reading in the American society, and continues to largely ignore the efforts of pioneers who are helping to create generations of new readers. LitMinds was started to correct this information imbalance. So, by definition we are talking about things that don’t get covered by others! Fortunately, Wikepdia notability guidelines also state – “However, there is still a lot of debate on notability, as for obvious reasons, not every person, business, or street can be considered notable, so on such topics, the line has to be further drawn.” We hope in addition to making a case for LitMinds notability, this conversation will also help re-assess the notability guidelines themselves.

- Praveen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmadan (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. Blogs aren't really acceptable as sources; and of the five "press" sources listed above, the last two are message-board posts and also not acceptable as sources. The three remaining references establish the site as a new venture that may someday be notable under the WP guidelines, but I don't think it's there yet. Deor (talk) 13:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB website less than a year old and with no notability in particular. Alexa rank is around [5 million], even lower than my own personal site. WP is not a guide to every website that ever existed. Looks like there's some WP:SPAM/WP:COI issues in play here too. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB for the sourcing issues IDed by Deor TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable and does have a WP:COI--Pmedema (talk) 16:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Booksmith, the brick-and-mortar store owned by the same people. I think the ABA Bookweb, Bizjournals, and PW discussions are sufficient sourcing to add to that article. --Dhartung | Talk 19:12, 28 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. GlassCobra 10:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayurkhandi[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax civilization, only 1 Google hit for this (being this article). Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 11:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, non-notable and unsourced.Vice regent 14:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Did various searchs for possible spelling errors, and split the name up and found hits for Mayur and Khandi separately but not together. Does not satisfy WP:V--Pmedema (talk) 16:29, 28 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love You More than Football[edit]

Love You More than Football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The Deletion Box was removed as more information had been supplied from trusted sources showing that the album was set for release SeveredSpirit (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment That's not how it works. I'll let SeveredSpirit know. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have articles on other albums by Space. At the least this could redirect to their article. Catchpole (talk) 21:11, 21 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, Tikiwont (talk) 11:06, 28 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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 00:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torch (album)[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Music#Albums_and_songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:32, 20 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, Tikiwont (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:55, 29 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Observed Performance and Effects of Communism[edit]

Observed Performance and Effects of Communism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete The entire article is POV and hodge podge of different sources. The effects described here are actually specifically effects of some communist governments, not "effect of communism". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Your objection seems irrelevant since the topic of the article is "observed performance" and so it is looking at results rather than theory. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. The article seems to be part of a set starting from Criticisms of communism. The material might be rearranged but there's lots to say and so this subarticle structure seems reasonable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The article as written sucks. it has no focus, no direction, almost no ecyclopdedic purpose. Likely something with this title is an article to be written. This one is not it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. To address your concerns:
1. Regarding the article being POV, it is all referenced. It is not POV. It deals with a controversial subject that some will find objectionable, and will not want to discuss. But it is not POV. It is all referenced. If in fact you do find small portions of the article are POV, you should edit them to remove the POV rather than suggesting a draconian measure like deletion.
2. Regarding it being a "hodge podge of different sources"... I don't know what you are criticizing here. Almost every article on Wikipedia is a "hodge podge of different sources." Please reference a specific Wikipedia guideline that has been violated here.
3. The article, as it is titled, refers to the observed effects of communism in different countries. As such, it has a clear encyclopedic purpose. Please reference the Wikipedia guideline which would indicate that this article does not have an "encyclopedic purpose." There are no other articles on Wikipedia that deal with the relationship between Communism and famine/genocide. If you want to improve it, feel free. Immediately demanding that it be deleted though, does not strike me as a reasonable response. The article is not as complete and comprehensive as it may end up being. A lot can be said about this subject. However, your criticisms do not seem to be directed at the page being too short. I can expand it to be more comprehensive if you like, or you could do it yourself. That is how Wikipedia works.
For example, here is a whole List of effects describing the effects of different things. These are clearly encyclopedic. Mrdarklight (talk) 18:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this putrid POV fork full of OR. Some of the sources could potentially contribute to central planning, but the pseudo-scientific title is highly misleading. Note that not all communist countries have had famines, so this is basically extrapolating from one notorious example. --Dhartung | Talk 19:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/merge. This article has no OR. It has no POV. It is all referenced by reliable sources. Again, if you think it has POV, please correct the POV rather than immediately jumping to delete. It is definitely not the extrapolation of one notorious example, but an observation of several examples, as noted in the article (China, Soviet Union, Cambodia). It can be expanded to include North Korea if you like. Honestly, what's POV is to dedicate many pages to communism and then to ignore the elephant in the room - the history of famine and genocide in communist nations. It would be as if you wrote a comprehensive series of articles on Nazism and somehow ignored the Holocaust. This article is, in part, an attempt to cover this important part of history, which is severely lacking elsewhere in the discussion of communism. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add Ethiopia. See Google scholar for thousands of sources on these multiple communist famines which killed millions. OR is not required to cover this subject in great detail. The article just needs work. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the content to remove two instances that could be interpreted as POV and/or OR. Mrdarklight (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a paragraph about the North Korean famine, in order to make the page more comprehensive and complete. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked: The Wikipedia page on Nazism mentions the Holocaust six times on the first page. This is of course reasonable and proper, as the holocaust is an important part of Nazism. The main page on communism doesn't mention famine, genocide or even the word violence - not once. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the main page of Communism to rectify this oversight. Mrdarklight (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No matter how brilliant an essay, no matter how many sources thrown in to persuade us, it's still an essay. The other side of Communism was its guarantee of "full employment" for the citizens. If you complained enough, they even allowed you to go to a labor camp. Mandsford (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What makes this an essay? How is this an essay, while any other page is not an essay? 63.169.2.31 (talk) 01:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's your central thesis, "One of the primary observed effects of a centrally planned economy is a general weakening of economic performance," followed by proof in the form of evidence that famines happened under a particular form of totalitarian government. Notwithstanding that famines have occurred in non-communist nations as well, the article is one person's synthesis of information to prove a point. I define an essay as something that proposes an idea and then illustrates it, subject to people agreeing or disagreeing. Most of the articles on here are not essays, but recitals of facts, with very little analysis. Mandsford (talk) 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't require any analysis, and I didn't provide any. There is no OR in this article. It is not subject to "one person agreeing or disagreeing." It is the recitation of facts provided by attributed sources. If you can find a Wikipedia policy or guideline that has been violated here, I encourage you to reference it. I'd be glad to make this article comply with all Wikipedia policies. In fact, I believe it already does. Mrdarklight (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Observed Performance and Effects of Capitalism --Dhartung | Talk 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is nothing but analysis. It attempts to analyse the performance and effects of what it calls "communism" (and later, "socialism"), using a selective set of facts and with no attempt to define its terms: what is "communism"? The current governments of Cyprus and Kerala are also communist by name, yet are puzzlingly omitted here.
All of the observations on performance are negative: no mention is made, for example, of superior literacy levels and healthcare observed in nominally communist states like Cuba, though referenced facts on this are trivially simple to find: see List of countries by infant mortality rate, List of countries by literacy rate, List of countries by unemployment rate.
Notably, under the subheading "Freedom and Democracy", it's correctly pointed out that all of the totalitarian states listed call themselves "democratic republics", though they are neither democratic nor republican. Yet, for some reason, their identification of themselves as "socialist" is taken at face value. This article could therefore be renamed to Observed Performance and Effects of Democracy or Observed Performance and Effects of Republicanism, and be of just as much value. It's a blatantly POV essay. Virago (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've also found and prodded a very similar (orphan) POV essay by the same editor, Death Toll of Communism. It seems the article listed here is a second attempt at posting: the first attempt was redirected to Criticisms of communism a year ago. Virago (talk) 17:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue Man Group CDs[edit]

List of Blue Man Group CDs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "article" is merely an organized list of albums by the Blue Man Group, along with their track listings. Wikipedia is not a list of such information, and it is therefore encyclopedic. A discography article may be appropriate, however because the group's discography is so small, it may not be necessary either. –Dream out loud (talk) 03:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and rename to Blue Man Group discography Lugnuts (talk) 18:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. But please, no spinoff article called "List of Blue Man Group Blu-Rays" Mandsford (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per Doc Strange. There are many discography articles for groups where the information is too much to include in the group's main article, why would this one be any different?--Rtphokie (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was No consensus to delete; default to KEEP - Philippe | Talk 20:41, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makeoutclub[edit]

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

marketing crap, certainly unnotable, Jonathan Williams (talk) 20:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - I can't see any reason for a delete... Website has multiple 3rd partly media sources mentioning it's notability. I have checked them and they all look fine. ???- perhaps Jonathan Williams can elaborate on which wiki guidelines this article is infringing upon that warrants a delete?Gregg Potts (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

':*This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Needs WP:HEY I was hoping the CNN/Associated Press and Billboard articles had enough meat on them to satisfy the Notability criterion. Unfortunately, the articles only cover social networking sites in general, and list Makeoutclub as an example. This is what we call a trivial mention, and does not meet the guideline requirements. However, I believe that if the article was worth inclusion in the AP article, then more than likely there are articles out there on it, and if it were added before the deadline as a source, then the article would probably be kept. -- RoninBK T C 16:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ordinarily I'm for deleting unreferenced articles about social networking sites, but in this case I have to suggest making an exception. I believe that being the subject of a chapter in the book listed at the bottom of the article is sufficient notability, let alone the secondary sources. (I agree that they're minor but, coupled with the book, I suggest they're sufficient.) "And for me, the idea that this site provably pre-dates more well-known social networking sites gives it a kind of secondary notability -- I can't point to a policy about this, just suggesting that the notability comes from more than one direction and thus is more solid. I suggest that it's more necessary to have this article than others for those interested in the historical development of social networking sites AND for the background on emo. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - have you noticed that the link to a supposed book is a dead one? A 2-28-08 search of GoogleBooks reveals only two passing mentions, neither apparently of substance. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Strange, it worked for me a little while ago. Anyway, the Amazon listing for the book can be found here. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This person saying the website isnt a social networking site and used PHPBB hack isnt true. I opened the site the summer of 2000 and everything on it was our own code. Of course by todays comparisons it wasnt as feature rich as say a myspace, it did pave the way and was the first and only until around 2002 (suicide girls) and 2003 (Friendster)... learn your facts before you talk shit... honestly im fucking fed up, its been 2 years of trying to get a wiki entry in here and it keeps getting shit on by you elitist assholes, yanked, deleted, or completely wiped out... MAkeoutclub has been an active community since 2000, how is that undeserving of an entry here? this website caters to frivolous bullshit all the time but wont accept an entry from the first social networking website ever? go figure... web 2.0 fucktards...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.113.207 (talk • contribs)
  • Strong Delete - There's plenty of more notable, far earlier social networking sites documented on Wikipedia; Bolt.com for example. It will set a really bad precedent for every no-name mesageboard-based community to be considered "notable". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.226.112 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Accounting4Taste, it was not a social networking site any real sense, but a hack of phpbb or something similar with user profiles. Doesn't have very much to do with emo really either. Jonathan Williams (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable per WEB. Eusebeus (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable per WEB. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable. The references barely mention the site in passing and are not articles about Makeoutclub per se. Bphenry (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not true; the Portland Mercury article is completely about Makeoutclub. — brighterorange (talk) 03:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And yet the TAGWORLD entry still exists without problem on Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.34.194 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick whois reveals the above poster's IP address is owned by "3jane" the parent company of the topic at hand. Jonathan Williams (talk) 0:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - We have had an incredible amount of trouble keeping our entry on here... and I guess Im confused as to what it is we are actually doing wrong? We have been online since 2000, and were absolutely the first niche audience social networking site (though back then we called ourselves a community) geared toward indie rockers. We were on MTV2, Much Music, Tech TV had a 15 minute segment on our site in 2003, we were in Spin Magazine, and had an entire chapter in Andy Greenwald's book "Nothing Feels Good". Our entry is deleted almost monthly or vandalized by people who have an agenda against MOC and it's admin. I would like to contact or be contacted by someone at wikipedia who can help us keep our entry and protect it against vandalism and unwarranted deletions. I can be reached at <redacted>. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.189.92.113 (talk • contribs)
    • reply - earlier versions of the article flatly stated, "Makeoutclub was one of the first sites to embody what became known as social networking" with no qualification about "geared toward indie rockers" - that is why the issue keeps being raised. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unnotable per WEB.--76.15.165.151 (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please explain what is not notable (beyond what Orange Mike said above). The makeoutclub.com entry was removed from deletion contention in September and had been currently revised to include more notable aspects of the site. The most vocal for deletion is someone with a vendetta against the site due to being banned years ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdeligate (talk • contribs) — Exdeligate (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong delete. Obvious campaign by the site's operators to keep this article as a promotional vehicle, also not notable per WP:WEB. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment you can clearly see the history of the edits from the Wikipedia page. Your comment is baseless — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exdeligate (talk • contribs)
      • I stand by my comments, and as I advised you on the message you left on my user talk page, please keep this AfD discussion on this page, not on user talk pages. And learn how to sign a message, for Pete's sake. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment We were proud that users and visitors from the MOC site had drafted 99.9% of the MOC wiki unsolicited. It is not a 'campaign by the sites operators as a promotional vehicle'. With citations to prove the place MOC holds in history, former Wiki admin approval and the existence and acceptance of less "notable" social network sites, deletion at this point is a clear sign of discrimination. Exdeligate (talk) 01:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. (I've written that sentence so many times, I could do it in my sleep. In fact, I think I just did.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The calls for deletion are mainly coming from IP addresses in the same area. If the Makeoutclub entry violates a policy and was given unbiased treatment that would be understandable but someone is clearly on a mission to get it deleted.216.254.34.194 (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)216.254.34.194 (talk) 22:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. trivial mention in media does not prove notability HussaynKhariq (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shameless and outright blatant. Just see their main page at [24]. If that's not blatant, I don't know what is. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:02, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply How is it either? They're being bullied because your admin was banned from the site.
  • I could care less who you've banned from your site. The site does not meet notability standards for web sites. Period. And campaigning on the home page of your site for people to take part in this discussion will only further alienate you to The Powers That Be here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Coming in as a third party, I can see the issue is quite polarised here. First of all, I'll proclaim any competing interests - I am neither a regular nor a member to the site, but came to this article through the above-mentioned link. My main aim is to see Wikipedia become a respected and accurate source of information for many topics. Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not have an infinite amount of space, so notability has to be established. If you see on the Talk page (i.e. here), I've posted some statistics and other information from a cursory search of information about the site (primarily from Alexa and Google). I'm setting up a list on this page for all parties to list themselves and their interests, so who know who's who and what they want out of this. I'll leave it at the bottom of the page for now; please use it. -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Those of you claiming that everything is done by site operators, give me a break. The last major update (which expanded its size exponentially) was done by me, and the site operators and myself have some pretty serious differences - I didn't write this for my health. As for notability, it has (at least) one book reference, it has several newspaper references (though mostly from college papers) and a variety of web reviews and references. There's absolutely no reason to delete this. I don't understand why there's any notability issue here. Drhamad (talk) 16:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<<List moved to talk page -- Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 11:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)>>[reply]

Exdeligate (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't dump all that crap onto the AfD page. Edit them into the article. -- RoninBK T C 03:02, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I found Makeoutclub mentioned in different industry related Websites, the article it self cannot establish notabilty because there showl be a specific industry sourrce with a story about the Website. So if you can Time, Villagevoice or some other newspaper type Websites to write an article about the site, then it would be notable. Get some social media ranking Website to write a dedicate article about the Website it will be notable. You cannot just say Makeoutclub.com is used for finding a date in a Time article about dating and consider that notability per Wikipedia. Igor Berger (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be a small entry about an existing, referenced, social website. It does not appear to be advertising. It appears to be edited and contributed to by persons other than the site's operators. There is no substantial explanation as to why the article is not notable. No general notification has been given as to an approaching limit to Wikipedia's server space. Millions of people rely on the Wikipedia to provide quick, concise information that is unavailable elsewhere. The deletion of this article would make that information, in this case, unavailable. The existence of the article does not diminish or blemish the Wikipedia in any way. The value of one half of the human work hours expended in this discussion would probably have paid for the storage space of the article in perpetuity. The other half of the work hours could have perhaps been spent improving the article, if there is a concern about the neutrality as it stands. I am not sure, but I feel like I have found something distasteful here. -- 69.49.44.11 (talk) 07:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this advertorial. Sources (such as they are) are trivial and fail to establish the importance or significance of this site. Just another social networking site, basically, and apparently written from personal knowledge not sources. Guy (Help!) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete sources need to establish notability, not just that it exists. The sources fail to do so TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 20:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - enough cites to show some measurable notability, but just barely. Bearian (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Appears to just barely meet WP:WEB. The Portland Mercury and the Iowan source seem to push it over the edge. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marx-Muhammad Pact[edit]

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

Neologism no legit sources --Gary123 (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but move - per Slarre. - BillCJ (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as legit reflection of the real, if imaginary, world. What is this 'move language' about? Hmains (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Emmett Shaw[edit]

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

Biography of non-notable student. Addition after the {{hangon}} tag claims it is autobiography. Qualifies for speedy A7 but that was contested - another user removed the tag. JohnCD (talk) 10:10, 28 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 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsybin RSR[edit]

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

No sources to establish notability, or to even prove the project actully existed. Article has existed since July 4 2006 (longer than I've been a WPian by nearly 2 months), yet has still not been improved. My effort to try a less-contentious route with a simple PROD was stymied by an apparent new user. Hence we're here - I'm much too busy as one of "Jimbo's serfs" to play around. If proper reliable sources can be provided and added to the article per WP policy, I will consider withdrawing the nom at that point. (I'll just let someone else decide this without my interference.) - BillCJ (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • AFD Withdrawn - As I stated in the nom, the article had no "proof" of notability, but thanks to the hard work of Nigel and others, it does now. Other mitigating circumstances in this case have been brought to my attention, so I am withdrawing my nomination. - BillCJ (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Oh yes, it was real enough. this isn't strictly a reliable source, but it's well-referenced and, in my experience, extremely reputable. I'll see what I can find. --Rlandmann (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Project did exist and is mentioned in Bill Gunston's The Osprey Encyclopedia of Russian Aircraft 1875-1995. I seem to vaguely remember seeing a magazine article on it as well - possibly in Air Enthusiast. A single seat low powered demonstrator (the NM-1, which is the aircraft shown in Rlandmanns link was built and flown, and 5 of the final version were virtually completed before the programme was cancelled.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've now expanded the article a bit (and added more references)Nigel Ish (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It does need further development, but if we AfD'd every article in WP that needs the same, it'd probably account for some 75% of the extant articles. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's featured on Globalsecurity.org - Here. Also, you can find many additional drawings of the aircraft here. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:26, 28 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. Tiptoety talk 00:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Democracy in the United States[edit]

Democracy in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Badly-summarised essay which is actually entirely about the Declaration of Independence, which already has an article. The only information it adds are unsourced claims about certain details being "generally acknowledged". McGeddon (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 03:56, 29 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BigShoulders Digital Video Production[edit]

BigShoulders Digital Video Production (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable production company Fredrick day (talk) 08:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable sounds like self promotion.--Pensil (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete Spartaz Humbug! 22:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raven (programming language)[edit]

Raven (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable programming language RogueNinjatalk 08:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Agree, no evidence of notability, as all sources in article were clearly written by the designer of the language. Qwfp (talk) 00:39, 29 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 faithless (speak) 12:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Callum Sprit[edit]

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

This wrestler has worked almost exclusively for non-notable promotions and has held only non-notable titles. The majority of these promotions and titles are redlinked. I have looked for sources to expand this article, but insufficent reliable sources exist. GaryColemanFan (talk) 07:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, per nom. I also did a search in an attempt to source the article, but none existed. Nikki311 14:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable, badly written, and appear to have sources available to verifiy the info. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 17:27, 28 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:36, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aezhumazhai vs Chitra[edit]

Aezhumazhai vs Chitra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:NFF. (A photo shoot does not count as "in production".) Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:07, 28 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 comments which identify this as substantially similar to the deleted consciousness causes collapse, and failing policy for all the same reasons. Guy (Help!) 11:11, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Measurement causes collapse[edit]

Measurement causes collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a resurrection of Consciousness causes collapse, which was redirected to Quantum mysticism with intent to merge per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consciousness causes collapse a few days ago. All of its material is a copy-and-paste job from that article, Copenhagen interpretation, Schrödinger's cat, and Quantum Zeno effect. This article is bad for Wikipedia's organisation, since the article summarizing these ideas in the context of measurement causing collapse is exactly Copenhagen interpretation. This article amounts to a POV fork populated with original research. Melchoir (talk) 06:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the two articles and you'll see that Measurement Causes Collapse is focused on issues that go beyond consciousness, included is the quantum zeno effect, the copenhagen interpretation, and a lot of other details that focus on measurement. I think it's unfair to characterize this as a resurrection of CCC and then claim it's the Copenhagen intepretation at the same time.
Copy and paste job? Are you insinuating that there is special protection given to articles and that sections cannot be shared to create new articles? That is a very limited view of how articles are created and it presumes the hard work others have done can never be used to quickly cover topics relevant to another article.
This sounds like sour grapes to me.
Lordvolton (talk) 06:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I can see how that appeared unfair. Let me restate the point:
  • This article was clearly created from Consciousness causes collapse. The first sentence of that article was ""Consciousness causes collapse" is the name given to a broadly controversial interpretation of quantum mechanics according to which observation by a conscious observer is causally associated with wave function collapse." The first sentence of this article is the same, except "broadly controversial" is deleted and "observation" is replaced with "measurement". The sections "Mysticism, New Age and New Thought belief", "Objections from physicists", and "Further links and references" are all preserved. This comes off as a simple attempt to evade process by shoehorning material where it doesn't belong. Right off the bat, the opening phrase "Measurement causes collapse" is a name given to... is unverifiable, for which see WP:V.
  • As for copying from other articles: there are many reasons why it is not good to duplicate content, but those are editorial and management issues beyond the scope of this AfD, which is theoretically about policy. Repeating all this material under the banner of the idea that "measurement by a conscious observer is causally associated with wave function collapse" is original research, for which see WP:NOR.
Melchoir (talk) 06:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there is a very important distinction between "measurement" and "consciousness". And I also believe that the CCC article didn't actually get into any of the details, instead focusing on Quantum Mysticism. I think you'll find that by focusing on measurement, and related issues, and not solely upon consciousness the reader can make up their own mind whether consciousness is required, rather than assuming for the reader that CCC is the case. To their credit, other editors have covered important ground that is relevant (uncertainty principle, etc.)
Proponents of CCC would certainly not want material in an article that states a collapse occurred and by measurement (later) you realized it. Which is precisely the kind of material included in the measurement causes collapse article, rather than a non-scientific approach to examining what we know to be a critical requirement: measurement.
How many physicists would argue against the statement, "Measurement causes collapse"? I would wager you'd find very few. Now ask the same group of physicists if "consciousness causes collapse" and you're likely to get a very different answer.
Which illustrates why I believe the distinction is not only important but an entirely different article altogether.
Lordvolton (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course there is an important distinction. (1) If one were to write an article about the idea that measurement (not consciousness) causes collapse, once would get Copenhagen interpretation. (2) If one were to write an article about the idea that consciousness causes collapse, one would get either Consciousness causes collapse or Quantum mysticism. Melchoir (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two possibilities among several. I believe it's a very complicated question. For example, a reader might conclude that measurement causes collapse but that a requirement of measurement is a conscious observer. Which then opens the floor to a debate on whether collapse occurs without an observer.
The philosophical riddle, "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" comes to mind. Why does any of this matter? Well, there are a lot of fascinating subplots to this question. If measurement is required than there might be an efficiency argument which is how simulated worlds are created today. In computer generated worlds we only render what you can see and when a tree falls in a forest and there is no one around to hear it there is no sound, because that would be a waste of resources.
If we’re searching for existential clues… this is a great place to start.
Lordvolton (talk) 07:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...(3) If one were to write an article about how complicated a question "it" is, one would get Interpretation of quantum mechanics. But you can't just create your own interpretation on Wikipedia, per WP:NOR. Melchoir (talk) 07:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wrote another lengthy response to your most recent accusation on the discussion page of Measurement Causes Collapse. Some of those thoughts apply to this claim as well. The article speaks for itself and there is no evidence to support that it's my own interpretation.
That's patently false.
Lordvolton (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden of proof is, in fact, on you to provide evidence that the article is describing an idea reflected in the literature, per WP:V. Melchoir (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you interested in even more back and forth on this topic please visit the discussion section of the article in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Measurement_causes_collapse

Lordvolton (talk) 04:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_________

  • Keep/merge The nominator seems to want this merged with an article such as Copenhagen interpretation. I would think that Measurement problem or Measurement in quantum mechanics might be better. Anyway, there are lots of articles about the general topic so clarifying and rearranging this material is more a matter of normal editing then deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • My recommendation is more redirect than merge, actually, on the basis that the target article already covers the material. In particular, it would be best to delete and replace with a redirect, so that the article history doesn't present GFDL problems. Melchoir (talk) 22:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I think what Colonel Warden is saying sounds reasonable, clarifying and rearranging would have been acceptable. It's worth noting that the person who nominated this article for deletion offered no constructive criticisms or edits to the article. Their only contribution was to nominate the article for deletion.Lordvolton (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - (possable merge, depending) - What a learning curve... had fun trying to figure this one out. I seem to come down to the one statement at the start of the article which says "measurement by a conscious observer" which directly puts it as an article that is already covered by Consciousness causes collapse. --Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I was asked to reconsider my opinion by Lordvolton. I, by no means, am not an expert in this scope, but I am a thinker, a person who likes puzzles, the universe and everything. Lordvolton stated "Actually, "measurement" is the very thing that CCC doesn't require. And really what you're stating is a simply clarification rather than a merger or deletion. Remember, those supporting deletion never made any attempts to improve the article, which is not in the true spirit of Wikipedia.

I submit that what you are separating is CCC and the act of measuring by a Conscious mind... but that is the same as a CCC is inherently measuring all things, contextualizing, spacializing, etc... therefore the act of measuring is already covered by CCC... am I wrong?--Pmedema (talk) 17:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The CCC crowd assumes that it's consciousness causing the collapse. We know from experimental evidence that measurement apparently causes collapse (or the prevention of collapse via the Quantum Zeno Effect), so there is little debate about that. A second question, which we might want to cover in greater detail within the article, is whether measurement requires consciousness.
And thirdly, whether collapse occurs without measurement.
There are interesting conundrums within all of those concepts. I don't personally believe consciousness is required for collapse, but I do believe measurement causes collapse and that the folks who wish to promote "consciousness" as a requirement for collapse deserve more respect than they're getting from critics whose view of the world prevents them from allowing others to express alternative ideas.
Ideas with plenty of citations, for those critics who think it's not a scholarly endeavor.
It can be confusing because saying "measurement causes collapse" and "consciousness is required for measurement" is not the same thing as saying "consciousness causes collapse" because collapse may occur without measurement. And that's probably a point we need to clarify in the article.
Lordvolton (talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I modified the opening paragraph to better frame the goals of the article.

Lordvolton (talk) 20:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Measurement causes collapse." And the punchline is...? Mandsford (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as per nom - essentially a recreation of a deleted article William M. Connolley (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and William M. Connolley. A redirect to Copenhagen interpretation would work fine. Anville (talk) 17:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is my first instinct after a few minutes of research. Schrodinger's Cat seems to narrow an article, whereas Quantum mechanics seems far to wide a subject matter. This article might just fill that niche nicely perhaps. Of course, citing notations and credible sources requirement goes without saying. Doh, I just said it. --Rebroad (talk) 13:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I also vote that all votes here should be irrelevant, and that it should be those who understand the subject and those with sufficient intelligence who should decide on the future of this article. How we go about showing what the IQ of everyone involved in this debate is, I don't know! --Rebroad (talk) 13:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you're referring to links to our discussion then perhaps you shouldn't have your friend run off to the wikiprojects physics talk page looking for "consensus". I'm not saying you're his meatpuppet or vice-versa, but the two of you seem very eager to delete articles and campaign to accomplish those ends. I also believe some of your recent negativity is a result of my issues with your treatment of another user who came to you for assistance and ultimately received only ridicule. Lordvolton (talk) 01:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the concern about filling niches, there's always Copenhagen interpretation as well as -- as Colonel Warden rightly points out -- Measurement problem and Measurement in quantum mechanics. Managing these articles is a tough job that I wouldn't want to trivialize, and perhaps a new addition would help. But I really think that it should be less important to this particular AfD whether we desire to answer certain questions we have, and more important whether the stated goals of this particular article are in conflict with WP:V and WP:NOR. Melchoir (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: See my comments above. Another case of the pot calling the kettle black. Lordvolton (talk) 23:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this is a rehash of material already present elsewhere, it is not a solution to the CCC problem. 1Z (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William if you have any sense of integrity you'll place the same "this user was canvassed" notice beneath Peter Jones. Or do you only want to complain about those who disagree? It turns out, contrary to your assumptions and accusations, that wikipedians have their own minds and the ability to exercise free will. Lordvolton (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LV, Peter Jones was canvassed by you, not William. The fact that even the people you have been approaching aren't entirely supporting you doesn't look very good for your argument. --BozMo talk 15:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was recently blocked by William for my comment above and I appealed the block which was quickly denied by BozMo, who it turns out is an editing pal of William's. And not surprisingly BozMo suddenly shows up here. Since I believe there is an abuse of administrative power occurring I would like to invite others to view my talk page which will corroborate my story.
Just for the record, if you check the time of the edits you will see that I found this page first (my previous edit was on another delete page) and went to Lordvolton's talk page to warn him about his incivility. I found he had already been blocked for it by WMC and endorsed it, after here. As for the "editing pal" bit I am not going to dignify it with any comment. --BozMo talk 08:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What are the procedures for reporting William and BozMo? Lordvolton (talk) 19:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom's point that this is essentially a reincarnation of another article which has already been through an AfD. There are other reasons, but this is sufficient. R. Baley (talk) 19:58, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ultimately this has little to do with the article content and everything to do with the title. Measurement does cause collapse in the Copenhagen interpretation. This is not a controversial or unusual position. It's not even really a position, since there is no definition of what a measurement is aside from something that invokes the nonunitary measurement rule. There's nothing you could sensibly write in an article with this title that wouldn't be better placed in quantum mechanics or Copenhagen interpretation. The material currently in this article should really be titled "Consciousness causes collapse". I'm not sure CCC should have been deleted; I think it could potentially evolve into a good article. But this one has to be deleted. -- BenRG (talk) 22:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Others feel your sense of frustration with the previous article, this is taken from Nhall110608's page (see below). However, if your issue is simply with the the title of the article and not the content itself, then that isn't really addressing the issue raised here. Since they desire to delete the content.
I missed the original discussion, but the nature of the merger seems quire unjustified to me. There is basically no discussion at all of the original subject matter of consciousness causes collapse on Quantum Mysticism, (unlike Quantum mind, and Copenhagen interpretation. The reader is effectively being told that the subject is nonsense without being told why. That is not how good encyclopedias work. Some sort of merger might have been a good idea, but this is WP:POV and censorship.1Z (talk) 22:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I completely agree Peter Jones. I'm not exactly sure what we do about that though? Nhall0608 (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Lordvolton (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and redirect to City College of San Francisco. Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City College of San Francisco Queer Resource Center[edit]

AfDs for this article:
City College of San Francisco Queer Resource Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is not notable, does not assert its notability, merge with City College of San Francisco if necessary. CholgatalK! 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete-per nom selfCholgatalK! 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to WP:BITE or anything, but you are the nom. It's slightly redundant (or misleading?) to state "delete per me" immediately after your nomination rationale. Just sayin'. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't mean to imply anything by that, I think it was obvious enough I wasn't trying to vote twice. But there ya go.CholgatalK! 06:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I also fixed the nom page/title for you :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: On February 20 the article looked like this. It was edited on that day by Kirkclinn (talk · contribs) to look like this, and that was the state it was in when the AfD was posted. I've restored the neutral and better sourced article. However I think this resource center entirely lacks the notability for its own article and would do better, editorially speaking, merged into City College of San Francisco, so, Merge. • Anakin (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - stub can easily be merged into City College of San Francisco without loss of information. No need for separate articles. Aleta (Sing) 16:36, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to City College of San Francisco per Aleta & Anakin. I agree with insufficient notability for separate article, and component parts of an individual college are not usually separately notable. However, keep all content by merging. — Becksguy (talk) 13:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just another campus center; no notability, no assertion of same. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete the added sources are mostly internal and there is insufficient evidence of independant sourcing. Spartaz Humbug! 22:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly Week of Welcome[edit]

Cal Poly Week of Welcome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Under consrtuction or not, it's already far too detailed and trivial. One paragraph in the Cal Poly article might do, but all of this should go on the Cal Poly website or somewhere, not in an encyclopedia. Corvus cornixtalk 05:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week of Welcome is one of the largest orientation programs in the nation. It has been modeled by many other universities, and this cite can be useful for colleges who are hoping to start their own welcome program. A program with over 500 volunteers who undergo 40+ hours of training each is not trivial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XOgirl (talk • contribs) 05:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:USEFUL. Corvus cornixtalk 05:58, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The organization is notable. It is fifty years old and the largest student run orientation program in the country. Students plan it, organize it, and carry it out an entire week of activities for freshman and transfer students. It has been used as a model for many other universities. It is not just an extension of the university, it is it's own entity. How many week long events have you planed for 5,000 people? And how many universities have modeled a program of theirs on something that you're a part of? —Preceding unsigned comment added by XOgirl (talk • contribs) 06:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • — XOgirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Corvus cornixtalk 22:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not only is the organization completely student run, but it has been in existence for fifty years. Thousands of students have experienced this program and used its basic leadership principles in their post-college life. This is an orgaization that Cal Poly alumni Weird Al produced a record about in the 1970s. It is a necessary article because it provides information about a very large program that is important not only to the Cal Poly campus, but to the community of San Luis Obispo as a whole. Wow78 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete College orientation plans are not notable, and although the article is quite long, it asserts no particular notability and is almost entirely trivia, such as a day-by-day list of events. In summary: this belongs in a brochure, not in an encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per User:Starblind / Andrew Lenahan. This sort of stuff really belongs on their web site, not our encyclopaedia. Also it's sourced *entirely* using self-published sources. • Anakin (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is a college orientation program not a notable topic? The California State University System is one of the biggest University Systems, and Cal Poly's Orientation program is the biggest orientation program in the country. That says something. If you want us to shorten it we can shorten it. We were still not close to being done editing it, which is why we had the under construction code. The largest orientation program in the country, in the largest University system in the country is a notable topic. If you give us specific changes that would make it seem less like trivia then we would be happy to make those changes, but the topic is notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XOgirl (talk • contribs) 05:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, Andrew, and Anakin. Most of the claims to notability above (other universities have modeled their orientation programs on this one, Weird Al Yankovic wrote a song about it, it's the largest orientation program in the country) don't even appear in the article itself, much less are sourced. And it would be very difficult for a university program to establish notability just using sources from the university's own web site, but every source now in the article comes from calpoly.edu. In other words, I would be much more impressed by the article if there were an article from the Chronicle of Higher Education that listed the ten largest orientation programs and placed Cal Poly's at #1. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have added new references to our page. We are currently working on condensing the WOW Schedule section to make it less trivial. Please let us know if you have any other suggestions. Wow78 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Article now appears to be sourced. Hobit (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tungekar[edit]

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

It doesn't appear the "King of Salts" claim can be verified. WP is not a genealology project and article created by an SPA with a COI. Travellingcari (talk) 20:39, 22 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:21, 28 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.--Kubigula (talk) 22:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Txcare[edit]

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

Many false positives but no evidence that this company passes WP:CORP. Travellingcari (talk) 20:33, 22 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:19, 28 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 Close, both articles have been redirected to technical support. GlassCobra 09:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote PC Repair[edit]

Remote PC Repair (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Links to other articles (such as Computer support which in turn links to IYogi) which is blatent advertising. Shootthedevgru (talk) 07:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment nominator blanked and redirected article to Remote assistance the same day as the nomination. I've restored the article and I'm relisting this discussion. Please don't blank or redirect articles that have been nominated for deletion. Thanks. KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 28 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, KrakatoaKatie 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bold WP:BOLD if the redirect was in good faith then I don't see a problem with it. OK here's what I think:
Keep Remote PC Repair as it is the core of the subject but needs to be WP:WIKIFY'ed
Merge Remote assistance into Remote PC Repair as it is a feature of Windows that is a portal for remote PC Repair. There are other notable Remote PC Repair features and software that can be added above Windows Remote Assistance.
Merge all of this into Technical support which is the top level of the subject.

I don't have time to be bold right now, but tomorrow I'll have some time to look at this a bit. If anyone has any objections to what I have suggested, please indicate and I will leave it alone. --Pmedema (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and Merge any decent bits into Technical support Bardcom (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • close if satisfied I did the double merge, cleaned and added some citations. I hope I was not too bold. By all means check things out, add, change as anyone sees fit. --Pmedema (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:BIO requires multiple independant reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 22:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Anderson (actor)[edit]

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

per User: Davidshenba: The actor mentioned in this article is totally unknown to public and he is only found in mock e-mails and Orkut. I feel this article is an insult to Wikipedia\'s noble intention i.e to spread knowledge. This is wasting the server and space where good, knowledge sharing article can be posted. Someone has created this article because of personal reason. Sam Anderson is NOT a popular figure and he does not deserve a page in Wikipedia. posted on User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports#Discussion R00m c (talk) 05:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Only claim to fame is an appearance in an obscure Bollywood movie and Youtube internet meme. No reliable sources available to verify the person's notability.--TBC!?! 05:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. B-grade, but notable due to his so-called 'mockery'. People have edited it regularly, eventhough for the wrong reasons. A couple of sources should help. Universal Hero (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Herostratus (talk) 05:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akela (Serial)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFF, no notability asserted, no major activity for two years. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:30, 28 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. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie (sex)[edit]

The result was nomination withdrawn by User:Cholga. non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to have to overturn this one for now, there are still quite a few delete votes, which means a withdrawal cannot end the AfD. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quickie (sex) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, merge with sexual intercourse for its minor relevance. Article is otherwise unreferenced completely. CholgatalK! 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC) -remove listing based on recent improvements of the article.CholgatalK! 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete'Delete-per nom.CholgatalK! 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very common sexual slang term, doubtlessly notable. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:DICT. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to Keep I must admit, I still do not consider this article encyclopedia worthy. However I can not see any valid rationale for deletion since the expansion. Dhartung seems to be a genius for rescuing articles. This is at least the fourth one I have seen him save. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quickie (but not speeedy) Delete This can't easily be expanded beyond a dicdef as far as I can see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NEO. Tiptoety talk 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it may very well be slang, quickie is indeed dictionary worthy [36] Mstuczynski (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect / transwiki it's a pretty simple concept, I see no potential for an article beyond a dictionary definition. <eleland/talkedits> 06:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary May not be for Wikipedia, but that's what Wiktionary is for. Soxred93 | talk bot 06:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Casual sex. *** Crotalus *** 09:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That redir wouldn't make sense; casual sex is sex outside of a stable relationship, while a quickie is, well, quick sex. Different concepts. <eleland/talkedits> 09:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough concept. • Anakin (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary per Soxred93. --Explodicle (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurry and get this over with. I have to go back to work. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Article is more than just a definition and discusses the implications that quickies have in relationships. And is nicely reliably sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. Article has been improved to be more than just a dicdef and discusses the term in a anthropological/sociological context. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JoshuaZ. It's more than a dicdef. Now if only it had advice on getting my wife to agree to them more often... =) Dethme0w (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have to say keep. It's no Sistine Chapel but it does have properly-cited information that goes beyond what a dictionary would provide. --House of Scandal (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms crassic\talk 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I honestly have never seen it in such. If that's the case ... I change my vote. crassic\talk 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cprize[edit]

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

Seemingly non notable scientific prize. Also either a copyright violation or a conflict of interest if the claim by the editor is accurate. — Coren (talk) 04:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nomination. Not-notable, no reliable sources found, and basically spam. • Anakin (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no sources for notability, and no sources for the existance of the prize itself --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 28 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 Spartaz Humbug! 22:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

24E[edit]

24E (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Band claims to have charted on FMQB charts which appear to be fan based (i.e. not an official singles chart like those of Billboard or Mediabase 24/7). Only other claims to notability are very thin; albums appear to be on a nn label. I had initially tagged this for A7 but changed my mind. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE ARTICLE: 24E is a creditable rock band from Southern California. Various articles have been written about 24E online, interviews, etc; including the various references that were noted in this Wikipedia contribution. Those articles, websites, etc can be obtained by searching Google, Yahoo and so forth by typing in the band's name, as well as the individual members. Articles and interviews with this band have been featured throughout Germany. 24E also has an article in Wikipedia Germany. --Serenity74
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 faithless (speak) 12:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Romapada Swami[edit]

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

*Delete Subject is not notable. Wikipedia is not for advertisements for particular gurus or swamis, it is a resource for notable individuals. Article does not state subject's notability and has no independent third party sources. Does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Ism schism (talk) 05:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Using the above logic, all ISKCON swamis would have a page on Wikipedia. This is not a small group. Articles on ISKCON swamis must, like other Wikipedia articles, establish their notability of people and establish this through Wikipedia:Reliable sources. This has not been done in this article. Ism schism (talk) 12:16, 16 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 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article lacks reliable references independent of the religious leader or his religious organization to show that he meets the applicable requirements for [[WPBIO|notability]. Edison (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment in General I dont think someone necessarily needs references from out of his religion, but he does need references that show he is particularly distinctive, and I do not understand what the appropriate criteria are. We need some help here, and I call on those who understand the movement better to inform us.03:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not snow Membership in the governing body of Hare Krishna seems to be a plausible notability claim. Membership in the College of Cardinals would be. The situation here is somewhat borderline because Hare Krishna is a somewhat smaller religion, although still substantially greater than an isolated congregation. The individual does need a minimum of two independent sources which may possibly include religious sources. I would recommend not WP:SNOWing and giving the authors an opportunity to obtain sources. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article doesn't make clear whether he is actually on the ISKON Governing Body Commission. Would it be possible to clarify this? I believe as said above that ISKON membershhip is a plausible notability claim; however, the article uses the term "zonal secretary" and not everyone with a regional title, or every priest or swami, would be notable. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 20:19, 26 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, Reading the first AFD, it looks like there wasn't much of a consensus there, and there doesn't seem to be one here. I'll be optimistic and throw this out yet again, hoping enough people who are knowledgeable about the subject will present a good argument one way or the other that we'll get clean closure on this. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Romapada Swami is on the Governing Body Commission, a link to there website at [37] displays his name. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Shirahadasha's discussion on GBC members notabilty. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for Administrator - nominator changed vote to keep. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well, naturally, I vote to include him: I feel that there are so many less notable topics (such as Internet phenomena) which are kept without question. David G Brault (talk) 19:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman 14:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deus Ex Machina (Machinima)[edit]

Deus Ex Machina (Machinima) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable web TV series on YouTube. No sources to show any notability. CSD and Prod removed as well Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as A7/web content with no notability present. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, I think. • Anakin (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom RT | Talk 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dont delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.106.118.231 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep famous machinima. Arogi Ho (talk) 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Article just needs cleaned up. Popular machinima. acfrazier ([[User


Talk:acfrazier|talk]]) 23:08, 1 March 2008 (EST)

This Machinima is almost as fomous as Red Vs Blue that has its own arcicle

  • delete. Notability not proven. Mukadderat (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very popular machinima and deserves its own article (talk) —

Preceding unsigned comment added by


79.97.36.191 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Strong Keep:This desevers its own article


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dingoes Ate My Baby[edit]

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

Second nomination (see first). Fictional band that has not crossed over into real world notability (through releasing real albums or the like, as Spinal Tap did). Possibly merge information into Four Star Mary. Page already exists at the Buffy Wiki, so no need for such an information move. SeizureDog (talk) 02:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 04:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we won't be able to delete/redirect/merge the actual article because of the Arbcom freeze, we can still discuss it. As such, I'd suggest against simply speedily keeping it.--TBC!?! 05:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The AFD has to be kept open because of that ridiculous ArbCom injunction (which I strongly disagree with), but this article can be deleted after that because they are NN. TJ Spyke 05:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selected parts into Four Star Mary, also helping them with notability. The fictional band doesn't seem to be real-world notable, but there are clearly a few tidbits that are worth keeping somewhere on wikipedia. – sgeureka t•c 17:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as useless fancruft. Has anyone read the definition of encyclopedia lately? • Anakin (talk) 18:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC) Neutral. I changed my mind... • Anakin (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The band is covered in a variety of reliable sources some of which are included in the article already. There are others out there as well such as one from the Washington Post (which unfortunately is behind a paywall). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - into Four Star Mary.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:18, 29 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 faithless (speak) 12:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go To Berlin[edit]

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

Not much notability for this musical group, per WP:MUSIC. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 19 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, -- RoySmith (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable Dreamspy (talk) 13:00, 28 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. The new users who have come along with personal endorsements carry no weight in the debate, which is one that must be based on wikipedia policy. Regarding the latter, the unanimous consensus of editors applying it is that sufficient notability has not been established in this article with verifiable sources. There is some indication that it may be possible to meet requirements, in which case the best course would be to write up the article in a user sub page and run past experienced editors before uploading in article space. However, it is recommended that the article writer gain wider experience by working on other wikipedia articles first. Ty 02:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wesley Warren[edit]

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

Aside from COI issues, I don't believe the subject of this article is notable. He is an artist who opened a coffeeshop and now runs a web design firm. A few local news sources list his coffeeshop, and one story is actually about him. But I don't see the lasting notability and recommend Delete. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 03:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the hundreds of patrons who have collected his work over the past 15 years would disagree. Further more Java Street was not just a coffeeshop - it was the cultural center of St. Petersbur in the mid 90's where thousands of artists, poets and musicians performed and found exposure in a floundering art scene.

Do Not Delete —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.70.246 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, 74.160.70.246 is possibly User:Vexcom, who created the page in question—note the IP's edits. WP:SOCK does not appear to apply, but the connection seemed worth noting. —johndburger 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete shouldn't get his 15 mins of fame here. Dreamspy (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's amusing but I could care less if it stays or goes - Dreamspy if you think this is 15 minutes of fame perhaps you either A) Overvalue wikipedia or B) Don't get out enough WesleyEWarren (talk) 15:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the page was created by User:Vexcom, also the name of Warren's company. Again, no evidence of puppetry, but I thought it worth noting. —johndburger 00:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the COI tag on Wesley Warren. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 00:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yah, but User:WesleyEWarren was created in the meantime—I thought it worth noting that the page creator and all of the dissenters are possibly the same person, or at least closely related. —johndburger 03:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Standard self-promotion as he has done elsewhere on the net. The 'art' is hardly exceptional either. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nunquam - Your opinion of my work is "hardly exceptional". Why dont you give me your opinion on what "exceptional" artwork is so I can redefine my beliefs based on your uneducated critique of my paintings. WesleyEWarren (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"hardly exceptional" was my diplomatic way of saying "complete crap" Nunquam Dormio (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Hanging artwork on the walls of a coffee shop you run is self nomination. Rest of the references are trivial. So wont pass WP:BIO. Fountains of Bryn Mawr

- "Hanging artwork on the walls of a coffee shop you run?" Have you even read the entry? My work has been sold in numerous galleries in 4 states. I've produced hundreds of pieces of art. WesleyEWarren (talk) 19:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 23:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creative professionals
Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:
The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyEWarren (talk • contribs)
Yes, but you left out the crucial bit: "The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." (I've added the emphasis). Please see WP:V for what would count for "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". freshacconcispeaktome 20:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Freshacconci but you are wrong - the criteria for Creative Professional is met by any of the lines listed - I quoted the appropriate one - the bit you cite is not "crucial" as you say, it is optional as are all the items listed, only one criteria needs to be met, and I have been written up in multiple peridocals, they may be 20 years old and never transfered to the internet but they exists. I suppose I could scan them and upload them If you like. WesleyEWarren (talk) 20:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just a while ago it was "I could care less if it stays or goes" but now WesleyEWarren doth protest too much. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 21:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- That was before people started insulting me. Now I have decided to turn my attention to it. WesleyEWarren (talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but verifiability is never "optional". Take a look at that policy, and if your sources meet the standards, I for one may consider changing my !vote. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 20:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" still requires verifiability. And you're written up in 20 year old periodicals? When you were 17? freshacconcispeaktome 21:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- Your a math wiz Freshacconi- The issue date is 1990 (February), so its 18 years ago and I was 19 - [article has been uploaded]? (The optional comment related to the list of Conditions under Creative Professionals - there is a list of 5 items - all five do not need to be met, one of the five need to be met - this makes the remaining 4 optional - i did'nt mean that the entire case for verifiability is optional) WesleyEWarren (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • WesleyEWarren: "I have been written up in multiple peridocals, they may be 20 years old..." . So that would make it 1988 by your information above, so you'd be 18. You said nothing about it being from 1990. I can only go by the info you gave us. Try some civility. freshacconcispeaktome 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiabilty The St. Petersburg Times is one of the most respected newspapers in the Country. http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/sptimes/access/51843096.html?dids=51843096:51843096&FMT=FT&FMTS=ABS:FT&date=Jun+13%2C+1994&author=PIPER+CASTILLO&pub=St.+Petersburg+Times&edition=&startpage=3&desc=Java+Street+brings+art+and+late-night+coffee+downtown+Series%3A+BUSINESS+DIGEST"

"The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors" Here are peer reviews: http://www.linkedin.com/in/designquote "Recommended 7 people have recommended Wesley E. Warren" WesleyEWarren (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Freshacconci. A write-up about a new coffee shop in a local newspaper can't support the claim that the artist is notable as "widely cited by their peers", or any of the WP:BIO criteria. Perhaps it's a notable cofee-shop, but you'll need to check WP:CORP. (By the way, I know it should be irrelevant to the AfD discussion, but I don't think the inclusion of the artist's work particularly helps the case for keep).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The St. Petersburg Times article is about Warren as a coffee-shop owner, not an artist. And a link from linkedin.com is of dubious quality per WP:V, esp. per Wikipedia:V#Reliable_sources. freshacconcispeaktome 22:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I beg to differ Ethicoaestheticist From the article (which clearly cites the fact that I am an artists):

A graduate of the Visual and Performing Arts High School in St. Louis, Warren's first love has always been his art. Now, his life is complete with his coffeehouse serving a dual role: business and art gallery. His paintings line the walls of Java Street and in the coming months, he hopes to solicit area artists to use Java Street to display and sell their wares.

Warren, who moved to St. Petersburg to escape the Midwest's cold weather, says his business knowledge came to him indirectly. He spent the last two years living near the campus of Ohio State University in Columbus, where he freelanced graphic designs and frequented coffeehouses with the Columbus art crowd.

"Coffeehouses serve artists well," he says. "It's a easy way for them to get their work seen. I watched more than five coffeehouses open. While doing work for several of them, I learned the business."

Freshacconci - if your reference above is regarding the fact that my paintings were on the walls when I opened for business, then I fail to see the issue. I opened a Coffee House / Gallery, no one had been there yet so when I opened my doors I had paintings hanging up = this doesn't help my case how?

http://www.wesleywarren.com/images/breakfastofchampions.jpg

WesleyEWarren (talk) 22:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete - Wes is a well respected business owner in Atlanta and a very accomplished artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jennexner (talk • contribs) 22:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC) — Jennexner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Do Not Delete - Wesley is a great artist and runs a great company. He is CEO and founder of Vexcom, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpsado (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 February 2008— Jpsado (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment Is Jpsado by any chance the Joe Sado, Client Relations Manager of Vexcom and employee of Wesley Warren – see Vexcom Team. If so, it's championship brown-nosing, Joe. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE - Wes is well known and respected in the design industry - Scott Seiter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.32.197 (talk) 23:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC) — 74.129.32.197 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Verifiabilty: Article Scanned And Uploaded surFACE Magazine Volume II, Issue IV February 15, 1990

St. Louis Arts and Entertainment

http://www.wesleywarren.com/Surface_Article.jpg

This should lay the discussion to rest. There are now 4 new sitations listed. ((unsigned|User:Vexcom]]

I don't think there's a WP:SOCK issue here, but there are definitely single-purpose accounts and IPs. As long as they are tagged as such, it's not a huge deal. Closing admin will take care of it. // Chris (complaints)•(contribs) 01:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Evidence of notability extremely thin. Anybody who opens a gallery/coffeehouse knows enough to send out a press release; this often leads to some ink in the weekender section of the local paper. Ewulp (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ewulp - 1) The publication date of the St. Pete Times story is Monday 06/13/1994 - Not a "weekender" - even if it was a "weekender" I don't see how that belittles the source.
2) I was 24 years old and I didn't send out a press release, The reporter found me because I was on her beat. Again - this is irrelevant - even if I did send out a press release, every company on the planet uses press releases to get media coverage, its the editors that determine what is newsworthy. (again this seems to me to be irrelevant)
3) The fact that we got any press is a major accomplishment since the art scene was in such bad shape when we opened. We were an alternative venue with underground bands playing every weekend. We were not a "main stream" business and most of the press in Tampa Bay is very conservative and doesnt cover "alternative" culture. - Java Street was basically underground and off the radar. Makes it difficult to get "main stream reliable media sources" to write about us.
4) We did have a write up in the weekly Creative Loafing, but their on-line archives dont go back that far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyEWarren (talk • contribs) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Additional Publications
I just found a box of old magazines that also have write ups on me, and a box of Local Band 45's that I designed the covers for, as well as several Magazine Covers I designed for Focus Magazine. I will scan them Sunday and add them to the reference material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WesleyEWarren (talk • contribs) 07:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • DO NOT DELETE

I can see that there is a lot of focus on a specific aspect of the Wesley Warren entry ...one MIGHT say a tremendous amount of focus on a specific aspect of the Wesley Warren entry. But I also take note that: "In 2003 Wesley Warren wrote the algorithm for Ad-ID developed by the American Association of Advertising Agencies and Association of National Advertisers."
and that he has built a fairly impressive business ("develops and manages advanced web applications used by many Fortune 500 companies") in just a handful of years.
Taken as a whole, I have to say that he is undoubtedly a creative person and an entrepreneur. Some seem to question his artistry (nothing unusual about artistry being questioned).
But when it comes to questioning his integrity (references to sockpuppetry, lack of references...) I have to say that I can understand the concern, I think there was/is a HEATED rush to judgement.
Maybe the posters have seem a great deal of this sockpuppetry (maybe too much), but I'd have to imagine SOME of his employees might want to speak in his defense. To my eye, that has not even been considered here.
Lack of references? I came late to this discussion and maybe he was guilty (I don't know) at the start, but you asked and he answered (aside to Wesley, KEEP GOING, SEE THAT YOU, OR WHOEVER, PUT THEM ALL UP).
The path that the references uncovered and its depth were what convinced me that he is a creative person and an entrepreneur.
To his critics, I think that you have to allow that your criticism has made (continues to make) his entry a better entry.
Finally, Self promotion.
You'd have to be a pretty poor entrepreneur to fail at self promotion and we'd all have to be pretty naive to believe that Coke, Pepsi and Microsoft don't promote themselves (or rather HAVE themselves promoted) through the editing of their Wikipedia entries.
How many of us have created a single industry standard after a year in business? How about 2 years? ...5 years?
Read it again, If you take it down now you'll just end up eating crow when you put it back up a mile or two down the road. [JonOfMeans] —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonOfMeans (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC) — JonOfMeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment The problem is, that the article is not primarily about Warren as an entrepreneur or web developer. As either of those he may be notable, but that would be for other editors to determine as it falls outside my area of knowledge. The main thrust of the article is that he is an artist. However creative he may be, he is not notable by Wikipedia standards as an artist. He is an artist who has had some local shows and some local press, just like hundreds of thousands of other artists around the world. As for the defense of self-promotion, the fact that corporations attempt to write or rewrite their Wiki entries does happen, but there is every attempt made to keep that to a minimum (not to mention that articles on high-profile companies are actually monitored for this sort of thing). This is beside the point anyway: if it happens elsewhere does mean it should be happening, nor does it mean that it should happen here on this article. This has been a case of blatant conflict of interest, as the bulk of the editing has been by Warren himself. freshacconcispeaktome 16:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Newspaper Mention I just found a mention of my ACME art gallery opening in the Columbus Dispatch:

Searched for: "wesley edward warren" AND date(11/9/1990 to 12/1/1993) Returned: 1 displays of 1 matches . To purchase the full-text of an article, click on the headline link. New users will be prompted to create an account.

Publish Date: July 4, 1992 Paper: Columbus Dispatch, The (OH) Page: 01E Word Count: 105 Document ID: 10E0D4435D5AA218

Among the Ohio groups to receive third-quarter grants from the National Endowment for the Arts are the National Black Programming Consortium, $50,000; Ohio State University Research Foundation, four grants totaling $750,000; Ohio Arts Council arts-in-education program, $194,500; the council's basic grant activities, $550,000; and Thurber House, $7,000. Visual arts

Acme announces exhibits

The opening reception for Acme Art Co.'s July exhibits is 7-10 tonight. The

- Problem is the archives are not free, so I cant link to it and thats the end of the text, I had an opening in July there, I still have one of the invites.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_multi=&p_product=COLNP&p_theme=colnp&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&s_dispstring=%22wesley%20edward%20warren%22%20AND%20date(11/9/1990%20to%2012/1/1993)&p_field_date-0=YMD_date&p_params_date-0=date:B,E&p_text_date-0=11/9/1990%20to%2012/1/1993)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(%22wesley%20edward%20warren%22)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no

If it makes a difference I will pay the $2.95 to purchase the article. WesleyEWarren (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DO NOT DELETE
  • RE: Comments

At the top of the page is a large header that reads in part:
"ATTENTION! "
"please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors"
"deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes."
"Remember to assume good faith on the part of others"
I'd have to say that there is a very dismissive tone to many of these posts (sometimes very curtly dismissive i.e. "Delete as NN" or "Delete. Fails WP:NOTE and WP:COI."). I "get" the arguments, but why no attempt to even address the "merits of the arguments" why no attempt to generate "consensus". Again and again there are requests for more information and references, and when legitimate source materials are provided (what does it matter who provided them ...they are legitimate, they were requested) results in cries of "COI" [so much for considering the "merits of the arguments"]
Again, I think there was a definite rush to judgement and there has been extremely little attempt to re-evaluate that early judgement.
Freshacconci, in your Comments after my last post you say:
"The problem is, that the article is not primarily about Warren as an entrepreneur or web developer. As either of those he may be notable, but that would be for other editors to determine as it falls outside my area of knowledge. The main thrust of the article is that he is an artist. However creative he may be, he is not notable by Wikipedia standards as an artist."
That, to me, sounds like an argument for editing, not an argument for deletion.
In any case, his history IS his history; and the chief reason that these aspects might seem out of balance may have more to do with what his critics have requested of him (and in turn what has been provided) than any other reason. Based on your comments, I encourage you to retract and/or modify your call to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JonOfMeans (talk • contribs) 21:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, Having shows in 4 states, produced hundreds of pieces of art, and even producing the most wonderful artwork in the world is great, but it is not Notability. Welcome to the "boring" world of Wikipedia, the primary descriptor of which is that it is an encyclopedia. That means it does not include things that are "pretty" or "wonderful" or "imaginative", or the opinion of any editor who thinks any one thing has those qualities. Wikipedia's core policy is that it is un-imaginative, i.e. we as editors do not rate whether an artist should be included in Wikipedia because we see the art in a lot of places (that’s called original research), or that we think your art is good (that’s called opinion). Wikipedia is not a directory of artist, so to be a biographical article in Wikipedia the subject needs to have been notable beyond the normal "create works, sell them in commercial galleries, get reviews" that all artist do. To be in Wikipedia you need to be included in some manner of higher recognition where you have been singled out, and that recognition has to be published. To be in Wikipedia it is also far better that you not be you (but not necessary ). Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 19:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So the entry should stay based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.[6] due to the fact the Wesley Warren wrote the industry standard algorithm for tracking commercials used by the US advertising industry? Perhaps the artwork stuff should be removed or reduced as it is not sufficiently notable? Vexcom (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Kelly Rich[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N, or WP:BIO, there are no sources or external links or even any inline references the article does not even assert the subjects notability, if he does exists its possibly a BLP violation as well. CholgatalK! 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Delete'Delete-not a notable or sourced person/article.CholgatalK! 03:23, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep'Keep. I added some references. The profile from the San Francisco Chronicle is quite lengthy. Rich is also a book author. --Eastmain (talk) 04:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Seems notable. Here's another major newspaper source (a bio then an interview in connection with the book)[38]. Also note that the nominator is a suspected sockpuppet account that has been nominating quite a number of articles. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove‎ . That would suggest a speedy close.Wikidemo (talk) 21:12, 28 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. Created by sock of banned user Spotteddogsdotorg (talk · contribs). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:42, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Leep[edit]

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

Finishing incomplete nomination by 160.36.239.63 (talk · contribs); IP's can't complete AfD discussions. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment OK, I'll ask it. What's the basis for the nomination again? Mandsford (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He seems to have less than three pages of relevant non-Wikipedia/Wikipedia mirror Google hits. He was on a local television station in Florida, yet has a bigger bio than Tom Skilling, who is a meteorologist for WGN-TV in Chicago and is seen nationally on Superstation WGN. The brief mention of Leep in the WTVT article is about all anyone would need to know about him, although I would add the portion about the station's Weather Service if it can be verified.
There appears to be no standard of inclusion or exclusion for these types of local television personalities and reporters. I'd be happy to help put one together. (Could someone also point me to more information on how to nominate something for deletion?)
Judging from prior discussions it appears that this particular bio has been the target of a vandal, possibly as part of a personal vendetta against a specific user, some crazed ramblings by some current or former resident of Florida who is fixated on Roy Leep, or some other product of a twisted mind.
That is neither here nor there in my decision, since the article is unsourced and reads like some sort of glowing obit in a hometown paper or straight out of a press release. If he was truly "considered a pioneer in weather forecasting" there would be more information about him than less than three relevant pages of Google hits. --Also We Brief (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep looks like Spotteddogsdotorg is back. Leep was very well known in Tampa and is hardly less notable and widely known then this guy, this guy, or even this guy --CFIF ☎ ⋐ 01:18, 29 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 (after merge) to Mergers and acquisitions. Tikiwont (talk) 10:05, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between mergers and acquisitions[edit]

Difference between mergers and acquisitions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not merit its own page, and has already been merged with (or more accurately, acquired by) mergers and acquisitions. Juansidious (talk) 02:54, 28 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 00:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dulhe Raja (1998 film)[edit]

Dulhe Raja (1998 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTE, just being a film doesn't establish notability. Padillah (talk) 02:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, as per explanation. --Juansidious (talk) 02:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep has coverage in WP:RS and repeatedly mentioned as a hit [39]. A popular song from the movie provoked protests [40]. Not sure many Indian newspapers will have their 1998 archives online. cab (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, this article is also a duplicate of Dulhe Raja, but now this one is better sourced than that one. No idea why the author of this one created a duplicate. cab (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great, now we've got one that's better written but one that's better sourced. I'll put the merge tags in. Thanks for finding this CAB. Padillah (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think that though the first group of sources provided by Cab don't do a great job as sources, they show it's an important enough movie to have an article. The second source, about the protest, is a good source and should be incorporated into the article. matt91486 (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as per WP:MOVIE. Widely released, immensely popular Bollywood movie starring grade one cast ... even shown in Indian film festival in Japan [41]. As for sources: [42], [43], [44], [45] etc 98.212.162.154 (talk) 04:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the film has one of Bollywood's top stars, and their are already enough sources. Also, please consider systemic bias. Anyways The Essential Guide to Bollywood seems to place the film among the landmark events of 1998. Also, one of the actors of the film obtained for his role a Filmfare Award, one of India's top, it seems.--Aldux (talk) 20:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Ok, then 2 questions: 1) How do I drop this AfD. and 2) what are we going to do with the two articles? Padillah (talk) 20:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can simply write "withdrawn by nominator" bolded, and the AfD will end. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wide coverage in reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator - This is apparently notable enough but needs serious work to flesh out. Also, note needs to be made of this being a remake of the other Dulhe Raja film. Padillah (talk) 14:59, 29 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. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:25, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Particle physics in cosmology[edit]

Particle physics in cosmology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not establish WP:NOTE. Could easily be merged with cosmology until more content is available. Padillah (talk) 02:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. If you think the article could be merged or redirected, you could just go and do that, and no need for an AFD. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I totally agree. I planned to write it as a (much?) larger article, but forgot about it... (sorry). I'll try to expand it really soon, and if I don't - feel free to delete it. What do you say? Dan Gluck (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep. I added a "Further reading" section (3 books, 1 journal article) but when someone familiar with the topic wants to expand the main article, there's plenty of source material: 80,800 Ghits and 1821 hits on Google Book Search . Coffee4me (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic is clearly notable, and stubbiness is not a sufficient reason for deletion. I have started to expand the article. Gandalf61 (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is nothing wrong with the stub, except for a bit of POV, but that can be remedied and the article can be expanded easily. Disclosure: I am a scientist with a J.D. Bearian (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --Rifleman 82 (talk) 15:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Doolan[edit]

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

Non-Notable. Simply being an English footballer should not be enough to establish notability. Padillah (talk) 02:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and nowhere in there does it controvert WP:NOTE. Is EVERY professional athlete notable regardless of their contribution to the sport? Now that there is a secondary source the argument falls flat, but at the time of nomination the article was almost literally "This guy plays soccer", and that alone is not notable. Padillah (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...If they've played a professional game, then yes... Mattythewhite (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, if they've played a professional game and are noted in secondary sources. Now that you have added that source we can stop the AfD. I still think it needs help but that's a different RfX, thanks for adding that content. Padillah (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically he's right, WP:BIO#Athlete isn't enough on it's own. John Hayestalk 19:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Was a perfectly adequate stub, which could be expanded (and which I have done). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:23, 29 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, article has been renamed to Underwater acoustic communication. GlassCobra 09:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea[edit]

Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an essay or a proposal. It is not an encyclopedia article and never will be. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Yes, I agree. It smacks of original research, despite the references. It's also written in a format that is purely unencyclopedic. Wisdom89 (T / C) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as essay chock full of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and Image:Vixar1.jpg as OR. It's nice that he provides references, though. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Underwater communication, and clean up. I don't agree that it's content is inherently unencyclopedic, but the unfortunate title makes it seem that way. • Anakin (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to clean it up a bit. Still contains some original research-y sort of statements that should probably be removed. My advice is keep it and let the normal wiki process improve it. • Anakin (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with impunity as Original Resarch... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete title shoots it in the foot Will (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as its has all the reference and sources and just rename it will be fine..Vixar_313 —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per the new refs added... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per above comments, and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (and indefinite block on its perpetrator) as obvious vandalism -- RoySmith (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama–Feingold Act[edit]

Obama–Feingold Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be a joke article based on inaccurate information on Obama's website. Obama did not actually sponsor this bill, although his website claims he did. Recommend this article be deleted. Enigma msg! 02:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per what I said above. Enigma msg! 02:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is no valid speedy criterion for such pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as pure vandalism. This is an exact copy of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act a.k.a. the McCain-Feingold Bill. (By the way, Obama did co-sponsor a campaign finance reform bill with Russ Feingold, namely the Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act, so his website is accurate.) --Hnsampat (talk) 03:40, 28 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 TO DELETE. Herostratus (talk) 05:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Talbert[edit]

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

Speedy was declined because sysop though it was a fictional character. Talbert was in fact a real person, but non-notable, unless every soldier serving in WWII is notable. ukexpat (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Is this film character based on this person notable? If so, the person is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person was 1 member of a company of soldiers in the US Army whose story was dramatised in HBO's Band of Brothers, not notable otherwise.--ukexpat (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as entirely not notable enough for its own article. • Anakin (talk) 16:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question Was he featured in the series, or did he just appear in the background? If he was featured and itnerviewed, the fact of his being picked as representative for such a major production is enough to make him notable.DGG (talk) 17:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He has a significant role in the book Band of Brothers by Stephen Ambrose, the HBO series that was made from the book, as well as in a Czech (or Slovak - I can't tell) memoir[46] apparently inspired by Ambrose's book. This distinguishes him from other WWII soldiers, meets the notability guidelines, and gives us enough material to write a decent encyclopedia article.--Kubigula (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Karell[edit]

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

This supposed "Hottest producer" has only FIVE (count 'em) Ghits, and the only thing linking him to Missy Elliot and the like is... you guessed it, this Wiki page. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 01:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as evident hoax. The lack of info available on a supposedly "hottest" anything should raise a big ol' red flag. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alexf42 02:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as vandalism/obvious hoax. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 02:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources. None on article. Google search unavailing. Dlohcierekim 03:45, 28 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. As Ten Pound Hammer noted, "[blank]'s nth album" usually means crystal balling, but it seems there's info here to keep. GlassCobra 09:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ace of Base's fifth studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ace of Base's fifth studio album (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and songs: Unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 01:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 04:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • But it isn't speculation, it's confirmed information from the band themselves. AcerBen (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - All the information put there is true and verifiable. In the MySpace reference about the website aceofbasereturns.com it clearly says that the band approves this source as official, at least until their new website is up on May this year. CrushNush (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no outside sources have seen fit to write about this album, so it isn't notable yet. It might pass WP:V, but fails everything else. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Merge - WP:CRYSTAL is being misinterpreted here. Absolutely nothing in the article is speculative in nature; everything is simply a restatement of information found in sources. —Torc. (Talk.) 05:50, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Discounting WP:CRYSTAL for the moment, what about the fact that there's been no media coverage of the album to satisfy notability concerns? All of the information is from primary sources and fan websites. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 10:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Why does it need media coverage to be real? This band is releasing an album after 6 years of absence in Europe and 10 years worldwide, how do you expect that when the band is at best remembered as a 90s hit maker? CrushNush 22:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It doesn't need media coverage to be real—it needs media coverage to be notable. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 23:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply - You're right. Vote is now to merge. I still do not support deletion though. —Torc. (Talk.) 00:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 01:08, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Location of Georgia (country)[edit]

Location of Georgia (country) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research by user who's been pushing Georgian POV. Any salvageable content that is not redundant can be merged into Georgia (country). Húsönd 01:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, this page had been redirected to Georgia (country) just a few hours ago, but the creator undid the operation and left an WP:OWN-alike message on the talk page. Húsönd 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I think it would be nice if they put all of the versions of borders between europe and asia in EUROPE section instead of puting only one map that shows only one version of division ,and this article would not be necessary at all. I made this article to inform people that not me but other users are the ones who treat this website as their own and think they can put only whatever they want there. On europe section there was only one version of borders provided. the author DID NOT EVEN BOTHER to tell why he/she chose that particular version and not something else. if I did the same thing, they would remove it immediately but they always leave their own biased articles on place. there is no official border between europe and asia and until there will be one you should definately either explain ALL of them or if you chose one, explain why and dont say just "because I think its the best" (I received a message from one of the users that said that )what you think is completely irrelevant while making an article on website which has an ambition to be a credible source of informatio. I think the deletion process of this article is unfair and I also think that if users minded their own bias, this article would not be necessary at all. I regret that this article is being nominated for deletion because of some users' "DOUBLE STANDARDS" which is completely unacceptable and which I condemn. --Polscience (talk) 02:35, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. This is original research and quite unsuitable for an encyclopedia. The creator appears not to accept the consensus that Georgia is regarded as a transcontinental country and at one stage attempted to remove all mention of Georgia from the List of countries spanning more than one continent. Mathsci (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Uncited content fork. The notes as to whether Georgia is in Europe, Asia, or both is adequately covered in the footnote of the article on Georgia. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unecessary article, Georgia is located within the geography and introduction sections of the main article which also mentions the europe question (per Sjakkalle) and the EU and NATO aspirations. This fork seems only to confuse matters - Dumelow (talk) 17:51, 28 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) 00:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Newlove[edit]

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

Unfortunate, but non-notable crime victim whose story is likely to be forgotten in a few weeks Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 01:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Your AFD does not make sense. You start by saying "non-notable, forgotten in a few weeks" which leads me to think you want to delete. Then above you sound like you are positive and want to keep the article. It looks like you are contradicting yourself. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I started the AFD in the interests of fairness, even though I am for keeping the article. The reasons I stated for proposing deletion were those of whichever editor added the prod tag in the first place. I guess I didn't make that clear. Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Although a tragedy it is not notable for any special reason. There have been random killings of memebers of the public before and high press coverage doesn't make it a notable subject. Also the article says "famous in the UK for being beaten to death by an alcohol-fuelled mob of youths" although true I think the use of words are disrespectful to his memory, especially "famous in the UK for being beaten to death". The press coverage is mainly due to a much larger political arguement about law and public order, especially youths intimidating members of the public. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 01:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Four references from reliable sources. See http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Gary+Newlove%22+site%3Atelegraph.co.uk for some more. Unlikely to be forgotten in the near future, given the agendas of some British newspapers and politicians. --Eastmain (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BLP1E. Although regrettable, this type of event is rather commonplace. GlassCobra 07:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per GlasCobra and WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. Regretable and sad event that is, however, news. I declined speedy on this as G4 did not apply (previously this was speedied) but I still think it fails under BLP1E Pedro :  Chat  08:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I had this speedy-deleted in one of its previous incarnations because the subject didn't seem to meet the notability criteria. Tragic as this event was, and despite the press coverage, the subject has a single claim to notability that is not especially significant in its social impact. - Fritzpoll (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a tragic story but not notable. Dreamspy (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given by GlassCobra and Pedro. Despite having sources, an article about this death is not notable. • Anakin (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regrettable, as it is. I do understand that this case involving Gary Newlove did become somewhat registered across the British media for a long period of time, and it was exemplified in the newspapers for quite a long time also. However, an insufficient assertion of notability otherwise towards the circumstances of his death culminates in a failure of the guidelines/policies quoted by others above. Rudget. 18:50, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I deleted an earlier incarnation as well, mainly because it was written as an attack article. The present version is more neutral in tone, but for the article to stand on its own, the subject should have more notability than the manner of his death. Acroterion (talk) 16:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not exactly sure on what basis this person is considered not notable. They have a significant number of google hits. A broad range of news sites have wide coverage of this man and the incident involving his death. It is also extremely relevant towards the social impact of this case and regarding the issue of yob culture. At the very least anyine searching for his nbame (which I suspect will be a fair few) are owed a redirect to Yobbo. Asian Parents, Western Upbringing (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Take a look at WP:GOOGLE. The raw hit count of an item in google does not say anything about its notability. Considering that this is not the only case of its kind, I don't believe that an article on this individual tells us a great deal about the social phenomenon that you describe. I would oppose a redirect to Yobbo on the ground that Gary Newlove is not another term for Yobbo, and the article Yobbo describes the meaning of the word., This wouldn't make much sense as a redirect in my view. - Fritzpoll (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete Pedro :  Chat  15:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back and in Attack[edit]

Back and in Attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Per WP:MUSIC, unreleased albums are not notable unless there has been substantial coverage in reliable sources. Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:37, 19 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, — Scientizzle 01:17, 28 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. There is no inherent notabililty for any Wikipedia version, like each article and subject is has to be judged on its own merits. Looking at the opinions expressed in this discussion in this light, the consensus seems to be to either delete it, or to redirect it. As redirects are cheap, I close this discussion as redirect. Fram (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Wikipedia[edit]

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

Were this website not a sister site to en.wikipedia, would it have an article in wikipedia? It has 1216 articles ... not notable. By the looks of the template on the article, there are another thirty or so articles equally not notable to be taken into consideration, so we'd better use this AFD as the precedent, unless there has been a previous discussion of this issue. Tagishsimon (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The key question is, how notable should a wikipedia site be before it gets an article on the EN Wiki? Hawaii has 1216 articles. Finnish has 120,000 articles. Cheyenne has 11 articles. Surely there is a cut off. Or is /everything/ wikipedia does notable? --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally it's also worth noting that there seems to be a single predominant editor, and that the majority of pages are single sentence sub-stubs [47] [48] [49] &c. Indeed Special:Longpages probably says it all. --Tagishsimon (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Inasmuch as there is an article on French Wikipedia and Russian Wikipedia there is already precedent for having these articles. Padillah (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a list of Wikipedias here - I'm not convinced the smaller - less than 10,000 articles - should be considered automatically notable, regardless of previous discussions. Addhoc (talk) 01:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is less than 10,000 your definition of small ? see WP:BIGNUMBER Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I would even suggest a speedy delete because it fails every point of WP:WEB. No notability demonstrated, and I don't think we should have articles about Wikis that haven't received coverage. Nothing against the creator, had he added a couple of references (which should not be hard to find, local newspapers in Argentina have covered Wikipedia as a whole and the Spanish Wikipedia in particular, I guess newspaper or reliable sites from Hawaii had done that as well for this wiki) this discussion would be moot. Wikipedia is somewhat biased in certain aspects (like allowing Wikia links instead of considering them spam just to promote Wikia ranking), but we are talking about articles, not just external links now. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia 132.205.44.5 (talk) 03:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikipedia or List of Wikipedias. Wikipedia editions shouldn't be considered for articles unless they have received some specific news coverage, or have some other specific notability - this one, along with most of the ones in the lower half of {{Wikipedias}}, states nothing except an article count and an unsourced fact about the editing culture. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-it's so needs to be here!CholgatalK! 08:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • NB, User:Cholga has been disabled for sockpuppeting; I've struck out his argument (or, rather, !vote) as a result. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Redirect to Wikipedia. Not sourced, does not meet WP:WEB, and giving special preference to articles about Wikipedia goes against WP:ASR. No prejudice against recreation when it has achieved independent notoriety. • Anakin (talk) 14:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Wikis are as notable as the languages they cover. This is exactly what should be available. Alansohn (talk) 05:37, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? Notability is certainly not inherited in that direction - if I wrote a web page about some notable topic, that web page wouldn't suddenly become notable. Keep in mind that we don't grant special notability to Wikimedia projects - the exact same rules ("external sources", most importantly) apply to our own projects as would apply to any other subject. Zetawoof(ζ) 07:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. In no way is this Wikipedia notable in itself. Singularity 07:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:WEB and redirect to List of Wikipedias. Unlike French Wikipedia, Spanish Wikipedia, or German Wikipedia, this article contains very little information and has zero sources other than the subject itself. Merely being a Wikimedia project is not an automatic claim to notability, and I can't find any significant independent sources myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect. Cites no references, I can't find any, and given that any topic related to Wikipedia attracts lots of editors for obvious reasons this probably means there aren't any references anywhere. Wikipedia projects are not inherently notable, and if the project was not related to Wikipedia its article would have been deleted very easily. Hut 8.5 21:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think it's a little bit silly not to allow articles on Wikipedia sister projects. People -- as in readers -- would expect the information to be here, and it's sort of obtuse insistence on notability to apply it in these fairly straightforward cases. Leave it as a stub if need be. No human being who's not invested in the inner-workings is going to object to this article, and the vast majority of people are going to find it a little obnoxious if they are looking for information about Wikipedia (and how else would they find it if not looking) only to see we've deleted it. I would argue for a common sense exemption allowing stubs on Wikipedia projects. Pretend you are not a Wikipedia editor and aren't interested in our guidelines. Would you not find it absurd to be unable to find this information on Wikipedia? Redirect to List of Wikipedias if we must, but I think this is a thoroughly non-productive debate. --JayHenry (talk) 22:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Where are you seeing the suggestion that there should be no articles on Wikipedia editions? Nobody's making that argument. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Wikipedias. Fails WP:WEB. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Nomination is basing notability upon the 1216 articles the wiki has, thinking that this # is WP:NOTBIGENOUGH is a false reasoning for deletion. (And as for "so we'd better use this AFD as the precedent," ummm NO! Articles are discussed upon individual merit, that is what AfD is for, thus it allows consensus to change. It would be a horror show if the first 15 years of Wiki-AfD set precedents that the following 100 years had to follow.) Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What notability does the wiki have besides its (small) article count, though? There doesn't appear to have been any external coverage of the site, which is the primary criterion for coverage of web sites. The precedent that I think the nominator is trying to set is simply that small Wikipedia editions aren't notable by default (i.e, unless there's external coverage). Zetawoof(ζ) 03:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • How about being notable as being the only Hawaian Wiki. I would tend to agree with many of the Keep comments of the previous AfD. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the list. My convenient rule of thumb is that if it's on Main Page it's probably notable enough for an article, otherwise it's better covered in some list or other; Main Page list has a cutoff of 20,000 articles. Size of a Wikipedia is also tends to be usually proportional to the size of the editor community, visibility in local media, and usefulness to the people using it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 00:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested above. Irregardless of the number of articles it has, there is simply little-to-no - and certainly not sufficient - third party coverage to infer notability. Notability is not inherited simply because it's a Wikipedia project. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 13:19, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To closing admin As touched on above, there is precedent to delete comparable articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scots Wikipedia (2nd nomination). Personally, I lean towards Weakest Possible Keep. faithless (speak) 12:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/direct. When it grows up or becomes otherwise more significant (e.g. U.S. President identifies its development as major priority in State of the Union Address), maybe it can have its own page. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slightly weaker keep than faithless. I did not like the basis for the nomination... we do not make policy in AfD. Also this article title has 5 "i"'s in it... how cool is that? Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 01:44, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: We do not make policy, but we do make precedents ... we have another 20 or so of these articles to do. This AFD references previous AFDs. The next 20 will reference this, assuming this one passes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not make precedents. That is the whole reason for the AfD process, so Articles can be evaluated on their individual merits or lack thereof. Please, feel free to point out to me where these precedents you speak of are recorded in an uneditable and set in stone form. Do you not find it intresting that ther very first 'Keep' !vote in this AfD Citing a precedents for keeping was told WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, that alone should show the invalidity of the concept of precedents on WP. Any concept of a precedents being set by previous AfD's can also be disproven and similar opposing precedents found if we look hard enough. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 04:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, suffice it to say: one AfD, a precedent does not make. But there are certain huge classes of AfD's, say High Schools, for example, where none ever ever ever get deleted, so it would be convenient, sometimes, if the deletionists would just accept the inevitable and just stop nominating them. But I have yet to find any class of article that has a similar precedent for delete... every article stands on its own merit... so to nominate the perceived weakest article in a group with the claim that it will be the precedent for a deletionfest is, IMHO, really poor form, and so I am inclined to keep it just to oppose that kind of insidious process manipulation. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a disgraceful accusation, that I've picked on the weakest example & sought to make a precedent out of it. I stumbled across the Hawaiian Wikipedia & nominated it. I'm fairly sure there are weaker examples. AGF completely and utterly out of the window. It really sucks to have that sort of accusation made; really sucks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) A number of those calling delete changed to keep with the addition of sources. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 20:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Art (webcomic)[edit]

Sequential Art (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:WEB. An article on a webcomic, it contains no assertion of notability. References are limited to a post on a forum, a blog, a foreign language site, and the self-publishing company Lulu.com. Prod was removed by main contributor. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately, Lulu.com is not an "online publisher", it's a self-publishing print-on-demand company that happens to be online. Online publishing would be if a large multiple-contributor website with editors (say, TIME.com or such) chose to syndicate the comic regularly on their front page. In other words, instead of the creator going out and finding a way to get his work into print, someone else is coming to the creator and offering to publish it. Lulu has an open-door "we'll print anything you can pay for" policy, which makes it NOT a publisher, but a printer, like any commercial print shop in the real world. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think Sequential Art is wonderful webcomic that always lives up to its promise. Though the article has gone through a few uncalled for adjustments yesterday (27/02/08), I feel that I fleshed out the article to satisfactory level today that makes it relevent enough to keep hold of. I hope you see it in yourselves to consider keeping the article so it could be improved in the future.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cenaris (talk • contribs) 12:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ILIKEIT, but it does not have reliable sources or established notability (yet). Delete. • Anakin (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No reliable sources, and being "published" by Lulu.com is hardly a good sign. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:19, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't find anything resembling WP:RS, so if such can't be produced, there is no WP:V, and I have to voice in Delete. MURGH disc. 16:28, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep per the silverbullet.com coverage. MURGH disc. 13:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Normally, I would say that the Silver Bullets article would constitute a Reliable Source: it's from a long-running multiple-contributor website with editorial control, covering the field of comic books and comic strips. However, it's also an interview (and nothing BUT an interview), which means that it actually fails to make any third-party statements about the comic or its notability. Further, we have no corroborating sources to satisfy the need for multiple references. Being published by Lulu does not immediately exclude the possibility of being notable, but it also means that the book cannot help fulfill WP:WEB, Criteria 3 (Lulu.com would constitute "trivial distribution" as a self-publishing site with no content discrimination). A few Google searches on my part later, and I can't find any other coverage of this comic outside of blogs. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:17, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since an actual review from Silver Bullets was added after I made the above comment, I have to change my stance to Weak Keep. The two reliable sources that I see are Digital Strips and the Silver Bullets "quick fire" review, neither of which is a trivial mention. I don't consider any of the other sites particularly reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability, though they could still be used to add context to the article. I would feel stronger with more references, obviously, (or any kind of assertion of why we should care about the comic, other than, "it exists"), but it technically skates just under WP: WEB now. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — The author is a major contributor on the British website B3ta, and has since branched out under his own work. I'd argue that this site is notable through its association with b3ta, combined with its published aspect. JKBrooks85 (talk) 11:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject of this article is Sequential Art, not its author. With respect, I cannot agree that a website is notable because its author is a contributor to a website that is. In no way is this supported by WP:WEB. The issue of its "published aspect" - or to be more accurate, self-published aspect - has been addressed several times on this page. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can certainly see that side of things, particularly from cruft-fighters such as yourself. I just simply don't agree with it in this case. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The WikiPedia notability clause is sadly outdated given that it's an online enclyclopedia - article might need some tweaking but other than that, I would say it's a keeper. --bannerninja (talk) 11:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article may need tweaking, but I think it's quite good. That said, the issue here has nothing to do with quality and everythng to do with notability. I suggest that the appropriate place to address issues with the "clause" (by which I assume you mean WP:WEB) is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) - fresh voices are always welcome. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment HAHAHAHA. Oh, that's a laugh. 'New voices always welcome.' Hoo. Pull the other one.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.168.13 (talk • contribs)
comment Yes, there are many people in wikipedia who act maliciously to further their own ends but among the masses of editors they are few and far between. If you have any issue it should be with those individuals constantly appearing in slashdot for some abuse of power or another, not an editor who you disagree with. Superslash (talk) 02:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It isn't about webcomics at all but aiming at a Wikipedia that is verifiable. When no reliable sources can be found (yet) the subject can't be included. The reprieve for webcomics is that articles can be transwikied to Comixpedia. MURGH disc. 17:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Contrary to what some think, it is possible to love webcomics and still think that a specific webcomic has failed to achieve any degree of notability. There are at least a dozen webcomic review sites in existence, and none of them have covered Sequential Art at all. Some of us recently defended Applegeeks from deletion, but this is no Applegeeks. Remember also that AfDs are not votes, they are debates; simply saying "Keep" won't affect the outcome unless you can give us supporting reasons that are within Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I missed that an actual review from Silver Bullets had been added. Consider my opinion changed, as above, though I stand by the rest of my statement. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — I'd also like to point out that the author of the webcomic has mentioned the article on his website. He's not taking a pro or con position, merely mentioning that it exists. JKBrooks85 (talk) 10:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Everyone here keeps saying there is no proof of notability but I see no less than SIX reviews and interviews in the external links section. Lets face it, wikipedia's policies are very strongly biased against all online productions and could easily be used against virtually any webcomic or website on wikipedia even up to pinnacles of online productions such as penny arcade, mac hall (now three panel soul), the perry bible fellowship, and ctrl+alt+del. I have been following the webcomic controversy for a long time and I feel that the vast majority of AfD's on webcomics have been made in bad faith and a deliberate attack on webcomics as a whole. Lets face it, wikipedia itself is so heavily biased in favor of deletion right now thant TEN sockpuppets in favor of a fraudulent deletion vote were left as is while one in favor of keeping starslip crisis was left ([[50]] and [51]). Enough is enough, I don't know where this sudden anti-webcomic agenda has come from but it should stop here. No other section on wikipedia would ever stand to have article after article removed so easily and with so little effort. Superslash (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is not the number of sources, but the reliability of those sources. A thousand rubbish sources would not be enough to keep an article in Wikipedia. The Frank Cho link is garbage; a forum post where he says "Hey, check this out"? Not a reliable source at all, and a trivial mention to boot. I can't speak to the Greek language source, since it's in Greek. It might be reliable or not, I can't tell. Underspray.com is a blog, also an unreliable source. The Silver Bullet interview fails to make any third-party statements about the comic; it's essentially a first-party source, coming straight from the author's mouth. However, that leaves us with two sources that ARE reliable, in my estimation: The Silver Bullet review (while short, it is not trivial), and the Digital Strips podcast (a long-running multiple contributor webcomic review site). Since WP:WEB requires "multiple third-party reliable sources", and the minimum number that can be called multiple is two, then I agree that now the article does have just barely enough notability to survive. Someone who spoke Greek may even be able to attest to whether there is already a third such source. Therefore, I'm changing my opinion above. Of course, feel free to continue to lob unfounded accusations of some sort of organized conspiracy against webcomics; I simply must have missed that meeting of the Wikipedia Shadow Government. If one of the illuminati could email me a copy of the minutes, that would be keen. --Ig8887 (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deliberately overlooking ten sockpuppets and the fraudulent reasoning behind an AfD while going out of your way to bust a sock puppet opposing your point of view sounds pretty much like acting in bad faith to me. While we're speaking of fraudulent reasoning, the main reason behind this AfD is failing WP:WEB which as you yourself stated it does not, since the extra review was added later I'm not calling shenanigans on the AfD but I do think that the argument of failing WP:Web has been entirely undermined and since, as is stated at every AfD, this is not a numeric vote but a discussion the issue is now a non-issue. Also I didn't say there was a shadow government, a large scale deliberate assault on something doesn't require coordination of any kind. Enough people acting with hostility towards the same end will appear as a conspiracy but is really just evidence of a significant and widespread prejudice. Good shot though, took me a minute to realise that I was being setup to appear as though I HAD suggested a cabal was behind the issue. Feel free to lob unfounded accusations of some sort of conspiracy theory against wikipedia, I'm sure there is no cabal will reward you for your diligence. >P Superslash (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You said there was an "anti-webcomic agenda". An agenda implies a degree of organization on the part of those advancing it, so yes, you did suggest that people were working together to delete webcomic articles. As for the "ten sockpuppet" thing you're babbling about, I have no idea. I joined Wikipedia in November, and I'm not an admin. All I know are the policies and guidelines I have read and the facts presented in THIS AfD. Presuming that anyone who supports deletion of an article is some sort of enemy of the webcomic world and is on a deletionist rampage is insulting to those of us who just, you know, READ the policies and guidelines involved with Wikipedia and follow them instead of coming into an AfD on their pet subject matter and crying foul. It's a slap in the face to anyone who actually tries to judge each case on the facts. You don't want webcomics to be treated fairly, you want them to be treated preferentially. --Ig8887 (talk) 02:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or agenda could be used to refer to a particular shared opinion, prejudice, or belief. I joined wikipedia 4 years ago, I'm not an admin either, and I think about the policies and guidelines and try to think about them themselves as well as how they apply to a situation. As far as what I'm "babbling" about... I find that to be little more than an excuse to insult me considering I linked to the AfD in question and the explanation of the ruse in that very sentence. Now if you want to continue attempting to insult me please do it on my talk page rather than here. If this weren't an AFD I'd shrink our text so it didn't take up so much pagespace but since it does I'm not going to mess with it, if any admins/mods know of a way to clean this up without disrupting the AfD you're welcome to do so. Superslash (talk) 02:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It has no actual bearing on the procedure of this AfD and it was used (twice) as part of a spurious accusation of bad faith against anyone seeking to delete a webcomic article, so yeah, "babbling" sounds about right. However, I've made my points, I have no further need to participate in this discussion. --Ig8887 (talk) 04:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By dent of other webcomic wikpedia articles such as Ctrl+Alt+Del, Sinfest, VGCats, Three Panel Soul (3PS) and Filibuster Cartoons which can only be differentiated substantially by readership, which is not and has never been accepted as a criterion for wikipedia inclusion (such as number of search results). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.216.20 (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. The existence of other articles that may or may not be in unacceptable shape has never been an accepted criterion for what to do with a given article. Sadly, any one of those articles could be nominated for deletion tomorrow if someone who cares about them doesn't get on the ball and add some reliable third-party references. --Ig8887 (talk) 00:01, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is about having an accurate and complete view of everything. Not listing this comic would be a wrong towards the mission that Wikipedia presents. I don't care if you hate furries or not; this shouldn't be removed for the same reason we don't take down the image of Muhammad. Revision is the only thing I can see this page needing. -Matt
  • Keep - An excellent webcomic, well worth documenting on wikipedia. -SS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.9.123.89 (talk) 13:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Looking at the external links and references section, there seems to be enough independent coverage there that this comic should pass the notability test, in my opinion. --Micpp (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep With the recent additions of external links and references, WP:WEB is now met. Victoriagirl (talk) 13:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, bad faith nom. GlassCobra 09:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sobrante Park, Oakland, California[edit]

Sobrante Park, Oakland, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely unreferenced and has been so since December, 2007. It does not assert its notability and what it does assert is not verifiable. The article is riddled with BLP violations which make unsubstantiated claims that this is the most dangerous neighborhood of all of Oakland. The article is written horribly with statements like "It is somewhat like a maze, as there is one way in, and one way out." are extremely sophomoric and just poorly stated. BLP violations also include its alleged reputation for "heroin dealings" which should probably be stated as heroin sales or illicit street sales of the drug heroin. Anyway, this article just doesn't meet WP:N and its been around long enough with enough cleanup and unreferenced templatage to assume it's not going to happen any time soon. CholgatalK! 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet notice: the nominator of this article is a suspected abusive sockpuppet account. Please see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Boomgaylove.Wikidemo (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this article should be deleted since it does not meet WP:N and has serious BLP violations and does not have any RS.CholgatalK! 00:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BLP deals with living people, it does not apply here. V-train (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:RS.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed and keeping the recommendation to merge and redirect to East Oakland, Oakland, California. Jeepday (talk) 13:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the article has been well sourced, and with the ghits that WikiDemo shows, I change to Merge to East Oakland, Oakland, California. If and when the article develops beyond the statement that it's a rough neighbourhood of East Oakland, then it can be broken out in summary style into its own stand alone article. But at the moment it can grow in context within the parent article where it will be seen by more people. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 08:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close and keep - likely bad faith nomination by abusive sockpuppet (see above). Also, neighborhood is clearly notable. I've added one source and some material but if you want 800 news stories[52] and 17,000 hits[53], try google. Short, poorly written articles should be improved, not deleted - and definitely not gamed by sockpuppets.Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Speedy Close - nominator blocked indef. as sockpuppet. Bash Kash (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but barely- tough call, and clearly some issues with this whole nom. I think for now it just needs to be thrown out for bad faith, until someone else is happy to nominate it.JJJ999 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no prejudice against merging and redirecting. The key here is nobody is saying delete (except of course the nominator). If merging and redirecting end up being the final resting place for the awards, so be it, but that discussion should happen on the talk pages of the two respective articles. Closing as keep. Merging and redirecting are non-admin procedures, but a consensus should exist prior to a controversial move. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Spider Awards[edit]

Golden Spider Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable internet award. Only news sources I can find are press releases. SmashvilleBONK! 00:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Business & Finance, the magazine that hosts and manages the awards. Also, on a related note, while Business & Finance is apparently a notable magazine, it needs to be urgently cleaned up.--TBC!?! 00:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Business & Finance. Insufficient notability for a separate page. BlueValour (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per others. Hard to establish notability and context in the separate article. • Anakin (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —FlowerpotmaN·(t) 00:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Actually the awards do get coverage in the news when they come out; for example, here are a few mentions on the RTÉ website (here and here) and there is normally print coverage. (Personal Observation/opinion in passing: Again, another example of how useless Google News is in finding Irish media stories.) Actually I didn't realize that they were organized by Business and Finance; I would have associated them more with the sponsors Eircom (and previous sponsors BT.) FlowerpotmaN·(t) 05:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The awards are well known and in addition to the last contributor's examples, are also covered by technology websites (here) and on national radio. 1-555-confide (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge and redirect. It has some coverage in reliable sources, but a merger is probably better until it gets more coverage to prove it is notable. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Tiptoety talk 00:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhipKraft[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google hits yield 665 results, which none, except for the pages listed on the wiki page, come up. There are a few pages that mention the band, but they are non notable in themselves. The "reviews" of the band are trivial and short. They do not provide any sufficient information about the band. No notable label or tours. Delete Undeath (talk) 00:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT Delete' Very Poorly written page, but band is significant in underground aspects. Google yelds 1,300 results, in which several sources are significant. Page needs rewriting not deletion. Zzstore

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Hyland List[edit]

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

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. I looked at google, and only found about 30 results, none of which are independent reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 08:14, 28 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_28&oldid=1081103950"