Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 January 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 19 January 21 >

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. Fram (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drastique[edit]

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

'Delete N/N per WP:MUSIC. Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep External links need some cleaning up but some of those are decent reliable sources (Rockdetector, etc.). Chubbles (talk) 15:20, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The sources are reliable (Encyclopaedia Metallum, Rockdetector) and the band is distributed worldwide by highly respected labels (Relapse and Century Media). They appear on some important cd compilations too (Metallian, Rock Hard, etc.). 14:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Ghalib[edit]

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

This person is of no importance or significance. Article needs to be deleted and any notable information in it should be added to Britney Spears. Relationships do not transfer notability. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete I agree with you. This person doesn't meet notability. ― LADY GALAXY 01:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This person has the the in depth subject of multiple independent sources including People Magazine, The Daily Mail and many others. [1] [2] [3], the core criterion of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. Speedy deletion is out of the question. The WP:NOTINHERITED essay (not policy or guideline) that the nom quoted does not apply to those that in fact are the subject of secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But is he notable for being anything other than the boyfriend of Britney Spears? Probably not, which brings me back to my original statement that relationships do not transfer notability. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because you don't like the reason of this person's notability and him passing both WP:N and WP:BIO doesn't make him non-notable. --Oakshade (talk) 04:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 04:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets guidelines for notability with multiple secondary sources as noted by User:Oakshade. -- Whpq (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or something because I came to Wikipedia looking for information about who this guy is from several articles that mentioned him in passing (including this one [4]) Nesnad (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom at the moment, because this article doesn't require inclusion in an encyclopedia just yet because it's a blatant violation both of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS - for precedent, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corey Delaney as an example of something with many news sources, but nothing to incidate any long-term notability for a person. And since relationships do not transfer notability, there's nothing to suggest that the outcome of this case has to be any different. I do think that he warrants a one-sentence mention in Britney Spears, though - and nothing more right now. Wikipedia is not a tabloid or a celebrity gossip column.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Corey Delaney AfD is NOT precedent. Delaney was a private individual, not like Ghalib who intentionally place himself in front of every entertainment photographer and be in a relationship with arguably the most famous gossip subject in history. WP:BLP1E applies to private individuals which this person is intentionally not. --Oakshade (talk) 17:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to disagree with you on this. Consensus on the Britney Spears article is that he doesn't even warrant a mention in that article (although I wouldn't object to a mention), so he doesn't warrant an article at all right now, per Pinkadelica below.--h i s s p a c er e s e a r c h 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Referring to this: Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#People_notable_only_for_one_event, his article may be unwarranted. Also, as a precedent, Jason Allen Alexander, who Spears was married to, only has a redirect and a small sentence in Spears' article. He is also used as an example of Relationships do not transfer notability. All the reasons to keep this article could also be said for Alexander. Save-Me-Oprah (talk) 21:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' At most, this guy is a footnote in pop culture history. He's done nothing notable except possibly date Britney Spears and even she's denying that. I could see if he had done something notable before becoming a paparazzi, but so far, he's done nothing to warrant an entry on Wikipedia in my opinion. Pinkadelica (talk) 17:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are people all over wikipedia that people dont like... But that does not mean they don;t deserve to be there..

This man has his name in the public, and therefore should be on here, and not only that, but also with a lot more deatils so people just getting to hear about him can know all there is to know about him.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.228.88.159 (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete He will be out of the spotlight in about a month. 74.8.28.194 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is amply covered by the media to warrant notability. Andrew73 (talk) 02:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because people will come here wanting to know more about him, this is all WP is about. Λua∫Wise (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He's notable; he gets a fair amount of media attention. --MgCupcake (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge to district; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kortright Hills Public School[edit]

Kortright Hills Public School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable K-8 school. I've waited well over two weeks and nothing that establishes notability has surfaced, so it is time to nominate for delete (or merge into the school district article, if one exists) Pharmboy (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NAJAS[edit]

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

This article was nominated for speedy deletion per G11, blatant advertising. If the article contains advertising, it isn't blatant. I have therefore declined the speedy nom and moved the discussion to AFD. Procedural listing, no opinion. AecisBrievenbus 22:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep, This is not spam, this is the largest bilateral Japan-United States relations grassroots organization in the US, and needed to be written. It may need the full name or a different name, but the topic is a gap I've seen several times in the past, so I wrote it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 22:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of reliable sources, some critical, available at Google Books. Just needs editing to make it a bit more NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survivor Sucks[edit]

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

Hmm. At first glanc, this doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB. In any case, it has no reliable sources, and reads a bit... Fan sitey. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I didn't go to the website, and instead relied on the citations provided. One was unrelated (amazon), one was an incidental mention from Time, one was mentioned just fine (next to a slew of google ads on a questionable cite), and the last cite pulled a 404 Not Found error. Seems to be a bit weak to pass wp:web. Pharmboy (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the most prominent discussion boards for reality TV. GreenGourd (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, none of the sources in the article show how the board is notable per WP:WEB. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - agree that the sources are insufficient to demonstrate notability -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More referencing is needed to establish notability. The only reputable source, from a Time magazine website, mentions the site in passing. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nominator and NeochaosX. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, None of the sources cited in the article show how the board is notable. A substantial amount of the support seems to be coming from SPAs. JoelleJ (talk) 15:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP- It was number 14 on a list of websites you'll want to visit recently published by a very prestigious magazine. The site was often mentiond by Janelle on Big Brother. but i don't know where it went.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.216.3.13 (talk)
  • keep Considering it's the largest reality TV based message board on Yuku (or anywhere else on the internet), it's validity as an entry in Wikipedia speaks for itself. It was, and still is, the leading pioneer in spoiling reality shows, a prime source of info for many entertainment media outlets, and the primary communications hub for anything and everything related to Survivor. I should also remind you that it's been around longer than Wikipedia itself. - S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.76.140 (talk)
Note - this !vote was apparently added by user:Seraphaem who changed the "unsigned" template. I've reverted and added this note. Also note that user:Seraphaem is an WP:SPA. - Whpq (talk) 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep SurvivorSucks and It's creator were credited in the Finale of the First Season of Survivor. SurvivorSucks began as the first resource to spoil the results of the Survivor Series before the broadcast of events and has spawned the entire hobby of Reality Show Spoiling. - Owen93 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)— Owen93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep The website has some validity to it, after all it has been frequently mentioned in television shows and magazines as one of the premier Reality TV message boards. It seems strange to me that someone wants to delete this article when there are far shittier ones. Maybe they have an ulterior motive. Maybe they are just a bitch, I don't know. But this article should stay. - AE — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArtfulEgotist (talk • contribs) — ArtfulEgotist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The site has cultural sginifigance and has been regularly referred to by many major entertainment programs, and is one of the top sites for television discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrimGrinningGuest (talk • contribs)
  • Keep The article might need to be cleaned up a bit, but Survivor Sucks is a legitimate website and part of pop culture. Just recently in the past few weeks it was listed in Entertainment Weekly. That being said anybody who hasn't gone to the website itself should not be allowed to decide if anything is valid. Yes sources are needed but then it should be nominated for clean up, not for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by andytw710 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP you might as well delete wikipedia or Fox news while youre at it.Super Machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.142.136 (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If for nothing else, This article should stay because it is the parent website of the Vote for the Worst website -- which has a legitimate entry. This entry just needs some serious cleaning up and proper references added. There are plenty of media references to VFTW and Sucks. It may be a "fan" site of sorts, but it has actually become a major reference and source of spoilers in the reality TV community. --208.57.154.196 (talk) 23:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)crabbypatty[reply]
    • Regarding the argument to keep because its parent website is seemingly notable, notability does not inherit. This article must establish the notability of its subject on its own. I encourage everyone who wants to keep, find reputable third party sources and add them to the article. I myself looked on Google, and could not find any. -FrankTobia (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use Google News Archives and it brings up 183 articles for survivorsucks, some just about the site itself, some prominantly talking about survivor sucks while talking about the show and how the internet affects it and others. There is even one in National Geographic that, though it is about website naming and how it is evolving, they used survivorsucks.com as [i]the[/i] example for the whole anti sites evolution. The only problem is that many links are now broken or the sites charge money to access non-recent articlesLittleMatchGirl (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Couldn't find anything in the news for the past month [11][12]. Perhaps you could find reputable sources and use them in the article to demonstrate the subject's notability? -FrankTobia (talk) 15:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So by your logic, if something wasn't mentioned in the news within the last month, it isn't relevant and should be deleted from Wiki? Oh.. and you should check your links again. There are two aricles listed from Jan 2008LittleMatchGirl (talk) 07:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - If this site gets deleted, then so should the 172 other Internet Forum articles listed here on Wikipedia. Also, how many of those 172 boards can claim to be significant enough in today's culture to be a Question on a Trivia Pursuit card?. If this board is relevant enough to be an answer of a trivia board game, surely it is worthy enough of having an article on Wikipedia. One more thing... one of the people above who said to delete this board stated as one of his/her reasonings was because they felt that the link to amazon was unrelated. CLEARLY this person did not even bother to read this article and determine what this citation was in reference to before damning it for deletion. That amazon link links to a book written by a spoiler from survivorsucks who spent a significant time spoiling the show on this board and wrote this book about it.. which is part of the history of this board.LittleMatchGirl (talk) 01:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    ETA: WP:WEB asks for sources where the site is mentioned.. here's one from a recent edition of Entertainment Weekly, where the site is listed as #14 on their list of the Best of the Web. This site is talked about it on Big Brother too... clips can be found on YouTube (search "survivor sucks").
    Also if there are issues with reliable sources or if this article is too "fan sitey" wouldn't a better resolution to deletion be one of the "Alternatives to Deletion" listed in the WP:DP? (verify option? poor writing option?) Isn't "deletion" pretty harsh when there are other reasonable steps that can be taken first to resolve the issues at hand? You don't throw out the baby with the bathwaterLittleMatchGirl (talk) 02:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC) — LittleMatchGirl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep - The problem with trying to support a site like this with external references is that it's going to be difficult to find one. I read the Entertainment Weekly article which did in fact list Sucks as #14 out of its top 25 or something. Google reveals no mention of that article, written by a Dalton Ross, I think, so I bet copyrighted and UTR of the search engines. Besides, that author gave a compliment to the site, but for all the wrong reasons, so even there a reference would be pointless. Besides, as noted in the main body of the article, when these people think "reference" they think "anal sex reference." This place is not a website that can be quantified. IvyGold (talk) 04:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hurrah for the single-purpose accounts. Delete per nom.--WaltCip (talk) 13:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.104.126.39 (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Above user is a known vandal. And he denies the overwhelming proof of manmade global warming to boot.--WaltCip (talk) 21:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Alexa numbers show that no one is using this site anymore, [13], but that said, it was notable at one point... Hobit (talk) 03:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. highly recommend to merge whatever useful info though, keep votes were mostly moot as content dispute Secret account 19:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meta Knight[edit]

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

This character does not establish notability through the inclusion of real world information from reliable sources. Most of the information is original research, unnecessary plot details, and some game guide information. There is no current assertion for improvement. The character is important to the series, so it has been given an adequate section over at List of Kirby characters#Meta Knight along with the other "main secondary character" King Dedede, while the main character, Kirby, is the only one with enough real world information to hold an article. TTN (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I don't see what it's hurting. What is the point of throwing out information? It's not like this is a silly little vanity article. The notability guidelines are becoming too confining. I doubt this article will stand, but I'm casting my vote for it to stay. --BtVSFan (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, TNN has good points. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree per TTN. Showers (talk) 23:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep TTNs record of predicting the existance of sources is so poor as to be irrelivant and since that is what his argument is ultimately based on his argument is unsupported.Geni 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah no AFD process requires that TTN makes a reasonable effort to check that things like this aned this and this don't exist.Geni 01:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those all just describe the character's role in a video game, which is already covered within the list entry. They do not add anything to this. TTN (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • so you conceed there are posible references. Good. Since it appears the character exists beyond the series it would appear that it gets it's own article.02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I said that those do not do anything. As of yet, I do not believe any valid sources exist for any character of this series besides Kirby. TTN (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The fact that he got himself picked as a character in the new Super Smash Brothers makes me think he might be able to meet notability somewhere. Some more poking around might be in order. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep Oh, yeah! I totally forgot he's been confirmed for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which is a non-Kirby game. That's somewhat sufficient, but only enough for a weak keep vote from me right now until a bit more notability is brought up. Doc Strange (talk) 01:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alright I haven't any other assertions of notability. So i'm changing my vote to Weak Delete Doc Strange (talk) 22:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability has nothing to do with being in multiple games. As the Smash Bros series does not bring sources to the table (a good chunk of the characters don't even have articles), it seems rather irrelevant. TTN (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Notability has nothing to do with being in multiple games" citation needed.Geni 02:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources. Unless being in multiple games equals guaranteed sources, its irrelevant. TTN (talk) 02:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 04:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've added in three references and there are definitely more references out there to back up the information in this article(yes they are real world things), also the article could be expanded with less in-game details such as when Masahiro Sakurai created the character. This isn't the best article around but it definitely isn't an article that needs to be improved. Just stub the thing it isn't like it is doing anyone harm and isn't some blatant advertisement or anything like that. --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 08:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No sources supplied to establish notability as yet. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Already has a section over at the list of kirby characters. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - OK, I've searched for "Meta knight" in the Access World News database, which is a database of medium-to-large newspapers worldwide. (If you have access to university library login, you can duplicate the results. Otherwise, you won't be able to). So I'll be listing quotes outside of just linking:
"And there are some new characters. Meta Knight , Kirby's most popular rival, makes an appearance with his golden sword and handy invisibility trick. Pit from Kid Icarus pops up with a bow which fires blazing arrows and then splits into two curved blades. " - Lawson, Steve. "Wee E3 Kings Kings". Daily Record (Glasgow), May 19, 2006.
"In Amazing Mirror, Kirby is split into four versions of himself (hmm, much like Nintendo's recent take on the Legend of Zelda series) and must battle the forces of Meta Knight." - Campbell, Chris. "Gaming." The Stuart News (Florida), December 3, 2004.
"A creature called Dark Mind has invaded Mirror World and now mirrors eflect only a person's inner darkness. First to fall victim is Meta Knight , who is transformed into Dark Meta Knight He sets the game off by slicing our pink, bloblike hero Kirby into four different Kirbys. The quartet must investigate Mirror World and reverse the curse before it spreads home to Dream Land." - Davenport, Misha and Jae-Ha Kim. "Game Zone: Reviews, Tips, and Trends on Video Games." Chicago Sun-Times. November 12, 2004.

Just as a general note, my favorite part of this was to see that someone named one of their daughters Meta Knight, which showed up in an obituary! I don't know if these sources are enough to save the article or not, but I at least wanted to show that he got mentioned a few times in actual newspapers. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These quote don't provide anything meaningful. We need reliable sources that establish notability and provide real world context. Although the newspapers may be reliable, their coverage is trivial. Jay32183 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can accept that. I just thought I'd give it a go because I'd like to see the article stay. But I didn't feel confident enough to vote keep even though I personally wish it could. matt91486 (talk) 05:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want, you can request that the closing admin move the page to a subpage of your userspace while you try to hunt down sources. We're definitely certain that there are no easy to find sources, but if you're confident that you can come up with something it may be worth it. When your satisfied that there's nothing you can then request a speedy deletion, I believe it's U1. Jay32183 (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD is a next possible step when discussion doesn't work. That's hardly pointy. TTN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What does "There is no current assertion for improvement" mean? Do you just mean that there are no tags on it? Why is that addressed by deletion? — brighterorange (talk) 20:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That means that this isn't just a poorly written article that could easily be referenced if people just worked on it. TTN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, why is this not a good option? Although be very harsh in deciding what to keep and what to cut. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a 15 year-old character that has appeared in 5 Kirby-video-games with a 6th game not tied to the Kirby series, to be released in weeks; not to mention the additional media of character that have appeared in. It is evident through the previous merge discussion and this current AfD that there are vested editors willing to contribute. Finally, there is an editorial precidence that the antagonists of the major Nintento series characters have their own pages (ex. Ganon and Bowser (Nintendo)). -66.109.248.114 (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE, Seriously, what's the point in wiping an article out. While it probably isn't possible that this character doesn't establish notability, why delete him? What if someones does find real world info and notability in some shape or form. In any case, merge the article, like you intend to do before, and wait until someone has the sources we need to keep it seperate. -- ZeroGiga (Contact) 01:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources for notability have been show on a world-wide basis, no less. Another case where the sources can be found if someone actually looks. Better idea is to look before nominating. Even better, of course, is to look when writing the article in the first. DGG (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect Absolutely no need to delete here. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Strong keep Passing reference in 14 articles on google news, 98,300 ghits, a short article [15]. Certainly seems like it's got serious potential for notability. Being a playable character in smash brothers should probably define notability anyways.... Hobit (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I was bad I just searched, didn't read the article. After a (quick) reading, I'd say this is an obvious keep. Notability firmly established by article. Independent secondary sources, are clear and and history of the character makes it an easy keep.Hobit (talk) 03:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the article you are referring to is a verbatim regurgitation of the nintendo website, and therefore does not grant notability. seresin || wasn't he just...? 00:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hummm, maybe I'm blind, but it seems to me it is pointing to the nintindo website, not a quoting it. Can you point me to the site at nintendo where the text came from? Hobit (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was not linked. However, they themselves claimed it was verbatim: "Below, we've provided a description of Meta Knight of Kirby fame, quoted verbatim from the site." The only original content on that page was to say that the nintendo website had been updated with the below information. seresin || wasn't he just...? 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. The article has plenty of real-world information: the whole introduction and the infobox. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:NOT and the secondary sources do not provide any evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Handman[edit]

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

This person is completely unremarkable and the article has already been claimed by others to be an autobiography. Fails notability among other policies and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Famartin (talk • contribs)


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Came As Romans[edit]

We Came As Romans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No content RT | Talk 22:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, it even reads like an ad. Jonathan 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-notable, advertisement, copyvio - take your choice. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete advertisement; per reasons above. ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleteWoody (talk) 00:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EquiTerre (French student association)[edit]

EquiTerre (French student association) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

NO information on page at all, simpliy a website on the sidebar RT | Talk 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Consensus is to delete. --Fabrictramp (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stochastic electrodynamics bibliography[edit]

Stochastic electrodynamics bibliography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is a long bibliography for a fringe-y physics topic; main article on this topic has a perfectly acceptable short bibliography. Delete per WP:DIRECTORY and WP:UNDUE. Bm gub (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete the article covering this topic exists, and has plenty of references. If all these references were worked into the article, that would be a good thing, but a that's no rationale for keeping a list of them as a separate article. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Agree with nominator: Wikipedia is not a repository for every book on stochastic electrodynamics. Perhaps some can be used to flesh out the main article, but the rest are superfluous. -FrankTobia (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We really need a general discussion on where to put articles of this type--there are a number of others. Until we have a suitable general way of handling, we should keep this one. DGG (talk) 09:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you provide links to such discussions? Or at the very least, links to a few others that we could take a look at? Unless this is shown to be a big issue, I think we should handle this case in isolation and later generalize the decision if necessary. I support being bold and deciding now, rather than putting certain AFDs on hold. If consensus changes such articles can always be restored. FYI: I propose merging useful references into the main article and discarding the rest. -FrankTobia (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, a link would be handy. FWIW, it seems clear to me that the place for such lists of references to buttress expansion of existing articles, ought to be on the talk pages for the existing articles. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copy to Wikisource. I just checked, and there are many bibliographies there. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 23:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikisource bibliographies are PD copies of works published elsewhere, or are incidental to the works--not stand alone like this one. Other examples: Phage monographs, Neuro-linguistic programming bibliography, Historical Bibliography of OMF International, Bibliography of the Western Apache, Bibliography of Nicaragua and I think about 50 or so others. ; (many of the items if one searches under bibliography in the WP search box are however lists of works by an author, for which there is consensus if they exceed the bounds of an article). I think therse are useful, but they are very rarely articles. FWIW, Citizendium has a subpage for such material for each article. DGG (talk) 03:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then we are left with merging or deleting. PatrickStar LaserPants (talk) 07:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:BLP and WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Sprinkel[edit]

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

This article is essentially the rehashing of a local news story, failing pretty much any objective application of WP:NOTABILITY and WP:NOT#NEWS. Pairadox (talk) 21:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This local news story is a huge issue to the local community -- a community of thousands of parents and students. More people care about this article than some of the things that make it through. Once more information is available, it will be included. Until then, there is no reason to delete it. It allows us to convene information for many people at once, as it's happening, instead of once it is all done. -Jake — Preceding unsigned comment added by E5hansej (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. News story about a non-notable alleged criminal. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and consider speedy. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Already had speedy and prod tags removed. Also note that there has been repeated efforts to include this info in the Brookfield East High School article. Pairadox (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...this is the most rediculous thing ive ever seen. Who honestly has the heart and soul to post this unnecessary things. Wikipedia? Yes, talk about it, "convene" - however making an editorial about a teacher of brookfield wisconsin, who commited a crime via wikipedia is someone who is trying to not inform people but hurt the family of Michael. Please delete
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep and cleanup Gnangarra 13:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Ray[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable American actress; a Google search for "Charlie Ray" turns up nothing but fan sites, some IMDB hits and trivia information about the actress. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Remember that number of Google hits should not be used; she isn't the only Charlie Ray on the planet. Also, that's just one minor role which doesn't really make her notable. Oh, and I only see 54,300 hits... Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because he's using Google Canada! Well, IMDB says she's been in three other TV shows. ― LADY GALAXY 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. She had a starring role in a well-regarded film, reviewed here and here for example. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable enough; starred in well-regarded film Little Manhattan. --Funper (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Her performance as one of the leads in Little Manhattan, reviewed here on Metacritic, seems enough to keep the article. Metacritic provides a summary of ten published reviews of the movie, one of which appeared in the New York Times. EdJohnston (talk) 04:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless proper references from Reliable Sources are given in the article. NBeale (talk) 07:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 19:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Wittmack[edit]

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

Speedied before, keeps being recreated, fails WP:BIO, Delete Secret account 21:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transwiki to Wikipopuli, a more suitable wiki for biographies of people whose notability is in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheYellowCabin (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Transwiki is only for another wikipedia project, not a private wiki. Secret account 05:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - There appears to be articles about him such as this but are behind pay walls. -- Whpq (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The only sources I can find via a Google web or news archive search search seem to be self-published, local to Iowa City, or trivial mentions. I would expect information on an American whose achievements are so recent to be readily available on the web if he was really notable. The mere fact of being the first person from a state with a population of 3 million to climb Everest surely doesn't give him automatic notability - would the first person from Dingxi, which has a similar population, to perform a similar feat be considered automatically notable for that? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • question I do not think he's notable in any real sense, but according to WP:V, there is no exclusion of local sources. Nor is there in WP:BLP, or anywhere else. If we mean that Notability is judged only or primarily by the ability to write an objective article, there is no basis in policy for excluding this one. We judge "worthy of notice" by whether people have noticed it in RSs, and the newspapers in the search are RSs. (Personally, I think it's absurd not to have specific criteria instead of WP:N, but so it is. Meeting the general notability criterion is enough, even though it gives rather odd results. ) DGG (talk) 04:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I agree that verifiability is beyond doubt, but I think that there has been plenty of consensus in the past at AfD that this level of coverage in local newspapers isn't enough for notability, even if that's not spelt out explicitly in the guidelines. There are countless small-town mayors, failed parliamentary candidates, run-of-the-mill shopping malls, local chambers of commerce, elementary schools etc. which get lots of coverage in the local press, but consensus has been to delete their articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial article with no refs. --Funper (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 07:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Touch My Body[edit]

Touch My Body (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

An article about a 'rumoured single' with 'no confirmation that this will be the first single'. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Um, keep? I read the citations in the article and they seem to confirm that the single will be there. They even ranked it 6/10. One is in German, but it was easy enough to figure out without translating. I didn't see you nom based on wp:rs or wp:v, so not sure how you stand on the quality of the citations. Pharmboy (talk) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to delete After careful thought and consideration, I realize that even if it is the first single, that doesn't mean it will chart. Too early to tell if it really is notable outside the album listing. Change to Delete. Pharmboy (talk) 01:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We'll see in just a week if this will be the single or not. The sources seem to suggest so. ― LADY GALAXY 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the sources. Thankyoubaby (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per policy at WP:MUSIC (I would note to the closer of this AfD that the above keep votes do not address this policy). Quite possibly this will be the first single, but the article acknowledges that this is not known and I don't see sources that say definitively otherwise. Things change quickly in the music biz. If this is never a single, but merely an album track, it does not warrant an article. Per our notability policies for music, "Most songs do not merit an article...Songs that have been ranked on national or significant music charts, that have won significant awards or honors or that have been performed independently by several notable artists, bands or groups are probably notable. A separate article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article..." If this is indeed a single on the album it will certainly chart highly (given Carey's popularity) at which point it will warrant an article. We can then easily undelete or re-create the article, but for now Wikipedia is not a crystal ball very much applies. These kind of anticipatory articles need to be consistently discouraged.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think we should give it a week or so. Her official site must release some information about the single by the time it's allegedly going to be released. If there is no news from very reliable websites, i.e. her official website, then I think you can nominate it for AfD again. But let it wait a week or two first. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 00:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Again, this is not a policy-based rationale. We could take a "wait and see" approach (whether for a week or 3 months) with any number of supposed future singles, supposed movies which will commence shooting soon, etc.; but policy dictates that we wait until we have definite confirmation of artistic works like these before creating an article. It was a mistake to create an article on this in the first place which is the issue. Of course if an official announcement comes that this will be the first single prior to the AfD running its course then there would be no reason to delete. However as of now that does not seem to be the case.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To quote WP:MUSIC: "unreleased albums may not yet be notable without substantial coverage from reliable sources" Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Why delete it? After the single is realised it will come back, seems waist of time to delete it now..., if not going to be 1st single it can be deleted later anyway. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional info. I checked and still find no information about this song being a single on the album, much less the first single. In fact this story says the first single will be the title track "That Chick." The album itself is scheduled to come out in April, so it could be months before we know whether or not this song will be released as a single. By our policies we should not be keeping this article in the meantime.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of exhibitions by Shahram Entekhabi[edit]

List of exhibitions by Shahram Entekhabi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The article is an extensive resume of a borderline-notable contemporary artist and consists of numerous low-profile group exhibitions. I can't find a wiki policy that covers this kind of thing, but WP:RESUME encapsulates my view that the article should be deleted. Although a merge might seem the obvious thing to do, the list doesn't belong on the artist's article either. Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep : also I think that to keep it would be very usefull concerning all participating artists and curators. the article was helpfull for my research of maping the art practice and art institutes dealing with issues of migration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Farhangnama (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It patently isn't a resume and is generally pretty useful. By the nominators own omission he's struggling for a policy it violates, clearly Shahram Entekhabi is notable in some circles. Lets get it linked up to the artists page. --Joopercoopers (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It clearly is an artist's resume. Maybe merge a few of the items onto the main article. But this article doesn't have much value. freshacconcispeaktome 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it seems to me that these individual exhibitions lack notability. Just an indiscriminant list showing that these shows existed, even with Cites, how are they notable? Dont say they are notable because of the Artist 'cause WP:N isnt inherited. And yes, it does tend to read like a Resume. (aside - some of the External links are not to exhibitions either). Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Clearly OTT , but at least should be merged back to the artist's article. Johnbod (talk) 09:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cleanup and Merge with Shahram Entekhabi.-Ravichandar 11:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Modernist (talk) 13:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep). JERRY talk contribs 18:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment[edit]

Ramtha's School of Enlightenment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Unverifiable from reliable third-party sources. The only sources that this school exists are the school itself, which is notoriously unreliable. PouponOnToast (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - clear failure to meet WP:V and WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A central figure in the film What the Bleep Do We Know?!, which grossed over $10 million. There is also a Willamette Week cover story on the group, which I will produce shortly. Article cited. Also note the extensive coverage from Google News when searching for "Ramtha's School of Enlightenment". The organization is most certainly notable. VanTucky 01:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable school from a notable personality in New Age spirituality. --Nealparr (talk to me) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of verifiabity and reliable sources. The "extensive coverage" in Google News consists of exactly 5 news stories in which the school is mentioned by name, for identification of JZ Knight; none are actually about the school itself, and all are about an unrelated zoning dispute. The Willamette Week story contains 2 paragraphs about the school in a feature about Ramtha. Merely because Ramtha is notable does not mean the school is. --MCB (talk) 08:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sufficient non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources to meet WP:CORP requirements per above source and others. Dreadstar † 09:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to What the Bleep Do We Know?!, which appears notable. The only reliable source I saw in the references for this article was the article in Willamette Week, which is a solid and extended discussion of the movie and a much briefer account of Ramtha's School. Most of the links under External Links seem inappropriate, and I see that section is already tagged. Since there is so little material that can be solidly sourced, and since the Ramtha ideas appear central to the movie, it should be no problem to merge across whatever is important into the movie's article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Refs consist of one minor newspaper and some websites. Non-notable. NBeale (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SV AWC[edit]

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

This club doesn't come close to notability. They're a bottom club in the Tweede Klasse, which is the fifth tier of football in the Netherlands. Only the clubs in the Eredivisie, Eerste Divisie and Hoofdklasse are fully professional or semi-professional. This club hasn't played a significant role in the history of Dutch football either. Much of this article is misinformation added by Wijchen (talk · contribs) and the IP address 213.17.24.234 (talk · contribs). AecisBrievenbus 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete - hoax. Addhoc (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toodles (Tom and Jerry)[edit]

Toodles (Tom and Jerry) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't appear to be a notable character in the Tom & Jerry series; is not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is apart of a large hoax which is also up for deletion. Therefore, its deletable as well. Doc Strange (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. sourcing was a major concern that wasn't fully met in this afd Secret account 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vin DiCarlo[edit]

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

Procedural nomination due to previous speedies. Unclear if G4 applies. Single sourced, I lean towards delete per WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, if the decision is delete, will the closing admin please WP:SALT? Jfire (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am voting since I added one of the speedys (maybe on top of an AfD? I can't remember). As much as I find the topic of a Seduction Community icky, it does look like a valid topic and this guy seems like a valid player in it (if you google him there are a ton of hits). Also I am not sure if you can find it, but before one of the deletes, the author Zbrower stated in the "hangon" post that he was not in fact Vin DiCarlo but had attended one of the classes and was impressed by the class. So if we believe that Zbrower is not Vin DiCarlo then it's not self-promo. Also someone named Edgefree tried to add this page back in November. Same person? Either way there seem to be a lot of people in "the community" who want this article added, so why not let them have it. The other "famous pickup artists" get bio pages, why not this dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurap414 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one source looks kosher (and may save this from a speedy), but otherwise he seems to fail WP:BIO -- no other sources could be found. I endorse salting too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, thank you Jfire for listing this properly. I do believe it has been unfairly deleted before, unless my knowledge of the deletion process is wrong and it has drastically changed (can be a tad tricky to keep up to date with everything going on here if I stop contributing so frequently for a few months). As for there only being one source there, I do recall the earlier version being better written (besides, I do believe more exist. But not much time now to go hunting around for sources, perhaps later today). If that could please be restored to a userpage of mine that would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, remember this article in this current form has only been up for a single day! A bit hasty I'd say, give it a chance. A rate of one source being added per day (which is the current rate it is at) is a pretty damn good speed! I should point out another potentially very confusing issue for while looking for sources, I think it has only been really since a year or so ago that he has gone by his real name of Vin DiCarlo (which means a lot of stuff would still be refering to his old alias he went by). Mathmo Talk 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as fails WP:BIO - If the article has been deleted twice before the creator should be aware that valid sources and verifiable notability is essential. Springnuts (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not the creator of this article, and as I'm not an admin I can't seem to see who has created the page in the past (only can see the deletions in the logs). Could well be several different people. And I shall point out all the previous deletions were speedy deletions, this is the first chance the article has had a proper AfD. Is actually kind of deceptive at first glance the list at the top of past AfDs, as none of them had a proper chance of running the full course (1st was speedied while on AfD, which I believe is kinda wrong. Second time was speedied once again as recreation of deleted material, which I do believe is perfectly fine as it is standard way of contesting a speedy deletion). Mathmo Talk 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes I accept that - have struck through comments above, even though it does not affect my view of whether it should be kept. Springnuts (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Nice to see us reaching a bit of agreement here. :) But now your view is cut down to merely saying "delete" and "WP:RANDOM_ACRONYM", care to elaborate on exactly where you thing it is gone unrepairably wrong? Thanks. Mathmo Talk 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding here my comments from the talk page, a bit flow of thought manner in which they were written. But shows what I've been realising, and is worthwhile noting these points:

Riiite.... I just noticed this page has several times been unfairly speedy deleted. First time due to claims of it not asserting significance, which I certainly do recall it doing. And then again a second time it was deleted as "recreation of deleted material", when this is a perfectly valid thing to do for contesting speed deletions. Please, can any admins who read this show more caution in future. At least contact me on my talk page (and give it a few days, although I often check wikipedia very frequently I can also let a couple of weeks sometimes slip by if life gets busier). Cheers! Mathmo Talk 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what would be really handy is if I could see the older material in the previously deleted article, as I am not an admin and can not see it myself. If this could be restored (to a userpage of mine would be handy) then I could use some of that, because I recall an earlier version being of a much higher quality than how the article currently is. Mathmo Talk 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, didn't see any reference to the AfD before. Thanks for the links Jfire. Now unless the entire process has drastically changed in the past few months, what is with the non-admin closure in only a couple of days of an AfD that has almost no comments on it. Not to mention it shouldn't have been speedied before anyway. Mathmo Talk 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see now the non-admin closure of the AfD was by a different user. As it was speedy deleted already, which means this article has never yet had a proper AfD. Mathmo Talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's pretty clear that there's no information in the sole cited source that doesn't originate from DiCarlo himself, so we have a major failure of WP:V. And salt. Deor (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You appear to be confused here with WP:V in regards to the usage of the boston source, as it was not written by Vin DiCarlo himself I do not see what WP:V has anything to do with it. Mathmo Talk 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, the reporter interviewed DiMarco and wrote down whatever he said. I don't call that an independent source for the information it's being used to reference. Deor (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say you are getting mixed up here by what means independent, it is an independent source because the reporter is not Vin DiCarlo. It is of little surprise the reporter's article contains quotes from Vin DiCarlo, that is what people do when they interview a person (they get quotes etc). Mathmo Talk 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a large dose of salt. Tried to find some more reliable sources, came up with zippo. Blueboy96 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I mentioned, that is of little surprise it is currently a tad tricky to find any more. As only very recently has he used his real name (better luck using woodhaven probably), also you might want to try searching under his company name. Mathmo Talk 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as well, the nature of the seduction community is largely WEB based and underground - within the community someone can gain quite a bit of notoriety without being written about in the mainstream media. I posted the last 2 versions for Vin DiCarlo but not the previous one. While I admit that my first attempt was overly biased, my latest attempt stuck to facts that were taken directly from the Boston Magazine article. I even didn't include a quote from David DeAngelo that came from his subscription interview series because it praised him so highly. This article is third party as Mathmo stated. It was written by an independent journalist and DiCarlo was interviewed for the article. If interviewing the subject discounts a source as independent, we've got a lot of deleting to do. Indeed if you google "woodhaven pickup seduction" you'll find a lot of articles written by and about him. Zbrowman (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, he has also been on Playboy Radion and PickUp Podcast (the major podcast in the seduction community). Mathmo Talk 07:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and yes, WP:SALT. There are simply too many unsubstantiated claims. For instance, "He coined the term “Natural Game”, in a 2006 internet essay and gave birth to the style." What essay? What coinage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuebenStoker (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a reason for a deletion, if you have a problem with any of the content because you do not believe it to be true you can either remove it or go and find the source (as I know it to be true, I've gone and found the source. The article which was was refered to that was written). As you can see, it is an editorial decision. (not outright deletion) Mathmo Talk 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that is a valid reason for deletion ... unsubstantiated=unverifiable. Blueboy96 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes obviously there is WP:V, but only if everything (or there abouts, you get my point I'm sure) is not verifiable (and you can not reasonably find anything yourself) then an article should be deleted. However if it is only bits and pieces of an otherwise worthy article, then those bits should be either editted out or the sources found (as I've now done). Mathmo Talk 21:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is little more than a regurgitation of the Boston Magazine article. Heck, given that the majority of the article consists of direct quotes, it's probably even a copyvio. As other editors have noted, this is the issue: nobody has been able to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Both WP:V and WP:N are at issue; both are ground for deletion. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Earlier versions were better written (besides, the debate shouldn't be over how it is currently written, but if it can be written well based on their existing sources. Which is indeed the case). Anyway, could an admin please put a copy of each of the earler versions in my userspace. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 00:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Platinum[edit]

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

Since when is Beckett, an unofficial fan magazine, a reliable source? The article author doesn't even specify what issue of Beckett the "confirmation" appears in. No sources cited, no images to back it up, nothing. And besides, it's been brought up among the Pokemon community multiple times, this "new game", and every single time it's been basically debunked and confirmed as fake. Adding it to Wiki as though it were a factual announcement from Nintendo is just silly. Qu-ko (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 09:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a crystal ball. This is one Pokemon article we really don't need. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is a crystal ball. Google brings up quite a few hits for it, however no major media coverage or sources. Lady Galaxy 23:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball article. Seriously, a Pokemon Platinum? No major announcements, no articles relating to it, only talks in forums about it. Not notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1yodsyo1 (talk • contribs) 16:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Crystal ball; for reference, it WAS mentioned in the magazine, and that was subsequently mentioned on Pokebeach.com, but neither of those are reliable souces. 69.182.107.70 (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Result:Article was speedy deleted per CSD A7 (unremarkable bio)--JForget 03:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie harrison[edit]

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

Non notable boxer. Best claim to fame is "number four in england in the under 14's, under 48 kg age category and weight class by the ABA". I think this is just enough to avoid a speedy, but not enough to have an article. Prod was removed by the author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 20:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete - hoax. Addhoc (talk) 20:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Toodles[edit]

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

Seems to be a hoax. Zero Google hits for "Death of Toodles". Incoherent and implausible as plot for a children's cartoon. Even if not a hoax, fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:CRYSTAL. PRODs removed without comment by anonymous IP. JohnCD (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this POV fork back into Private highway. JERRY talk contribs 18:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding private highways[edit]

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

Not notable, possibly a POV fork. I noted on the user's talkpage how there wasn't any mainstream debate over this (see here, using a theoretical "controversies over public toilets" as an example). 5 days later, this article was created. Perhaps I'm wrong -- I'm willing to compromise, of course. At the very least, if it is notable, the content should be merged back into Private highway.

Also, this was nominated for AfD only a few days ago (see here), but the user withdrew his nomination and closed the discussion after just a couple of days. I believe his original AfD had merit and I'd like to have at least a full five days of debate before it's closed. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There are plenty of books, legislative testimony, think tank studies, etc. out there about the highway privatization issue which continues to rage in statehouses across the country (and the world). It's not really a POV fork since both sides of the debate are presented in the article in a reasonably balanced manner. We could move the stuff back into the main article but that main article, by the time it's done, is probably going to be approaching the page size limit (and the same can be said for the controversy page); so I say, let's keep that stuff in a separate article from the outset, where it will be more accessible anyway to those who just want to skip to the info about the controversy. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge back to private highway, which is hardly an exhaustive or excessively large article. This really shouldn't be broken out unless it is. --Dhartung | Talk 20:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarsaparilla, that source you provided is a local newspapers that shows there's a debate in a local community over a single private toll road. In my own area, there was a debate over whether a historical landmark called the "Cider Barrel," should've been sold off to private developers or not. The existence of such tiny disputes do not establish relevancy or notability for the average reader. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. I'm not even going to respond in any more detail here because the absurdity of these claims of non-notability is so self-evident that a keep or at least a merge/redirect is assured. I'm as vocal a critic of deletionism and the deletion process as anyone, but even I trust the community to make the right decision on this one. Sarsaparilla (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete This doesn't justify a separate article, and is pretty lightweight stuff verging on OR. NBeale (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the way – if the intent is to merge, isn't this the kind of thing that's normally dealt with using the {{mergeto}} template rather than AfD? Sarsaparilla (talk) 23:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I suppose this article really does need to be merged into private highway, preferably without overwhelming that article. Before that happens, though, the POV issue needs to be addressed. Yes, this treatment of the subject does have "arguments for" and "arguments against" sections, but the "for" arguments are merely presented whereas the "against" arguments include detailed counter-arguments, clearly indicating the author's sentiments. Tim Ross·talk 12:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarsaparilla: That comment above is an appeal to ridicule. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't! For you even to suggest such a thing is preposterous. Sarsaparilla (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Brosnan[edit]

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

Declined speedy. Has some minor TV and film roles, but nothing that passes WP:BIO. Plus the alcohol and drug addiction, so add WP:BLP concerns to the list. Jfire (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Only real claim to notability that I see is that she's Pierce Brosnan's daughter. No other reliable sources I can see apart from that Daily Mail article. Blueboy96 19:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I cleaned up the article a bit & added some sourcing; no prejudice to keep or delete - just added to give a better idea of who is being discussed. SkierRMH (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no notable roles as an actor, and even as the adopted daughter of Pierce Brosnan, there seems to be little interest from the press in covering her -- Whpq (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. most of the info was already mentioned/merged in the List of planets articles, find a appropiate redirect target. Secret account 20:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of destroyed Star Wars planets[edit]

List of destroyed Star Wars planets (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List is uncited original research (esp. the bits about "rendered effectively uninhabitable" and an unlikely search term/concept on Wikipedia. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep It's not O.R. as much as it's the product of lazy writing. Other than "Alderan" (Princess Leia's planet that got blown up in 1977), none of these come from the film series. If you own every lousy Star Wars book every written, you can make citations too. Precedent indicates that Wikipedia will keep all of the fancruft in the "Star Wars universe" (a place far far away where, a long long time ago, planets got completely completely destroyed). At least, try to upgrade your cruft to the standards expected of other articles. Mandsford (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into appropriate List of Star Wars planets pages. Doc Strange (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A random and non-scientific survey of several of these planets' entries on the List of... pages shows that those entries already include mention of destruction, decimation, etc. --EEMIV (talk) 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge as above, either one. Basically fails WP:FICT. This is what the Star Wars Wikia is for. --Dhartung | Talk 20:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fancruft. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Doc. Showers (talk) 23:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like that snowball shaped object in orbit around this article is powering up.... Mandsford (talk) 01:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 13:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung with substantial pruning. Extended plot summary more fit for the Wookiepedia. • Gene93k (talk) 13:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Combine with the main list of star wards planets mentioned above. --Tikilounge (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Something to keep in mind—fiction is always in the present when read or watched. That is, if I watch anything in the Star Wars prequel trilogy, Alderaan is not a destroyed planet. Pagrashtak 02:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a way to deal with the material in brief. All of it can be cited, just as Mandsford says. DGG (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context for "Destroyed Star Wars planets". There is nothing special about Star Wars that allows it to follow different standards than any other work of fiction. Jay32183 (talk) 22:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ice in Beverages[edit]

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

Should be deleted, or if needed, merged into Ice cube Calvin 1998 Talk Contribs 19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Nothing to merge. Calvin was trying to "an ice guy". I was expecting something about the history of ice in beverages, or the cultural differences between Americans and Brits on use of ice (over there, I understand, they have tongs to place a single cube into a beverage). This article doesn't hold water, not in any form. Mandsford (talk) 19:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. Consensus. - PeaceNT (talk) 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob and George[edit]

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

This webcomic, while long lasting and pretty fun to read, is not currently notable (WP:N and WP:WEB) by our standards. It is not covered in reliable sources; it reads like a fan guide, which is already available on that site; and it does not seem to assert any possibility for improvement. While it may deserve coverage on some kind of notable webcomic list, it does not require an article. TTN (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep _ Why would you consistently nominate the article for deletion? The piece has already gone through FOUR Afds with a clear census of Keep. There are clear, reliable, Verifiable and creditable courses. Give it up. Shoessss |  Chat  19:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make that three. This is the fourth. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it has only gone through two valid Afds, while the other one was just a mistake. This is technically the third one, and it has been created over a year after the last valid one. Standards change a lot every year, so this is quite valid. Please base your argument around policies and guidelines. TTN (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claims to have a significant following; however, I don't see any reliable sources anywhere. The only third party cites are trivial in nature and don't seem to meet WP:RS. A search for any good sources turned up only forums and blogs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As I know it's going to come up various times, the fact that this is signifcant to the webcomic community is a fairly subjective claim, and even if fully true, the topic can easily be covered within other articles (Webcomic, Sprite comic, an expanded List of webcomics). We do not need an article on it to understand it. TTN (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless reliable sources arise; appears to fail WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While this is a ludicrously long article with way, WAY too much fancruft, that doesn't make Bob and George non-notable in and of itself. This is the first sprite comic ever, and also the most successful except for Clevenger's 8-Bit Theater (which didn't launch until B&G had been around for a year). In fact, Clevenger (a clearly notable webcomic creator with several non-webcomic credits) calls the creator of B&G "the Father of Sprite Comics" in this essay[16], a view which is shared by the Webcomics Examiner here.[17] Trim the article? Oh, hell yes. Delete it entirely? No, not if we want anything resembling an encyclopedic treatment of the topic of webcomics. Whether or not Bob and George is notable for itself, it's notable for the influence it had on later sprite comics, and deserves a (much briefer) article based on that alone. Ig8887 (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Ig8887. To say that Bob and George doesn't have real world relevance is silly. However, the fancruft needs to be tapered off. JuJube (talk) 22:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you two please take into account my above comment? As I said, it may be important to the webcomic community, but that does not mean that we need to describe everything that can already be found on the website here. It would fit nicely in a referenced version of Sprite comic. Either way, real world relevance is shown in reliable sources, so you should provide some. TTN (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I provided two, actually: An essay by a notable creator in the field and an online magazine with an editorial staff devoted to webcomics. Reliable sources do not need to be printed on paper just to be reliable; these aren't blogs or forums. And you'll note that I agree that not everything in that article needs to be mentioned; that's what cleanup is for, not deletion. Ig8887 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazingly, it's a book about webcomics, which I'm suggesting that this topic be part of instead of holding its own article. No source that deals with general webcomics and sprite comics is going to give this enough independent notability. TTN (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's a book about webcomics--this is a webcomic we're talking about! If you're going to dismiss a source as being unreliable because it covers the very topic it purports to be about, then I dare say that most of Wikipedia will be unsourced. It's silly to suggest that because an article falls under a category, it should only exist as a part of the article on that category. Let's delete the article on alligators and merge that information into the reptiles article while we're at it.Ig8887 (talk) 23:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. This is odd to say the least; the article doesn't have any reliable sources anywhere. An AfD is a bit odd, unless the article asserts notability using reliable sources, the only reasonable option is delete... surely. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Ig8887. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete page has no secondary sources, on top of that, it's fancruft. Does not pass notability, I'm sure. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need multiple independent reputable sources on a topic in order to write an encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete as per all of the above. This page is just mostly fancruft among other things according to TTN. Greg Jones II 04:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I believe Wired is a verifiable and secondary source as shown here [19]. In addition, I believe you may find some substance here.[20]. Shoessss |  Chat  05:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Ig8887 - also, as has been dicussed in prior AfD's, this is most likely the first of its genre, thus notable. Any type of Web comic Article would also be severly lacking if it did not have a example of the earliest notable types. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up per others above. --Merovingian (T, C) 06:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added two secondary references: the Wired article and a student newspaper. I don't have high hopes that they'll be enough to save the article (are student newspapers considered reliable?), but it's a start. Kamek (talk) 06:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that the article has improved and asserted notability. Kamek (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some people have said things along the lines of this being "first sprite comic ever". This is not true, as we have an article on another sprite comic which predates this one by two years. --Dragonfiend (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll admit that I did not know that. However, the reliable secondary source at Wired tells me, "While Anez wasn't the first person to create a comic strip from video-game sprites, his strip was the first to gain widespread popularity, and it inspired others to create their own sprite comics. One such person was Brian Clevinger." And I believe taking the word of secondary sources over our personal views is what Wikipedia is all about, right?Ig8887 (talk) 16:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the arguments by Shoessss and Ig8887, and extra refs provided by Ig8887 and Tim Q. Wells.--Alf melmac 16:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: OK, I've gone and edited in a section on the strip's significance with a bunch of references. As far as I can see, that is one of the only two arguements for deletion. I will now go to work on trimming the fancruft. Hopefully, when I'm done, those who have voted to delete will take a second look and see if this won't be a worthwhile article at that point.Ig8887 (talk) 18:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There, since no one else was willing to clean it up, I took a hacksaw to the Plot and Cast sections, and pretty much deleted completely non-notable stuff like a list of the Locations, subcomics, and running gags. Hopefully, people who ARE fans of the comic can make sure that anything truly crucial that I slashed will make its way back in WITHOUT reams of fancruft. Ig8887 (talk) 18:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The information added to this is much more relevant to Sprite comic than this one. Seeing as this would be covered in a fixed up version, it's fairly redundant. TTN (talk) 00:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How?!? How on earth can something that is directly speaking about the topic of the article by name and creator be more relevant only to the broader topic? This is the very assertion of notability that everyone asked for: sourced information that this is the first major sprite comic. You're saying now that I've provided it, it's not what the article needs anymore? Those quotes and sources directly name THIS comic, not any other, as the source of the sprite comic movement. That is its notability, that is why it deserves to stay. Yes, it can ALSO be added to sprite comic article, that just makes sense, but it doesn't invalidate the fact that they establish notibility for Bob and George, specifically. Being "fairly redundant" is not enough reason to delete a notable article with sourced information. I've answered both of your criticisms of the article now, and everyone is grasping at straws to delete something they just don't like. I don't like it either; I think Bob and George has mediocre writing and abyssmal visuals. But you know what? My opinion of its aesthetic value doesn't matter. Neither does yours. It is NOTABLE for its influence on other, better works, as described in several reliable sources. --Ig8887 (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information deals directly with the history of sprite comics, rather than the specific comic. It does not establish a need to cover the minor details of the topic, as it just fits directly in Sprite Comic. It's essentially giving undue weight (see the third paragraph) to a minor topic. TTN (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'm just incapable of understanding how information that names a specific comic and details its place in history doesn't deal with that specific comic. For that matter, who decided it was a "minor topic" in the first place? Your arguement requires everyone to accept on faith that Bob and George is inherently incapable of being important to anyone, and therefore any notability that can be proven isn't "owned" by Bob and George, but by the broader topic of sprite comics. And if everyone agreed with that view, then your suggestion to put the references into the sprite comics article would go unchallenged. But I strongly disagree. If a topic is proven to be notable, for whatever reason, there's no need to eliminate its article because one editor arbitrarily deems it a "minor topic". In essence, I don't believe it to be "undue weight", because I believe that the small amount of weight that having a single short article on Wikipedia carries with it is, in this case, due. --Ig8887 (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Slight lack of reason to delete the article. Article appears to have refs and there would be no benifit in a merge.Geni 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sourced. Good sources appropriate to the subject. I havent the last idea by any personal standards of what webcomics are notable, and so i'm not going to judge personally, just see if here are suitable sources to support the notability. I don't see why anyone should accept the assertions of editors here about it, because they are no more RSs than I am. Even if eds think they are qualified experts on the subject, they should write a published work about it to quote. I dont even judge academics in my own subject here, but look for external sources. The sourcing ought to be enough to have obviated an afd altogether. I am beginning to wonder about this and other nominations, because when the information asked for is provided, the afd is not withdrawn. DGG (talk) 04:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reasonably well sourced, long history. Further, <40,000 at alexa (which appears to be about the same over years) which hints at actual notability. Hobit (talk) 04:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am withdrawing this deletion debate as I am convinced by the sources provided that this is real and the consenus seems to be keep anyway. However I do feel that Y3 needs a source and so do the claimed specifications. Tbo 157(talk) 18:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boeing Yellowstone Project[edit]

Boeing Yellowstone Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

As can be seen on the talk page, the verifiability and factual accuraccy of this article has been debated. Alot of the sources reliability are also debatable. They seem to be very speculative. For example, the flight international source listed briefly states "Believed to be codenamed Yellowstone 1 (Y1)". It can be argued that this article is crystalgazing. A google search doesn't reveal any clear articles confirming this claim. In fact this source from the boeing website states that it does not plan to develop a "Boeing 797" passenger jet in the forseeable future. This source mentions that Boeing are thinking about flights in the distant future but there is no mention of "The Yellowstone Project" or the "Boeing 797" which redirects to this page. Also, no magazines or newspaperss have mentioned this to my knowledge. Thanks. Tbo 157(talk) 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This certainly appears real, although the codename Yellowstone is disputable. The article should be cleaned up and attributed to sources. The lead time on development of something like an aircraft is certainly extensive and the company will always be working on the "next generation" of something. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sonic cruiser, mentioned in the source provided above, was scrapped. See Boeing Sonic Cruiser. The name "Yellowstone" is disputable and also see this from the boeing website which says,
"Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand."
Yes it is true that Boeing are probably developing something but without a clear source explaining what they are developing and by what name, it is just crystalgazing. The article itself doesn't tell me what Boeing are developing. In short, this article just tells me that Boeing are working on Y1, Y2 and Y3. These names can't be found in any reliable sources. Tbo 157(talk) 22:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but what does the Boeing 797 have to do with this, the 797 is not mentioned in the article in question. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing 797 redirects there. Also the source states:
"Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it?
No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. "
Please explain what the article is trying to tell me other than there are new aircrafts being developed by Boeing using new technology to replace the old range. As I said above unless you can tell me whats being developed, its crystalgazing as none of the thigns in the article is verifiable by a reliable source. Tbo 157(talk) 22:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the bulk of your problem is Boeing 797 then nominate that for deletion. It was already deleted once and its not mentioned by this article. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, forget the 797. This article is basicaly telling me about the name "Yellowstone" which is unverifiable. All the supposed new technologies which this articles claims to be implemented to this so called "Yellowstone" are also unverifiable. Without a source telling me exactly what is being developed and by what name, this is just crystalgazing and isn't worth a whole article. This is something that can just be mentioned in the future section of the boeing article. Tbo 157(talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I've added some more links to articles from Flight International's http://www.flightglobal.com website that verify Yellowstone 1 through 3, there are several written by aviation author Guy Norris (Amazon book list for evidence of who the author is). Based on the magazine they are published in and the authors, they appear to be fairly reliable. There are also several news articles from 2001 to 2007 that refer to Yellowstone as the project name for the Boeing 787. Here's an example of those. Maybe the 797 redirect needs to be directed elsewhere or deleted, but project yellowstone seems to be real enough to be written about by Los Angeles aviation author Guy Norris and Seattle aerospace reporter James Wallace. --Dual Freq (talk) 16:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Well known and well sourced. While the "797" name is speculative, Y1/737RS and Y3 are notable in the online aviation community (such as at Airliners.net). Boeing has stated that they expect the Y1/737RS to enter service around 2015. Nothing has really been mentioned for Y3 yet, however, it will likely enter service after Y1 does. ANDROS1337 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't actually know whether or not this article is suitable for WP or not, but I would say Keep. However, if it is a delete, the article is welcome at PlaneSpottingWorld and I will rehome it in due course, regardless of whether or not the AfD "passes" or "fails" Bluegoblin7 11:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Antonelle[edit]

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

This article fails WP:BIO. It has nothing but uncited claims to establish notability and the external links just look like advertisements for his work. The article was created by and and it seems mostly maintained by the artist himself, and in a year hasn't been improved. -- Atamachat 18:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Is it something in the air today? Definite keep based on sources shown here [21] and here [22]. But that is just assuming the New York Times meets your criteria for notable. I know it meets mine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoessss (talk • contribs) 19:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • None are significant and independant. Epbr123 (talk) 19:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Her father is a painter who is currently being exhibited at the National Arts Club in Manhattan." is not significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage in third-party sources; the Google News hits provided by Shoessss are only trivial in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am sorry when has the New York Times with a direct quote from Wikipedia ; “…it is often regarded as a national newspaper of record, meaning that it is frequently relied upon as the official and authoritative reference for modern events.’’ and Art in America become trivial in nature? I always thought of them to be impartial, reliable and verifiable sources. 05:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)Shoessss |  Chat 
  • Comment - Just a passing mention of his name and/or work within the pages of the New York Times does not make him notable. The coverage of him was not significant, as Epbr123 stated, that does not mean that the paper his name appeared in is not significant. -- Atamachat 17:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Press release generated mentions in media and large-scale distribution of art is standard for all artists. Wikipedia is not a directory of all artists, it is an encyclopedia that, as such, list notable people. So this article needs to cite more than ordinary notability. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deleters above; coverage is not significant enough. Johnbod (talk) 09:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Non-notable. freshacconcispeaktome 12:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Modernist (talk) 13:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In keeping with the style of the aricle: Clubmarx called this article "non-notable" Clubmarx (talk) 00:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 rationale please see Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of LGBT couples. JERRY talk contribs 02:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of LGBT couples[edit]

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

First off, it's potentially slanderous as there are no sources. Secondly, Wikipedia is not a directory. No sort of critical encyclopaedic article exists about LGBT couples that is assisted by a list whose parameters are broad and vague. List of people whose only common trait is that they're with another guy/girl? Too massive a scope to ever be complete or close to it, and smacks of List cruft. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial, interethnic or intercultural couples. David Fuchs (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - The cruft argument doesn't work: "In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X (LGBT) itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article." And the fact the article is potentially open-ended isn't sufficient cause to delete either; hundreds, perhaps thousands of lists are open-ended. Torc2 (talk) 00:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By the reasoning provided by the list, any LGBT couple could stick themselves in. As for the cruft arguement, this isn't about LGBT; it's about LGBT couples. For example, interracial marriage is notable, of course. But we don't have a list of interracial couples. David Fuchs (talk) 00:44, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, not everybody could add their names. The list is still bound by WP:Notability (people)#Lists_of_people. And that list of interracial couples was deleted two years ago has little consequence here; I don't think such a list would be so quickly deleted today anyway. The arguments that applied in that deletion debate largely don't apply here and we have no idea what the article actually said. Interracial marriage has also been legal for 40 years in the U.S., so an interracial couple in 2008 isn't anywhere near as notable as a same-sex couple. Torc2 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a smackdown between gay marriage and interracial marriage; evidently your grasp of history is limited if you think just because an event is historical, it has no more notability. If gay marraige were legalized tomorrow worldwide, would we then delete the list? David Fuchs (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry are you trying to insinuate that there is something wrong with being LGBT? however? well there are plenty of lists like this< for instance "list of vegans" but all additions must be sourced for that>>> perhaps we should make everything sourced only???? -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 00:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then bring those articles to AfD, too. Call me a bigot if you want, but I'm not going to get dragged into personal accusations and attacks over AfDs. Conspire away. David Fuchs (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First, Wikipedia is not a directory. Second, statements that living persons are gay. bisexual or transexual requires references satisfying Wikipedia's standards for biographies of living persons. The policy WP:BLP says "Category tags regarding religious beliefs and sexual orientation should not be used unless two criteria are met: The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question; The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources." The same rules apply to lists. In the entire article only one claimed relationship is referenced to a source which would be judged a reliable source. The rest are apparently from a website listing, which is not adequate to satisfy WP:BLP. The defense of the article on the grounds that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a weak one and rarely succeeds. Each article must stand or fall on its own merits. Edison (talk) 00:12, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:OTHERSTUFF is a perfectly sound argument if the articles are actually analagous and comparable. The essay is faulty opinion and should not be relied upon to dismiss an argument. Instead you need to explain why the comparison isn't valid. Torc2 (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly. The essay means that saying 'list of monkeys' or whatever should be kept because a similar list also exists is foolish, because what is on wikipedia isn't always what should be wikipedia. I could go AfD that list and then where would your arguement be if it got deleted? David Fuchs (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you went and AfD'd that list, my argument would be totally supported, because you'd be acting consistently. If I point to another article that has survived AfD and is comparable to an article currently up for AfD, and I point out that the arguments recognized for keeping that article apply here, that's absolutely valid. WP:OTHERSTUFF is completely wrong in its assertion that pointing to precedence is faulty. It even contradicts itself within the section and is contradicted by other sections within that essay. It's badly written and poorly thought out, and reflects the authors' frustrations more than actual logic. Torc2 (talk) 21:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Torc2, I hope that you are not willfully misapplying what WP:OTHERSTUFF actually says. OTHERSTUFF does not assert "that pointing to precedence is faulty." It states that an argument based solely on the mere existance or non-existance of another article is not a sufficient/valid arguement for keeping/deleting another article. Lasalle202 (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not misapplying it at all and I don't much care for the accusation. Until I changed it a week ago, the pseudonyms in OTHERSTUFF were King and Queen Precedent. That doesn't bode well for the argument that OTHERSTUFF didn't argue against precedent. Whatever its intent was, clearly it has come to be used as a counterargument against any comparisons or appeals to precedent. Torc2 (talk) 23:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

note Refs soon won't be a problem, i've begun adding them and will remove un-refables. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 01:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this will take about a week at my moderate pace, but feel free to help out. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 23:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if referenced. WP:NOT#DIR isn't a good argument here, since these are (or will be) all notable LBGT couples, whose orientation is culturally or historically significant. Torc2 (talk) 01:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain how it's historically significant? We don't have a list of Elizabeth Taylor's husbands, after all. David Fuchs (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't? Torc2 (talk) 02:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep , especially if the material is indeed referenced as has been promised. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless really well sourced and the ambiguity of some of the entries noted. The problem is that while some of these are certain, many aren't, and it is not reasonable to list disputed instances here without further comment. I am very reluctant to say that a article should be deleted because of the difficult in doing it objectively, but I think this falls into that group. DGG (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - You're voting to delete over content issues? Torc2 (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This just seems like a bad idea. Do we include Ellen DeGeneres and Anne Heche? Why are coupled LGBT people any more notable or encyclopedic than single LGBT people (which don't have a list)? Would anyone actually use this for research purposes? It doesn't even seem much more helpful for navigational purposes than the whole list of LGBT people... maybe if it had lengths of time the couples were together, and you were doing research on LGBT relationship longevity -- but that seems like a stretch. Queerudite (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The last thing WP is more trouble. Duplicates a well-cited and better organized article -- List of LGBT people. 18:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearian'sBooties (talk • contribs)
It is duplication because everyone (or nearly everyone?) under the LGBT couples list would be duplicated on the list of LGBT people. If there were a list of water-related articles (another bad idea), it would not contain even most of the hydrogen or oxygen related articles. Queerudite (talk) 02:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that they are a couple is vastly different information than the fact each individual is LGBT. It's not a duplication of information at all. Torc2 (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Subject is at the center of culture wars and likely to be of great importance within the ongoing US Presidential debates and beyond. Do LGBT couples deserve the same rights and recognition as non-LGBT couples which is the mainstream and majority norm. By citing notable LGBT couples the article can more easily address encyclopedic topics and adds a dimension to the addressing of related issues which wikipedia more easily does than traditional encyclopedias. Benjiboi 04:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How does a list telling me Ellen Degeneres is in a civil union allowing for LGBT marriage/rights to be more easily addressed? Any pertinent info this list might have (first gays to be married, et al) is independent of their current status, and should be covered in the gay marriage/civil union articles- that is the encyclopaedic portion. All the other info will be in the respective persons' articles on Wikipedia. So what does this bring to the table beyond list cruft, because the list does not "allow the article [to] more easily address encyclopedic topics"; there's nothing of the sort. David Fuchs (talk) 16:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully disagree. The history of human rights is marked by putting the humanity back into the issue. It's easy to hate, and therefore discriminate, against a faceless "them", it's much harder to do so when you're telling Del and Phyllis that their committed devotion to each other of 60+ years still can't be a legal marriage. You do bring up a good point that maybe this should be tied to some specific articles about gay marriage as a specific list to aid those articles. Benjiboi 18:57, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. Added {{subst:afd}} to article, we're still using that right? Benjiboi 04:07, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems to be trivia and is probably impossible to maintain. The WP:BLP violations are a very serious issue. Notable individuals' relationships belong in their biography. --Nick Dowling (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing is only one of the issues raised. Do you have any argument to refute the other issues with the list? Neıl ☎ 23:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I'd follow wikipedia isn't a directory. This kind of list seems a bit pointless and there's no way of course that it could be ever definate. If there are famous couples then just add in a prominent place of the two people's articles that their partner is the other one.--Him and a dog 16:43, 15 January 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 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous closing of this AfD has been overturned at DELREV. The original closer's closing comment has been converted to a neutral comment below. He/she may modify it to a !vote, or participate with a new !vote as he/she sees fit. JERRY talk contribs 17:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (original closer's comment added by Jerry) The result was delete. There were three reasons given for the deletion nomination - lack of sourcing, Wikipedia not being a directory of loosely-related issues and the lack of critical commentary, and precedent. Of the three reasons, only one (the lack of sourcing) has been even half-refuted by those arguing to "keep". In addition to this, I note there remains a huge swathe of unreferenced couples, also. Considering there is no further explanation of these associations; for example, Laurel and Hardy are listed as a gay couple(!) - with an offline reference provided - despite there being absolutely no mention of this in either Stan Laurel, Oliver Hardy, or Laurel and Hardy, WP:BLP also applies (at least to the living people mentioned). Therefore, delete. Neıl ☎ 11:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't often use the "Wikipedia not a directory" rationale, but I am now, plus lack of sources. A list like this is impossible to maintain (it needs to be updated any time any of those listed no longer are a couple), plus it's so broad a scope that anyone who is in such a relationship could add their name, NN or not. And it's also a vandalism magnet because some idiot could decide to put Harrison Ford and Sylvester Stallone down as a couple, or something. Above all, though, I have WP:BLP issues with this list, not only for the vandalism concern I just mentioned, but also because it may be necessary to cite sources that any of the people listed are, indeed, LGBT. 23skidoo (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We do not have a List of heterosexual couples, a List of Jewish couples, a List of black couples, a List of tall couples, a List of Chinese couples or anything else of that nature - this is a classic "list of people with a vague association", and is only even being considered for retention because it has "LGBT" in the title. Compare and contrast with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples - a list of equal merit (some may say more merit), which was very readily deleted. The abject lack of referencing for some ludicrous associations is also a problem (q.v. Laurel and Hardy, as I mention above), but secondary to the unnecessariness of the list in the first place. Particularly as it's criteria for inclusion seems to be only one of the subjects has an article - by this standard, for the list to be "complete", every LGBT person, past and present, with an article on Wikipedia would end up being listed here, with every partner they have ever had. At the very least, if all sanity and reason departs and this is kept, all unreferenced couples should be removed until references are provided, and all couples where only one of the two people mentioned has a Wikipedia article should be removed. Neıl ☎ 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, Laurel and Hardy was removed, also, the article is under improvement... references are being added. -- Ļıßζېấשּׂ~ۘ Ώƒ ﻚĢęخ (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Errr, Laurel and Hardy were removed just now, by me. And as I said, referencing is a secondary issue. As for "under improvement", I will note the article has been around for almost 3 years already ([23]) and leave the reader to draw their own conclusions. Neıl ☎ 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is Neil, unlike the other examples you cite, Same-sex unions are extremely notable at present as there has been much discussion by governments over their civil status, hence, unlike the others, it is a notable topic in and of itself. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that same-sex union itself is a notable topic. It is no more controversial, however, than interracial marriage was in its time (and still is in many parts of the world), and of course we have an article on interracial marriage, just as we should, and we do, on same-sex unions and same-sex marriage. Your point defends the existence of the parent article, not the list, which is not in question. Neıl ☎ 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may note that people were killed for being the "wrong" color then much as people are killed for being sexual and gender minorities today. Seems a plenty notable issue and being part of a couple seems downright defiant. And indeed makes headlines. Benjiboi 03:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to create a List of Interracial Couples in the age of segregation then. It could be populated with the couples that were notable at the time. I'd stay away from the Otherstuff arguments though. Torc2 (talk) 18:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I gave you the link - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interracial couples. Why was this rightly and readily deleted and the LGBT one - effectively the same article but spuriously connecting people based on their sexuality rather than their ethnicity is not going to be? "Other stuff" arguments at this point are valid - we would not have a List of straight couples so why would we have a list of LGBT ones? Neıl ☎ 09:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This list is relevant for the same reasons that notable people List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people is relevant with the twist that LGBT people are generally denied the right to get married and generally are invisible to the majority cultures in which they contribute as a couple. A list of notable inter-racial couples during the US race riots of the 1950s and 1960s would be just as potent. Proving that LGBT people are just as human and flawed as non-LGBT people and that notable LGBT people are now coming out of their respective closets and being recognized as queer couples. This article will hopefully become unneeded when it's no longer news that gay people get married, divorced, cheat on each other or even exist. Just as the List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people will also be unneeded as no one cares anymore who you love as long as you love that person regardless as what's between their legs. This list won't be needed when LGBT people no longer have to sue their governments for equal tax breaks, hospital visitation rights, death benefits, survivor benefits and every other perk that non-LGBT people take for granted. When it's no longer news that California has domestic partner benefits and that LGBT couples are protesting every Valentine's day because they aren't able to legally marry then an article like this will have lost it's usefulness and meaning. Until then I think wikipedia can spare the extra room. Benjiboi 02:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All living people listed have been sourced so we can rest easy on the BLP concerns. Benjiboi 03:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete "couple" is simply too broad of a criteria. If it was only long term LGBT couples, then maybe I could buy it, but as it is, a couple that has been together for a day can be added. Unfortunately, "long-term" is an arbitrary time frame. I would be willing to say keep if it was limited to notable couples. In other words, the criteria should be that the couple is notable, not simply be a list of LGBT celebrities and their partners. As an alternative, couldn't a note simply be made on the List of LGBT people. That said, sourcing issues are not a reason to delete as sources are possible to find. - Koweja (talk) 04:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's unlikely that a LGBT couple together for only a day will generate a reliable source and be included on this list. However some clarity might make sense. Benjiboi 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was exaggerating a bit to emphasize my point, but the fact of the matter is that merely earning the label of "couple" doesn't mean much. Also, you actually might be able to find reliable sources less than 24 hours after the fact when we're talking about Hollywood celebrities, politicians and the like. Afterall, the media loves to report on new celebrity pairings, be they straight, gay or otherwise. - Koweja (talk) 04:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly but the list is limited to notable LGBT people so I don't see listcreep as a big issue. I feel it needs to be better organized but that will only, in theory, improve it. Benjiboi 05:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Per WP:Lists#Organization, list articles need some sort of organizational scheme so that someone coming to the article can find what they are looking for. I don't think the current organization does (I don't know if Lily and Jane are legally married, have a formal civil union, are just "shackin' up"? Where would I look - under 'Lily and Jane' or under 'T'? If, heaven forbid, one of them dies tomorrow - do they get moved to 'historical couples'? are they removed entirely until the second dies and then moved to 'historical couples'?) The whole topic of the article somehow feels too 'squishy' and undefinable for an encylopedia article - subject to interpretation on the part of editors adding or deleting information and to readers looking for information. Despite all the hard work that people have put in recently rounding up sources, without a lot more work and a much stronger focus, I don't think I can support this article as 'encylopedic'. 71.55.132.236 (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC) an edit conflict somehow logged me out and lost my sig Lasalle202 (talk) 05:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. AfD is not clean-up. Per WP:AfD If you can improve an article through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. You and i share some concerns on the organization but I feel stongly that those issues don't negate that the article can be improved and is plenty encyclopedic and is exactly the kind of article wikipedia excels at. Benjiboi 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply My point is not that AfD should be used for 'clean-up'. My piont is that I don't see how any clean-up could bring this article to encyclopedia standards. The weaknesses seem too great and I have not seen anything other than generic claims that it could be done, without any specifics of how/what will be done- which still leaves me unconvinced. Lasalle202 (talk) 17:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reply Fair enough, you do, however, realize it's hard to get inspired to do a major overhaul when your work is likely to be deleted within a few days. In reviewing the article my take is that a sortable table would benefit presenting the information most. I also like the idea of showing some aspects of longevity of LGBT couples in the text as well as other examples of why the subject is still considered noteworthy. Benjiboi 00:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, providing sufficient reliable sources are provided for every single item on the list to satisfy the demands of WP:BLP. I think this is clearly a notable and encyclopaedic topic, and one quite relevant to modern society and politics; and most of the couples listed are notable in their own right (like Elton John and David Furnish). Obviously, this list requires strict inclusion criteria to ensure it only contains significant couples, not people who just had a single homosexual encounter or a very brief relationship; but I don't have a problem with the fundamental concept, and indeed as a means of demonstrating a major current and historical social issue, I'd say it's definitely worth keeping. Terraxos (talk) 05:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep providing that the list is sourced and restricted to notable couples. The dating section should go as well as we should only be looking at longer-term couples.Capitalistroadster (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addressing each of the nominator's points - First of all, the nom said it could be slanderous, but it can't by definition be slanderous, since slander only applies to the spoken word. (And the provision of sources has resolved any libel issue, so don't even go there). Second, the article isn't a directory, because the items on the list aren't "loosely associated": they are related through a culturally and politically significant issue. Also, the items in the list are internally linked, and contain no contact information for the parties listed -- this makes this a navigation aid of Wikipedia content and not a directory as defined in WP:NOT#DIR. Third, the argument that the list will never be complete is not a valid one - it is not based on any policy or guideline. Wikipedia itself will never be complete. Besides this, the subject of the list is dynamic and ever-changing -- dynamic lists are allowed, and are even defined as a type of list on Wikipedia. Fourth, Wikipedia has several articles on LGBT couples, they're just not called that specifically. But they don't have to be. The subject is covered, and this list supports the subject in general. Fifth, WP:LC is an essay, and and not a policy or guideline and therefore "listcruft" has no bearing in deletion decisions. Besides, the statement "smacks of listcruft" is totally subjective and is merely a personal opinion of the nominator. Sixth, the deletion of similar articles has no relevance here. Only policies and guidelines apply. Other articles may have been deleted in error, or by meat puppetry, and policy may have changed in the meantime, making the issue of their deletion irrelevant. We are not bound by precedent. Wikipedia is always evolving. From the points just covered, it is clear that the nomination has no basis in policy or guideline, and should be ignored. Keep. The Transhumanist 20:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I generally dislike stand alone lists, but this now appears on its face to comply with WP:BLP and WP:V and arguably with WP:N, any noncompliance should be removed immediately at any time, but not the whole list. I'm sure this would be useful to some. Even if it weren't WP:N as long as it's ok under WP:BLP it shouldn't be deleted, maybe userfied or moved to project space but not delete.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was all ready to charge in and argue for deletion, thinking, "hoo boy, that's gotta have WP:BLP problems", but I looked at the article and it seems reasonable and well-sourced to me, with the exception of the historical couples, many of which are unreferenced (and this should be addressed, even though BLP may not directly apply). As for notability, it seems to provide a good contemporary and historical reference for an issue of wide interest. Wikipedia is justifiably proud of its collection of LGBT articles, and this provides additional perspective. --MCB (talk) 08:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 21:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Schools Barbarians[edit]

Independent Schools Barbarians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article was previously speedy deleted under criteria CSD#A7 twice, then discussed at DELREV. I closed the DELREV as Overturn and relist, so here we are. JERRY talk contribs 17:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - extremely obscure. It's fun to put your friends into Wikipedia. but it's not encyclopediac. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sarcastic ill informed comments such as that made by Wtshymanski don't assist matters. This is an article written about a very significant new development in UK rugby with very significant UK rugby playing schools participating and actively endorsing. Paste (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does seem to be an article about an at least potentially significant development in grass roots rugby. Admittedly the author has written a little too personally, - "... we were very fortunate ...." and "... we have recently found out ...", for instance, and there is a little too much peacock language. But those aren't reasons for deleting, they're reasons for improving. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 23:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unlike the US, schools sports are rarely notable in the UK and there is nothing notable about this team. Significantly, the team excludes the best players from the schools - I quote "The ten schools involved nominated their best players not currently involved in the Academy or representative structure". Media coverage does not meet WP:N. An omnibus article Schools rugby union in the United Kingdom would be a better way to go. BlueValour (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still fail to see an assertion of notability, much less proof of same. Although some member schools involved at highly notable, that does not mean this joint team is. Every club at Eton does not need its own article here. Xoloz (talk) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/stubify. The lead section is essentially a synthesised copyvio of two of the sources provided, [24] and [25], and the rest arguably goes into far too much detail to be worth keeping. This team might possibly be notable simply based on the fame of the schools involved (including Eton, Harrow and Rugby school itself), but if it is kept, it should be reduced to a stub to solve the problems I mention. Terraxos (talk) 05:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe that there are copyright violations, then they should be fixed, obviously. But the notability is not just to do with the schools involved, it's also to do with the connection to the Barbarians. Although I'm not quite sure what you mean by a "synthesised copyvio". If the article can be fixed, then it should be fixed. If it can't, then it should be deleted. But the Barbarian's connection makes it notable I believe. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 05:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support by the Barbarians is nice but not notable; notability is not inherited and all the top rugby union clubs sponsor youth sides. None of the 10 schools listed have any current rugby union notability (Rugby School has a toehold on rugby history but that is a different matter). None of the schools feature in current the national knock-out competition - here nor on the schools rugby site as having won anything notable - here. Nor have any of the schools, as far as I can see, had representatives in the recent England u-18 teams. Interestingly Millfield, which does have some ruby notability, is not part of the consortium. BlueValour (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Would be good for a "list of minor characters from 1984" article, though.--Kubigula (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Charrington (1984)[edit]

Mr. Charrington (1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A Fictional character does not need his own page. Could be merged with the book's article Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not a major enough character to justify his own article. Is this the only minor 1984 character with an article? 23skidoo (talk) 18:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A minor character, and a sterile article - fictional characters should only be discussed in the context of their book. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fictional character shouldn't have their own articles anyway. Compwhiz II(Talk)(Contribs) 23:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now but should be Merge into list of minor characters from 1984 if the folks working on this create such a list. The book is sufficiently notable that it should have a minor characters page. Hobit (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge/Redirect; action to be taken by others. JERRY talk contribs 02:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lakers-Kings rivalry[edit]

Lakers-Kings rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Not a sufficiently historically or otherwise notable rivalry. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 10:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete I agree with Shoesss above Matt below, though I can't bring myself to vote keep because I'm not convinced of this as a legendary rivalry. Even taking it for granted that this is a famous rivalry (below Lakers-Celtics, yet above Lakers-Clippers perhaps) it rates at least a mention in the two articles. Mandsford (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Sports rivalries on Wikipedia oftentimes have enough content and information for their own page; I think this is the case here. It meets notability because of several incidents, but moreover, detailed content would be duplicated between the Lakers and Kings page and clog up sections of it. This is a way to have the content there without excessive duplication and helps to prevent bias in coverage of the rivalry that could differ on each team page alone. matt91486 (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe I am misunderstanding, but why would we worry about duplication between the pages? If as you pointed out, there maybe bias on a particular teams page, would not that than eliminate duplication, in that you could not have duplicate bias on two different sides of the fence, hence no duplication. Regarding clogging? Again, I am not sure what you mean? If this is an important and notable rivalry as believed, would you not want that on that particular teams page Wikipedia, rather than a spin-off, so readers would not have to search for it. Shoessss |  Chat  17:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My work with rivalries is primarily in college basketball, so that's what I'll use as an illustration. For the Tulsa Golden Hurricane men's basketball article, we included a rivalries section; this includes a link to a separate article on Tulsa's rivalry with Oral Roberts, the Mayor's Cup. I think each NBA team should have a section for rivalries, which would explain all rivalries in a paragraph and have see also links to other ones, for the Lakers say, see also: Lakers-Celtics rivalry, Lakers-Kings rivalry, Lakers-Clippers rivalry. I think this is the best way to present that content. Sorry if I was unclear before. matt91486 (talk) 18:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered your comment about a single article about a rivalry, rather than articles on the separate pages, to minimize bias. In the matter of two sides of a rivalry, however, I don't think it would be bias, but rather a difference of perspective. Different perspectives, IMO, should be encouraged, while bias (a one-sided view to which there is no response) should not. As such, I like to see articles that discuss the American Revolution from the perspective of British history. I prefer your suggestion in the preceding post of a rivalries section in each team's page. It's not necessarily and either/or choice. Maybe the subject can be discussed both here and on the team pages.
Yeah, I understand exactly where you're coming from. And I'm all for a small paragraph on each teams' page outlining the rivalry with a link to a bigger article that can explore it in more detail. matt91486 (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am not altogether convinced this rivalry is in fact notable enough and exists enough in reality for there to be an article. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean by exists enough in reality. If you're trying to say it's artificially created, I don't believe it is; it's developed mainly in the past 10 years, but it's a legitimate rivalry. matt91486 (talk) 17:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per above. Shoessss |  Chat  18:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not trying to be disrespectful or anything, but you voted delete twice here, so I just want to make sure you're not overcounted when the admins are going through it, haha. (Yes, I know it's not a democracy). matt91486 (talk) 18:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Rather Important Comment for Closing Admin: - I just poked around a bit and there's a Rivalries of the NBA article as well; merging content there might be preferable to outright deletion. There's already a small paragraph about the rivalry and then a link to the main article. matt91486 (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is NO competition between the Los Angeles Lakers and the Los Angeles Kings. They both use the Staples Center at different times, with one team playing there while the other is on the road. 63.84.72.153 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but this article is talking about the Sacramento Kings, not the Los Angeles Kings. matt91486 (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until there are proper sources saying that a rivalry exists between both teams. Currrently the article violates WP:NOR, as it's mostly info on why the editor think it's a rivalry and why. The sources doesn't tell that the two teams are a proper rivalry, compared to other teams like the Heat and Knicks one. Thanks Secret account 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the rivalry between the two is mentioned in several sources. I didn't look too hard, since I'm pretty sure this article is going to get deleted no matter what I find, but here, here, here and here are ESPN articles over a multi-year period outlining it as a rivalry. This was literally a 30 second search, so I'm willing to bet this article could be exhaustively sourced. But as I said, at this point, it's looking like it's going to get deleted no matter what I do, so I didn't look closer than that. matt91486 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think a Merge the sourced material from the first two links only would be most proper. The last two is a game recap, and a game fight, which doesn't really talk about a rivalry in general Secret account 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -matt91486 is correct. Sports rivalries are key, and the Kings-Lakers rivalry is very notable. -- KBW1 14:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 16:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FX solutions[edit]

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

Article about a foreign exchange dealer, whose text was originally mainly copied from the company's own press released. After trimming the worst of the marketing speak, there is no assertion of notability and zero reliable sources to provide verifiability. There were a series of "references" [26] which either did not mention FX Solutions at all, were simply republished press releases or in one case was a "review" of dubious reliability. None of them met our standards for a reliable source. Unless this company can be shown to have some level of independent notability, this appears to be simply a case of attempting to use Wikipedia for pormotion. I suggest we Delete Gwernol 16:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why delete? There is nothing wrong with this article. If it requires a change it should be enhanced, not being deleted! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.117.206.81 (talk) 08:27, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fx Solutions is one of the world's largest Forex companies, estimated at half a billion dollars. I'm trying to categorize this area in Wikipedia, I've revised the sources and if you have any ideas on how to do it better I'd love to hear them. There's no need to delete it so quickly, I'll improve whatever you find not good enough. Regards, Matthew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forexer (talk • contribs) 12:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above two comments. Notability per WP:CORP is clearly established: [27] in articles by such sources as the Wall Street Journal and MarketWatch. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately those don't appear to be adequate sources, for the purposes of establishing notability. They are either reprinted press releases (e.g. [28]) or are not independent of FX Solutions (e.g. [29]) or are trivial mentions of FX Solutions (e.g. [30]). What I don't see in these results are articles about FX Solutions rather than articles about other subjects that happen to mention the company. Per WP:N these are not sources that establish the notability of the subject. Gwernol 03:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom for complete lack of verifiability and third-party sources. --MCB (talk) 07:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keilana|Parlez ici 16:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; what little sources are provided are either trivial or not independent of the article topic. As it stands, the article is quite unverifiable. — Coren (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a business directory. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 10:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby tossing[edit]

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

I can find no reference to this "activity" outside of apocryphal, or pop-psych texts who offer this as exemplar of "how much better" child-rearing has become in modern times without so much as a single cite.

In addition, the fact that links to this article have been inserted in Sport make it more likely to be a WP:HOAX than not. Unless someone comes up with a reasonably reliable source about the topic (as opposed to one who has a paragraph or two reciting it as anecdote), this should be deleted as unverifiable original research. — Coren (talk) 16:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • lol delete I can't find any references either. It's most likely a hoax. Mønobi 17:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a very funny hoax. Malinaccier (talk) 19:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a hoax. READ the sources!! please. Are you saying that both of these academic textbooks are lying??--Sonjaaa (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I have no way of accessing those book. Do you think, as the article creator, you could provide some links on the internet ? Mønobi 19:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have checked the references. They are (a) not "academic textbooks", and (b) not about the article topic. They both mention the purported activity (albeit only one of them refers to it as "baby tossing"), but only as anecdotes to "illustrate" how things have changed since those dark, primitive ages. The claims are not sourced, and not more credible than any other urban legend. — Coren (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • To be clearer, they are not academic textbooks related to the topic. One is a very introductory undergrad textbook, the other an historical commentary. — Coren (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on Coren's reference to the works. Yes, they're textbooks. No, they're not textbooks used in a history class. Sad to say, not everything your professor says, nor that you read in a textbook, is "true". Mandsford (talk) 20:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can find a few more references to some of the same incidents, and I have no problem believing this sort of thing happened (I suffered a dislocated shoulder when my father held me by the left arm and leg to spin me around like I was flying, something that parents my age or younger are horrified by). I'm not sure it's such a defined activity that it's worthy of an encyclopedia article, though it could be mentioned someplace else like swaddling. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoaxalicious. Also, the idea that textbooks don't lie is ludicrous. JuJube (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of reliable sources per Coren.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as above. Axl (talk) 11:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all the strong reasons listed above. Although, in my heart, I uphold the Truthiness of the article. ;) Pastordavid (talk) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nonsensical. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ToBI[edit]

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

Non-notable software with only one source that speedily deleted just a few hours ago for blatant copyright infringement of that single source (http://www.ling.ohio-state.edu/~tobi/). The author has modified the text so that it no longer directly quotes the content of the original source (), but the content remains non-notable per WP:N and there are no third-party references per WP:V. Mh29255 (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: I have proposed to the article's creator that they work on this in their userspace. If they accept, this AfD can be closed. GlassCobra 22:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Limp Bizkit.-Wafulz (talk) 20:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Waters[edit]

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

Is this person really worth a biography? I haven't tried looking for sources, but from the information here, it seems as though he's not notable. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 20:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. CitiCat ♫ 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoly Shalyto[edit]

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

Procedural nom. Was nominated for speedy, but I feel the article does assert some importance. However, this is not my field, and I can't state whether or not this person's achievements warrant an article. There appears to be concern that this is a vanity article for a non-notable person. I have no opinion. faithless (speak) 19:52, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was rewritten and cut. Pavel.mavrin (talk) 08:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks ok. Not notable outside his field(?), but I think the spirit of afd is to remove the hoaxes, spammers and popcruft trivia from wikipedia. Russian academics can have more latitude from me. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Library of Ossus[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and as such is just an in-universe plot repetition that should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete unless improved. though this at first glance seemed inordinately detailed, it seems to contain a useful perspective on the fictional events. But it needs more correlation with the actual use of this theme in the series--it is somewhat confusing to a non-expert. it needs an out-of-universe discussion to show its placement in the fictional universe. DGG (talk) 17:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FAMULUS[edit]

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

Non notable robot. Prod removed by anon without comment. J Milburn (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, not notable. Plus, this information is already available in KUKA. Tim Ross 18:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oisin Dickie[edit]

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

Fails notability criteria at WP:BIO by not having reliable secondary sources; a significant role in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions; having a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; or, having made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. JD554 (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 20:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Land Litigation[edit]

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

An essay on population density and land resources. Has little to do with topic, if this even is an encyclopedia topic. CitiCat ♫ 15:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Suggest redirect to real property, the basic article about the law of land ownership. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This does not appear to be properly tied in with the set of topics covered by the {{Property law}} template. The creator of this page Nosliwc, was properly notified of the AfD, but has not edited since 13 December. So basically, he created this article in his first two Wikipedia edits, and then did not participate again. This resembles an original essay, or a newspaper editorial, rather than a normal Wikipedia article. Since it's not clear what the real topic is, it is not clear how the article could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 18:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman[edit]

Senior Enlisted Advisor to the Chairman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Looks like a job application or something... RT | Talk 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edited and updated, reformatted and gave article structure. Ncohistory (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep in its present format. I invite the nom. to revisit the article. I removed a little more of the bureaucratic future tense that qave the incorrect appearance of a job application, but it still needs a little further translation into ordinary english. . DGG (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this article is trivial, and has no significant references other than a couple of DOD announcements. NBeale (talk) 07:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article describes a position created to provide U.S. enlisted personnel a direct channel to the top of the military hierarchy. Since it's a position right next to the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I think that is sufficiently significant to merit keeping and improving. Musashi1600 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The position is well noted by reliable sources, so it is notable in Wikipedia terms. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.-Wafulz (talk) 20:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kwenchy Kup[edit]

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

Cannot find any mention on this with a search, except some in passing references. Probably not important enough for wikipedia RT | Talk 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not appear to be notable. Unreferenced and poorly written article does not say who made the product, what countries it was sold in or what period it spanned. This makes it hard to verify. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep. With a great deal of work that is. The article is poorly written and conceived but I reckon with a fair amount of research plenty of references could be found. It is rather iconic of 90's schoolchild culture in the UK, though admittedly any references will probably be in passing. Anneonimous (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of reliable sources and demonstration of notability. Google yields a bare dozen or so references, all of which are blogs, MySpace pages, etc. Simply because a product existed does not necessarily mean that it is notable. --MCB (talk) 06:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no references from Reliable Sources, non-notable NBeale (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laurie Ann Kraus[edit]

Laurie Ann Kraus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable pastor. There seems to be no notability outside of her church (I don't think that her positions with the national church are that notable). Metros (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No significant coverage. Epbr123 (talk) 18:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above RT | Talk 21:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Secret account 21:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of current NASCAR races[edit]

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

Very redundant to List of 2007 NASCAR races, however I suggest if this gets deleted put a redirect to our current season in NASCAR at List of 2008 NASCAR races. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 14:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with List of 2008 NASCAR racesList of 2007 NASCAR races, if there is any info that is not on List of current NASCAR races.
  • Comment Everyone that made an edit during the last year has been notifeid along with the Original Author. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. List of current is the same as List of 2007 races, but should be changed yearly as to not have any confusion. NoseNuggets (talk) 11:49 AM US EST Jan 20 208. —Preceding comment was added at 16:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge notes column into List of 2007 NASCAR races and redirect to current year List of 2008 NASCAR races. Yet another example of something that should be discussed at WikiProject NASCAR to determine consensus instead of bring it up at the wrong venue (AfD). This is exactly what WikiProjects are for: to discuss the overview/interaction of key WikiProject articles and NASCAR articles in general. Royalbroil 16:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea but noone is looking there, we couldn't even come to a consensus on another debate there. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 17:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what you're refering to. You were bold and moved the Sprint Cup article to Sprint Cup Series. It was done before debate started, so there's wasn't much to comment on. I don't think that WikiProject members yet know the common name for the "Sprint for the Cup" vs. "Chase for the Sprint Cup" debate since the term hasn't been used much yet by the media. I wish that everyone would use the WikiProject instead of doing things willy-nilly on their own. Things were great about a year ago. Royalbroil 19:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 17:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know that this is not about intentions, but when I created the page, it was just intended as a list of the current races. Since we also have List of 2007 NASCAR races, as well as other pages for other years, I don't see how it is really important any more. The details in the table already exist at 2007 NASCAR Nextel Cup Series, as well as the other season pages. This page could easily be made into a redirect. --  timc  talk   12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A list of current or 2007/2008 NASCAR races are not needed because the schedules are located on their respective season (such as 2008 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series). Reorion (talk) 04:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Even looking beyond the nomination at notability and WP:BIO, appears to qualify as a winner of Miss India World. Clearly no consensus for deletion. --MCB (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reshmi Ghosh[edit]

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

Already exists at Reshmi ghosh RT | Talk 13:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - article is now sourced but even giving the benefit of the doubt to a stub I think she only just scrapes in on the right side of WP:BIO nancy (talk) 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Wasn't a redirect at the time this AFD was filed RT | Talk 15:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Reshmi ghosh and Reshmi Ghosh were created within minutes of each other with identical content. As the articles were the same and had only one edit each there was no history to merge and thus no need to take it to WP:SPLICE so I redirected the incorrectly capitalised version as a plausible typo. The timestamps show that the AfD was being placed on the target article at exactly the same time as I was placing the redirect. A wiki coincidence. nancy (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diane Poppos[edit]

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

Doesn't pass WP:BIO. Epbr123 (talk) 13:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Did a google search. Doesn't seem to pass general bio notability standards. Claims of big boob housewife importance (if that is a genre) unverified by reliable sources. 1 appearance on Jenny Jones doesn't satisfy wp:bio standards for pornographic actress. Vinh1313 (talk) 05:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only thing WP:BIO says about Google is not to use rankings for arguments. Donnabella (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was not not using the rankings. I did a search for any articles or pages that show notability of the subject. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. Plenty of pictures, not many words. Donnabella (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). SeanMD80talk | contribs 00:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatikva (political party)[edit]

Hatikva (political party) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete I think this article should be deleted because there's little to no reference.

One link in the reference is about the party leader declaring the creation of this party and the second one is to an article about something entirely different with little mention that the party has been officially accepted by the parties registry (or whatever it is).
I think this is not enough for the party to have a page here on Wikipedia.
No floods and flames please. Be polite in your responses. Northern (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Article has two references, one of which is to a news story which confirms that it has been authorised to compete in the next elections by the party registrar. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A few sources in English exist, so there are likely more in Hebrew. Considering the leader of this party is actually in power, I would err on keeping this article. Joshdboz (talk) 14:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY; I've added a reference to an article in The Jerusalem Post, which is about as notable that Israeli media outlets get. Skomorokh incite 14:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Just because it's a new party doesn't mean it's automatically going to be a fringe party. matt91486 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's new and small, but was non-trivially covered in Israeli media. The current sources are already enough. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided in the article as it currently stands establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete All - Sport bio guideline requires players to have played first team football. Please feel free to recreate once they have made their league début. Spartaz Humbug! 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Holland[edit]

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

Has never played in a fully professional league, and so fails WP:BIO. Mattythewhite (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reason:

Jonathan McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Andy Caine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete all. There's a few more in the Harrogate Town squad without a league game and hence all fail WP:BIO. Peanut4 (talk) 13:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as per nom. Qwghlm (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest with you, it appears that you have already made up your mind, so why bother offering me the chance to defend my contrbutions, however in the vain, but unrealistic, hope that you will listen at all I will try! As the official matchday programme editor for Harrogate Town my facts are correct for the entries that I have done. However I feel that it is narrow minded of Wikipedia, and of you, to deny the people who read about Harrogate Town FC the chance to read about the players who haven't played in the top four leagues. This does not make the players less attractive to know about then maybe the Rooney's or the Owen's etc. Or are you trying to say that because Harrogate play in a lower league that people aren't and should not be interested in their players at all. I think that you will find that there are a hell of a lot of Non League fans out there who do like to know about their teams (and others) players. However it would appear that you only want to suck up to the big boys!!

While we are on the subject, the Blue Square North is goverened by the Football Association and is deemed a professional league (granted some of the teams have semi professional status but they are still a professional outfit bound by the FA rules and regulations), the F.A have jurisdiction on suspensions, transfers, embargos and liquidation of teams. Also I would imagine that full time professional teams such as Southport and Kettering Town would take a very dim view of your calling them non professional.

I feel that since an encyclopeadia's main function is to dispense knowledge then the censorship that you are obviously hell bent on protraying is a slap in the face for what you are trying to achieve in the first place.

And no I don't know how to sign this with whatever mark you want but I can ensure you that it is me, HTFC, who has written this. I am sure however that since you will take this response as hostile in tone (despite the fact that your entended censorship is an affront to an encyclopedia's main aim) then you have already made your mind to delete factually correct articles. HTFC 18:34, 20 Januray 2008

Just delete them, don't bother with this farce any more! I am sorry that I even bothered trying to help! HTFC —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTFC (talk • contribs) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete All - sorry HTFC, while I have a great deal of time for Harrogate Town F.C., Wikipedia has policies on what does and does not merit articles. For footballers, the bar is that they should have played in a fully professional league, and the Conference North is, even you must admit, not fully professional. Perhaps the best place for these articles is on your own club's website? - fchd (talk) 22:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete them! I really cannot be bothered any more! Although this is a quote taken from this very website: Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. — J.Wales, Founder of Wikipedia”

The important word in the above statement is all however it would appear that you wish to go against your own founders wishes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by HTFC (talk • contribs) 22:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 03:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K.C. James and Idol Stevens[edit]

K.C. James and Idol Stevens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Short lived non-notable wrestling tag team. They didn't hold any titles or do anything worth mentioning. Relevant information is already on the individual articles for KC James and Idol Stevens. RobJ1981 (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete - unsourced bio so notability not established. Please drop me a note on my talk page if you can find some sources. Spartaz Humbug! 23:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Weaver[edit]

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

a contested prod which asserts notability, but has no sources to prove it. he looks like a session musician and engineer from what i could find myself. self published? doesn't seem to meet criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (music). Fatsamsgrandslam (talk) 11:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subject is a notable musician in the punk and folk punk scenes. If Wikipedia is going to have profiles on punk bands, then Fred Weaver certainly is notable enough for Wikipedia. Weaver runs a studio and has worked with more notable producers. I'll try and find some citations. Chuck0 (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Secret account 21:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities by health and sanitation[edit]

List of cities by health and sanitation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Single-source list, mirror of information at the reference at the bottom of the page. Close to a copyvio, but I figured I'd bring it here instead. Neier (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Yep, copyvio, or at least WP:OR Doc Strange (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete original research; looks like a tourguide book. Yahel Guhan 06:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not technically OR, nor a (c) violation, but may be WP:SYNTH, which can be fixed. Bearian (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:NOT. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of cities with Hard Rock Cafes[edit]

List of cities with Hard Rock Cafes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

List of cities by non-defining characteristic. For the sake of comparison, no other list in Category:Lists of cities comes close to this triviality. Neier (talk) 11:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per a past result of an IMAX Article I had placed here that was simular to this article. It probally might not belong to Category:Lists of cities if you feel its to trivial to that category, but I don't think that is a good reason for deletion. Sawblade05 (talk to me | my wiki life) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Note: editor comments about editors were ignored. JERRY talk contribs 02:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Route to Infinity[edit]

Route to Infinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability not established in secondary sources, heavy reliance on self-referential sources. Anon-ip removed prod, so sending to AfD. Only one source used is not a primary source (Xenu.net) - all other sources used in the article are primary sources. If the article is discussed enough in WP:RS/WP:V secondary sources so as to satisfy the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability - that is not asserted in the article's present form. Cirt (talk) 11:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating; these deletions should be struck as examples of sincere but ignorant bureaucratisation - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete I am not really convinced his particular one is important. DGG (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no external refs cited - although Scientology and Hubbard are clearly notable not every book by Hubbard is. NBeale (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article has only pro and anti scientology propoganda links. AnteaterZot (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware survivor[edit]

Delaware survivor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
  • Delete. Notability not established, seems no more than a local weblog. References do not relate to subject of article. WWGB (talk) 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP. This page is about a reputable show, that has a massive nationwide fan base. There are numerous websites and fan pages about this tv show. The notability is how a local show managed to go nationwide with the help of the ezBoard community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lax8912 (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP. I simply googled the show and found numerous websites proving validity. I think this should have been posted, since this is all that got the article about SURVIVOR SUCKS message board posted: http://p071.ezboard.com/bthesurvivorlounge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.138.81.168 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. If it is indeed a show with a "massive nationwide fan base", surely it must have received some coverage in independent reliable sources, such as major newspapers or magazines. The references currently listed in the article either don't mention the show at all, or are just random blogs. Hqb (talk) 12:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Almost all the ghits for "Delaware Survivor" relate to an educational children's book of that name. I see only a lone blog reference. "DE Survivor" turns up mainly Spanish sites mentioning something or else "of Survivor". If this is a Web-based "show", it's borderline speediable per A7; in any event, it fails WP:V and WP:RS. Deor (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Miguel Oliveira Costa[edit]

Bruno Miguel Oliveira Costa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

A youth player, Not yet made his professional debut Matthew_hk tc 09:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 contribs 02:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy Golf Links[edit]

Embassy Golf Links (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

non-notable business park. Mh29255 (talk) 08:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable Gillyweed (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom MiracleMat (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable business park. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, nothing notable there. New York Dreams (talk) 11:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep large campus (4+ million sqft of leasable office space)... home to a lot of notable international corps. From the articles that mention this place it seems to be pretty important to the emerging economy of India.[31] --W.marsh 17:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom; compare to ITPL which no one has any qualms about keeping. Abhijitpai (talk) 07:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep per nom" doesn't make sense. Did you mean "delete"?-Wafulz (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I noticed sourcing concerns if they are a outsourcing company or not. The keep concerns were for category = list issues, and it was somewhat irrelavent to this debate. The article failed WP:V Secret account 04:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of outsourcing companies[edit]

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

Several infringments on WP:NOT (Directory, Resource for business, Indiscriminate collection of information, Advertising), possibly some WP:SPAM. Also the article titile implies very, very wide scope as there is no mention of what is being outsourced - companies at large could be considered outsourcing (you pay money, they provide service/product that you don't) User A1 (talk) 07:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Yep to WP:NOT and overuse of fairuse images, and of course, OR in picking which companies "outsource" MBisanz talk 08:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list is not useful. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the given reasons. Add to that the fact that I can imagine many more companies outsourcing than what is given here. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unmaintainable and several Unverifiable entries. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more than too many fair use images. WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDENplay it cool. 22:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Blue-linked lists are useful for navigation. All the companies currently included have their own WP articles, so they've already met a basic standard of notability. The current criterion for list inclusion seems to be 'Companies that have WP articles that describe themselves as outsourcing companies.' If you include lack of a list criterion as a reason for deletion, you should be willing to join in a discussion of what the list criterion ought to be. Since a question was raised about the fair-use status of the corporate logos, I removed them all. Since dollar volume is included for several companies the list has some analytic value. If you believe those without stated revenues should be removed, that might be worth considering. EdJohnston (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have addressed the fair use problem; however I don't think this addresses the problem of the un-encyclopaedic nature of the article (business resource). User A1 (talk) 05:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If outsourcing companies exist, how do you suggest that we cover them? We have an article called Outsourcing, so WP recognizes the concept. Is there something special about outsourcing companies that we should not make lists of them? We do have lists of other kinds of companies. EdJohnston (talk) 05:39, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the companies are notable enough for WP articles--and the ones listed are-- then the list is not indiscriminate. Its a suitable guide to the material, giving information more useful than a category. The sources are in the linked articles, but they could be added here. Meets all policy requirements. There was a comment tha the list can be deleted because more companies could be added--then write the articles about the companies and add them; WP is still growing. DGG (talk) 05:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I have mixed opinions. Lists for the purpose of being a list are not WP. Lists as a research tool are useful. I think that this is a good resource for someone researching out-sourcing to get an idea of the comanies listed on W/P as such. That's about the only justification I have. I say keep but only for companies with W/P Articles of Rated as Start or better by a project that has areed to include that company as part of the scope of their project. Change the name to "List of Outsourcing Companies on Wikipedia" An article in theory is sources this justifying inclusion. Start or better prevents spam stubs. Having it tied to a wikiproject ensures some sort of calabiration. This prevents spam and crazy list syndrome (list of mega churches was a good example). Just a thought. M-BMor (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we changed the name of the list to 'List of outsourcing companies on Wikipedia' it would be a self-reference, so it probably wouldn't fly. Your suggestion for a Start-Class list criterion would have the temporary effect of killing off the list, since none of the top eight companies listed have so far been assigned a rating by a WikiProject. Something like dollar volume might be more practical to use. Or, we could require at least one reliable source testifying that each company is active in outsourcing. We can certainly discuss alternatives if this discussion decides to keep the article. EdJohnston (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Yeah ... I'm a very weak keep, because of a lot of what you are saying. M-BMor (talk) 17:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Vague, quite hard to maintain and not very informative. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Product References In Lyrics[edit]

Product References In Lyrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article consists solely of a list of references to products in songs. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Kamek (talk) 07:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Article makes no effort to discuss the cultural background behind product references in music, cites no sources besides the primary sources of the lyrics themselves, and runs afoul of WP:IINFO. --DachannienTalkContrib 08:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic article. No source, no category, no introduction. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 09:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; fails to meet the scope implied by its title. 14 references in various unrelated songs to the Roland TR-808 comes nowhere close to a list of "product references in lyrics" (which would be a practically infinite list anyway). The cultural background which Dachannien mentions might be worthy of an article, but there's no attempt to cover that here. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN listcruft. Alot of wrong info too ("Limp Bizkit has a song called "A.D.I.D.A.S."...sorry, but that song's by Korn) Doc Strange (talk) 20:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, just move Well I've seen lots of lists like this on wikipedia (ex: List of famous Hungarians) and if it is mostly about the Roland TR-808 then why not just move it to that article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.30.15.190 (talk) 04:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
other stuff exists isn't a good reason to keep an article Doc Strange (talk) 15:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). ChetblongTalkSign 02:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 1 Second Film[edit]

The 1 Second Film (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Delete This project is over. IMDb page is 404 error[32]. Chip213132 (talk) 07:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, "project is over" is not a valid argument; we don't delete things because they are over (obviously...). Everyking (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Quite clearly notable. Nom's only edits are for this deletion - disruptive? Lugnuts (talk) 09:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Usually I expect a movie to have an IMDb entry before it is deemed notable enough for a Wikipedia article. However, this movie formerly had an IMDb entry but was suspended due to long delays before completion and lack of press coverage of the production. [33] I am not sure that the movie should be disqualified from Wikipedia because it lost its IMDb page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Peloponnesian War is over, too, but we still have an article for it. And in this case, IMDB is not necessarily the proper venue to find information. This is a charity project that happens to have a film attached (as a publicity stunt); it is not a film that happens to have a charity attached. The charity drive is notable, the article has some references...I see no reason to delete. Ig8887 (talk) 14:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, contains sufficient sources to assert notability, regardless of the fact that there's no IMDb link. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is akin to bringing a person's article to AfD because they died. The project is over? and....what? that's not a good enough reason to bring an article to afd. Here's what Google news brought up which has articles about the project in The Boston Globe and USA Today. Doc Strange (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with this comment: If the Internet as we know it existed decades ago, I swear we (and IMDb) would still have a page on Richard Williams' Arabian Knight. That film, too, took ages to complete! (I even saw it listed in Bruno Edera's Full Length Animated Feature Films from 1977, which I received via library loan.) Same thing with Delgo, now in its 10th year. No matter how many reliables, we can never tell when a notable project will come out. After all, it's all in the hands of the industry. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If all the people listed in the 'Celebrity Producers' section really were involved in this film (and it seems they were), then it is clearly notable. Terraxos (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Dagami, Leyte. JERRY talk contribs 02:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hilabago[edit]

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

Does not qualify WP:LOCAL. --BritandBeyonce (talk) 07:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is a barangay, a unit of local government in the Philippines. I think it should be regarded as automatically notable, on the principle that all towns and villages are notable. The 2000 census listed it with 444 inhabitants (or 91 households). --Eastmain (talk) 10:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. barangays are not towns, rather they are parts of towns, so they do not meet the automatic qualifications given by WP:LOCAL and WP:OUTCOMES. Therefore, for them to be kept they should pass WP:NOTE. Google only says that a Japanese camp was set there during WWII (I'm pretty sure Japanese camps are everywhere during the Japanese occupation.) That does not give a very good argument for notability.--Lenticel (talk) 12:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Dagami, Leyte until this barangay have a considerable coverage to merit a separate article. --bluemask (talk) 14:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bluemask. cab (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. Almost all barangays in the Philippines are not notable enough in themselves to merit individual articles in Wikipedia and there is a problem of getting enough reliable sources to create a full-fledged article. A simple Google search does not turn up any non-trivial sources that refer to this barangay. For similar deletion debates see [1] and [2]. --seav (talk) 06:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. However well-intentioned the author, there is a consensus that the list is inherently original research, POV, and arbitrary. Furthermore, the article attempts to be a type of resource that is not really suited for Wikipedia. --MCB (talk) 07:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma in film[edit]

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

Either this is a small topic which could be covered in Psychological trauma or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or it is a never ending list of films. For this list to be encyclopedic, each entry would need to have scholarly sources to back up the film being traumatic, leading to Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in someone. As it is, the list is just original research. John Vandenberg (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After this helpful discussion, I have chosen to reorganize the content of this article as follows:

  • Subsume the text into the subheading of Visual Media in the Trauma trigger page

(Trauma studies are still an emerging field with increasing levels of awareness, research, and understanding. Perhaps in the future the topic may warrant its own page.)

  • Transfer the lists of violent content into separate pages listing films with such content (e.g., List of mainstream films with violent trauma) without necessarily being trauma triggers, but simply as a way of listing films in the same manner as the existing lists of films with graphic content (cited below)
  • Cite these lists in the trauma trigger article, with no claim that they will cause a trigger per se. However, there is evidence (cited in the original article) that violent content in visual media can trigger ptsd, flashbacks, etc, in survivors of trauma, which makes the link to these lists appropriate.

I welcome feedback on this new organization, and I am grateful for the discussion of this important data. -Filmtrauma 11:03pm 23 January 2008

  • Delete: clearly original research. Mh29255 (talk) 08:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: listcruft MiracleMat (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just about every drama has some trauma of some sort - why isn't Bambi mentioned, for instance? His mother is murdered! There may be a place for the analysis of popular media in terms of the psychological trauma represented, but this isn't it. Delete. DS (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OR. Don't you love MOAR DRAMA? Malinaccier (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this seems like a well-researched and useful resource, perhaps it's not exactly an encyclopedia article. I sincerely hope if it is deleted it finds a home somewhere, hopefully where it can maintain collaborative editing. -kslays (talk) 00:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are places in Wikipedia where this kind of cataloging seems to work. For example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Mainstream_films_with_explicit_sex and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mainstream_films_with_unsimulated_sex. If this article is deemed original research (unlike those, for some reason?) perhaps the content other than the introduction would work in that kind of format? Links to the sites of each film confirm the content in many cases, which would not be considered original research. -Filmtrauma 21 January 2008
  • Don't Delete: I'm not sure this is really a problem, but if it is, then I think perhaps the issue is the information architecture. I think I understand the reason that this has been suggested for deletion. The page does contains research, and the combination of that research (which is not original) with the subsequent list, can be confusing to some readers. It may seem to them that the research (which couldn't possibly ever address every film on the list) plus the list itself add up to an implied statement that the films on the list necessarily have caused trauma in some viewers. Clearly, the page makes no such overt claim, however even the slightest suggestion of "original research" sends up red flags and sounds the warning bells over here at Wiki. I applaud the efforts to maintain order on Wikipedia, but I think the solution to this problem, if it is truly a problem at all, is not to delete the page but to restructure the information so that it meets the appropriate guidelines! The research about trauma in film is not being called into question whatsoever, so the very strongest action that should be taken is to move the lists themselves off that page, to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. Even that, however, seems extreme to me. I understand that it could be considered "original research" to say that for example "Thelma and Louise" can cause trauma or flashbacks in some viewers--but, first of all, I don't think this page makes that explicit claim, not by a long shot, and second of all, it is neither opinion nor original research, but verifiable fact, that "Thelma and Louise" contains a scene where an attempted rape takes place. If you're noting that a movie contains a certain type of content, then the movie itself IS the reference. No research is necessary--anyone can check the reference to see that it is the case. (Of course, If someone adds a movie that doesn't, in fact, contain what it is claimed to contain, that will be treated, I'd presume, the same way any other false info is treated on Wikipedia, because I know false info is posted all the time.) It shouldn't be the intent of the page to claim that all the films listed cause trauma, but merely to claim that the films listed contain the specified types of content. Clearly, that sort of content list is acceptable on Wikipedia, and clearly, that sort of research is acceptable as well. In other words, the stuff about trauma in films is valid, and the stuff about the content of the listed films is valid, but perhaps it is the way they are juxtaposed on this particular page that is being called into question. Saying that "Thelma and Louise" contains an attempted rape scene is both neutral and verifiable. Saying that films can cause trauma is both neutral and verifiable. I think rather than push for deletion, we need to rethink how this information, which is indeed useful and I think fitting for Wikipedia, can be organized differently. Actually, I personally have no problem with how it's organized now--I think it's clear, and I'm surprised anyone misconstrued it as original research. It's a good point that there are so many applicable films that these lists will get rather long. The obvious solution is that whenever a particular category exceeds a certain number of entries, create a separate page for that particular category. Tamarleigh (talk) 11:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC) — Tamarleigh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • I would recommend reading Wikipedia's policy on synthesis. Like you've indicated, "the page makes no such overt claim". The topic is based on the combination of trauma-related references that have little or nothing to do with films and editors' personal examples of films that match some instance of trauma in film. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To claim that a type of film scene causes trauma needs a scholarly basis. To list film scenes that cause trauma, each needs to be discussed by scholarly sources. Otherwise, it is an inference that is being made by Wikipedia, which is original research. I have no problem with this page taking a new course rather than be deleted; I suggest removing the "list" and focus on a few studies. To avoid deletion find some quality sources now while the Afd is still running. John Vandenberg (talk) 11:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to claim that a film scene depicts trauma does not require a scholarly basis, and can be sourced perfectly well from the plot of the film as a primary source. The introduction needs to be rewritten slightly to make it clear what the list is presenting. DGG (talk) 17:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term "trauma" is interpretative. If someone's parent dies, is that person experiencing trauma? If someone's car breaks down, is that person experiencing trauma? If someone's girlfriend broke up with him, is that person experiencing trauma? Trauma can equate conflict, and conflict is the source of nearly every film with a plot. Trauma can range from the smallest of incidents (a paper cut) to the largest of incidents (one's family gunned down). Are you really advocating that editors should advocate what examples of trauma in films are? I encourage you to re-evaluate how this topic could be anything but objective. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After this helpful discussion, I have chosen to reorganize the content of this article as follows:

  • Subsume the text into the subheading of Visual Media in the Trauma trigger page

(Trauma studies are still an emerging field with increasing levels of awareness, research, and understanding. Perhaps in the future the topic may warrant its own page.)

  • Transfer the lists of violent content into separate pages listing films with such content (e.g., List of mainstream films with violent trauma) without necessarily being trauma triggers, but simply as a way of listing films in the same manner as the existing lists of films with graphic content (cited below)
  • Cite these lists in the trauma trigger article, with no claim that they will cause a trigger per se. However, there is evidence (cited in the original article) that violent content in visual media can trigger ptsd, flashbacks, etc, in survivors of trauma, which makes the link to these lists appropriate.

I welcome feedback on this new organization, and I am grateful for the discussion of this important data. -Filmtrauma 11:03pm 23 January 2008

  • Delete the original research -- the list of films is purely subjective, and anyone can add an entry, depending on what their definition of trauma in film is. In addition, the references are not focused on the topic of "trauma in film" -- it is the synthesis of non-film-related trauma studies and coverage. What does this USA Today article even have to do with anything? And the Chicago Tribune article does not cover trauma in film, just examples of walkouts, like if a film was bad, not filled with trauma. If this article were to succeed at all, it would avoid listcruft and use academic studies of solely trauma in film, which I can't imagine -- there'd likely be subtopics, and this is too general of a definition. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • actually, perhaps just 'combat trauma in film* might satisfy your criteria. Combat trauma is unique in our culture in that it is the only socially acceptable form of trauma - everything else gets swept under the rug, underexamined, and under-researched as well. However, there are published examples of combat trauma survivors experiencing film as a trauma - i believe some are cited. research on other kinds of trauma relies heavily on the funded research about combat trauma. that is where the analogies are drawn. perhaps in future when other kinds of trauma become more socially legitimate, these issues will be less contentious. Filmtrauma (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see what you're saying, but if the problem is that non-combat trauma, especially when tied to films, is under-examined and under-researched, then there can't be a genuine topic at this point. Wikipedia doesn't profess to be the forerunner of these topics; it only consolidates what has been researched. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 17:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand your point about the trauma; however, the utility of lists of films with specific content still seems valuable to me, whether or not their is a claim about what the content might cause or not. Filmtrauma (talk) 22:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JERRY talk contribs 02:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devta[edit]

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

What is the notability here? Wikipedia is not a collection of trivia Avi (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: too many headings with no content MiracleMat (talk) 09:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't that an arguement to remove the unnecessary headings, not delete the article? Here, I'll go do it now.Ig8887 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There, done. It took me, what, 10 minutes to scrub out the unnecessary headings and reorder the exact same information into a normal article stub.Ig8887 (talk) 15:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If this actually is the "longest published story in the history of any language", then it's clearly notable, regardless of how crappy the article currently is. While I'm sure that's an entirely unprovable claim, there's evidence that it has indeed been published for some time, as [site] allows you to buy the 45-volume printed set. An assertion of notability has been made, therefore, it's just not yet proven. The article needs cleanup and references, but it's beyond me, since most of the Google hits for the author's name and/or title are in Urdu. Ig8887 (talk) 15:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per (and I usually don't say these sorts of things, but s/he says it better than I would ) Ig8887's arguments. Though there are at least a couple manga that have been in continuous monthly publication for longer (Abu-san started in 1973, for ex), those not being prose they might not be competing. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Ig8887 and Quasirandom. matt91486 (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 03:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BlueWaters[edit]

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

Does not pass notability. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for spam. Avi (talk) 06:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, I honestly don't see how this is spam. Also, many companies aren't notable and yet they have articles on Wikipedia. --Salona (talk) 06:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No indicators of notability from independent sources. The company/brand are less than a year old so this is unsurprising. --Dhartung | Talk 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per comments by Dhartung. Mh29255 (talk) 08:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom MiracleMat (talk) 09:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I couldn't find any third-party coverages other than recruitment advertising. Perhaps there have been references to it in trade publications for the grocery or beverage industries in Pakistan, but I have not found any. --Eastmain (talk) 11:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a shopping guide. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nihilum guild[edit]

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

WoW/gaming guild. The guild may be notable within the community, but not in any encyclopedic way. Page consists largely of external links and borders on spam. The creating editor and only contributor is a COI (the username is Awakenihilum). — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the only real claim of notability for this clan is the claim to be the "world's #1 PvE clan", and that is sourced to a forum, which is not a WP:RS. Otherwise not notable. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I don't see how it's not relevant since we've accomplished so much and made a big name of ourselves. I considered to add a link to our community site in the article World of Warcraft, but I'm unable to do so for 4 more days. Perhaps delete this article (if you feel it's such a must!) and add a link to us there instead.

↑ Quote from http://wow-europe.com/: "...you will be able to witness a World of Warcraft Arena exhibition game between France's best arena team, Millenium, and the best PvE guild worldwide, Nihilum, on Friday 6 July at 14:00 on the main stage. Awakenihilum—Preceding comment was added at 06:33, January 20, 2008

  • Delete No reliable sources (wikis and messageboards are not reliable sources). Also, adding your link to the main WOW page would be spam and be deleted. TJ Spyke 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

www.wow-europe.com is the official European WoW website. That's as good as a source could get. Awakenihilum —Preceding comment was added at 06:39, January 20, 2008

  • Speedy delete. Non-notable group. Attempt to circumvent the protection on Nihilum which has been deleted multiple times. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: I PLAY World of Warcraft and this stuff has no place here. There are THOUSANDS of websites more appropriate for this and all the fans know where to find them. MiracleMat (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see where you guys are coming from. The article covers a lot of interesting information. If you feel some links are bad, you can edit them and fix it. Speedy delete and circumvent a protection? No... that's not what I'm doing here. I haven't ever posted about Nihilum here before, and I highly doubt that is what the /Nihilum article use to contain; info about our guild. Awakenihilum —Preceding comment was added at 07:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that the previous article /Nihilum did in fact contain information about our guild. This is something I never authorized and it disappoints me that someone posted it. Since it's been deleted previously I assume this kind of article goes against wikipedia's rules and as I said per email to RHaworth, feel free to delete the article. I do have one request to make though. Could you post a link to our site in the following article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_of_warcraft -- Under "Information for players" Since we provide WoW players with detailed guides, etc. It would be appreciated. Thanks! Awakenihilum (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just a comment, but an article on your guild would not require your permission. If your group was notable enough to have an article, it would have an article even if you didn't want it to exist (there are several people who are against Wikipedia but have an article because of their notability). TJ Spyke 09:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be noted that Nihilum is currently protected from being edited. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 08:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete gameclan, the end. JuJube (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete: I agree with JuJube and MiracleMat. There was absolutely no reason to post this on Wikipedia. Period. / Mats Halldin (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, and not necessarily with prejudice. As a WoW player and occasional raider, I've heard of them. But my understanding is that game guilds need true notoriety outside of the game and its community to be noteworthy enough to get an encyclopedia article. Leeroy Jenkins made the grade; not sure that Nihilum has, yet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Game guilds aren't notable unless they're covered in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The official WoW page isn't independent, and the rest is sourced to webforums and YouTube. As for adding a link to the main World of Warcraft page, if we added this guild, we'd have to add every guild. The external links would be longer than the article itself. --Phirazo 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete This definately needs to go. Unless this guild has independant sources (such as an article or other material outside of WoW community info) it does not support notability. Slavlin (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The editors above me, it seems, have read the article with their eyes closed. WoW-Europe.com, Bosskillers.com, WoWinsider: All very reliable sources. If the website of a multibillion-dollar company does not constitute relible, what does? The number one ranked guild on the word's most popular MMO is certainly notable, just as the top ranked team in Rugby, Soccer etc. are notable. It is sad that this article will be deleted simply because of Wikipedia editor's contempt for online games is causing them to blindly believe what other editors have said. ~ Carlin U T C @ 10:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete G12/I9 copyright violation text comes from here and the image is subject to published use restrictions that do not allow our use, per this. JERRY talk contribs 00:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Information Card Icon[edit]

Information Card Icon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

How can an icon be notable enough for an article? Can it ever provide enough context to stand on its own? I think not. Granted it is the most visible part of the marketing push, but it is nothing without InfoCards. It belongs alongside information on InfoCard, which is in the Windows CardSpace article, not separately. Btw, the icon represents InfoCard, not any arbitrary digital information card. soum talk 05:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Information Card per nom. Jfire (talk) 06:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Information card M2Ys4U (talk) 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norma Lehmeier Hartie[edit]

Norma Lehmeier Hartie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Self-promotion by self-published author of marginal notability. There's this blog interview and the reviews listed on her website, but all look like pretty marginal sources. I'd say weak delete unless others can find better sources. Jfire (talk) 05:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete: Vanity and self-promotion must GO! MiracleMat (talk) 09:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not everyone who writes a book gets an article. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horus (Warhammer 40,000)[edit]

Horus (Warhammer 40,000) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources, and is just an in-universe plot repetition from the Warhammer 40,000 games. As such, it is duplicative of this characters appearances in various Warhammer media, and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Delete: no assertion of notability. Mh29255 (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Delete. I was going to say, as a former Games Workshop gamer, that the Horus Heresy would almost certainly have some real-world info, but I see now that it has its own article (which isn't great either, but nevermind) and I see no reason for an article on the character himself. J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Delete or merge any relevant material with the Horus Heresy article. Presumably in conjunction with a rewrite of that article and other 40K articles to be less fan-fic like. BenM (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. almost the entire article was unsourced, the only source was a poll, nothing to merge Secret account 04:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of the CBC[edit]

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

Delete No sources, POV (by definition), looks like a personal essay. Editing history of the article's principal author suggests the article may originate with one of the CBC's rivals. Reggie Perrin (talk) 05:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no reliable sources, for that matter, there are no sources at all in the article. Yahel Guhan 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. GreenJoe (talk) 05:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete CJCurrie (talk) 05:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. Mh29255 (talk) 08:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above. GreenGourd (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay in violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything that is sourced and verified with the main article. Otherwise, it's just a POV fork. 23skidoo (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Delete. Give the editors a bit of time to merge this with CBS, then delete it as a POV fork. Malinaccier (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean CBC not CBS, right? meshach (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, a lot of this article was cut and pasted directly out of the primary article — I remember almost every word of it and even contributed some of it myself in the first place (such as the controversy around 22 Minutes and Air Farce airing on Newsworld.) Merge the valid, sourced stuff back into the main article from whence it came; delete any content that's too POV. Bearcat (talk) 23:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.Bless sins (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Improve you should all take note of what Bearcat said. Most of the article was cut n pasted from the parent article. The reason no sources appear in the article is because the original author forgot to cut n paste the sources that go along with it. --Pwnage8 (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's more likely it wasn't sourced to being with in which case it would have to be removed anyway. I think it would be a good idea for a few editors to do some research and find some sourced criticism that can be added but right now all we have are generalities of the "some people think" and "a common criticism is" variety which are not acceptable in any article.Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Bearcat. As a public broadcaster, CBC has been subject to public criticism. Why lose that content? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell *none* of the criticism is sourced and much of it seems to be off the top of people's heads (ie it sounds like someone's essay). I'm sure there is a lot of published criticism out there that can be sourced and it should be included in the CBC article but simply merging unsourced content won't do. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but I don't understand what you mean when you say "none," Reggie. There are two CRTC sources right there in the article.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I didn't notice that. So the CBC's unsuccessful petition to allow Newsworld to carry Air Farce and 22 Minutes is sourced as is their complaint regarding CTV Newsnet.(That's really only one criticism since the article isn't about CBC's criticisms of CTV). I have no problem moving those two sources to the main CBC article (though a lot of the commentary about the issue looks POV to me and needs to be edited). That a rather minor part of the article - the rest of the criticisms in the article are unsourced. Reggie Perrin (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do have "criticism" articles for subjects that are criticized less frequently and less publicly than the CBC. So I do think that some sort of article could exist. But the content there now would have to be significantly pruned and I don't think what's left would constitute the basis for an article when it could otherwise be merged. --JGGardiner (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Rosemberg[edit]

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

Speedied a month ago, then rec-created with the same information. Prodecural nomination, though I do believe the article should be deleted per WP:N. Wizardman 05:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. Jfire (talk) 06:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 contribs 04:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tel-Twelve Mall[edit]

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

This does not appear to be a notable mall -- in either its original incarnation as an enclosed mall, or its current version 2.0 as a power center. A search for reliable sources online turned up nothing but SEC filings, outdated directories, and trivial mentions. (Also note that this lists Media Play as a current store even though that chain no longer exists!) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. Since this is relatively new, I suppose someone could use the article to point out how Tel-Twelve was notable. When it was an enclosed mall, I believe it symbolized urban sprawl and racial issues "north of eight" to some. I'd side more towards delete if this article had been floating around unloved for several months. -- Kevin (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as another run of the mill US mall. The fact that it is new does not mean it can ignore WP:RS and WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:57, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pittsburgh Galleria[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be a notable mall. A search for sources turned up nothing; also, page consists mostly of a store listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Having a Pottery Barn and Starbucks (main content of article) isn't enough to be notable. Pharmboy (talk) 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just existing does not make it notable. This article doesn't go any further than that. DarkAudit (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of the alleged Qur'an scientific miracles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article is a POV fork that lacks reliable sources. There are no scholarly sources presented in this article, and it is clear propaganda and POV. Yahel Guhan 05:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clearly this is an alphabet soup of problems. WP:OR and WP:NPOV to name a few. There is nothing here to keep at all... --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As I mentioned on the article's talk page, this page doesnt need to exist. Imad should stop all this Islam/science stuff. Imad, please read WP:RS. We really dont need more problems in Islam related articles than we already have. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the comments above. Arrow740 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete First source seemed spammy. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Matt57. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it doesn't even feature the good ones, like cloud formation and DNA! :P LinaMishima (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is this article OR or unreliable. On one side you have a well known scientific theory, and on the other, you have a verse from the Quran that any capable person can verifiy readily. Why are you people to trying to delete this?206.126.81.223 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)— 206.126.81.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I've spotted the references at the bottom of the article now, so you're right, this is not OR (although stronger references would be better). You could well be right that the article should be improved, rather than deleted. Ideally each entry would have details of the discussion of the comparison from all sides. LinaMishima (talk) 02:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note for closing admin: Anon IP, only 4 edits (first was a non-connected IP, used long ago, including that = 5 edits). --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The referenced sources are reliable, and this article is not OR. There is another newly created article here, perhaps the two articles should be merged. (Imad marie (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
    • I am still not changing my vote, but of the two sources, I would only call the second strictly reliable. Secondly, the entire tone of the article and its TITLE especially is problematic. If we were to have an article on this, why not "The Qur'an and modern science" or something like that... Still, I am not convinced this meets the guidelines even with a title change. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Justifications must be provided that asserts that (Zaghloul El-Naggar) and (Maurice Bucaille) are not reliable references, or else there is no justification to deleting the article (Imad marie (talk) 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
      • On the talk page of the article first you said "who in my opinion are two notable scholars". Then after I queried you, you said about Maurice Buccaile, "him being a scholar about Islam is perhaps debatable". None of these doctors have any qualifications to discuss other than being a regular doctor and perhaps writing a couple of books. Thats not WP:RS requires. There are no reliable 3rd party sources confirming their expertise, they are simply apologists. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 12:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You cannot take part of what I said and post it here, the full sentence that I wrote was: "Maurice Bucaille is the author of a famous book, him being a scholar about Islam is perhaps debatable. However Zaghloul El-Naggar is definitely a notable Arab Islamic scholar". Now it makes much difference what I said, doesn't it? Naggar is a famous scholar in the Islamic community, he is the author of many Islamic books, and is interviewed in Arabic TV channels regularly, his profile can be found at the footer of this page and his CV at. If Najjar cannot be considered as an Islamic scholar, then I wonder who can be... (Imad marie (talk) 13:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • delete this is simply religious propaganda and it has no place in wikipedia.It is not reliable and it will never be since this issue is recognize only by Muslims apologist.Oren.tal (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Islamic propaganda? a look at some of the users contribution history voting here shows that they are the ones launching an anti-Islam propaganda. (Imad marie (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Your personal attack has nothing to do with my point that this article is merely propaganda.Oren.tal (talk) 20:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • In defense of Najjar as a reliable reference:
Najjar is recognized as a renowned notable scholar here, here, here and here. Naturally Najjar is presented by Arab owned media more than he is in the western owned media as he is a famous character in the Arab community.
Qur'an is written in the Arabic language, so it's only fair to present the Arab point of view through their notable scholars, NPOV states that wikipedia should represent fairly and without bias all significant views. (Imad marie (talk) 07:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Regardless of his appearance on a few other websites, he doesnt have peer reviewed journals and is not known in the scientific community and besides, the article cannot be justified only because of what he has done. He is as reliable a source as Robert Spencer who has been widely published and interviewed and written best selling books. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 03:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reliability of Robert Spencer is irrelevant in this debate. Itaqallah has suggested that no fork articles should be created about Islam and science for now, if this is OK with everyone then it's OK with me. (Imad marie (talk) 08:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete: WP:OR and WP:NPOV, and per above. This article is religious propaganda. Epson291 (talk) 19:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : I think we either merge it with some other article, or just simply keep it but with some clean up to ensure NPOV.Λua∫Wise (talk) 21:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is nothing but propaganda and it has nothing to do in wikipedia.Oren.tal (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does not the Nazi germany propaganda deserve coverage? What about the various attempts during the cold war? Propaganda does not mean delete, it means ensure that the matter is covered according to NPOV. LinaMishima (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem to coverage it as propaganda.But only as such thing.right now the article itself is propaganda and as such deserve to be delete.Oren.tal (talk) 08:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There is a similar, very well developed article on this subject, however it may be titled after a neologism. These articles discuss real aspects of belief, and were Imams spread Islam, they often hand out fliers about this matter. LinaMishima (talk) 00:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any useful material may be relocated to other existing articles on the topic. As it stands, I doubt there is much need for another fork. ITAQALLAH 20:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is just a nuisance article --BozMo talk 13:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I do not see NPOV problems--in fact if i wanted to read this in a way hostile to Islam I could just as much as if i wanted to read it as supportive of Islam. But for an unpublished authority to be acceptable, there has to be specific support for it being an authority in the article. But i can not really seethe fuss one way or another about this really quite trivial article. There is a great deal more on the relationship of islam and modern science to be said, and it should be approached is a serious manner to make one or more good articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 05:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article has to be kept as it is not a religious propoganda. The article speaks about the theories which are proved recently and accepted by todays world and the Quran which was revealed nearly 1400 years back speaks about them— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mohammed25 (talk • contribs) — Mohammed25 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete as WP:OR, WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV violations -- and pretty unconvincing ones at that. The relationship between the verses quoted and the scientific theories concerned is a classic example of cognitive biases such as the Forer effect and friends -- you could probably come up with similar analogies in Shakespeare. And the Big Crunch? It doesn't even have consensus among professional astronomers as being the ultimate fate of the universe. Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't know about you guys but this is a notable topic within Islamic discussions. It is very discussed not just recently but even in historical times, so it should be keep even if you do not believe it because it is common information.--Salikk (talk) 15:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debbie Kasper[edit]

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

Non-notable comedian. Did not win any awards; the one award for which she was nominated was not an individual award, but rather one shared with 10 other people (nor was she the head writer), and she did not win. RJC Talk 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Emmy award nominations, worked on Roseanne, apparently actively working in a play according to her web site. Article does provide some references. Satisfies WP:BIO. Redfarmer (talk) 03:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep might be early for this person by some standards, having an Emmy nomination does indicate she has talent that is recognized within her industry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevethompson76051 (talk • contribs) 03:17, 14 January 2008
  • Speedy Keep. Delete Per above - this certainly meets WP:BIO. Emmy awards, published books etc..etc... A more elaborate google search turns up mostly primary sources and no significant secondary coverage. Wisdom89 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bio covers winning awards, not just being nominated. TJ Spyke 04:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very true, that much the better as support for keep. Wisdom89 (talk) 05:44, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I meant that just being nominate for an award doesn't make someone notable, and she was only nominated (didn't win). I'm not voting, just pointing out that she doesn't pass that part of WP:BIO. TJ Spyke 06:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would also add that she was not individually nominated: the writers of the Rosie O'Donnell Show were (it seems there was a team of eleven). I think that the fact that she was not the head writer lessens the importance of this nomination: it wasn't an industry recognition of her particular talents. The fact that she is still active and has a play doesn't make her notable unless she is creating some significant media attention. RJC Talk 06:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She has written for at least two major shows, that along with the award and being part of the team that was nominated for the Daytime Emmy (sure it was a team of 11, but that makes the team significant, so adds to her significance). Random Fixer Of Things (talk) 01:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a little out of context, but if you look at WP:MUSIC as having similar notability requirements to general entertainment ones, just being nominated for a major award counts for notability. A logical translation of that to television implies that she should meet notability. matt91486 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 contribs 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Sampson[edit]

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

I don't think this contestant of a music competition is sufficiently notable. Unless notability shown, Delete. --Nlu (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Thanks for reading, ThundermasterTRUC 08:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. Possibly would have been different if he'd made it to the Eurovision Song Contest, but second place in the feeder competition for Denmark doesn't really satisfy WP:Music. SingCal (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:MUSIC criterion #9, which says "won or placed in a major music competition". He won Stjerne for en Aften and was second in the Dansk Melodi Grand Prix 2007 (describing the latter as a "feeder competition" belies its significance -- we're talking about something on national television with its own DVD release). I feel there are WP:BIAS issues here given the non-Anglophone nature of these contests. Bondegezou (talk) 15:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 16:58, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and no refs from reliable sources. NBeale (talk) 07:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 03:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Meyers[edit]

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

As it stands, doesn't qualify under any of the WP:MUSIC criteria that I can see, and the assertions of notability simply aren't there regardless. Delete unless notability shown. --Nlu (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fevertech[edit]

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

Promotional, unreferenced bio. There are a few mentions of internet-only collaborations and remixes, but nothing to suggest wide commercial distribution. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 12:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY talk contribs 04:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Jfire (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Self-promotion is NOT what wikipedia is for. MiracleMat (talk) 09:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kacey counterplan[edit]

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

Probably a hoax or an inside joke. No references given; I can't seem to find anything about it with Google. Article created by User:KaceyCP, who has no other edits. —Bkell (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's where that is. I meant to link to that, too, but I couldn't find it quickly so I didn't. —Bkell (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and possibly made up one day due to its claims. Kindly note this quote from the last paragraph - "Most judges do not accept the Kacey Counterplan as legitimate because of its lack of documentation". That says it all, really. 1ForTheMoney (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection! Delete as obvious trash. JuJube (talk) 22:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS IS AN OBVIOUSLY TRUE ARGUMENT, This is legit no one would write this much for some joke and why do so many people care for some probally legit argument —Preceding unsigned comment added by Debatefan (talk • contribs) 15:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You'd be surprised the lengths people go to to get their B.S. validated with a Wikipedia entry. Unfortunately, they get found out, just like you are now. JuJube (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • I'm sorry for the confusion about the Kacey CP. I didn't intend to cause confusion. This is, like the argument says, a very obscure argument that most people have not heard of. I can't cite any sources, because there are no known ones. If I had an origin, I would cite it. Also, in many cases the "Kacy Counterplan" is simply a nickname for other educational counterplans, but it has its own specific layout that all "Kacey CPs" are based on. If it needs to be deleted, I can understand the technical argument; however, I would appreciate it remaining online. I disagree with the "big deal" (for lack of a better term) that is being attributed to this article, but I can understand where it would look a little "fishy". if anyone can improve the article, by all means, please do so. I may have made some grammatical or theoretical mistakes as I wrote it. Also, there is nothing that makes this argument theoretically invalid, as it is a logical counterplan with a valid enough structure. While I acknowledge that the lack of sources makes this article a candidate for deletion, and I understand this, however, a logical analysis of this article should prove it valid. However, the decision is ultimately not up to me, I can only offer my opinion and intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KaceyCP (talk • contribs) 20:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete unless sourced --and perhaps explained more clearly. There might be available sources. At present this is OR.DGG (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ILike[edit]

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

Does not appear to be a notable Web site. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G7 - author & only editor requests deletion. KrakatoaKatie 06:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edible City[edit]

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

The article doesn't assert much notability, and the only editor to date is User:Ediblecity - I suspect they are a member of the organization. Lindsey8417 (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Provisional Keep, the article was created today and still has an "under construction" tag on it. Maybe give the creator a little time to assert notability before deleting? Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 05:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep-- don't be hasty. SeanMD80talk | contribs 16:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Please accept my apologies. I misunderstood the pillars of Wikipedia and therefore believe that my article should be deleted. I am a member of the organization and realize that an article about our organization from one of it's members would be unethical. Please let me know how I may go about deleting this article. Ediblecity (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as U1- creator and only editor requested deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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! 17:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gumbohead[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:BAND. Strongest assertion of notability is the airplay, but KDHX and unsourced "various public radio stations" doesn't quite meet the bar IMO. Also probable COI, note creator User:Cocofunk and bassist/founder Andy Coco. Jfire (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Cirt (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tone scale[edit]

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

Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. Only sources given are self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. One section is an unsourced list of the "Scale", another is also unsourced, and has been tagged as such since May 2007. The only sources given are to primary source, self-referential sources, i.e. to Church of Scientology websites. If the subject of this article is discussed and analyzed in secondary sources enough so that it meets notability for this project - that is not asserted in the present state of this article. Cirt (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep, sources are most likely to be found in articles referencing topics like homosexuality in the church, and evaluating PTS and SP's. As with many other articles in this topic-space, there is some difficulty editing the articles and putting in any *non* CoS sources, because those sources are accused of being attacks/biased, and official CoS sources are being accused of being, well..... advocacy/bias. Anyways, here's a google for other editors, if they want to find sources and references that won't stir up more discord:[36] Ronabop (talk) 06:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, perusing your Google search it appears that the majority of those hits are only to other Church of Scientology websites and sources - and notability is not asserted with purely only self-referential sources. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the tone scale is fantastically important in Scientology. Cirt, you appear to be mass-nominating for deletion articles in a subject area you have no knowledge of, making some of your nominations self-evidently ridiculous to those who know the area. It's entirely unclear how this serves interested readers - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Gerard (talk · contribs), you are possibly correct in some regard - but look at it from my perspective - compare the state of the article at present to Wikipedia:Notability - it really doesn't satisfy the criteria. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- From the article, one thinks this is something only covered by primary sources which are self-referential. This AfD process is meant to determine if that is indeed the case, and if so, the subject is not notable, and the article should be deleted. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • Further, we should be able to answer a simple question from reading the article - Is this subject matter analyzed/discussed enough in secondary sources to warrant notability on Wikipedia? Cirt (talk) 12:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • This is a "don't be silly." It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep In some sense, there's not going to be discussion of the topic independent of Scientology because nobody outside of practitioners of Scientology believes that the tone scale refers to anything objectively real. However, it is clearly a key part of Scientology and non-Scientology sources that describe Scientology doctrine and practices discuss the tone scale, e.g., Martin Gardner, Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, 1957, p. 280; Horton Davies, Christian Deviations: The Challenge of New Spiritual Movements, 1972, p. 108; Bent Corydon, L. Ron Hubbard: Messiah or Madman?, 1992, p. 111; Gareth Knight, Practical Guide to Qabalistic Symbolism, 2001, p. 130; Bryan R. Wilson, The Social Dimensions of Sectarianism: Sects and New Religious Movements in Contemporary Society, 1992. It's appeared in fiction: Michael Moorcock, New Worlds: An Anthology, 2004, p. 21; John Leonard, Black Conceit, 1973, p. 78. Lippard (talk) 18:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Added a third party source. This is going to be a tricky thing to find many secondary sources on as Scientology has a tendency to sue for copyright violations at the drop of a hat. So this may come down for other reasons. Also rework. It's too much like an ad. Hobit (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, and I'd consider David Gerard to be an expert outside of the church (assuming that's really him). I know a lot about the church for an outsider, but he's been around the block on this a few times... Hobit (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And final comment. The Free Zone is much like the early protestant church: Similar to it's parent, but more-or-less at war with it. I'd call it independent if anyone wants to argue. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • AfD nomination withdrawn by nominator - per above comments/sources by Lippard (talk · contribs). I'll get to the closing shortly. Cirt (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Note: This debate is a complete mess, and most of it involves editors talking about editors, and has been ignored. The statement that the article lacks RS proved true. Both references in the article at closing are from the scientology catalog. No evidence of notability or coverage from Reliable Sources. JERRY talk contribs 01:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Creation of Human Ability[edit]

The Creation of Human Ability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only one source given is not self-referential. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed, so taking to AfD. There is only one source in the article (Corydon) which is not a primary source, self-referential source (i.e. Scientology.org). Even the Corydon source does not refer to this book specifically, just books in general "these books..."). If this book is notable and is discussed and anaylzyed in secondary sources - that is not evident or asserted in the article's present state. Cirt (talk) 04:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating; these deletions should be struck as examples of sincere but ignorant bureaucratisation - David Gerard (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Keep Croydons general mention is sufficient sourcing for this one. DGG (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: -- But Corydon does not mention The Creation of Human Ability in his book. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (I amended my statement, in italics)DGG (talk) 06:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see that - so Corydon's mention of "A special "Book Mission" was sent out to promote these books, now empowered and made irresistible by the addition of these supposedly overwhelming symbols or images." - makes any book notable and encapsulated under the phrase "these books" ? That is WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of notability or coverage from Reliable Sources. NBeale (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. This article fails notability and verification, and there is already a entry on Black Hebrew Israelites about this church. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 00:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Israelite Church of GOD in Jesus Christ[edit]

Israelite Church of GOD in Jesus Christ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

There is no evidence of any notability for this group. The article lacks sources, is poorly written, and is not sourcable, as no reliable sources (except from their own website, which is a primary source) exist, as far as I am able to tell. Yahel Guhan 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: not notable. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 06:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the current version of this article is a great deal shorter than those existing at the end of last October. It thus looks as if it has been subject to vandalism - but I am not sure. I have no comment on its merit, and it is unsourced, but it should be judged on the basis of its fullest version, not its current one. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked that version. There are no sources there. It was removed either as vandalism or original research; which, I am not sure. But either way, it isn't like it is that important, it is original. Yahel Guhan 03:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the black hebrews are notable, but this particular fringe group, is not. I don't agree that denominations are inherently notable. It depends on whether there are sources about the group that exist. And this source doesn't seem to provide much on this particular group. Yahel Guhan 01:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --MCB (talk) 07:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planet Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable. Neutralitytalk 04:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 02:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

System32 (webcomic)[edit]

System32 (webcomic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non-notable webcomic. It's a recently created comic that asserts no notability outside of its own content, and I can't find any sort of secondary sourcing on it. The creator/main editor may also be COI. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Even if it is relatively new, you must give it time to gain a large fanbase as is it largely unheard of. The article itself is encyclopedic and is worthy of being kept. BTW, how is its editor/creator a COI? --Salona (talk) 04:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: First, I don't think it's an acceptable argument to say "While it may not be notable now, it might be notable later." Maybe the page can be recreated once it asserts some notability and has been noted by some secondary sources. Also, I'm skeptical of the editor's involvement, as he or she was able to explain the webcomic's format and characters in full on the first edit, and that was with only two comics available. Also, the editor seems to be able to speak to the previous comic's fan base - see this edit and this edit summary. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is because the creator of the article is the creator/editor of the webcomic himself. And also, three segments (what you referred to as "comics") of the first episode are published, not two as per your claim. --Salona (talk) 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that may be so, but there is a third comic, which is published on Wikipedia (it is located within the template in the article) and is located on the official website of the comic even though it may not be visibly published, and here is the URL to the third comic: http://www.system32comics.com/e107_plugins/comic_menu/comics/s1ep3.jpg . I am a fan of the comic myself, though I have no affiliation to the creator/editor whatsoever, and am currently working on promoting the comic. --Salona (talk) 04:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am rather new to Wikipedia so I hope that this is the proper way to 'discuss'. If not, please edit this comment so it is the right place (please don't delete it). First of all, I reject the claims of COI - the reason I am able to speak to the fan base of the previous comic, ArtificialReality Inc. is because the previous website had a forum. From that forum I gained the emails of many old fans. In addition, the previous Comic (and I apologize, I should have written this in the article) contained the same characters as the current Comic. It's removal and formation into System32 was a plot and setting change, but characters kept consistent. I have saved the 'code' of the page into a Word document so that it will not be fully lost should the article be deleted. Obviously I won't instantly put it right back up, but perhaps I'll remake the page when the comic gains popularity. I also improperly listed the comic as 'Self-Made'. As I am a bit new, I am unsure as how to change this. If somebody would alter it, I would be grateful. I am sorry if my attempt to add to Wikipedia has upset or broken some rules. You have listed the comic as insignificant, but I personally consider no piece of knowledge on any scale insignificant.--Jacques 009 (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't contain any reliable sources to back its self-advertising claims, as well as the WP:COI problem noted above. Accounting4Taste:talk 05:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A web comic which was created two days ago cannot possibly be notable yet (except in the most extraordinary situations - which this isn't). Zetawoof(ζ) 11:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Salona, who argues a good case for deletion despite his/her vote. JuJube (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment How does my argument point toward deletion rather than keep? --Salona (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Wildthing's vote below. JuJube (talk) 19:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think this line from Salona is a perfect reason to delete; "Even if it is relatively new, you must give it time to gain a large fanbase as is it largely unheard of". Largely unheard of? That is a clear sign the webcomic is non-notable. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, largely unheard of webcomic with no reputable sources. --Dragonfiend (talk) 00:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 re-direct to Pinnaroo, South Australia. Camaron | Chris (talk) 12:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnaroo Primary School[edit]

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

Contested CSD. I know that school articles can be contentious, ergo, I brought it to AFD. Technically a procedural nom, but my personal opinion leans towards "delete". Keilana|Parlez ici 04:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I saw this at CSD too. A 70 student school + no independent sources = non-notable. Spellcast (talk) 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Delete No claims of notability or references which assert notability. This is just another primary school. --Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge. I've found quite a few references through health and Mallee area sites. The school is frequently mentioned as being the first in South Australia to have a Community Library [37]. The school is an integral part of the community and the library also houses the local Telecentre for community as well as school use. Distance education is integrated into the classroom for subjects such as music (which many small country schools miss out on entirely) using the technology from the Telecentre. I've seen so many small country schools close it's a bit notable in a way to see one (apparently) thriving (although the school website hasn't been updated in a few years). The article itself is poorly written and presented but could be fixed quite easily and refs added. I'm happy to take that on if you can give me a few days. •Florrie•leave a note• 12:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Pinnaroo town page doesn't have a lot on it. The school article could easily be merged there. Again, with tidy-up, refs etc.•Florrie•leave a note• 13:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Note: (Since an editor here expressed intention to edit the article if outcome was keep) Editing of this article may be subject to restrictions set by ARBCOM, please read the talk page notice before doing so.) JERRY talk contribs 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology discography[edit]

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

The article does not cite any references or sources. Prod was removed, with explanation that "details" could be found in external links section - but the only two external links are primary source, self-referential sources. If the subject of this list is notable enough for inclusion on the project, and is discussed/analyzed in secondary sources - that is not asserted in the present state of this article. Cirt (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't figure out if the nominator is a Scientologist who is offended by the articles, or a person who doesn't particularly like the whole Scientology thing, but all the nominations today seem to have a common denominator. I don't see anything unencyclopedic about a discography or a filmography from an organization that publishes such things. I can understand the nomination on Dead file, rundowns, Fear (novel), etc., but not this. Mandsford (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should not make a difference who the nominator is. The fact is that notability is not established in the article's current state, and no secondary sources are given which analyze the subject matter. Not to mention WP:OR problems as well. Cirt (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination seems a bit scattered; is the issue the lack of sources or the lack of notability? The former is correctable, and the latter doesn't make sense - the "subject of this list" is Scientology, which is certainly notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is both lack of sources and lack of notability. "Scientology" is notable, but that is not the subject of this article - the subject is "Scientology discography" which is not notable, and has not been discussed or analyzed in multiple secondary sources, and does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Seems to fit with list guidelines but could do with sourcing which i assume can easily be done. --neonwhite user page talk 20:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which criteria from list guidelines are you drawing from when you say this article fits with Wikipedia:Notability for list guidelines? Cirt (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Wikipedia:Use common sense --neonwhite user page talk 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can you make a case for notability using criteria from Wikipedia:Notability ? Cirt (talk) 02:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
from WP:N This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is a guideline ot a law. --neonwhite user page talk 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Primary or self published sources should be ok for this. --neonwhite user page talk 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to constitute the sourcing for the entire article they can't. That'd risk bordering on WP:OR and POV interpretations of those primary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NeonWhite and ZetaWoof Mandsford (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there are no reliable sources (or, indeed, any sources at all) listed. Therefore, the list violates policy on verifiability. Without proper referencing, it may also constitute original research. The Keep arguments are not at all persuasive because they contradict basic Wikipedia policy, namely that we do not anoint certain editors as subject matter experts and give them permission to write articles that don't follow basic Wikipedia standards. *** Crotalus *** 20:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a discography is in a sense a derivative article, and if the works listed there can be documented, and the subject is notable, it meets the requirements. Otherwise all lists of works on all subjects, and by extension all bibliographies in articles, would need to be deleted. DGG (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: -- At the moment, the entire article/list and everything in it is unsourced WP:OR at any rate, and has been for quite some time. As such, even if it is not deleted, any unsourced/WP:OR information in the article that is not cited should be removed. That would leave the article with - nothing. Cirt (talk) 05:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no cites at all, difficult to verify, notability is not inherited. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. (Note: (Since an editor here expressed intention to edit the article if outcome was keep) Editing of this article may be subject to restrictions set by ARBCOM, please read the talk page notice before doing so.) JERRY talk contribs 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientology filmography[edit]

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

No sources given. Notability not established in secondary sources. Prod was removed so brining to AfD. Prod was removed saying that external links section is enough for sourcing - but even the external links are all primary, self-referential sources. If this topic is discussed at length enough to show notability in secondary sources - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 04:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps sources can be added, but I don't think that would make any difference. I can't figure out if the nominator is a Scientologist who is offended by the articles, or a person who doesn't particularly like the whole Scientology thing, but all the nominations today seem to have a common denominator. I don't see anything unencyclopedic about a discography or a filmography from an organization that publishes such things. I can understand the nomination on Dead file, rundowns, Fear (novel), Orientation (film) etc., but not this. Whether one is for or against Scientology, it's worth knowing what the publications/propaganda would be Mandsford (talk) 04:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Who the nominator is is not relevant. Is the subject of this article discussed in secondary sources? That is certainly relevant, because in the present state of the article, that's not asserted. Not to mention that the entire article is basically unsourced and a big violation of WP:OR. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Nomination seems a bit scattered; is the issue the lack of sources or the lack of notability? The former is correctable, and the latter doesn't make sense - the "subject of this list" is Scientology, which is certainly notable. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is both lack of sources and lack of notability. "Scientology" is notable, but that is not the subject of this article - the subject is "Scientology filmography" which is not notable, and has not been discussed or analyzed in multiple secondary sources, and does not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep as with discography, it has encyclopedic worth and the sources should be easy to find. --neonwhite user page talk 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Use common sense --neonwhite user page talk 02:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But can you make a case for notability using criteria from Wikipedia:Notability ? Cirt (talk) 02:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
from WP:N This page is considered a notability guideline on Wikipedia. It is a generally accepted standard that all editors should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. This is a guideline ot a law. --neonwhite user page talk 16:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Subject-area expertise - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with coverage of the topic in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep per Zetawoof and Neon. Mandsford (talk) 01:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating - David Gerard (talk) 12:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. 12:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC).
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No need to withdraw the nomination. I think it's likely that an administrator will probably close this one anyway under WP:SNOWBALL Mandsford (talk) 21:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:SNOWBALL should not apply after only four "keeps". Cirt (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not cite reliable, third-party sources for its assertions, and is therefore unverifiable and in violation of Wikipedia policy. Many of these uncited sections may also constitute original research. I hope that the closing administrator will take into account the strength of the arguments and not merely the number of "votes." *** Crotalus *** 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment i think the nature of the lists suggests it was sourced from a primary source the should be easy to find. --neonwhite user page talk 20:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps so, but I've seen such claims before in AFDs that were never followed up on. It's one thing to say a source is available; quite another to actually cite it. Policy requires the latter. *** Crotalus *** 20:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Using common sense if also policy, deleting an article that has clear encyclopedic worth is counterproductive and does not improve wikipedia, it's against the whole point of article deletion. --neonwhite user page talk 16:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it encyclopedic to have an entire article that is a violation of WP:OR, WP:V, completely unsourced, and if sourced, only based on primary sources? Cirt (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Same a above. If the films are documented, then the article is sufficiently supported. DGG (talk) 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response: -- At the moment, the entire article/list and everything in it is unsourced WP:OR at any rate, and has been for quite some time. As such, even if it is not deleted, any unsourced/WP:OR information in the article that is not cited should be removed. That would leave the article with - nothing. Cirt (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. JERRY talk contribs 01:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oxfam slam[edit]

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

Delete. Small-scale local charity event, notability not established. WWGB (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Stewarton, the town where it takes place and remove all the POV guff. It is too local to mention in Oxfam. --Bduke (talk) 07:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. Trivial information- I don't support cluttering town articles with minor charity events. Maybe if it had recieved some national press, or been particuarly successful or whatever, but the town is not going to be known in any way for this event, nor is it notable in the town's history. J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are thousands of articles on Wiki with no more notability, 'Oxfam Slam' is well known to anyone living in Ayrshire. It has indeed received press from the 'Kilmarnock Standard' newspaper which has a distribution of over 25,000. The event grows every year, in fact this Summer's event is likely to move to Kilmarnock (population over 40,000). I've done some research and to the best of my knowledge it is the UK's largest periodic charity wreslting event, which has been aped dozens of times across the UK. Perhaps a more general article on charity wrestling events in the UK would be more appropriate? I believe the event's notability has been seriously underestimated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anneonimous (talk • contribs) 19:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment. There's an "Oxfam Slam" that gets a short paragraph in an issue of the British Medical Journal from 2001 - not clear whether this is the same event, though, and while the source is undoubtedly independent and reliable, the mention might not count as more than trivial. --Paularblaster (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a different event. The BMJ article mentions raising more than £34 000 whereas the article for deletion only refers to raising "over £6000". WWGB (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to point out that this article only refers to "Stewarton's" Oxfam Slam, I am unsure if the total raised for all Oxfam Slam events across the UK is £34,000 but the figure would seem likely. I have had little time to edit the page as planned (for example to include the fact that Stewarton was merely one branch of the Oxfam Slam.) Anneonimous —Preceding comment was added at 01:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial and non-notable. The fact that there are lots of dross articles on WP is no argument for keeping the ones that are AfD'd NBeale (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted as recreated deleted content. -- Longhair\talk 04:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Worthington Delaney[edit]

Corey Worthington Delaney (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This tempest in a teapot doesn't meet notability guidelines and will be forgotten within a week; a mere blip in the stream of news. Not even exceptionally high YouTube numbers, not that that confers much notability. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's got his own website where he has been slapped over 500,000 times! Ajayvius (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John Walker (country singer) and Geoff Wadsworth, Keep Dan Bowden. (This was an unwise WP:BUNDLE). JERRY talk contribs 01:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Bowden[edit]

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

No real assertion of notability. I considered speedy deleting it, but wanted to be sure. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 03:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also proposing the following related pages for deletion:

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Bowden, on the basis of the best-selling instruction books listed in his Berklee official CV. Not a good idea to jointly nominate people of such different degrees of notaqbility.DGG (talk) 05:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable as a published author and a professor at a major school.--Tikilounge (talk) 19:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think DGG's mentioning of the instruction books may be more significant than the professorship. One notes that Berklee has 59 professors of guitar alone; it's not exactly the same as what professor means at other institutions. Not all will be notable for their position alone. [38] -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 06:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, though we can also consider that Berklee is an important music school. As you noted he's not just a professor, he's also a published author. So - an author with the additional qualification of being a professor at an important school, and also a couple albums released, that adds up to notable enough to have an article. --Tikilounge (talk) 19:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete far too non-notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep Being a music professional myself, Bowden is actually quite notable in the blues, bluegrass, and jazz scenes. Interviews with him are constantly showing up in American, British, Japanese, and Spanish publications. This reason alone proves his notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnjack22 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tiddly-Tom 07:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animals of finland[edit]

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

Not quite sure what to make of this one. Tagged for speedy deletion per lack of context, but I think that "animals of Finland" may make a viable encyclopedic topic. This is strictly a procedural nomination. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Fauna of Finland and include in Category:Fauna by country (which includes individual species as well as Fauna of X articles). Complies with WP:LIST. --Dhartung | Talk 07:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Have cleaned up a little, moved it, added back the AfD tag and included it in Category:Fauna of Finland, for which it makes a good main article. It could still do with some work, including adding whales and dolphins (surely Finland has some?) and perhaps some non-mammals. The prose also needs tweaking, and it needs a lead section. In fact, I'll go and do the last two now. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done-ish. As I say, still needs work. J Milburn (talk) 12:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a viable subject to inquire about. expandable. But move is a good ideaas per Dhartung. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 06:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-done on the move/clean-up. Looks like the nomination concerns have been addressed. Pastordavid (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well done.Biophys (talk) 00:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Withdrawn by nominator. Cirt (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fear (novel)[edit]

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

Article has not had any sources at all since it was created April 2006. Article basically only contains some information on the Plot. If the novel is notable and discussed in secondary sources, that is not asserted in the article's present state. Cirt (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Keep The length of time that an article has been unsourced isn't a valid deletion reason. An article being comprised mostly of plot summary is also not a valid deletion reason. These are reasons for "unreferenced" tags and "plot" tags, not deletion. A search for the title and the author's name comes back with 52,000 results, some of which are almost surely reliable sources. Rray (talk) 03:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sources that actually discuss and analyze the article's subject in secondary sources, or just hits from booksellers? Cirt (talk) 03:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Novels by notable authors are inherently notable. Hubbard is independently notable as an author beyond the Scientology stuff. 23skidoo (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Secondary sources do exist; see [39]. Zagalejo^^^ 09:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dead File[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since September 2007, notability not established in secondary sources. Prod tag was removed, so bringing to AfD. If the Church of Scientology's "Dead File" practices are discussed enough in secondary sources to warrant an article in Wikipedia - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete, as nom. Cirt (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC). Cirt (talk) 03:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC) -- Still feel the same as when I nominated it, but I struck this part out, per below. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
    • That's completely unnecessary. This is a discussion, not a vote. The closing administrator knows that you want the article deleted. You nominated it for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have frequently seen this done either way. Cirt (talk) 03:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
        • However, you do bring up a good point that the closing admin knows I was the nominator, so I've struck out the above. Cirt (talk) 03:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep sources seem adequate, even if just adequate. This was one of several dozen article prodded at the same time. I removed some of prods, saying that I thought them sufficiently controversial to be worth an AfD. DGG (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Adequate sources and is notable. This is a step in the cofs shunning process just before "disconnection". --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area he is mass-nominating for deletion - David Gerard (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 12:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep. The New Zealand government report establishes verifiability, barely. The article needs work and needs to focus less on the primary source, but it can be salvaged. *** Crotalus *** 20:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Merge/Redirect to Rundown (Scientology). JERRY talk contribs 02:35, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scientology Rundowns[edit]

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

Merge tag to Rundown (Scientology) has been in place since August 2007. This article in its present state heavily relies on self-referential sources from the Church of Scientology, and does not include any sources from reliable secondary sources. If these "Rundowns" are notable enough to have a list of them in such a manner on Wikipedia - it is not asserted in this article's present state. Cirt (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There is a good deal of duplication with the article on Rundown, and I think the way to go is to try to get consensus on the merge, which does not require AfD. DGG (talk) 04:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't even think there is a need for a "List of Scientology Rundowns" at the article on Rundown. This article should just be redirected there, but since no one is going to be looking for "List of Scientology Rundowns" this article should just be deleted. Cirt (talk) 04:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree with the merger proposal; the two are very similar as it is. Someone (who notices that the merge tag has been there for a while, for example) should just do it. Sounds more like a cleanup issue than one for deletion; the list is certainly well sourced, so it should not be deleted. If the merge becomes contentious, then maybe we can take another look to establish a firm consensus. ◄Zahakiel► 18:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - I agree, this afd is utterly unecessary. I recommend the nominator reads the guidelines on afds in future. --neonwhite user page talk 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How about Wikipedia:Notability for reading material? Specifically the General notability guideline -- "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- That seems highly relevant to this discussion, because this article does not satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • How about: you nominated Tone scale, revealing your utter ignorance of the topic area. Are you surprised people get annoyed when you nominate for deletion a swathe of articles on a topic you're clearly not merely ignorant of, but apparently proudly so? - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How about providing something other than attacking my actions? What about an argument based in our standards of notability for this encyclopedia project? Are all these *****It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)"Rundowns" covered enough in secondary sources to warrant notability? Cirt (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Don't be silly. - David Gerard (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
A little common sense dictates that this is worth keeping. ignore all rules is policy whereby WP:N is merely a guidelines, guidelines are not rigid rules you are making the mistake of adhering to a guideline as if it were law. They are not. The primary purpose of an editor is to improve the site, it's not about points scoring or about 'policing', if an article has obvious worth than it should be kept. It's obvious you have not attempted any of the points you should have before nominating an AfD. --neonwhite user page talk 16:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response: Wikipedia:Verifiability is policy. Can everything in this list be verified to independent sources? Cirt (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
it doesnt need independant sources. SPS would likely be ok here. --neonwhite user page talk 21:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be verifiable, and not draw POV from primary sources, if primary sources are the only sources for an article, that article must also have sources independent of the primary source, namely other than Church of Scientology sources. Cirt (talk) 23:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. However, with this one I think the best idea would be to delete or merge. Cirt (talk) 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge The reasons given for this AfD are captious.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Rundown (Scientology). I think that the very large number of articles on this fringe cult constitutes undue weight, and merging is a good start to trimming them down. *** Crotalus *** 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Cirt (talk) 03:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orientation (film)[edit]

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

Notability not established in secondary sources. There is one good secondary source by David S. Touretsky, but the others are IMDB and Digg, not really satisfying WP:RS/WP:V. If the subject of this article is discussed enough in secondary sources to establish notability - it's not asserted at present in this article' s current state. Cirt (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless better sources are provided. This might be a notable topic, but at the moment the article doesn't show that: the only source that actually provides significant coverage of the film is the FilmThreat review ([40]), the rest either have insignificant coverage or are unreliable sources. Terraxos (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is their big promotional publicity film. Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area - David Gerard (talk) 12:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is their big promotional publicity film is WP:OR, unsourced. Saying Nominator is woefully ignorant of subject area is rude, an assumption and you have no idea what I do or do not know, and has nothing to do with whether or not the subject matter is covered enough in secondary sources to assert notability. Cirt (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's clear you don't know much if anything from your choices for mass-nomination. While I don't at all question your sincerity, I fear I must question your judgement. "Notability" and sourcing are guidelines, and this is an example of why - you do appear to have gone through a bureaucratic box-ticking exercise when mass-nominating, rather than applying subject-area knowledge. As such, you should reasonably expect to have this pointed out - David Gerard (talk) 12:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For your information, I have knowledge of the subject matter. I was putting that knowledge aside, because according to Wikipedia:Notability, notability is assessed through coverage in other sources. "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Well? Has the subject of this article received such coverage in independent WP:RS sources? Where? Which sources? That would be a much better AfD "Keep" rationale than going after the nominator. Cirt (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - the comments on the part of people who are knowledgeable about the subject are persuasive to me. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

If enough evidence can be shown that there is significant coverage of this subject in independent secondary sources, I will withdraw my nomination and close this AfD myself. Cirt (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The nominator appears to be on a rampage to delete article he or she has little or no knowledge. The subject of this article is highly notable.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep I'm not convinced by the above arguments about using notability as a guideline; while that is true, one needs a decent reason to ignore it and I'm not convinced by the above arguments. However, this isn't relevant because there are a variety of other reliable sources about this movie. See for example this piece in the San Francisco Bay Guardian. There are also a few other mentions. See this for example.The Bay Guardian review combined with the other sources should be enough to make this satisfy WP:N. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator -- per the last comment by JoshuaZ (talk · contribs), who has shown that there are probably more sources out there to satisfy WP:N and WP:V, if there is mention in these two independent secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Postscript: I'd like to say sorry to Cirt for being such an arse on this AFD and several others. I may have disagreed with the deletion nominations, but being a dick was not the way to do it. I apologise to Cirt and the wiki in general for my dickishness. I shall try to do better - David Gerard (talk) 22:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Giles[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO; the subject does not seem to have generated enough reliable third-party coverage to support a verifiable encyclopedia article. The best I could find online was this salon.com blog [41] [42], which is POV in its own way and not a RS. Jfire (talk) 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicholas poje[edit]

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

Prod removed by WP:SPA. No reliable sources, and neither Google nor IMDb has anything at all for this name. Shawis (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Deleted per CSD G4. Keilana|Parlez ici 03:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vin DiCarlo[edit]

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

Completely unsourced, smells very spammy to me. A google search only turns up one independent source, an article in Boston Magazine. The only other related results are his official website, an alternate website advertising his book, this article, and some you tube videos. Mr Senseless (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
NOTE the above article was recreated the same day it was deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus Belt[edit]

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

This is tragic and horrible, but not a good encyclopedia entry. It's not likely to ever be anything other than of local interest, nor likely of interest beyond a few months from now. Not every murder victim needs an article in WP. It might be appropriate over at Wikinews, though. eaolson (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This page is not being used as a memorial. Instead, it is being used as an article regarding the situation. When more people start editing the page, it will become encyclopedic. Karen Carpenter (talk) 02:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where will this case be in 6 months? 12 Months? Right, thought so. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This comment shows that you really don't understand what happened, so I don't think you have a right to say anything. This is on the news everywhere in Hawaii, and there is a memorial in real life, although this isn't meant as a memorial. — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am being realistic. What will be the effects of the case down the road? Remember: WP:CRYSTAL .--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 07:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Keep" The smirking "Right, thought so" comment is particularly inappropriate, and the idea that a 13 month old "cannot possibly" be notable "although the murderer might" is odd. We don't have a "you must be this tall to go on this ride" policy on Wikipedia. Eaolson and Shawls may be correct, in that we can't place every murder on Wikipedia. It's possible that, as with "Megan's Law" and the "Amber Alert", this tragedy would lead to a larger response to the problem of meth addiction . Mandsford (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My understanding of Wikipedia:Notability (people) is that people become notable through their own actions, not the actions of others. That is why I suggested it was impossible for a baby to be notable, although I will grant you Louise Brown. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then, would you support the page if it was moved to Matthew Higa, the person that killed this young baby? — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and redirect to Matthew Higa. I'm sorry when I started the page (Karen Carpenter is my alternate account). — Cuyler91093 - Contributions 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Except that Matthew Higa redirects to this article, so the result is basically just a page move. If this event does lead to a named law, then it would be notable. But that hasn't happened yet. eaolson (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not working under a deadline. If it turns out that this case sets a precedent or is the subject of significant secondary coverage (i.e, from sources other than news), it can always be created later, or restored at another title as appropriate. Until then, however, this is simply one of many sad stories that shows up in the news. Zetawoof(ζ) 11:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: "Someone or something that has been in the news for a brief period is not necessarily a suitable subject for an article in their own right." The fact that something is all over the news the day after it happened speaks nothing to whether it should be in an encyclopedia. And please do not use edit summaries to call your fellow users "ignoramus". Finally, if the consensus is to keep this content in some form, I also strongly oppose moving to the name of the killer; that title (and the implication that the article would be a biography of him) would be a clear violation of WP:BLP1E, as the man who killed Belt is not known for anything outside of this one event. cab (talk) 12:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no evidence of the baby's notability sans-murder, murderer only notable for the case and I expect nothing big to happen Will (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Previously, I voted to keep, but I agree with Zetawoof that this article can always be recreated if this tragedy leads to further coverage. If the author was hoping to change opinions by changing the title and saying "I'm sorry", it worked. I imagine that press coverage in the future is more likely to describe this as "the Cyrus Belt case" rather than "the Matthew Higa case". Folks, get it out of your heads that crime victims have to have accomplished something else in their lives to have been notable. Mandsford (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd still like to know exactly what policy this statement represents; it's clear that you're asserting it as an expression of some policy, and I'd like to know which one so as to be guided by it in the future. Or are you suggesting that victims of crime are the only category of people in the world who do not attain notability by their own actions alone? In that case, there must be a "victims of crime" policy that I have somehow overlooked. Your guidance would be welcome. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do have articles on murderers, and on their victims, but there is a threshold of nobility for these cases, just as there are for any other biography. Serial killers, etc, or murder victims whose murder leads to notable events, laws, etc. This is a tragedy, but neither individual, or the crime committed is notable. Benea (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not impossible that this may become a notable incident in the future (in which case I would encourage an article on the event rather than the victim), but it's not notable now. --jonny-mt 08:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS. Coverage is not sufficient to consider this child's murder of encyclopedic notability. Risker (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per bandwagon above.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 keep). JERRY talk contribs 00:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Planet[edit]

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

I have some doubts about the notability of this asperger's website. It had a couple of news items a while ago but Google News doesn't bring up anything now, and pretty much all the Google hits seem to be on forums. Certainly any coverage in reliable secondary sources was fairly minor and transitory so I'd propose delete on the grounds of WP:NOT#NEWS. Snthdiueoa (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- -- pb30<talk> 04:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:WEB, sources provided are relatively trivial. Lankiveil (complaints | disco) 06:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. The Washington Post article is brief but not trivial. --Eastmain (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me quote WP:N#TEMP: "A short burst of news reports about a topic does not necessarily constitute evidence of long-term notability. The Wikimedia project Wikinews does cover topics receiving a short burst of present news coverage." A couple of news articles at the time may be newsworthy but it needs more than just two or three to establish notability. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It has been written about in several news sources, has appeared on TV, and has interviewed many famous people. I'd say it's notable. Smartyllama (talk) 13:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Several news sources" -- Which ones? There are only three cited in the article, and apart from that, Google News brings up nothing. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP is a very well known site.ColdRedRain (talk) 04:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but that's about William Freund, not Wrong Planet, and that's not up for discussion here. My contention is that the website itself has not had sufficient coverage in reliable sources to establish long term notability. With two exceptions, or at most three, all coverage of the site has been relatively trivial. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, it needs to establish that it is notable in its own right, independently of Mr Freund. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • William Freund is not the only reason wrong planet is notable. It has interviewed many famous people, and has been in the news for it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, that's an assertion that's been made a few times, but no-one has come up with anything of substance to back it up. And as for interviewing famous people, that doesn't hold a lot of weight I'm afraid -- Wikipedia's notability criteria (WP:N, WP:WEB) specifically require that multiple third party reliable sources have written about the subject in sufficient detail. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • And they have, during the William Freund incident. Would the Titanic have been notable if it hadn't sunk? Maybe, maybe not. But since it sunk, it is clearly notable. It is the same here. You could make the argument that without William Freund, wrongplanet wouldn't be notable, and you could make the argument that it still would be. That is irrelevant. Freund makes the site notable. Smartyllama (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but you're arguing "notability is inherited" there -- WP:NOTINHERITED is quite clear that it doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. Or are you also saying that there is a lot of reporting out there that I've missed that covers Wrong Planet itself? If so, could you please post some references and sources so that we can verify that it is actually notable, rather than just taking your word for it? Snthdiueoa (talk) 20:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm saying that one event can make something notable Look at the Ford Theater article. Is there anything other than the assasination of president Lincoln that makes Ford Theater notable? Probably not. But it's still notable. Same here. 21:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyllama (talk • contribs)
              • So you're now arguing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on top of WP:NOTINHERITED? Sorry, that's another of those pesky Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion debates I'm afraid. Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I was making an analogy to prove my point, not saying that one exists, so the other should. There's a difference. And how about saying what makes this non-notable instead of saying why my arguments violate wiki policY?Smartyllama (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Insufficient evidence of coverage of the Wrong Planet website itself by reliable, secondary sources for us to be able to independently verify its notability. Simple as that. Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's a ridiculous argument. You misunderstand the rule. William Freund made Wrong Planet notable because he got it in the news. Smartyllama (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • Where? I've just removed one of the references you added to the article because it doesn't mention Wrong Planet at all. Even if it did, and you're talking about articles like the one in the Guardian, those are all what we call "trivial" references. Or are you just advocating that we ignore all rules or something? Snthdiueoa (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just sufficient sourcing,but it is enough for notability.DGG (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. So far, we have non-trivial coverage in one secondary source -- the Washington Post, where the article is barely long enough even for that. The mention in the Guardian is trivial, and I would say the same thing about Slashdot (which is about Bram Cohen: WP is only secondary). PRweb is a press release, i.e. a primary source, and the only other reference is an article on Wrong Planet itself: also a primary source. If you think this is within the definition of "non-trivial coverage in multiple secondary sources," then fair enough, but personally I still think it's pushing it to the limit. Snthdiueoa (talk) 07:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. howcheng {chat} 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandwagon fan[edit]

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

I have watchlisted this article for ages, and it just hasn't improved. I'm talking years here, and sometimes when an article doesn't improve, it means it's just not an encyclopedic topic. This article is a magnet for people who want to say what teams/sports figures attract bandwagon fans, who is a bandwagon fan, the supposed characteristics of bandwagon fans... but it's really all just opinions, sure it can be sourced to some column by some sportswriter, but it's not very meaningful. This is the sort of concept that we need a dictionary definition for, but it really can't be covered encyclopedically, since it's just a simple definition - anything further is just partisan opinion. Send this to Wiktionary if they want it, but I don't see how we can have a decent encyclopedia article here. --W.marsh 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that North Asia (AfD discussion) took almost five years to improve, and that, too, was argued to be impossible to cover in a verifiable manner. This may not be the case here, of course. But observe that it sometimes does take articles years to improve, and sometimes requires that an editor come along who will look for actual sources on the subject.

    Having said that, what I find in discussions of "bandwagon fans" is mostly personal opinion, and extreme personal opinion at that. There doesn't seem to be any reliable source, that is actually attempting to present a factual discussion of the subject, available. However, there are serious discussions on the subject of fan loyalty to be had, contrasting fairweather fans with loyal fans, and discussing the several psychological factors that combine to create fan loyalty. See ISBN 7302090165 page 274, for example.

    I suggest a quick rename and refactor to fan loyalty. You can use the aforementioned source and ISBN 0805850449 page xxx (sic!), both of whom report on studies by psychologists. Who feels up to the challenge? Uncle G (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It looks like you've done it again, Uncle G. I was trying to find something like fan psychology or fan culture to redirect to but nothing existed at the time. I'm fine with a redirect to your new article... if an uninvolved admin wants to speedy close this. --W.marsh 14:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:NEO. Uncle G's proposal is marginally acceptable, only I'd say that the content should be added to Fan (person). A section on loyalty could be present there, but I still think it qualifies as a neologism. The first line of WP:NEO says "but may be used widely or within certain communities", which is echoed in the article's first line - that the term is "used among sports fans and sports writers." — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 04:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Perhaps for the time being, a redirect to Fan (person), until the section can be fleshed out and spun-out to Fan loyalty. But, these are editorial decisions. Uncle G has demonstrated how this is a viable, encyclopedic topic. Pastordavid (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spirit of Columbia[edit]

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

WP:NN Cruise ship. Toddst1 (talk) 01:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no evidence of individual WP:N. JJL (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think that the references and external links are enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 10:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the running around story is a local news story, and doesn't tell nothing about the ship in detail, as for the last source, it's a tour book, and wikipedia is not a travel guide. Needs more sources for meeting WP:N Secret account 19:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 John McCain. Content is already included in article. --MCB (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Shepp[edit]

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

Subject is notable only for being John McCain's first wife. Google search returns only articles on McCain. Doesn't seem notable enough to merit a page; her only notability can be addressed on McCain's page (which it already is). Gromlakh (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Jung-Hwa[edit]

Lady Jung-Hwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fictional character from a TV show; in-universe plot summary, no references, and no evidence of real-world notability. If need be, an overview of the character can be given at Emperor of the Sea, but I don't see any need for a seperate article here. PC78 (talk) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete all. Secret account 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bueno Nacho (Fast-food franchise)[edit]

Bueno Nacho (Fast-food franchise) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

The articles show no evidence of notability, there is no evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent secondary sources (there are no secondary sources at all). Merging the pages together would likely also be inapproriate as there is no evidence that Locations of Kim Possible is a notable topic that has been covered by secondary sources. If the locations mentioned are important to the series then they should be mentioned in the article for the series (Kim Possible); Notability is not inherited (links to essay). WP:V states that "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." - no reliable, third-party sources are given in the articles and I think it is unlikely that any exist to be found.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

Camp Wannaweep
Cuddle buddy (Kim Possible)
Middleton (fictional city)

Guest9999 (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete all. They may be notable within the scope of the series, but absolutely no out-of-universe notability is asserted here. I share the nom's doubts that reliable third-party sources can be found on any of this fancruft. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fiction is self reverencing, a citation to an episode is = to a third party citation. - perfectblue (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all Since I've contributed significantly to the nominated pages, I hate to see them go. They might not be notable enough for individual pages, but easily notable enough within the Kim Possible universe when merged into one general page. How does "Locations in Kim Possible" sound? =) Jumping cheese 07:07, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide any reliable independent sources that such an article would be based around? [[Guest9999 (talk) 08:02, 14 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
  • The episodes themselves? Oh, and agree with perfectblue's suggestion to suspend nomination until a consensus can be formed in the other discussion. Jumping cheese 03:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The episodes aren't independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 17:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suspend There is currently a significant debate going on at Wikipedia talk:Television episodes#Centralized_Discussion Please suspend this AFD until consensus has been reached as to the direction of television content on Wikipedia. perfectblue (talk) 19:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The discussion you mention is about televison episodes, this AfD is not about televison episodes, it is about other fictional elements. One major difference between the two concepts is that a television episode is a real thing, the fictional locations nominated are not. Also, like the many other centralised discussions on the issue I doubt anything will come out of this one; if a clear cut consensus is formed, the decision made here can be revisited. As it stands the articles are unsourced and show no evidence that they will ever meet the primary notability criteria. [[Guest9999 (talk) 05:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)]][reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC) (note: I didn't make the relist myself)[reply]
  • Delete all; these are very minor bits of fancruft that deserve a sentence or two, at most, in the main series article, or in articles about episodes. --MCB (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:48, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minger[edit]

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

Slang dictionary definition, violates WP:WINAD. Previous AfD resulted in a transwiki to Wiktionary in 2005. It seems that many culturally loaded terms seem to get Wikipedia articles when they're much more appropriate for a dictionary than an encyclopedia. h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Already moved to Wiktionary. No need here again. Same as previous AfD. Soxred93 | talk count bot 01:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 Globe confirms his existence, but doesn't write about him in a way that would allow us to source a biography. The Crimson is RS but not sufficient to establish notability. -- Y not? 00:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Greenbaum[edit]

Harrison Greenbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Don't Touch the Foot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Does not appear to meet WP:BIO, claims to fame include the publication of one of his essays in a concatenated work and founding of a weekly comedy show whose notability is also questioned. No WP:RS outside of local interest, art scene, etc. type articles and a few mentions in the Harvard Crimson for his activities as an undergraduate... nothing really "non-trivial". Previously deleted as an A7, but appears to have been recreated after unprotection. Previous version was WP:COI, but attempting to assume good faith that the creator is not the same person as the subject of the article. Delete. Kinu t/c 00:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But Harvard Crimson is recognized as a RS, as is Boston Globe. Also, he is the author of several MAD Magazine articles (found site sourcing this: tomrichmond.com/blog). All of these combined seemed to meet WP:BIO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.56.54 (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Greenbaum, Merge "Don't touch... notability for the show is undemonstrated--the Time Out New York references is a mere listing , not a feature as claimed in the WP article, & is not referred to by name in the Boston Globe. Greenbaum, tho, has done a variety of things and seems the more notable. certainly not worth two articles.DGG (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's worth keeping both articles. The Boston Comedy Festival (bostoncomedyfestival.com) is a legitimate comedy festival, as is New York Underground Comedy Festival; if both of these festivals featured Harrison Greenbaum and/or Don't Touch the Foot (as the sources note they did) then I see no reason for the articles to be deleted. The Boston Globe article is also clearly about Don't Touch the Foot, as it references a "Times Square show founded by Harrison Greenbaum and David Ingber," which is clarified by the second reference for that sentence. Time Out New York Magazine is also one of the pre-eminent sources of theater listings; if a show is listed there, it's clearly notable. Also, the fact that this comedy show has run for more than 30 weeks (as per the website), lists many notable comedians in its roster, and is in the middle of Time Square points to its legitimacy. Though the two seem to prop each other up (good call, Kinu) both seem to meet the notability requirements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.56.54 (talk) 03:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. It's minor performer whose big claim is to what amounts to a weekly nightclub show. And no, a mere listing in a city magazine's entertainment section is NOT in any way, shape, or form evidence of notability, nor is being one of dozens of performers at a comedy festival. --Calton | Talk 05:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources don't provide evidence of notability for either Greebaum or the 'Don't Touch the Foot' event. From reading them, it looks like there could possibly be room for an article on the Harvard Stand-Up Comedy Society itself, but this person and event are just too minor to deserve articles. Terraxos (talk) 05:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a section devoted to MAD Magazine writers and Harrison Greenbaum is clearly one. Also, while being a performer in a show in a major comedy festival may not meet notability requirements, actually producing a show in two major comedy festivals lends credibility. I think everything combined - authorship in a book, writing for a national magazine, performing for the Mystery Lounge (which nobody has mentioned yet - I looked at the site and it seems quite a major magic show in Boston, having been featured on national TV and the like), and founding a stand-up comedy society at Harvard - seem to be evidence that the article shouldn't be deleted. Also, the listing of national headliners at Don't Touch the Foot definitely adds to its credibility. It seems to be a real comedy venue in New York, as verified by the myriad sources included in the article, so should be included. I would support, perhaps, cutting down the two articles, but not deleting them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.11.14 (talk) 07:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. While the Harvard Crimson might be reliable, it's certainly not independent, especially since the information in the article seems to come from the troupe itself. The rest is passing mentions and primary sources. ~ trialsanderrors (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Harvard Crimson is a recognized RS; if it's printing information it received from the troupe it is only after it has been verified. In other words, because it is an RS, we can trust that information in it is well-researched, verifiable, and true. Also, while the "passing mentions" on their own may not have been enough, combined it seems to indicate some kind of legitimacy. Mentions in the Boston Globe are significant, as is participation in the Boston Comedy Festival and the New York Underground Comedy Festival. I would support, as previously suggested here, that the articles are shortened a bit, but would definitely not support deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.56.54 (talk) 05:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - I actually agree. Don't Touch the Foot is a show in Times Square that features famous comedians; Harrison Greenbaum is the creator of that show (along with a lot of other things, like founding the Comedy Society and writing for Mad Magazine). Both seem notable enough to me. Additionally, the references seem to check out and, together, make a pretty verifiable case for the notability of these two subjects. I'm for keeping the articles, too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Kurykh 00:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floppy Mobile[edit]

Floppy Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
Frazr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - related article added by Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable company, potential WP:HOAX. Only 146 ghits; the given CEO and CFO seem equally non-notable. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 00:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Possibly a hoax given the lack of relevant hits (and given the rather strange name); in any event, it clearly fails WP:CORP. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also Frazr. —Bkell (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:V. Pburka (talk) 02:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Delete most likely a hoax, but it claims the company was created just recently, so there is a possibility that this isn't a hoax. Merge Frazr article with Floppy Mobile article as most of the text in Frazr article belongs in the Floppy Mobile article. --Salona (talk) 03:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Looks and feels like an advert. I'd had stuck speedy on it IMO RT | Talk 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete Don't think I have ever seen an article nominated at AFD by its creator before. Spartaz Humbug! 17:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dodie Cross[edit]

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

not notable apart from one book which garnered minimal attention Travellingcari (talk) 03:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I was the creator. New to Wikipedia at the time and admit I didn't fully understand what was required in order to be considered notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Travellingcari (talk • contribs) 03:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I found this interview, but that's all. Insufficient reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not nearly enough to be notable. NBeale (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 00:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nohohon Zoku[edit]

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

Non-notable product. Only non shop-site/catalog reference I could find was a press release. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment But gawsh, it's Japanese popular culture and it's round and "cute" and lots of bloggers witter on about it! (There's also this [little more than a recycled press release, actually] and perhaps more besides.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the 5 million units is accurate and can be verified, you would think there's been some sort of press coverage, if not necessarily in English. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I watched this on TV weeks ago. And I found [44]. Oda Mari (talk) 06:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable enough for the French and Japanese Wikis both to have articles on it. Chris (クリス) (talk) 08:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't buy this argument at all. To me, it says nothing about notability. (If either of these articles were impressive, it would be a different matter. But neither is. Look at their sources.) -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - obvious tripe, Wikipedia is not a giftware catalog. --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - Here's a link to a 2005 article from Nikkei [45] as well as two others from 2002, which cannot be accessed without subscribing [46] [47]. The 2005 article mentions that 3 million were sold, so, the 5 million claim is not unreasonable. Neier (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on additions since start of afd. Llamasharmafarmerdrama (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsvi C. Nussbaum[edit]

Tsvi C. Nussbaum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
The little boy may be Tsvi Nussbaum. Or maybe not.

Tsvi Nussbaum's only claim to fame is that he might be the little boy in the Warsaw ghetto photograph. The photograph itself may well be notable enough to have an article (an issue I have no opinion on), but Nussbaum himself, who might not even be in the photograph, certainly isn't. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 06:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete NN person. Even if that was him in the picture (which there is no proof of), I still wouldn't consider him notable. TJ Spyke 07:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Whether or not it is him in the photo, he has recieved attention. He was the subject of a documentary, we have a nicely referenced article, another nice looking article, an article on the photo talking about him a lot and a hit on Google Scholar I won't open because of my hatred of PDFs. I reckon he is notable. J Milburn (talk) 13:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Obvious historic value even if he eventually turns out not to be the boy in the photo. Should we also delete every article listed in Romanov claimants or in Category:Impostor pretenders? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-20 14:07Z
  • Keep, article requires referencing but with the links provided in external links and by J Milburn it has notability - Dumelow (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per J Milburn above. Epson291 (talk) 19:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE THIS FOR SURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this for sure (even without the all caps). A rather strong claim of notability is amde, which should be expanded, not deleted. Alansohn (talk) 06:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the article as it currently stands, there is no claim of notability at all, let alone a strong one. And so far no one has done anything with the references J Milburn supplied above. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 17:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the reference sgiven are sufficient, and discuss whether the identification is correct, and that's all that needed.V not truth--we do not have to prove it. DGG (talk) 05:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was not delete, unfortunately. a merge discussion is beyond the scope of this AfD. -- Y not? 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power Rangers episodes[edit]

I found various television episode articles from the tv show Power Rangers. Not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, but seven articles i request to be deleted, because it seems like they do not satisfy Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). The subjects of the following articles are not notable outside the fictional basis.

Them seven articles do not seem notable on there subjects and are merely just any random tv episodes. Mythdon (talk) 07:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Episode synopses are fine. Articles could use cleaned up/standardized, and I don't think the cast listing is necessary, but whatever. There are hundreds if not thousands of similar articles on Wikipedia for episodes of shows we've never heard of. Also, just say "seven articles". -- goatasaur (talk) 16:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: WP:FICT applies to fictional objects, not works of fiction, and so does not apply here. I note for the record that the style guideline for writing about television encourages that these be compiled into list, and strongly suggests that the first step in dealing with problematic articles is a merge proposal. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Fancruft. What's next, plot summaries of all mumbletey-muble epsiodes of "Star Trek" or worse yet, "Gunsmoke" ? --Wtshymanski (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a proper deletion reason. I am fairly sure that there are articles on the episodes of Star Trek and Gunsmoke. Your deletion rationale just seems to be a WP:IDONTLIKEIT response.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider the IDONTLIKET comment mentioned Star Trek and Gunsmoke (shows that Wtshymanski mentioned) it seem clear that the comment was directed at Wtshymanski. --70.48.173.212 (talk) 01:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into list article. At the present time, none of these articles are ready to be standalone articles. Once you remove the plot summary, you no longer have an article, which violates WP:NOT#PLOT. None of them contain any information from independent reliable third-party sources, much less enough to establish the episodes' notability. --Farix (Talk) 01:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Farix, im glad you understand what i mean. Mythdon (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the show is notable enough that the episodes are also, and notable enough that sourcing will be possible. DGG (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC) to have some sourcing. Merging would also be an option, but not if there is loss of the material. DGG (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but if you remove the plot summary as stated by Farix you no longer have an article. Mythdon (talk) 08:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • reasonably short plot summaries are permitted,so we would merely have shorter articles. There's nothing wrong with short articles. There is no policy that plot summaries are prohibited in wikipedia. There is some other content in the articles--they seem to discuss other aspects of the show as well. DGG (talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A short plot summery is fine so long as there is sufficient real world contextual information that goes along with the summary. However, if an article is still mostly a plot summary, even if it is short summary, it still violates WP:NOT. Articles should always be more then just a plot summary, and episode articles that do not meet that standard are viable candidates for merging. --Farix (Talk) 14:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into single article per season unless solid references can be found for each episode. That's a lot of work and it might be easier to just keep.... Hobit (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - into the list. Not notable on their own. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least 6 of them. Though if you do some digging around, I'm sure you will find the other seasons:
Farix (Talk) 12:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge These articles about individual episodes of shows make WikiPedia look silly. NBeale (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We should destroy content en masse to help our image? Where would we stop? --Kizor 14:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). SeanMD80talk | contribs 03:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dapto High School[edit]

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

An article on a non-notable high school. The article has existed since October 31, 2006 and still has no references to offer. Heavy vandalism is an ongoing concern with this article also, keeping it in a near constant semi-protected state. -- Longhair\talk 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\talk 10:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've never seen a high school that could not be referenced. Don't have time myself at the moment, but i'm confident references are available.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- --Cube lurker (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with locality - ie Dapto, New South Wales until references external to the school have been located and content developed such that it needs separate article.--Matilda talk 21:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - although I still maintain the school is not notable per se, the article has been very thoroughly improved, woud be too big to include in the locality article and Wikipedia is better with than without the article! --Matilda talk 03:48, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Aren't high schools inherently notable? I also agree with the comment above — with time references could most certainly be found — Galaxy250 (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - see Wikipedia:Notability (schools) - there is no consensus that schools are inherently notable. There are some criteria to establish notbaility - none of these have been put forward for Dapto. Where notability has not been established, what is usual : A school article that fails to establish notability will not be deleted, if the school can be confirmed to exist. It would be simply redirected to the appropriate article for the relevant locality or school district (US and Canada only). Thus the article could be later expanded back out into its own article again when sources should become available. --Matilda talk 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - Generaly articles on school's are good way into wikipedia for younger people, they can write about something they know about and learn a lot about citations, npov, vandalism and a lot of other important things. Fasach Nua (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - it would seem that the only thing the students of Dapto High are learning about is vandalism in the 15 months or more of the article's existence. Perhaps the young people could learn about their locality instead while expanding the sub section on their school til it is large enough to be broken out. The article currently has all but no meaningful content other than it exists. --Matilda talk 22:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Consensus has found that high/secondary schools are notable (see WP:OUTCOMES). An article being frequently vandalized is NOT a reason to delete it. The Los Angeles, California article is vandalized almost every day; are we to delete that? --Oakshade (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - you have misquoted WP:Outcomes which states with respect to high schools: Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached. Most of the approximately 270 school articles nominated for deletion in the eight months January to August 2005, resulted in no consensus, while fewer than 15% have actually been deleted. Most elementary and middle schools that don't claim notability are now getting deleted in AfD, with high schools in most cases being kept. - concensus frequently not reached and high schools in most cases being kept - does not equal concensus being found that high schools are notable. You have not addressed the issue of notability in relation to Dapto High. Moreover, the issue is not merely that the article is frequently vandalised, it is that no content has been added in over a year other than to say the school exists I have found no sources to support any claim to notability (I have searched which seems to be more than any editor who has so far expressed a view of keeping the article). There are no reliable sources even to support the claim of poor academic results which frequently gets added. Other than celebrating 50 years, there is nothing to say. Probably a good thing! Why can this not be said in a sub section of the locality article as per Wikipedia:Notability (schools)? The current policy proposal for schools and Wikipedia:Outcomes suggest redirection is a reasonable outcome. --Matilda talk 02:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I wasn't quoting WP:OUTCOMES. However, as you typed out, WP:OUTCOMES states "... with high schools in most cases being kept." That is what WP:CONSENSUS has found and there is no evidence prior to this AfD that consensus has changed. The nom used frequent vandalism of this article as one of their primary reasons to delete it. --Oakshade (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Concensus was not necessarily found - as the point initially states Schools are frequently nominated for deletion, but consensus is frequently not reached - keeping of high schools was as a result of no concensus to delete which is not the same thing as consensus to keep. I can appreciate that vandalism is not a criterion for deletion, however, notability should be a criterion for keeping and not redirecting to locality article (sub section on schools or this school as appropriate). When sufficient material has been written the article can be broken out again. --Matilda talk 03:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From our discussion on my talk page, It is clear that you do not agree that the recently-added content satisfies the notability requirement, at least not to your satisfaction. While I agree that this content does not define notability for the school, I do maintain that it provides a certain fullness, a certain roundedness, and the certain je ne sais quoi that an article has to have to be more than a mere listing. While the WP:SCL is not de jure (has not been officially ratified), it has the effect of being in force, de facto, in that over and over again articles get nominated for deletion, and the same outcome prevails. High school articles are almost invariably kept. They are the kind of institutions that have a place of importance in their communities that certainly means that sources will be found for them. One only has to look. It is a matter of convenience to assume that high school articles are notable, in order to avoid all this wasted time. We collectively write thousands of words about how 50 words need to be deleted, and to what end? A this article survived AFD banner on a talk page. Nearly every single time. The bright lines provided by WP:SCHOOL are convenient, and they are very much in effect, ratified or not, in daily AFD discussions. This AFD is yet more proof. You may also want to read what User:Jimbo has said on the subject: here. JERRY talk contribs 05:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My issue raised on your talk page was to congratualte you as the only !voter of keep to have actually added some content. I think the things you have added do not make the school notable and I have explained that on your talk page. You did however wrongly suggest that the school was ranked about 500th in Australia (and thought by use of adjective that this was a good result) when in fact its current ranking is 602 out of 673 in NSW with an HSC success rate for credit ranking of around 1% compared with top ranked school of 74%. The other keep !voters have added no content and I doubt whether they even know where Dapto is. They are satisfied that a school exists and therefore must have an article. It may be a matter of convenience to assume all high schools are notable. It is also lazy and not in fact generally so. We have good processes to redirect to locality articles - thus adding to that article. Your suggestion below that this AfD is snowy is depressingly true becuase there are contributers who vote blindly and do not think through issues of notability - nor are they prepared to contribute to add content.--Matilda talk 06:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has oodles of encyclopedic content, plenty of sources, stablishes notability per WP:N without having to reply on WP:SCHOOL; let's keep this discussion on track... its not about WP:SCHOOL, its about this article. This AfD is looking pretty snowy to me. JERRY talk contribs 03:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • SHOULD BE DELETED FOR SURE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.154.16.30 (talk) 03:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please describe why you think so. Note: The above IP address has vandalized this article using falsified edit summaries in the past.JERRY talk contribs 04:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Above and beyond the broad consensus that all such articles are inherently notable, the article as it currently stands providesd ample reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school is non-notable and the article doesn't make any claims that it's anything more than a standard high school. I'm skeptical about the claims that there's a consensus that high schools are automatically notable - the proposed WP:SCHOOL guideline is going nowhere and violates key wikipedia policies and I've seen articles on high schools deleted. As such, I'd prefer to see people come up with a better reason to keep this kind of article than what's basically a variant of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you are, again, misdirecting yourself when you say "the article doesn't make any claims that it's anything more than a standard high school". It doesn't need to; it needs to have multiple, independent sources to meet WP:N; which it does. TerriersFan (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, given that high schools aren't automatically notable (WP:SCHOOL is nothing but a proposal) notability does need to be demonstrated. I genuinely don't see how a collection of newspaper references about things which happen at all high schools "address the subject directly in detail" and are "more than trivial". There seems to be a view that a handful of routine mentions in the media makes something forever notable - this doesn't make much sense to me, especially when the incidents which it is claimed establish notability involve non-notable people doing non-notable things such as teenagers lighting fires. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This meme that schools are by consensus inherently notable continues to pop up. I have not seen anywhere where this consensus has been demonstrated. The article is distinctly lacking in encyclopedic content. A 50th anniversary celebration, a minor fire ($100,000 in damage is not much and arsonists attack schools on a reasonably regular basis) and a unremarkable HSC ranking. Throwing every mention that can be found on Google into the article does not make it encyclopedic. Merge to Dapto, New South Wales until some content with some claim to encyclopedic value can be found. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Any high school will almost certainly have notable things about it. Just may take time to find. Hobit (talk) 19:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It has multiple, independent sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It only took me a couple of minutes to find that the school's careers advisor was named top careers advisor in New South Wales for his innovative programme, and to add this (with a reliable source) to the article. I'm sure there's loads more stuff that could be added, but there's more than enough there to establish notability already, and it's way past my bedtime so I can't do it now. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Plenty of stuff to establish notability. Rebecca (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama media controversy[edit]

Barack Obama media controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama Muslim rumor. Please note that withdrawal does not: a) endorse keeping the article, and b) does not forbid AfDs at any time. Will (talk) 19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Editors should have a look at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for relevant Wikipedia policy on articles such as this. As this article is also technically a fork of Barack Obama, Wikipedia:Content forking is also of relevance. When leaving comments about whether to keep or delete the article, bear in mind that this is not a vote, so please provide reasons for taking the course of action that you suggest. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I would help merge any actual useful info into the Insight (magazine) page (as it already has a section there). Any refs on Wikipedia can link to the section. Just the fact that Obama's faith was questioned does not need its own article! Especially since his unequivocal statement - which has not since been questioned. Any incidents involving Insight magazine (including the way it was reported) should surely stay in the Insight article. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This fails the long term notability test, his Presidential campaign page already contains the relevent information, this page should just be deleted. Epson291 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frag Sceptre hit it on the nail. A useless content fork which appears to have some latent POV-pushing intent. Just because it's the election doesn't make everything about a candidate notable. David Fuchs (talk) 20:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a POV fork. --neonwhite user page talk 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename back to Barack Obama Muslim rumor. That topic is clearly notable considering the hundreds if not thousands of newsarticles written, including a mention in a Democratic debate, and public letters written about the subject by prominent American Jewish leaders and members of Congress. I am an Obama supporter, but this is clearly a notable controversy and not a POV track. Joshdboz (talk) 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Doesn't this rationale suggest we should also create a Hillary Clinton sexism article? - Tobogganoggin talk 21:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, because that is not a specific controversy that has generated specific and non-trivial media attention. This is. Joshdboz (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it has - see e.g. [49]. There've been many specific and non-trivial media articles on that topic. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge, per Tobogganoggin. (Disclosure: I launched the original AfD, renamed the article and withdrew my nomination when a broad consensus to delete did not emerge, made substantial contributions, then nominated this version for good article status--it failed). There is nothing in the current article that can't be better handled in appropriate context through a merge with parallel or duplicate text that already exists in other articles. Some of the material now covered is unfit for Wikipedia and should be deleted entirely. --HailFire (talk) 21:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete povfork, attack article, patent nonsence, this article is everything that is wrong with WP Fasach Nua (talk) 21:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, deleting only keeps factually-based knowledge from the public in a time at which it is vitally important to society. Fifty7 (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The subject is not being kept from the public as it is also covered in Wikipedia's main articles (and will be more so if this is deleted). Wikipedia is not a collection of all factually-based knowledge, and it's not a moral guardian ether.--Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep, of course. Absurd nomination. The connected subjects of the nature and effect of Obama's connections to the Moslem faith, the nature and effect of the media's coverage of the subject, and other related phenomena (e.g., accusatory emails, resultant firings) has been the subject of a multiplicity of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS.
  1. As a complicated WP:N subject in and of itself that requires considerable length to properly develop this article is a perfectly proper content fork from Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008‎.
  2. Allegations that this article is a POV fork are false -- reading it one will reasonably conclude that Obama is not a Muslim and was not trained to be a suicide bomber or deep agent as a six year old. There is no fork in POV from the parent article, where I believe there is a proper summary.
  3. Allegations that this article is a WP:COATRACK are even more bogus. The title ought to include "Muslim", since that is the focus, but the content of the article is what the title announces it is, not some secondary "bias subject", as the COATRACK essay terms it. There is a list of COATRACK types in the essay, and this article fits none of them.
  4. Allegations that this article violates WP:WEIGHT are silly. The idea that the subject is less important than Monicagate and therefor must have a shorter article is obtunded in so many ways that I'm at a loss where to begin. And the subject is anyway not unimportant. Race is undoubtedly more important to why Obama's vote results don't match his polls than his name, but the Hussein business plays its part, and Wikipedia should offer a comprehensive NPOV treatment of the subject. This article is the place to attempt it. Andyvphil (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. 4. above is unreferenced and POV. The Hussain name could play more of a part than his colour - but either way, why "should" Wikipedia offer a treatment? Wikipedia is not a newspaper of events, and we are not journalists with our own comment columns. We all agree it is noteworthy to a point, but context can be found in existing articles. Also, the main point about Coatrack articles is surely that they are constantly open to abuse, however well-intended they were when created (which is covered). As for the 'typical examples' in the Coatrack essay (not the best part of it) - Attack Article is the closest, though no one example singularly covers the Obama-relevant 'Fact picking' section of the essay, or these side-pages in fact (surely the best use for the essay) - but it will! --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP should have this article because it the subject is WP:N, the content is WP:V, and it complies in all ways with policy, including BLP. And the subject is actually important. I haven't checked to see if I can cite a RS asserting that the Muslim overtones of Obama's name has contributed to the way he has experienced the Tom Bradley effect, but we are supposed to be engaged here in debate about the significance of the subject, not writing content into mainspace. Asking me to cite my arguments to a RS on pain of being dismissed as POV is a category error. Andyvphil (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But did I really ask that? That's the kind of minute needling that is everything that is wrong with these type of articles. You appear to want this singular article because it is important news to you personally, and you want it to be noticed - but that's the wrong way to look at it. There is a fine line between what actually is news, and what is made news, or kept as news. What is true of the media is a potential trapping for Wikipedia too. This story doesn't even come near the line any more, and simply doesn't warrant it's own important and repeatedly linked to 'premium slot' page. It is already has space on the Insight page and an Obama page - deletion here is censoring nothing. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Hopelessly POV, and simply read Andyphil's POV comment above for the reason this repository of POV-pushing on a living person needs to be deleted straightaway. There are those who will try to force these things into WP articles, no matter how many times they are discredited. -- Bellwether BC 02:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cleaning up the POV in the article is pointless. There is no "there" there. This is just a random collection of disparaging remarks, rumors and innuendos (with accompanying mentions of denials or apologies for psuedo-"balance.")--Loonymonkey (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any useful content into the proper section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008#False allegations that Obama is or was Muslim--STX 04:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You do recall doing that once before, to complaints from the resident editors that you had imported too much material into their article. There isn't less now. Andyvphil (talk) 07:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought it worked out fine.--STX 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed. The resident editors were unhappy, but kindly let the material stay until the first deletion nomination was withdrawn. If it had passed would you have defended its retention or is deletion of most of the material you transferred there the happy result you wished for? Andyvphil (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I try to edit by consensus. At the time of the first AFD it appeared (as it does now) that the consensus was for the article to not exist on its own but as a sub-section of the main article. Its the responsibility of the creators of this article and the primary editors of Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 to sort out how much weight the content should be given. --STX 21:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete POV fork, and merge any useful content to one of the related main articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question How is it a POV fork or coatrack if the article makes clear that the reports of him attending a madrassa etc. were incorrect? If there was no mention of the allegations being proven untrue, then I could see it being a POV fork or coatrack. :In this case as long as the facts are stuck to the situation is the conservative reverse of the Rathergate issue; reporting based on incomplete information that was revealed as such. There certainly was enough coverage to establish notability, including media like the NY Times discussing the poor quality of Insight's sources. Anynobody 02:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Obama’s unequivocal statement that he was never a Muslim outdates the article subject, as he’s not been proven wrong. Where a guardian takes a minor would not legally stand. The negative ‘balance’ has now become a collection of outdated smears. Mud ‘sticks’ because it cannot be properly argued – it’s just conjecture. So evenly-weighted balance cannot exist here – the mud has it over Obama, so to speak. Any Insight stories belong naturally in the Insight article - which can be linked to if needed. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and is not here to keep news alive, or even, necessarily, to cover news. It has an encyclopaedia’s standards - which are very different to media ones. Mud has the weight here, in a specially-created article that has been given a hugely disproportionate weight of coverage on Wikipedia. It’s been an embarrassment for Wikipedia in my opinion. The story clearly belongs inside the various relevant main articles, and should never have been forked off - even when the story broke. These side articles come under the same rules as all articles on Wikipedia – but when they have coatrack flaws in their subject, they so easily become sandboxes for armchair journalists and POV pushers. To answer your question in summary: the POV here is actually in the article’s continued existence – the assumption that it is deserving and balanced, when by Wikipedia’s standards, it is intrinsically neither. (COATRACK, WEIGHT, FORK = mud = POV = article's existence). Don't build a house on sand.--Matt Lewis (talk) 07:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unlike most of the votes on this page, you're actually debating your position, rather than emitting a catchphrase and pointing with alarm. But Obama's denial obviously does not "outdate the article subject" because the article's subject is not whether Obama is a Muslim. Were that the article's subject I agree we could dispose of it without a separate article. But it's not. Andyvphil (talk) 23:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • In relation to the coatrack question, I think this is answered at WP:COAT#"But it's true!". -- ChrisO (talk) 08:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's answered there all right. "When confronted with a potential coatrack article, an editor is invited to ask: what impression does an uninitiated reader get from this article?... A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject." This article gives a truthful impression of the subject: Obama is not a Muslim and did not attend a Wahabi madrassa. On the other hand his denials have been somewhat misleading. His denial that he prayed in a mosque seems to be true only if you don't count going through the motions. And the media's performance has been abysmal. All true. Andyvphil (talk) 23:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have knelt several times during a Catholic prayer while attending with friends or family throughout my life. Yet I would contend I've never "prayed" in these services. Am I being "misleading"? I hardly think so. I didn't, even though I went through the motions out of politesse. -- Bellwether BC 23:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Unnecessarily standing while everyone else kneels would of course be impolite and call unnecessary and disruptive attention to yourself. One would do better not to show up than to stand on one's dignity. (How far one must go to be polite when others are touching their foreheads to the ground in the direction of Mecca in a good question of etiquette, but not on point here.) If you were simply asked whether you had ever prayed in church and said "No" that would not be misleading, although it would not be forthcoming either. But if it were observed that you were seen to pray and you simply responded that it was a lie to say so you would indeed pass over into misleading, the clarification that you were merely being polite no longer being optional, should you choose to respond. Obama has omitted saying he merely went through the motions. Misleadingly. (Only a venal sin in middle-of-the-road politicans, who invariably cultivate ambiguity, the better to get votes from people who might not like the exact truth.) And the media has never asked him. Abysmal. Andyvphil (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're free to that opinion, naturally, but this is not the forum to discuss it. This is AfD, the place to discuss whether this article passes snuff by Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not whether Barack Obama pulled a fast one on the media. - Revolving Bugbear 00:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • No one seems to be advancing much in the way of argument that the article fails to pass snuff under policy or guideline. Would you care to do so? Andyvphil (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • At the moment, no. The only reason I commented was because it seemed clear to me that this is not the place for a discussion of religion and semantics. - Revolving Bugbear 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The question was whether this article is an example of WP:COAT#"But it's true!", which it would be only if it gives "an uninitiated reader [an un]truthful impression of the subject". Hard to answer that without referring to what a truthful impression of the subject would be. Andyvphil (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Comment - Does it actually matter if Obama truly prayed as a child? He was a flippin child! We can’t even be sure if Obama even remembers his thoughts in those days. We simply cannot suggest he is “misleading” the world for leaving out of his ‘religious picture’ where a guardian took him as a minor – it’s aggressive and wrong to chase him on that. And we can't even PROVE anything either way! To give 'motions of prayer' THIS kind of high-profile negative importance is hugely anti-Islamic. It's utterly insulting to them. The Insight reporting issues are secondary to all this – and they must naturally remain covered in their relevant articles elsewhere. Coatrack articles attract those dedicated Wikipedians who think that everyone who happens to be against them must be conspiring to conceal 'The Truth'. They will incessantly duck and dive till they get their way. They barely scan disagreeing comments – why bother when you already know you are right? That we these allow people to run for so long with these high-profile coatracks is madness. The ‘importance’ here is in the damage they can do with their POV pushing – not least to Wikipedia’s image. I detest Islamophobia and the article (and some of the comments on it) reeks of it. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • [UNDENT]You're still hung up on the idea that the purpose of the article is to prove whether Obama is or was a Muslim. It's not. This article is, for one thing, where you turn on Wikipedia if you've heard that the the intersection of Obama's life and background with the Muslim faith is a matter of some controversy and you want to know what is known and what is not known. One of the things you've learned, apparently, is that Obama is denying things you think he might not even remember. Can't say I've reached the same conclusion. But just because we reach different conclusions doesn't mean either one of us has been misled. As best I can tell, the article informs but does not mislead. Andyvphil (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that's just not true - I've never once said I thought the purpose of the article was to prove Obama was a Muslim. The POV argument is actually about keeping mud in the news so it sticks - and I have certainly suggested that some people are happy with maintaining a negative association between Obama and Islam. I've never actually said it factually 'misleads'. Notability, weight and duplication have always been my principal reasons against this high-profile 'side article' - and I've repeated my points quite a lot now (here and on the Talk page).
    • Regarding the 'POV fork' issue - certain editors clearly want to keep the outdated smears of Obama as visible as possible - via forking duplicate mud into a new article and coatracking it behind the Insight reporting issue, hanging up some other ‘balance’ for extra cover. The article has intrinsic negative values for Obama and for Muslims - and that suits them. That's where the POV is. These certain editors can be seen focusing on similar tactics throughout Wikipedia, to enforce their own favoured political balance. 'Prolifery and belligerence' is their trademark - and they are uninterested in consensus. To them - 99 editors can be involved in a 'cover up' to any one editor who shares their view. Arguments detailing what this encyclopedia is about, they ignore - because for them, Wikipedia is their own editorial. Most frustratingly perhaps, they often appear to never properly read other people's comments - even the ones directly responding to them.
    • We need some better 'coatrack-style' rules or guidelines around here if you ask me - this article is exploiting and corrupting Wikipedia, and it's been up for an embarrassingly long time. --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC). --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry for the lateness of my reply. I actually tend to ask myself what impression a reader will get from the articles I edit and had considered that here too. I imagine a person hearing from a friend or family member that "Obama's a Muslim" and then coming here to check it out. Hopefully the impression a reader would walk away with is that a conservative internet mag published an old rumor as fact, which was then picked up by major news and proven by other major news to be both old and incorrect. Anynobody 02:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To illustrate how I see the focus of this article, I created an illustration. We have to mention the incorrect allegations to show they were incorrect and that some of the media screwed up:

        Anynobody 02:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (The graphic is quite large, if you click on the image. I didn't want to eat up a bunch of page space. You can access the full version here too) Anynobody 02:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete POV fork, merge any useful content to one of the related main articles. --Fredrick day (talk) 22:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • *sigh* How a POV fork? Contribute your insights, should you have any, not just your vote. Per policy. Andyvphil (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete POV fork. Paisan30 (talk) 01:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • *double sigh* What part of "AfDs are a debate, not a vote" is difficult to understand? Simply asserting that the article is a "POV fork" gives no indication that you even know what a "POV fork" is, other than content you don't like to see. Andyvphil (talk) 14:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a balanced, well-sourced, notable article. Bearian (talk) 13:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is notable if Obama gets the Democratic nomination and is proven that it ruined his chance at the Presidency like the Swift Boat ads did for John Kerry. Or, it would be notable if it derailed his attempt to get the nomination for the Democratic Party. Simply put, this article is notable enough to be in the Barack Obama article, but not notable enough to be its own article. Just because it's a national news story on occasion does not make it noteworthy for an encyclopedia. It feels a bit like recent to me. --Son (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a subject satisfies WP:N (multiple non-trivial coverage in RS) the criteria for existing as a separate article is "enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry".WP:SS Andyvphil (talk) 15:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is an exclusive guideline, not an inclusive one. All crows are black ... - Revolving Bugbear 22:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Indeed, not everything that gets three mentions in the press is a suitable subject for a WP article. But "non-notability" has indeed been advanced as a reason for deleting this article. Do you agree? Andyvphil (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree that non-notability has been advanced as an argument. Perhaps what I should have said was that fulfilling some of the notability requirements does not necessarily merit inclusion. My mind isn't made up about this article. - Revolving Bugbear 00:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant content forking, and per Hailfire. EJF (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I must admit that I started the article, under the name "Barack Obama Muslim rumor". I intended it to be a place where people who had questions about rumors they had heard about Senator Obama's background could find reliable information, on both the facts and the rumors themselves. I think this is still a legitimate reason and I hope the article has been useful. I can't exactly say that it is "encyclopedic" enough for WP however. Redddogg (talk) 16:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well you are at least honest - though I can't see at all why you still want to keep it! Just in case new information appears? Do you really think your reason for creating it (let alone keeping it) is 'legitimate'? And in what way can any forum-style 'usefulness' actually outweigh the coatrack negatives of propagating and maintaining mud? Why couldn’t/can't you keep to a discussion on the relevant talk page? (like everyone else on WP has to). If this is now about a political forum, is it OK for me to ask you your politics? --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...and why isn't having a place people can come for reliable information on a current event "'encyclopedic' enough" in an encyclopedia which covers current events? Andyvphil (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Point 5 of WP:NOT#INFO looks relevant to that point. Also take a look at Wikipedia:Recentism. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Point 5 of WP:NOT#INFO: "... Routine news coverage and matters lacking encyclopedic substance, such as announcements, sports, gossip, and tabloid journalism, are not sufficient basis for an article. News outlets are reliable secondary sources when they practice competent journalistic reporting, however, and topics in the news may also be encyclopedic subjects when the sources are substantial." There are a substantial quantity of non-tabloid sources for this topic. Look at the ref list.
Wikipedia:Recentism: "Recentism is not by itself an argument for article deletion — lack of attributability and notability are..." You may also want to consider the section "Benefits of recentist articles" particularly, "if we don't make sense of it today, someone else will struggle to make sense of it tomorrow."Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Since Matt asked about my politics... I consider myself a progressive and think Obama might be a good president. I wouldn't start any false rumors about Senator Clinton however.... And for Andy.... there are still some people who are interested in getting accurate information on the things being said about Obama. Redddogg (talk) 03:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thanks for answering the one rhetorical question. To me, that says quite a lot. 'still some people' says a lot too. People who can't trust the public's judgement often break the rules to deliver them The Truth. As for your Obama support, it's actually irrelevant to all the criticisms, including coatrack - though having looked through the consistently crummy history of the article, I just can't quite go for it, sorry. --Matt Lewis (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's no more a " media controversy" about him than the other candidates. The main articles are sufficient for each of them. DGG (talk) 06:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SS:"...if one subtopic has much more text than another subtopic, that may be an indication that that subtopic should have its own page, with only a summary presented on the main page." The existance of a "main" (i.e., sub-) article need not be a measure of relative importance -- it's primarily a measure of the degree to which a topic has been developed. Rolling this content back into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 will immediately result in a situation where spinning it off into a separate article is what "summary style" calls for. Andyvphil (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Without trying to hog space, here’s some more direct links that can be added to the above mentioned Wikipedia is not a... News report and Recentism, which I think are relevant to this whole issue (with their related aspect explained);

- On the article;

  • NPOV fork – Covers how side articles should not be created to cover information that cannot find consensus in the main article.
  • Coatrack - Covers how side issues should not be used to camouflage any biased reasons for a side article’s existence (or continual existence).
  • Let the facts speak for themselves - Advises against over-description of facts that are already simple, well-covered and conclusive.
  • Neutrality and Verifiability - Shows how an abundance of passable citations cannot negate certain neutrality issues.
  • Notability is not temporary - Shows how past importance and/or the possibility of future importance does not amount to Notability.

- On AfD discussion;

  • Assume Good Faith (inc essays) – How it shows ‘bad faith’ to negatively read (or misread) semantic, imperfect, miswritten or unclear details in someone’s comment - when it is reasonable to assume a positive meaning. Also - paranoia, and grouping people together.
Under Gaming the system;
(which lists how people can use various policies to actually force through their own bias)
  • Refusal to 'get the point' - ‘Bad faith’ editors who ignore disproven points, repeating their chosen tacks.
  • Playing policies against each other – Being addressed over a specific policy breach, and retorting with other policy.
  • Wikilawyering - Putting letter before spirit of law, carefully misinterpreting policy, and using formal terms inappropriately.
  • Stonewalling – Using gaming tactics to block or hold back something from occurring (consensus, a point being understood, a resolution, an event etc).
A few are subsets to others (like NPOV), but I found these to be of more value when finding and reading them in isolation.--Matt Lewis (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFORK: "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." See Redddog's comment, above. WP:SS:"Sections of long articles should be spun off into their own articles leaving a summary in its place... When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own entry, that text can be summarized from the present entry and a link is provided to the more detailed article." "Refusal to 'get the point' - ‘Bad faith’ editors who ignore disproven points(sic), repeating their chosen tacks." The idea that this article is a POV fork is an utterly disproven point -- it has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no difference in POV between it and the parent article. "In some cases, bad-faith editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end,..." E.g., "POV fork". Andyvphil (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The negative POV is in over-exposing the mud - you ignored that point every time it's been made. No one has once suggested the article directly claims Obama is a Muslim - yet you constantly return to that.
The article has NO INTRINSIC balance - as mud is just conjecture that has a tendency to stick - especially when perpetually 'in the air'. It is impossible to give a weighted balance when conjecture (is he a muslim?) is the whole issue. The Insight story belongs in Insight - and Obama when he was a kid was a minor - so Obama being a 'liar' is no story either. These two are coats in the coatrack - they cannot sustain articles themselves. It all falls down.
Lack of Notability IMO has been absolutely proven - this collection of stories clearly do not warrant a dedicated page above the sections they already have in the main articles. Just because Obama's big himself, doesn't mean the 'Muslim story' has to be made a high profile, highly-linked side article. It especially can't be kept as one. 'Wikipedia is not a tabloid newspaper' (which is mentioned somewhere in 'What Wikipedia is not') - suggests that WP should avoid keeping sensational stories front page news - focusing on sensation over notability. Some people want that little picture of Obama and the word 'Muslim' in the corner of every front page. It's just keeping the mud in the air. So POVfork (as the story is perfectly happy elsewhere). --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this obscure article "over exposes" the issue is such patent nonsense that I have indeed ignored it. Presumably Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 gets more readership than the child article, and if the summary there is replaced by this content it may get more readers, not less. The problem then will be that its length will justify, according to the MOS guideline WP:Summary Style, spinning it off into a separate article. If that development has been arbitrarily blocked by an admin who closes this AfD as "Delete" because he's counted noses rather than weighed arguments, the alternative is to delete well-cited relevant material to fit the Procrustian bed of the space that can be allotted to it if the other elements of the subject are not to appear undeveloped. Setting up this unnecessary conflict between WP:WEIGHT and the retention of well-cited NPOV content is a prescription for an edit war.
Thus, the idea that "the story is perfectly happy elsewhere" is false and contrary to guideline, and anyway "So POVfork" doesn't remotely follow. Just as you haven't been able to point to anything in the actual essay to indicate that this article fits WP:COATRACK, you haven't been able to answer my proofs that this article doesn't fit the definition of WP:POVFORK. The problem is that you don't like the subject (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). And your statement "The article has NO INTRINSIC balance" is nothing more than a rejection of NPOV as an alternative to censorship. It hasn't escaped my attention that nowhere on this now long page has anyone pointed to any content of the article that is not written from the NPOV. I cannot deny that a host of editors have turned up who seem perfectly comfortable using "I don't like it" as their guideline, and closing admins rarely resist nosecount. So you may get your way. It won't reflect well on Wikipedia if you do. Andyvphil (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You keep misrepresenting what I write. If anyone just reads your comments, they might think me (and my argument) foolish!
In actual fact, I wrote 'POV fork' here clearly to describe my 'mud will stick' argument - I have always connected the two. You are one of the biggest abusers of Assume Good Faith (in this case my clear meaning) I have come across on Wikipedia! When I repeat my arguments to answer your claims that I have 'yet to say anything', you ignore them, misrepresent me, and say I have 'yet to say anything'.
Regarding your arguments behind calling the over-exposure argument 'patent nonsense': Obviously, Obama's main articles would always get more readers than this article – but equality in the ascribed importance is the issue here. Both articles get lots of readers. When properly merged, fair coverage will exist next to all similarly important issues. It will no longer be unfairly elevated and prone to coatrack exploitation. If a complete merge proves difficult due to consensus – tough luck. You’ll have to work towards consensus like everyone else - rather than have it conveniently ‘built into’ the article subject. Lack of consensus in one article cannot be a reason for making, or keeping, another (see ‘NPOV fork’ link above). It has even been admitted that this was the reason for this articles creation! The article's creator, Redddogg, ignored consensus on coverage, and went with his POV on importance - creating a 'news style' article on the subject (Redddoggs first edit). If you read the Talk on it you will see comments were made for and against inclusion, and Redddogg declared he would create a new article as nothing was on the campaign page either - which he promptly did. That is clearly avoiding consensus. Since then it has been covered on the campaign page. How is this not a POV fork? Speculation of a 'rumour campaign' was Recent and Redddogg clearly got over-excited and made his page. Within half an hour he went on to fill detail into the Obama and Insight articles. Creating the new article was almost a childish 'first in' thing to do, as it wasn't at the time needed at all - Wikipedia had all the provisions for debate in place. It then developed into a 'bolthole' from inclusion-debate and consensus.
You are surely wrong to suggest that any new attempts for the article will be blocked once a ‘delete’ decision is made. If genuine consensus for it is found, it surely only has to survive any ensuing call for deletion. (I’m not 100% you did mean that, by the way – I found that part of your above comment confusing).
It was rather ‘bad faith’ of you to suggest deletion here could lead to an edit war. The conflict between ‘weight’ and ‘retention’ you describe is actually a decent description of Wikipedia! Why call it ‘unnecessary’ and a ‘prescription for an edit war ’? Each man or woman standing askance will simply have to accept the necessity of some form of ‘consensus’ eventually. One locked page I’ve seen aside, can I ask you if you fundamentally agree with that?
My interest here is actually less about the subject (which I'm entitled to care about, by the way) than the legalities I have kept arguing - so I deny IDONTLIKEIT - and you should resist on making your 'bad faith' assumptions. It’s hardly wise to pre-judge admins either.
There is a wider importance for me, however - I am interested in better guidelines, and specifically improving or expanding coatrack. I want an improved Wikipedia that isn't so easily exploited. The length of time this article has existed (over 3 months now) I personally think is an embarrassment. There are countless 'stories' that could be treated like this, but Wikipedia would surely become unmanageable with so many side articles for people to monitor. Decent editors would simply abandon WP to the lawless if this article became a benchmark which others took up and followed.
So the result of this AfD is specifically important to me. I spend a lot of my time here, and have various plans to spend more of my time, and I naturally need to see AfD's like this representing sense - as Wikipedia is a place where the day to day rules are kept to the minimum. My main worry (and reason for my persistence) is that the three months this article has now existed could play a part in keeping it up. --Matt Lewis (talk) 05:24, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - blatant content forking. Brimba (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CFORK:"A content fork is usually an unintentional creation of several separate articles all treating the same subject." There is no other article on this subject. Like many contributors to this vote it seems you like the names of policies and guidelines and essays better than their actual content. Andyvphil (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Distill and merge - This article exists primarily to support/promote an agenda: "awareness" of these controversies (something Andyvphil's comments about its "importance" confirms). The argument that the subject has outgrown its parent article says more about its overcoverage than its objective notability. (Aside to Andyvphil: Yelling at people for failing to explain their "votes" is about as constructive as what they just did. Give it a rest, please.) - JasonAQuest (talk) 01:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as between Obama and Clinton, I don't have a dog in that fight. My observation that the subject is of great practical importance because questions about Obama's electability due to race and Muslim name, etc. - supported by his having apparently experienced the Bradley Effect on his poll results - is simply that, an observation designed to counter assertions that the subject is non-notable. How it supports your mistaken idea that my interest in this subject lies in promoting awareness of the "controversy" is a mystery. I'm much more interested in it as a case study in the repeated unreliability of what Wikipedia calls "reliable sources", which have repeatedly accepted or promoted falsehoods and failed to ask the obvious, clarifying, question. Andyvphil (talk) 15:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no evidence that there is any special "media controversy." The basic facts about the rumors, which was mentioned as the reason for this article in the first place, are covered in a section on Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's "covered" there, in summary style. The content of every calfed-off article must be "covered" in its parent article to comply with WP:SS and WP:CFORK. The effects of Obama's Muslim name, heritage and experience is the subject of much more coverage than is mentioned in the article's extensive ref list, so your argument is reduced to saying the child article should be deleted because the parent complies with policy. Ridiculous. Andyvphil (talk) 00:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Mr.Z-man 06:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Green (TV host)[edit]

Bill Green (TV host) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Afternoon daytime television presenter on a home shopping channel doesn't seem to be notable enough for Wikipedia to me. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete until sources show that he meets WP:BIO Secret account 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Sadly I think it is, some people out there do watch home shopping channels. Although his name is ambiguous and probably shared by many, Google turns up over 16,000,000 results for this person. ― LADY GALAXY 01:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 02:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Gerard[edit]

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

Seems to have little notability. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 15:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I don't really think he's notable... Jonathan 00:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unable to ascertain what awards he has won as asserted in the article. A search for his name in conjunction with either of the short stories which form the major basis for the notability claim turn up no significant results. -- Whpq (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the article is deleted it should probably be replaced with a re-direct to Steven Gerrard as a fairly plausible mis-spelling...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect per nom and Chris. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_January_20&oldid=1116879912"