Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You Me At Six[edit]

No external sources. Singles apparently privately released. Fail notability test of WP:MUSIC. Multiple speedies under this article's belt, so let's put it down for good with an AFD. Kww (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~A7 and salt. No assertation of notability, no reliable sources. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete No significant third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tag deleted. It asserts importance (toured with Paramore, etc.), so it isn't A7 material. Unfortunately, notability issues can't properly be speedied.
Kww (talk) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:MUSIC in every way. dont see why A7 doesnt apply here, it's pretty much what it's for. --neon white talk 00:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable failing multiple criteria. Also I'm not sure why it isn't A7able as it doesn't assert their notability anywhere that I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment Many of you need to reread A7. It reads

An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable.

A reasonable indication of why it might be notable is a pretty weak standard, and asserting that the band has toured with notable bands crosses it. Being a lower standard than notability is quite intentional, and Fails WP:MUSIC is never a reason for an A7.
Kww (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose my problem is with what "touring with" means. Does it mean supported or opened for the other band or just that they played at some of the same places? In my opinion the first would be an assertion of notability but, the second isn't. If it's an ambiguous claim an attempt should be made by the includer of said information to provide a credible reference. The attempt itself should be what makes it a proper assertion, otherwise we can create any old rubbish we want as long as we put the right phrase in (which again in my opinion sort of defeats the purpose of the criteria... letter of the "law" vs. spirit of the "law" I suppose. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like it if A7 was looser. I used to do new pages patrol, and got a lot of nasty comments from admins for applying A7 the way you would like to, so now I'm pretty cautious. So far as I'm concerned, "has the word untitled in the title" should be a speedy criterion.
Kww (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindu Mayan Connection[edit]

Original research, no discernible theme at this time. TrulyBlue (talk) 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per WP:OR--S_RX 22:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even having to sort with through the writing style, it's kind of interesting, but not written in an encyclopedic tone. This is a certain delete, mostly because it's "original synthesis" based on things that one ancient culture seems to have in common with the other; some similar sounding words, some similar symbols, some structures in India that resemble some in Yucatan. I encourage User:Pavn123 to keep examining the topic, learn how to do cites with the system of "<re f>" and "<re f/>", and how to make redlinks and bluelinks. I've heard such theories before, although they usually rely on some observed coincidences. A perfect example is "atl" as the Aztec word for "water", sounding very similar to "aqua" in Latin. If the article gets deleted, Pavn123, don't take it personally. Save it to your computer, keep contributing. Mandsford (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's an interesting topic that has been written about, and articles on the relevant books with summaries of their theories would possibly make the grade. However, as it stands this article seems to me to be a way ofor someone to publish their own research. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be original research. Edward321 (talk) 01:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete although a possibly viable encyclopedic topic this article fails our criteria for inclusion through WP:OR and WP:SYN and probably a couple of others I haven't learned yet. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and my reasons are completely different. Any article that cites (or cites a website that has this theory as a serious and valid theory) (In this case [www.hinduwisdom.info]) the origin of Taj Mahal as a Hindu temple is bunkum. Why? A revisionist named PN Oak wrote an alternate history of India, where he denies Muslim (or any other outside) contribution to India and claims that Indians (more specifically Hindus) did most of the major achievements of the world. Don't take my word for it. Just demand more rigor and ask for more scholarly work to be cited. I think I have ranted enough for today Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks nothing more than original research. Lehoiberri (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion as copyvio. This article was cobbled together from plagiarised bits and pieces from start to finish. You could take almost any random phrase from the article and google it and they were all ripped out of the same three or four documents on the web. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proof positive of the adage that "the debate is not a vote"! Mandsford (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Korean war crimes[edit]

Seriously NPOV violating article based on the creator's political agenda and biased informations. Many of the contents in the article have nothing to do with the main topic: war crimes by Koreans. (ex: recent crimes) So in the last section, Koreans still fight in Korean war????? Besides, the creator blindly referred to his preferred version of the article and refused to discuss the main subject with people at talk. Lack of inline sources make other editors unable to confirm the contents. The title is also misleading that the war crimes occurred in Korean war. Caspian blue (talk) 22:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also found that bogus inline sources on the President Park as below. I think there will be more such things. [1][2]

This is example of how the creator illustrates the topic. Colonial intellectuals who witnessed the stunning successes of the Japanese military in the Asian mainland sought a role for themselves within the rapidly emerging New Order in East Asia (Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere), Japan hoped to integrate Korea into Japan, in terms of infrastructure and bureaucracy.

No apology section is also false. Kim Dae-jung officially apologized, but the creator distorts the info. I don't see what the recent "war crime" is. The section is also false and unrelated info. Political propaganda does not meet to our policy. "Wikpedia is Encyclopedia".

Keep - "The article is POV" is not a reason to delete. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 22:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the article in question? The current article hold only several in-line sources which turns out bogus sources (dead link/ no mention of the illustrated info) and a lot of unrelated information. --Caspian blue (talk) 22:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - POV violations is not a criteria for deletion. This article just needs rewording and more sourcing, the user should have tried to fixed the article before nominating it for XfD.--S_RX 22:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "The article is POV" is not a reason to delete. Please be specific in your accusations of bogus sources (all links to lead to a website and do support the article). Nature of POV is still being discussed (not everybody is on wikipedia 24/7 and can respond to your comments immediately). Article is also being referenced as we speak.

It is also a fairly common fact that Park Chung-hee did serve in the Japanese army. Maybe you are confused with the controversy over whether he specifically served in the Gando Special Force unit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.120.161.137 (talk) 22:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why verifiablity is a burden of editors. You inserted at least two bogus inline-citations. That is shameful conduct of your own part. --Caspian blue (talk)

I added your 'bogus inline sources. One is non-exist link, the other does not say about President Park and other military people. So I highly doubt that the article is even written by sticking to sources. Besides, Logitech95, just log in. Anonymous IP user is not generally counted as a !voters.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and speedy close. NPOV and lack of inline citations are cleanup issues, not a reasons for deletion, and I do not share the nominator's opinion that the article title is misleading (which in any case is something that should be discussed at WP:RM, not here). An RFU was opened on the article talk page little more than twelve hours ago, where the article creator has not only responded but indicated a willingness to add the necessary citations. Despite all these claims of bias and POV, I do not see any supporting evidence being provided. This is basically a content dispute, and AfD isn't the venue for such a discussion. PC78 (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The creator refused to discuss the concern, and blindly reverted, so I open a discussion here. Any controversial articles need more care and source, but the creator did not. Instead, his making personal attacks to opponents are a big no-no. That article holds a lot of unrelated information and falsificaton, so I nominated it.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, unless article is not confirmed, it is viewed as WP:original research. The first of No Apology section is in the criteria.--Caspian blue (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good friend100's first edits were to remove complete sections of the article, calling them "bullshit" and "completely nuts". Your first comment on the talk page was to say that you would bring the article here. That's not the best way to start a discussion, yet the creator still said that he would "take a look at the article later". As far as I can see, he has not refused to discuss anything, whereas some of your comments on the talk page are downright hostile. The article lists a number of sources and inline citations are now being added. You say the article is untrue, but where is your evidence? PC78 (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're wikilawyering based on a skewed ground. He made several insulting comments against me first. He continued such behaviors on other articles unlike his implying that he has not enough time to discuss. ?Therefore, his saying "talk later" is nothing but a gesture to avoid the dispute. He made hostile personal attacks, so I could not be kind. I have not say that the entire article is untrue. may untrue because the mentioned being added citations are even bogus. You seem to only look at what you want to see. So where is evidence that the article is written by really sticking sources except the spurious list of sources. I don't think you're neutral in light of our last dispute. --Caspian blue (talk)
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs editing, not erasure. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep artilce has major issues but that's not a reason to delete. --neon white talk 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because there is nothing to write about. half of these are attempts by south korean government to purge communists (as they were supposed to), and the other half were done during korean war & vietnam war because that's how they are supposed to be fought. i don't see any "war crimes" section in korean war article or vietnam war article. simply, many of these "atrocities" are not recognized by the international community as war crimes. the article even shows image of "american gi shot in the back" by a communist during korean war as a war crime - so you can see how ridiculous the article is. so, my main reason to delete this article is that the topic is insignificant. there is virtually no "war crime" committed by korean nationals in the last 3,000 years & if there was just one, it's not enough to make an article. also, many of these "atrocities" are already written in korea-related articles anyways. (i.e. gwangju massacre) (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Keep, but... ....damn, what a mess! Yes, it's a good topic for an encyclopedia, but I can see a lot of problems with this article. There's this childish edit war going on, with one person adding something in, and then someone else taking it out -- we've all seen that before, where someone jealously guards an article like it was their teddy bear. Then there are the facts that are added in with no sourcing at all-- a stat on how many Koreans were in the Japanese army, the U.S. controlling the Kwangju massacre, Korean prison guards notoriously brutal, 148 war criminals, a brainwashing czar, a massacre at Suwon, the No Gun Ri massacre... and that's just this week. What I like least, however, is the "yellow peril" tone of the article, which, I think, implies that Korean people are more eager to kill one another than "normal". I think that any of the folks who argue that this article's problems can be cleaned up will find it to be the Augean stables. What's the solution? First, stop the editing war. Nobody's winning. Whatever one side has deleted still exists in the history. Then, put a freeze on changes to this article, and let the two rival groups make user space versions of what they think is the ideal article about Korean war crimes. Eventually, perhaps, then I think something can be created from create something from the two articles that truly is non-POV and well-sourced. Good luck. Mandsford (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you tell us we should stop "childish" edit warring. So we stop. Then what? See history - this is sock/meat puppets vs. 5 to 6 Wikipedians. The consensus already is that most of the article is fabrication or misrepresentation. The consensus is that those be removed. And I guarantee that when all of the fabrication & misrepresentation are removed, there will be not much left for the article. Why? because there is no such issue or topic called "Korean war crimes". This is something completely new and ridiculous. Then, the topic is insignificant; therefore, the article would eventually have to be deleted. I recommend that you follow the discussion page. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

For example, the article lists massacres committed during Korean War - but American & UN troops committed them as well. How are they specifically "Korean"? Also, the deal with the Korean prison guards is completely ludicrous. Fine, they committed them, but how can anyone link actions made by individuals working for a foreign government to nationality or government of their origin? How are human rights violations committed by dictator governments war crimes when they were not during a war? (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Rename and refocus. The current article is a hodge-podge of disparate and unrelated events, taken out of context. The subject matter of war crimes during the Korean War, Korean participation in the Kwantung Army, prison camps in North Korea, etc., are all encyclopedic and should be fairly described. However, the reason they have been assembled into a single article here is clearly to advance the thesis that Koreans are especially predisposed to brutality or war crimes. This is a commonly repeated theme of Korean-bashing in some Japanese nationalist circles, and it's really the only reason to have an article devoted to war crimes committed by members of a particular ethnic group. On the other hand, War crimes in the Korean War is a perfectly good topic for an article. Other parts of the current article, where well-sourced and balanced, could be put to good use by merging elsewhere and perhaps creating a few new articles. --Amble (talk) 03:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Also, attempts to purge communists are human rights violations, not war crimes. (Ferromagneticmonopole (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. I am the original author of the topic. I consider my vote superfluous but I would like to clarify one issue that various editors have attempted to remove content.

The intent behind the topic is not to propose a topic of 'Korean War' crimes.

It is to document, in their full scope, the nature and context for, and popular and academic reactions to, 'Korean war crimes'.

I fully expect, in time, for various new sections to develop sufficiently for their own topics, e.g. the Korean crimes in Vietnam and as a new topic. I accept that it will take sometime to settle down within the Wikipedia. However, the topic is clearly documented by the academic sources including those given precisely as per the topic title.

To exclude Korea and the various Korean leaderships from the roster of atrocities committed against humanity and regional patterns would be naive. Please note that I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones.

All though I fear this these points are too subtle for some contributors, I hope this makes matters clearer for others and encourages cooperation and have gone into greater depth about this POV on the talk page. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not decided by !vote count. Closing admins reviews each argument and finally makes a decision. I don't understand what you try to say by this:"I have stated on the discussion page my POV on the talk page which if I am to be accused of one is a feminist critique of all violent masculinist cultures and not as a critic of a mythical "Korea". Where ever possible I have depended on Korean and American authors with the omission of any Japanese ones."--Caspian blue (talk)

Keep for now but clean-up and rename to something with a less POV name such as War Crimes committed by Koreans or similar, especially as it covers crimes committed by ethnic Koreans when Korea was part of the Japanese empire. The article is a total mess, and seems to be subject to a edit war, but it might be possible to turn it into something worthwhile. Alternetly, deletion may eventually be warranted, but only after dispute resolution is seriously tried - the RfC which was started yesterday should have been allowed to run, and it would help if the edit-warring editors took a step back and waited for comments. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well,3RR report here, one of the two main users violated 3RR (actually reverted 9 times) Besides, they resort to personal attacks as well as refusing to regard to consensus. In this situation, editors can not participate in anything. They insist that others just accept their point of view. Generally disputed contents are taken out or not added before discussion, and they're claiming that even bogus citations are reserved. If you have a time, please look at the 3RR report.--Caspian blue (talk) 06:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not a solution to a good article which is POV. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is a good solution to bad article with POV. I don't really understand your rationale and standard for a good article. A article with POV could not even be a good article because it violates NPOV policy. GA criteria clearly mentions about this. If your referred "a good article" is "the article in question", the article filled with bunch of unrelated subjects are not even near to a good article. --Caspian blue (talk) 11:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swimming with dolphins[edit]

Not really an encyclopedic topic, and written as a personal essay. It's been copied over to the relevant wiki-sister project, and isn't really appropriate content to stay here Ironho lds 22:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom.--S_RX 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against re-creation. There is a potential for an article I think, but this ain't it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator hit it on the snout. Which reminds me, we need an article about "The Porpoise Song." Ecoleetage (talk) 00:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Ten Pound Hammer that this could ultimately be an article, but this one is not redeemable in terms of something encyclopedic. Montco (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - How is not a suitable topic for an encyclopedia? It certainly exists as a tourism activity and has been covered both from the angle of entertainment, as well as animal welfare. the current article could use some copyeditting, but it does not read like a personal essay, and the content is generally suitable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see a personal essay here, just a newbie's decent attempt to start an article. The article needs a copyedit and inline citations would b*e nice, but the article is verifiable and notable. I'll try to fix it up a bit. Bláthnaid 20:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep major recreational/tourism activity, and somewhat controversial as well. DGG (talk) 02:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per significant improvement compared with the version that was AfD'd. Encyclopedic topic. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This could be a good opportunity to get a real good content about dolphins activities, and make it interesting too if it is related with researching and scientific facts too. Like other pages I’ve found about others activities, for example: Surfing or Scuba diving. . --Lex acosta (talk) 14:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Luckily AfD's aren't judged by vote; yours is suspicious at best, a new editor who's only contributions have been immediately jumping to this article and this AfD. Something smells socky. Ironho lds 00:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Something smells of a breach of policy on assuming good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a notable topic that has appeared frequently in the media, above and beyond the sources provided in the article. Penn & Teller did a Showtime episode on the phenomenon. Alansohn (talk) 06:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An article with plenty of encyclopedic content on a subject for which there are plenty of sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As a suggestion there is an entire field of therapy that specializes in ... swimming with dolphins. A section n that would certainly help the article's inclusion. Banjeboi 01:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tomislav Pavlov[edit]

Contested PROD, non-notable youth footballer born in 1991, with no first team appearances ever as of today, easily fails WP:ATHLETE. Angelo (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Angelo (talk) 22:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to assert notability under WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN as he seems to have had no appearances yet. -- Alexf⁴² 22:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails notability and fails WP:ATHLETE.--S_RX 22:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If and when he makes a senior team appearance, he can get an article. Until then, he doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE, and my google research indicates he doesn't pass any other part of WP:BIO either. Vickser (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Youth caps do not confer notability either. --Jimbo^[online] 23:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this guy scored an amazing goal for my Championship relegation battling MK Dons side in FM08. :-) ugen64 (talk) 19:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Definite keep in that case. Oh no, hang on a minute, I meant delete (for failure to meet WP:ATHLETE, WP:FOOTY and WP:BIO) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you took my comment (yeah, not even a vote) a little bit too seriously... ugen64 (talk) 20:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just a feeble attempt at a joke on my part which apparently didn't work......... :-P -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 21:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment unless notability is established the article should be deleted.Extuwandi (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep; the nomination is disruptive and the book undisputedly notable-even free newspapers in the UK are reviewing it. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America[edit]

I decided this book fails Homotlfqa83 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "deciding the book fails" is not a criteria for deletion. The article has many outside references in a conducted engine search, meets notability guidelines, plus, no reason presented by nom for deletion.--S_RX 22:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability requirements. Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Easily meets notability requirements. Possibly disruptive nomination. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Query why do you think that this AFD is possibly disruptive? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Posts like this make me question the nominator's motivations. JuJube (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable book. ~~won awards~~ Won an award, which isn't too notable. Received major coverage. Reviews in NYT review of books, etc. Protonk (talk) 23:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That article could do better to illustrate the notability of the subject, so I can see where the nomination might come from. I don't feel it is a disruptive nom. Protonk (talk) 23:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I decided you fail. Keep JuJube (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that AfD nominator is also the article's creator. A completely bad faith nom. If I wasn't assuming good faith, I would think that User:JeanLatore (AKA banned user User:Wiki brah) had returned.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as moot. Title is now a redirect, and nobody seems to be arguing here for the deletion of the page to which it has been redirected. Redirects for discussion are discussed somewhere else. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of Delayed Proclivity[edit]

Unverifiable, unreferenced potential neologism. Possibly WP:MADEUP. CultureDrone (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this phenomenon has a name, but this assuredly isn't it. Definitely WP:MADEUP. AnturiaethwrTalk 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep the article (or merge, if there's an appropriate target somewhere), but delete this redirect per my response to Colonel Warden. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N, WP:REF, WP:V, WP:RS, and it seems like a hoax.--S_RX 22:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article describes a notable phenomenon. The article should be improved rather than deleted and I have made a start on this in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right... that's no longer the article it was, not even the name. My original !vote now only applies to the redirect Theory of Delayed Proclivity, which doesn't make sense as a name for this phenomenon. I'd be quite surprised, however, if this weren't a merge candidate, say to Sense of time; of course, that's not a matter for AfD. AnturiaethwrTalk 12:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Shereth 21:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tami Erin[edit]

Actress, but doesn't appear to meet the requirements for WP:N. rootology (T) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-fails WP:N, WP:ACTOR, WP:BIO, and per this, she hasn't done that much work.--S_RX 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - subject meets the primary criteria for notability with coverage of her in mainstream press such as the Washington Post as shown by a Google news search. The actor is also plays the title character for Pippi Longstocking, and the performance was bad enough to be honoured with a Razzie nomination for Worst New Star. -- Whpq (talk) 16:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:N, WP:V, as noted by Whpq; also, per appearances on major national TV shows Good Morning America, The Today Show, and Entertainment Tonight. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SRX. I'm only seeing one reference and being bad enough to merit only a nomination from a barely notable award doesn't qualify this subject for an article. You said it Dad (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, in agreement with Whpq. Erin played a key role in a full feature film and was nominated for a notable award for her role in the movie. Fanficgurl 9:13 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Keep, per Jack-a-Roe. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Razzie nomination is not an obscure or barely-notable thing, it's actually quite important. Enough that we shouldn't be in a rush to delete: the topic is reasonable. Here is a Google News Archive search, with many sources that can be used: [3] Mango juice^talk 18:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Roberts (businessman)[edit]

This is a more elaborate hoax than most - credit to HagenUK for spotting it and doing most of the research to demolish it. A quite pretty but markedly uninformative website has been set up for "Roberts Investments Group", which doesn't give an address or even a telephone number. There are also even less informative web-sites for "Chateau Le Mont", the "Howard Art Gallery" of New York, and something called "Call for Change". None of these gives a telephone number - all invite contact by email only.

When we try to make any independent checks, we get nowhere. Andrew Roberts is claimed to be #184 on the Sunday Times rich list, but a search for "Roberts" doesn't find him. The links provided to Time and Forbes don't take you to any mention of him. A search of the London telephone directory does not find the Group. A Google search for "Roberts Investments Group" finds a couple of others - a real estate broker in Norcross, GA and another in Cedar Hill, TX whose CEO is Tim Roberts - plus some blog-type mentions, but no independent reliable source.

The sole author Fuzzybuddy (talk · contribs) has some earlier contributions, but has worked on nothing but this since May. I can't imagine why anyone would go to all this trouble, but the failure of the rich-list check and the absence of any independent confirmation leave me quite clear - it's a hoax. For what it's worth, an article called "Stefan Roberts" was deleted in 2005 as "self-admitted hoax". Delete all. JohnCD (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - appears to be an elaborate hoax. PhilKnight (talk) 23:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Not verifiable (WP:V and self published sources). blue520 23:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm having problems verifying as well. I'm 99.9% sure at this point that the nominator's right and that it's a hoax. On the off chance it's actually not, at some point we'll get a reliable source and can recreate the article. In the mean time, having a false article is far more damaging to WP than the the .1% chance that it's actually true. Vickser (talk) 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all 3 per the above, with a tip of the hat to User:JohnCD and user:HagenUK for sorting them all out. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Author has removed ~~AfD~~ prod and hoax tags from all 3 articles. JuJube (talk) 01:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All as hoax. Also recommend Salt as they may be an investment hoax. Edward321 (talk) 01:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And especially since it appears that two of the articles have been deleted four times before, see:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Martin Roberts, 1st Earl Roberts

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan Roberts (second nomination)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stefan David Andrew Roberts, Viscount St Pierre

UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 and salt. Complying with the policy of identifying oneself as involved, I am the contributor who spotted the hoax and did the research. Many thanks to JohnCD (talk) to bring this to AFD. The Wikipedia AFD is a bit daunting ;-) HagenUK (talk) 05:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that some information in these articles is unverifiable. I see how it is therefore wrong to keep these articles in place. I would, therefore, move for deletion as a point of making sure everything on Wikipedia is as correct as possible, to comply with WP:V. It is all correct (except for the Sunday Times stuff, which I am in the process of investigating as I type) but I can't prove it, so I move for deletion. Fuzzybuddy (talk) 14:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: If you want a laugh, take a look at this page from the Roberts Investments Group web-site, about a day in the life of a typical employee. The main features seem to be that RIG pays for his Starbucks, and that by shaving 15 minutes off his lunch hour he gets to go home at 5:15. If only I had known life in a hedge fund was so relaxed...

Looking at the previous AfDs listed above, it occurs to me that it's a sign of the times that the Roberts family fantasies have moved on from being old-style Debrett aristocracy to being new-style hedge-fund-billionaire aristocracy. JohnCD (talk) 15:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- This must be your lucky day, JohnCD (talk)!!! Roberts Investments Group has a vacancy for a Research Market Analyst. You can even apply online! Wish my global financial company would pay that much ... let along the free Starbucks coffee ;-) HagenUK (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curses! Too late! The page before that says "applications welcome until 30th June" JohnCD (talk) 19:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. If you want to work for Andrew Roberts (businessman) you can always get a job at Howards Art Gallery or Chateu Le Mont ;-) HagenUK (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment - if anyone doubts that the Roberts family would go to the trouble of setting up fake web-sites to back their claims, it's apparent from this conversation that last year they prepared a fake version of the London Gazette site to back up the claim that Andrew had been created Earl Roberts and Stefan was Viscount St Pierre. Unfortunately the link no longer works - they evidently didn't keep up the payments to the web host. user:mduparte said she was "private secretary to the Earl Roberts", but hasn't been heard from since. I wonder what they will think of next - I can hardly wait. JohnCD (talk) 10:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase “I don’t know what their problem is, but is must be hard to pronounce” comes to mind. I think I will patrol Roberts-related entries a lot in future. Maybe he/they do not get the difference between creating a one-off-joke (which can be funny) and being a ongoing nuisance =8-[[ HagenUK (talk) 11:32, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Association of Whistleblowers[edit]

Article does not establish the notability of the organization, instead giving lengthy descriptions of individual whistleblowers and the concept of whistleblowing. The association is not mentioned in the reliable news accounts of Whistleblower week, only in a publication called "Op-Ed News" and the rightist "WorldNetDaily". The author of the Op-Ed News articles is James Murtagh, who is also the creator of this article. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the article is just a bunch of small, unsourced biographies rather than an article about the association. Either delete, or stubbify. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--S_RX 22:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article is long on text and short on sources. The two sources in the article are about whistleblowers and don't mention the organisation. A search for reliable sources don't turn up any. -- Whpq (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acropolis (band)[edit]

This is a group which has never been signed to a record label, nor actually has done anything of note. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom.--S_RX 22:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Ecoleetage (talk) 23:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alchemy Systems[edit]

A speedy delete nomination on this COI-troubled article was knocked aside. Nonetheless, it fails the WP:CORP requirements. The three referenced sources do not, I believe, meet the definition of "reliable, independent secondary sources." Nomination withdrawn As the article has been radically overhauled (including the removal of all blatant promotions), it passes notability requirements. I am withdrawing the nomination, and I would like to thank Eastmain and Protonk for their work in whipping this article into proper shape. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Let's look at the referenced sources. There is no Wikipedia article on the Victoria Advocate, but the newspaper describes itself as "162 years old, Texas' second oldest newspaper, with a daily circulation of 33,082 and Sunday circulation of 34,220. Our daily readership is 70,399 and Sunday is 84,763." See here As for the National Provisioner at http://www.provisioneronline.com/ , it describes itself as "The bible to the meat and poultry industry" and "#1 in circulation to meat and poultry processors (25,078 in total receivership). http://www.provisioneronline.com/HTML/BNP_GUID_9-5-2006_A_10000000000000262861 (Recall that Alchemy Systems makes software for training employees of meatpacking plants, among other things, which is why the magazine ran the article about the company.) Both seem like reliable sources to me. When I see an article whose notability is questioned, I visit Google News to try to locate reliable sources about the subject. In this case, I was able to find some. --Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/improve News shows something there. I'm sure a stub could be made from the sourcing available free on the web. I'll start digging. Protonk (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that's about it. I looked through Lexis to see the gated news hits from my source above. Basically aside from the three mentioned in the article all of the sources are press releases or 1-2 liners about hires or executives. The article has been stubbed and sorted, so I think it is good to go with respect to WP:CORP now (just barely). Protonk (talk) 21:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
not opposed to keep - though it needs work to highten the notability, and to keep the advertisement to a minimum. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nau Gaja Road[edit]

Non-notable local road. Has been unsourced for over two years. Hut 8.5 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old 16 Avenue, anyone? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 21:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable road. Google news has no hits. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 21:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:N and seems like a WP:HOAX.--S_RX 22:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate this is a WP:50k road. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frenchcore[edit]

Minor musical sub genre with no assertion of notability or sourcing, all OR. neon white talk 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-existent genre. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this article does not meet notability and is a non-existent genre.--S_RX 22:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with gabber, it's a used term for describing a certain style that originated in France. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no Knowledge about hardcore dance why bother editing pages on it?????? --Macbarry (talk) 13:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a "keep" vote? If so, add keep in bold to you comment. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-existent. NSR77 ^T_C 03:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, meaning not delete. Merging is at editors' discretion. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin_College_and_Theological_Seminary[edit]

Obsolete. No Content. Already separate pages for Calvin College and Calvin Theological Seminary. Bad geocode location too.

Comment-there is a merge tag already in place, no reason to call for AfD, either keep the merge open or redirect the article to the suggested merge articles.--S_RX 22:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as rock solid notable. As said above, this AfD is quite the wrong method to deal with a merge discussion. The two component articles have significant overlap in their history sections and the merge discussion needs to agree a way forward. It is not necessarily best to merge this page. One way would be to keep this page as a coordinating article to cover the joint history up to 1991 and the reasons for the split. The two component pages can then concentrate on matters singular to their respective bodies. Anyway, I digress since this is not the place for such merge arguments :-) TerriersFan (talk) 02:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as wrong location for page. This isn't really AfD material, though. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable historical institution. --Eastmain (talk) 15:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not an issue, but the article needs references. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TerriersFan the notability of this is not at issue. RFerreira (talk) 19:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW.. Nick Dowling (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who sunk the Lusitania?[edit]

Wikipedia is not a place to put your essays. I would suggest merging this in with the Lusitania article, but that information has already been covered in that article. ----Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOT and WP:OR. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You beat me to the prod on an edit conflict. Speculative, unencyclopaedic, violates WP:NOR and WP:NOT. Cites "evidence" which is explained/debunked at RMS Lusitania - for example, the supposed forging date on the commemorative medal. Mention of alphabetised "sources" suggests this is a classic example of somebody's history homework. Ka renjc 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a essay and entirely OR, nothing to be salvaged. The same applies to the other articles that the originating editor has created. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Wikipedia is for encyclopedic content only, not essays.--S_RX 22:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as frightful bilge. I'd give this poor marks in a child's essay contest. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Okay, I confess...it was me. I sunk the Lusitania! And I would do it again if I had the chance! (Really, do you want to hear another person talk about WP:OR)? Ecoleetage (talk) 00:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is unsourced, someone's essay, and poorly written, starting with the title. For future reference, the question would be properly be "Who sank the Lusitania?" Mandsford (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A perfect example of original research. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: original research, and does not answer the question proposed in the title. Damn you, Ecoleetage! You beat me to my joke. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nom withdrawn, merged and re-directed per growing consensus. Merge has been done, leave formatting issues to those more familiar with election articles. TCari ^{My travels} 14:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharron Storer[edit]

There are news stories covering Storer's confrontation of Tony Blair but this appears to be a clear case of BLP1E. She doesn't seem notable for anything else, which the article acknoweledges, and her actions don't seem to have brought about any drastic changes in the British healthcare system. See also WP:NOTNEWS. TCari ^{My travels} 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with a caveat) I agree with this deletion proposal. At the time the article was created, BLP1E didn't exist (in fact, I'm not even sure BLP did!). Now that consensus has been established that individual "people in the news" for one-off events don't deserve articles of their own, let's not keep this article. The only question is whether the content of this article belongs as a small item in another article - United Kingdom general election, 2001 would seem like an obvious place. SP-KP (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but share SP-KP's view that it could form part of a larger article. BFG1701 (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment was it big enough to be included in the article on the general election? It seems from the news coverage that it may well have been, and I can see it as a viable search term. I'm not sure where it would fit best in the context of that article as I admit, I know little to nothing re: British politics and elections, but I would not disagree with a merge if those more familiar think it would "fit" with the article. TCari ^{My travels} 20:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 2001 election article is structured a bit unconventionally at the moment - it has a very long lead, followed by sections which just contain data tables or links. A restructuring of the article would help us to find a more natural place for the material here to sit. Potential section headings are: Lead-up to the campaign, The campaign itself, Results, Impact of the election. SP-KP (talk) 21:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and I would agree with it. I'd leave that to someone more knowledgeable on the election to do but would agree with a merge and redirect. If not for the 'keep' below, I'd close this and do it myself but am now willing to leave it open. TCari ^{My travels} 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep and rename~~ to something appropriate to the incident involved. BLP1E is not a deletion criteria, and specifically says "cover the event, not the person" in regard to this type of article. This article needs to be rewritten, but deletion is not justified until meeting the requirements of BLP1E have at least been attempted. Jim Miller (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I think the question is whether the event is encyclopedically notable. It was in the news, yes, but that doesn't provide notability becaise, as I said, there was no change to healthcare regs as a result and this is the only thing she is known for. It can easily be covered in the article on the election. TCari ^{My travels} 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge and redirect is fine with me. Meets the spirit of BLP1E, and I agree with the consensus to retain the info somewhere. Jim Miller (talk) 13:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ redirect - not notable. Vanity at best. The story is forgettable. Kingturtle (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is vanity or forgettable. It was one of the major stories of the 2001 election, and I for one remember it clearly seven years later. Nonetheless, given BLP1E, I think we should merge into United Kingdom general election, 2001, and make this article into a redirect. Stephen Turner (Talk) 06:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budaghers, New Mexico[edit]

Fails notability guidelines on places; it's an abandoned trading post off an american highway exit. Ironho lds 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. No firm evidence this was a settlement. The USGS says the place was noted but can't say where it was. However, it was a locale that shared the Algodones, New Mexico 87001 ZIP code. ~~Not much else can be verified. With a little more verifiable info, it might be worth a merge/redirect to Sandoval County.~~ • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. Since additional secondary coverage has been found as noted below, this locale is notable enough not to delete. • Gene93k (talk) 10:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is the in-depth subject of secondary sources [4][5][6], the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This proves it exists, but doesn't make any mention of notability. I think of it like passover; how is this highway stop different from all other highway stops? Ironholds 08:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:RS coverage establishes enough verifiable WP:LOCAL importance (essay, not a guideline) to avoid an outright deletion. Whether or not the place deserves its own article, the problems here are surmountable by editing. • Gene93k (talk) 09:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 10:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources exist to establish that as a place, it is notable enough. Concur with Oakshade. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My first reaction was that this was a town or settlement that no longer exists, and "ghost towns" certainly are notable... but then I read the article and found that it's not a settlement or a town or a ghost town, but a store. Delete --Paul McDonald (talk) 17:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But even as a previous trading post it is the in-depth subject of reliable secondary sources, which is the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY. There's no requirement that any geographical location must be or have been a "town.". A topic can be notable for other reasons. --Oakshade (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Response True, but I do not find that is the case here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these three articles [7][8][9] are secondary sources about the topic. --Oakshade (talk) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Response Yes, they are. And they are quite nice. They are from the Albuquerque Journal and the Albuquerque Tribune--the Tribune had a circulation of a mere 10,000 when it ceased publication earlier this year. The Journal is quite larger, with a circulation of 105,000 weekly, 145,000 Sunday and is the largest paper in New Mexico. Still, that's significantly less than the Omaha World-Herald at 184,000/222,000 or even the Tulsa World at 120,000/171,000--papers that I would not say necessarily constitute "widely read". Sure, circulation isn't the only measure of a paper's influence, but I'd argue that these articles--while good and useful--do not constitute notability at the level we normally pursue on Wikipedia--they are more of a state or even local issue, as written. Sure, there are exceptions and online newspapers certainly will not be the only source worth considering. What's the reason that this place is notable? Why would someone in China care? Is it historically significant? Why would someone care in 100 years? These are the kinds of questions we like to ask ourselves (or at least I like to ask myself) about notability concerns.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WHOCARES and WP:UNKNOWNHERE are not a good arguments to delete an article. How do you know people outside the area won't care? I happen to read articles of localities and/or entities that are 100 years old with great interest and I know I'm not alone with that. You and many other people may not read articles like this and that's fine. This is why Wikipedia has come up with notability standards, to have a uniformed criteria as to what is considered worthy of inclusion. There are absolutely no "People in China don't care" or "Probably won't be interesting in 100 years" clauses or anything like them anywhere in Wikipedia guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as we cover localities, and we should, then this is within our scope. The sources are fully adequate. WP is not the encyclopedia of a few very notable topics only, or we'd be far smaller than Brittanica and nobody would know of us at all. DGG (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as secondary sources can prove that this location exists, it is indeed notable. The size or scope of a newspaper does not diminish its importance as a secondary source when determining notability. On a side note, I am amused that my local newspaper (the Tulsa World) has been mentioned here :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus, defaulting to keep. The references given are just sufficient in my opinion to show notability for an indie band. Kevin (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig the band[edit]

This band doesn't have any independent references to them. They do have several albums out which would passWP:MUSIC#C5, but I believe they have been self published (by Lizardmusic...which I believe is their own company), therefore not counting. It seems to fail other crieteria for WP:MUSIC. Also, the only references noted are their myspace page and the label that produced their album, and I'm not even going to get started on that one. ----Адам12901 ^T/_C 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They fail WP:NM. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, so close on WP:MUSIC#C1 for the allmusic review, but C1 calls for multiple published works, and I could find no more. Close, but no banana. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on deleting the page. I will research what exactly is needed in your calls for Multiple Published Works and other references above and see if I can provide this pages author with what is needed. Thank you. Lizardmcgee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With regards to WP:MUSIC#C1 Earwig is notable, appears, is mentioned in several reliable newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, and has multiple works published from sources other than it's self. -Lizard McGee/LFM Records/Earwig appear in a photo and are mentioned in Entertainment Weekly,– March 17th, 1995 Issue 266 -Earwig is featured with Interview and Photo in The Big Takeover Issue No. 61, 2007 -Earwig CD (works) distributed by Major Retail store Meijer -Multiple Earwig song placements including ABC, Disney/Touchstone Films, FOX TV, MTV & Warner Brothers productions -Earwig songs appear on multiple compilations from, Anyway Records (Guided By Voices, Gaunt, New Bomb Turks and others), 'The Latest' produced and published by Leo Burnett http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leo_Burnett_Worldwide , Columbus Alive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbus_Alive (Bands To Watch)

2. Has had a charted hit on any national music chart. Earwig’s song ‘Used Kids’ is listed at #15 on the top 101 most requested songs of 2007 - http://www.cd101.com/sections/onair/2001tops/requests.asp On radio station WWCD101 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WWCD Lizardmcgee (talk) 14:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The requirement for WP:MUSIC#C2 is that it has to be a national music chart. We're talking about a chart like Billboard here, not CD101, which is a small independent radio station in Columbus, Ohio...they're not a national radio station. In regards to being distributed by Meijer, they're found on their "outside the mainstream" page which according to their website just lists local bands in their market area that have yet to be signed. ----Адам12901 ^T/_C 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meijer program does much more than simply list local bands that have yet to be signed. With the Meijer “Outside The Mainstream” program, the chain selects exceptional CDs from regional artists (that must be unsigned) to be distributed and sold in Meijer stores chainwide. The selected artists are also featured in the grocer’s ad circulars which are sent to 7 million households in Ohio, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Kentucky. Also, the popular music blog ‘The Daily Chorus’ www.thedailychorus.com lists Earwig as one of the Top Unsigned Bands in America (#23). The Daily Chorus is based in AZ. and has been referenced as a respected industry tip-sheet online and in Billboard Magazine. Lizardmcgee (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The allmusic bio and reviews, together with the other coverage and evidence of touring I found on Google convinces me that an article is merited here. e.g. [10], [11], [12].--Michig (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's notable enough for Allmusic, it's notable enough for Wikipedia. Supplementary material provided by mademoiselle McGee is also convincing.Skomorokh 00:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by Orangemike. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sita the awesome pawsome[edit]

Promotional wording ("our only female bengal tiger...": conflict of interest?), little if no notability asserted, and other issues plague this article. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At least it is not copyvio from Dream World Australia's site, but even disregarding the tone there is no indication that she is notable. - Eldereft (cont.) 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was CSDed under criteria G12 - copyvio by User:Orangemike (Non-Admin closure). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omnios[edit]

The creator's name is User:Omnios (conflict of interest?). It's also speediable as G11 and G12. It even sounds like a press release! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously...first you did AfD, then did two CSDs? They aren't a concurrent thing, the CSD for G12 would have been more than sufficient and way faster. Either way, obvious Speedy Delete under G12 and G11-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. It's an advertisement. Aridd (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1, no meaningful content, WP:CRYSTAL. NawlinWiki (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bald Eagles Fly High[edit]

WP:CRYSTAL, anyone? Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, and I'm calling no content. Not only crystalballery, but no information. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, previously up and deleted for the same reasons: WP:CRYSTAL and no more additional information. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Day Another Dolla[edit]

Strongly feel that this mixtape is not notable for inclusion, outside of a single track from it that became a moderate radio hit. Winger84 (talk) 19:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mixtape with no significant coverage. Jim Miller (talk) 22:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has produced a charting single, notability is established per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Delete, notability not established per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to Billboard, it is the Tay Dizm version from the album that charted, not the Akron version from the mixtape. Jim Miller (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that would explain why for that last 1/2 hour of searching I couldn't find anything. I was just about to change me vote because of it. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 05:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tweetup[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

More neologism shenanigans. This one had already been speedy deleted, too. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Previous speedy delete seemed appropriate. Would suggest retagging for speedy delete. BFG1701 (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Irrelevant neologism.evildeathmath 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 Tweet, tweet! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save it! This is a neologism but it certainly is not a shenanigan. This is a valid topic that interests many people, and it is becoming more and more popular by people starting up groups around the world called "Tweetups" and coming together to do just what people are doing here on Wikipedia... COLLABORATE. I'm a attending a Tweetup tomorrow and the purpose of this Tweetup is to help people build local businesses through Twitter and Social technology.

So I beg to differ... this is certainly a valid topic and should not be deleted. Donaldleegraham (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donaldleegraham (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Save it! Absolutely a valid term and growing in usage all the time. Google reports 69,600 instances as of today. The main distinguishing factor of a Tweetup is that it's promoted on and made up of folks using Twitter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myklroventine (talk • contribs) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Myklroventine (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep it!!! I'm an active twitter user and am taking part in the planning of a Tweetup in Colorado...so it obviously exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jondale (talk • contribs) 20:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Jondale (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above three !votes are from near-sockpuppets or (Jondale) outright sockpuppets. Suspicious! Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 20:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Raymie Humbert, I am not sure what you are talking about. I created this article cause I'm a part of a Tweetup. There is nothing suspicious about it any of the three posts voting to keep this valid article. Donaldleegraham (talk) 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism, without prejudice to creation after an RS (Wired, maybe?) has covered the phenomenon. Jclemens (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a neologism (and the sockpuppets certainly aren't helping its case). Leonard^(Bloom) 20:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tweelete as non-notable neologism. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neologism that's quite ready yet. Check again in a few years. -Verdatum (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "it exists" has never been a valid Keep rationale. Irrelevant neologism. JuJube (talk) 01:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neologism - Whpq (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Irrelevant neologism, nothing interesting. macy^talk 22:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closed (film)[edit]

No matches on IMDB for either the film title (and year) or anything listed under Tippi Hedren's page. Nothing found via Google. Possible hoax? Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems like a hoax, but anyway fails WP:NFF. JohnCD (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information on film, nothing mroe than that Hedren is in the film - and apparently she's the only actor in it. No other production information, nothing - not a sausage about this film exists outside of here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — No information about the film, no links and no references, possible hoax. macy^talk 22:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there is no verifiable information about this topic. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete both. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NǽnøĉÿbbŒrğ VbëřřĦōlökäävsŦ[edit]

I do not believe that this band passes the WP:MUSIC threshold. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Ultimate Fate Of The Universe‎" should be redirected to "Ultimate fate of the universe" --Elassint (talk) 18:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's to huh? Elassint's comment seems clear to me. AndyJones (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as insufficiently notable per WP:MUSIC. — Satori Son 23:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was hoping this would be one of the few times a band could pass WP:MUSIC#C7 because of their location, but I couldn't find any references, so they don't. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, been informed of the criteria over my talk page; I'll wait till we become "notable", and hope one of the fans then creates a page for us. Dark dude (talk) 18:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as the subject sufficiently covered by other articles. There is no need to fork the content. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation (theology)[edit]

This article is a summary of various creation myths (that already exist at creation myth). The intention of the original author was to write a content fork on the theology related to Creation according to Genesis, however the author retired not long after. The article has since been tagged for multiple issues for nearly a year now, and many of the editors on Talk:Creation (theology) have disputed the pages existence.

This article is a bit of a hopeless cause since there just isn't some overarching "theology of creation". Attached to each particular creation myth is the theology, the creation myth isn't attached to theology, and so organisation should be the other way around. This article should be deleted, and the theology related to each particular creation myth should be maintained at the respective creation myth's own page, for example, what is already happening at Creation according to Genesis. If these sections get too long (which I expect to happen for some creation myths over time), they should be spun off into their own separate articles, Creation according to Genesis (theology) for instance, per WP:SUMMARY. Creationism, theology and creation myths as a general concept, should still be maintained at those respective articles of course. Since this article contains nothing not already covered in the respective creation myth articles, there isn't anything to merge either. I've also checked What Links Here and in every case I checked, linking to either creation myth in general, or the particular creation myth (if there was already some context given) can easily be done, or in a few cases, to creationism.

In summary, I guess my point is we have Frogs in popular culture, not Popular culture (animals). Ben (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment This needs a merge discussion, perhaps, but I would be inclined to keep it, as an article of relatively intermediate specificity. DGG (talk) 02:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the article could link creation and theology? Well theology includes the study of creation from a particular religions perspective, sure, but that study should be included in the particular creation myths article (since the study is dependant on a particular religion), applying WP:SUMMARY and forking off to subpages as necessary. It doesn't make sense to have this article any more than it makes sense to have God (theology), Frog (biology), etc. We have creation myth, creationism, and then creation according to genesis and so on which covers everything. Ben (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are no references in the article that connect the creation myths from the various system to each other. Implying a connection between those topics without supporting sources is a synthesis. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Jack-A-Roe that in comparative religion articles we need sources demonstrating that someone else has previously addressed the subject in a comparative way, and that an article which makes cross-religion comparisons regarding subjects which others have only looked individually has WP:SYN issues. This article attempts a comparative look at how religions view creation from a theological, as distinct from an anthropological or "myth"-oriented) perspective. It attempts to inquire into what light creation accounts shed on theology as distinct from what light they shed on the people who believe them or on the accounts' literary structure or properties. Such topic is clearly distinctly different from Creation myth and Creationism, etc., as well as articles limited to specific religions such as Creation according to Genesis. An eminently worthy and distinct subject, and I'd be surprised if it hasn't been researched before. Nonetheless, it needs to be demonstrated that the subject has been. We need sources citing to studies or monographs, from either theologians or academic scholars, that have actually attempted to compare various creation accounts in order to gain theological insights, in order to avoid WP:SYN issues. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 21:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject adequately covered by creation myth, this is virtually a POV fork. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd be inclined to disagree. If adequately sourced I see no WP:POVFORK problem. One can take the perspective that theology and mythology are just points of view about the same thing, but there are enough universities that have distinct Religion (or Theology) and Folklore departments, for example, that there are a lot of reliable sources who regard them as different disciplines. We don't, for example, consider Quantum chemistry a POV fork of Quantum physics, or Industrial Psychology a POV fork of Economics or Manufacturing. When different disciplines study something and develop different literatures so that there is a body of reliable sources that treat them differently, separate articles are legitimate. Mythology and Theology are similarly treated as separate disciplines by numerous reliable sources. Both Art and Optometry deal with people's vision. One attempts to explore what people's vision says about the world, the other what it says about people's eyes. One is not a POV fork of the other. Same here. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you compare the sections regarding Hinduism in the 2 articles, they aren't written in a fundamentally different way. What is different however is the creation theology article gives undue weight to the Abrahamic tradition, compared to other traditions. PhilKnight (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nousernamesleft (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Zhang[edit]

Person won the Starcraft micro-tournament, but I still don't think that it really makes him all that notable. Only one website lists him briefly, so there isn't much verifiable content, either. ----Адам12901 ^T/_C 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Certainly fails to establish out-of-universe (i.e. outside of StarCraft) notability. It also arguably (that I mean borderline) construes WP:DIRECTORY. MuZemike (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't StarCraft an official sport in South Korea? (See StarCraft professional competition). So technically would this David Zhang person count as a national sports champion? -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He won a micro-tournament...hockey is a national sport in Canada, but a person who wins a micro-tournament in Regina isn't a national sports champion there. ----Адам12901 ^T/_C 19:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A micro tournament isn't like a lower league, it's just another type of play. This is where you only start out with a few units (e.g. less than 5), and defeat the other player. It's definitely not as notable, but I'm Canadian and don't know much about the US starcraft scene. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, providing that the stipulated media coverage can be found - "The two major game channels in South Korea, Ongamenet and MBCGame, each run a Starleague, viewed by millions of fans." With that many viewers I would hazard to guess that there is plenty of Korean media coverage, kind of like American Idol in the US (unless I'm overestimating its popularity within Korea). However, this coverage may not extend into English-speaking regions. It's not an in-universe matter; rather, it's a matter of there being or not being coverage outside of Korea, and therefore a matter of relevance with regard to English-language Wikipedia's readers. SharkD (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go a bit further. Keep, providing that the stipulated media coverage can be found, translated, or demonstrated to exist along with the possibility of translation. This is not a large matter, but it is best resolved quickly when it does arise. The value of a source does not depend on its language. The core principles and notability mention language only once, and then it is to say that English sources are preferable to non-English sources if they're of equal quality and translations should be provided. Doing otherwise would cripple or destroy much of our coverage of non-English (especially non-Western) mythology, culture, geography and even such things as cuisine. The fact that the minority of our traffic comes from natively English-speaking countries makes it clear that this is an international encyclopedia in English, not an encyclopedia for those parts of the world that happen to be in English. I can fetch the rest of my arguments, but I'd rather go do something else so hopefully this is settled.
As such, we need to find out about the Korean media coverage to make an informed decision. --Kiz o r 14:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo Babel Fish translation[13] makes translating a page a 5 second affair. Who knows? There's certainly a valid claim to notability as indicated above. We should jump at any opportunity to move Wikipedia away from the accepted inherent bias towards english speaking subjects. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icemotoboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a bias issue—let's not confuse the matter. Notability is our concern here. Showing notability with a foreign-language source is completely acceptable, if that is what is needed. I'm not familiar with this micro-tournament. Can someone explain it? Pagra shtak 20:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A micro-tournament is when each player gets a small amount of units (e.g. less than 5), and eliminates the other team. So its less macro-management, and more micro-management (hence the name) and tatical skill. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, possible speedy delete as hoax A quick translation of the header of the box provided in the source gives us "The interspace strives for hegemony (Starcraft) V1.08 | The legal copy copy, contains all background music, the film title tail leader." While poorly translated, it looks like a site for downloading Starcraft, and probably doesn't mention this David Zhang person at all. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:V. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pangram[edit]

Trivia galore. This is not an article fit for an encyclopedia by any reasonable stretch of the imagination. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (but by god it needs pruning!) Coccyx Bloccyx offers not reason for deletion. BFG1701 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Clearly a well-known concept (i.e., The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog). The breadth of the article is arguably excessive; that suggests a cleanup/pruning, not a delete. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(e/c) Keep. I've run across this enough times to know it's a well-established form of wordplay. More importantly, however, it seems to be a significant subject in font design, typesetting, and so on. Finally, and most convincingly, Google Scholar turns up a number of useful sources (though, unfortunately, I don't have time to go through and find the best ones). I do agree, however, that the article is in fairly terrible shape. AnturiaethwrTalk 20:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Easily sourced from reliable sources. Maybe not fit for Coccyx's encyclopedia, but meets Wikipedia's standards very nicely.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup. Notable term. Somewhere in my library I've got a published book of Pangrams, and somewhere else, I've got a book that references it, heh. -Verdatum (talk) 22:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list of pangrams should be cut down, but the page itself should stay. Scythe33 (talk) 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The composition of pangrams began shortly after the invention of alphabets. A highly notable and worthy topic. Suggest snowball close as keep. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entire article is unsourced and needs to be rewritten, but the subject itself is worthy of encyclopedic note. RFerreira (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Windows 4.x[edit]

"Windows 4.x" is a neologism, and we already have articles that cover lists of Windows versions. No need to make more of them. Warren -talk- 18:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect. It is not neologism, but not very encyclopedic by itself. SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The first release of Microsoft Windows with a version number of 4 was released thirteen years ago, but "windows 4.x" produces very few hits that are about Windows itself. Perhaps neologism isn't the perfect word for it, but we shouldn't be promoting the idea that it is an actual term in common use. Warren -talk- 18:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some software vendors use the term Windows 4.x instead of listing out Windows 95/95/ME/NT for instance. With 15,000 hits on google, it's a name/search term common enough to warrant keeping this as a disambiguation page. Ben (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Windows NT had some coincident 4.x releases as well, therefore Windows 9x refers to the consumer half the 4.x lineup.
Keep it's a dab page, and the dab page is accurate. With so many entries, redirecting it to a particular article would make a very very large hatnote for no good reason. 70.51.8.56 (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Windows 9x. While I think "Windows 4.x" is a more elegant way of referring to the "Windows 9x/Me", series, this article is a bit lacking in content, and is inaccurate - Me does have a later version number than 98 in the MS version number convention, and NT 4.0 is fundamentaly a quite different beast from Windows 4.x and should not be grouped with it. Letdorf (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Redirecting to windows 9x doesn't seem right, because not all 4.x versions were marketed as "9x". BTW, it's not a neologism, but the proper version number that can be seen, for example, by typing the "ver" command. --Itub (talk) 11:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by someone. I'm house-keeping. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 05:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diy tatto[edit]

Wikipedia is not a "how-to." Rob Banzai (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Elassint (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encylcopedic content. Addionne (talk) 18:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's "DIY tattoo." I was confused there for a second. Delete as a how-to guide. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change to G7 speedy, given this diff. So tagged. AnturiaethwrTalk 04:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not encylcopedic. BFG1701 (talk) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - WP:NOTHOWTO CultureDrone (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no context. Extuwandi (talk) 03:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ethan Haas Was Right. Shereth 21:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mind Storm Labs[edit]

Unnotable company that fails WP:COMPANY. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been categorized and external references have been added. Eluxor (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that since blogs are not normally considered reliable sources (see here), references #1 and #3 probably don't go very far towards establishing notability. I'm personally still to be convinced. Gr1st (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Haas Was Right, the only notable thing they seem to have produced. Despite widespread media coverage of that campaign, there are no Google News matches for the company itself that aren't press releases. Gr1st (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ethan Haas Was Right. There is no verifiable information that would not fit into that article for now. It could always be given an own article again if reliable sources show up that give us enough information for a seperate article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Leivick (talk) 01:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends Arcade Games[edit]

This is a list of non-notable Flash games that will probably never have the potential to become more significant than they are now. If Happy Tree Friends episodes and characters do not warrant Wikipedia articles, there surely should not be an entire article about minigames. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 17:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete — Yes, I have seen that the main Happy Tree Friends has been deleted, so it does make sense that this be, as well. MuZemike (talk) 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends hasn't been deleted. 0.o Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 23:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaahh, Shazbot! Maybe it was the wrong article I looked at on the deletion log the other day. MuZemike (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you were looking at the hoax movie, Happy Tree Friends: It's Largest, Biggest, Longest and Cutest. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right. I'm sorry. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Close AfD and wait~~. The AfD nomination is flawed, in that just because something else has been deleted doesn't mean we should either delete or keep anything else. The sole reason that this AfD should be considered is because of lack of notable sources that are verifable. The article is one day old. Nobody has had a chance to check sources. I think this AfD is yet another example of wasting time, if the article requires a speedy delete nominate it for that. If it does not pass the Speedy delete, then wait a few months before nominating for deletion. If you don't like the article, challenge yourself to do a google search for some references. Having said all that, I'm personally not sure this article will meet the standards for notability, and there is no claim in the article of notability, and would probably vote delete in spit of the obvious flaws with how this AfD came to be. Icemotoboy (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete. But I'm still grumpy! (lol) Icemotoboy (talk) 01:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. It reminds me of the infamous Pokémon test. --UberScienceNerd _{Talk Contributions} 19:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's the names of flash games available from a website, article serves no purpose whatsoever. A quick search turns up nothing except articles related to this. Someone another 21:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete almost nonsense. You said it Dad (talk) 06:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I hate to just generally say WP:NOT, but this article fails so many different subparts of it (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDIRECTORY...) that it's all I can say. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G4. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyoncé Knowles third album[edit]

No release date, no title, a lot of speculation. WP:CRYSTAL. Kww (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No solid date, and nothing reliable. WP:CRYSTAL. No prejudice to recreation when it's ready to be released, or when there's something solid. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyoncé Knowles. Buc (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER Lugnuts (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beyonce third studio album. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Tagged as G4. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. All the single purpose accounts canvassed to keep the article haven't done much good, but the cleaning up, and further referencing has. Unforunately nobody so far has yet commented on the reliability and the extent of coverage of the French sources. Still a fair number of people believe that the sources that are currently here show enough notability to keep the article. There is no clear consensus to keep, but nor is there to delete the article. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robotshop[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

No evidence of WP:CORP notability. Provided references are a Better Business Bureau entry and a press release. Prod was disputed by creator, probably a conflict of interest issue as well given single-purpose nature of account. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this company has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The only new hit I could find that seemed to apply was a press release, which are always suspect anyway since they come from the subject. (Note: COI and SPA are not automatic reasons for deleting an article.) Frank | talk 16:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable, reads like an advertisement. -- Elassint ^{Hi! ^_^} 17:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete: RobotShop is Highly Notable. Perhaps the page can be modified to look less like an advertisement.

Firstly, the Wikipedia definition of Notability:"

Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. Large organizations are likely to have more readily available verifiable information from reliable sources that provide evidence of notability; however, smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations.

· RobotShop Distribution inc. is registered since 2003 under the Canada Business Federation Act : Corporation #6142567 BN #875730509RC0001
· RobotShop has between 10-100 employees.
· RobotShop is a partner of iRobot for distributing the Roomba in Canada since 2003 and is a leader in the industry. See the link on the Official iRobot Web Site to RobotShop under Americas, Canada. RobotShop is also the first company worldwide to repair the popular Roomba from iRobot.
· RobotShop also partners with more than 150 manufacturers (all major leaders in the robotics industry, some of which have a page on WikiPedia).
· RobotShop is member of the Better Business Bureau
· RobotShop has appeared multiple times on TV, in magazines, newspapers, blogs and forums. Here some examples:
- Banc d'essai du Peuple (French interview about the Lawnbott Robot Mower)
- Servo Magazine (RobotShop advertises in Servo Magazine since many years and are often reffered to because of their notable products)
- Toronto Star Article.
- Interview with the president on the blog of Abry.biz
· Google Notoriety:
- 18700 indexed pages, page rank of 5
- More than 60 000 results for the term "RobotShop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web site.
- More than 492 000 results for the term "Robot Shop" and the first spot is for RobotShop Web Site.
· Recent Press Releases:
- RobotShop is Upgrading (from RobotShop)
- RobotShop is Duplicating (from RobotShop)
- CoroWare Announces Distributorship Agreement with RobotShop (from Coroware on the Robotic Trends Web site) --Jbrunet (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment You haven't really addressed any of the notability criteria in WP:CORP. Press releases, advertising, etc. do not cut it. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What about the examples provided such as the Television coverage and the Newspaper Article which seem to be part of "Primary Criterion"? This with a quick search about RobotShop. I am quite certain that many more sources can be found. What about the collective robotics community that gravitates around RobotShop? I do however agree that the press releases and advertising are not addressable as notariety criteria. --Jbrunet (talk) 20:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Blogs are rarely considered to be a reliable source (unless written by a notable pundit, etc.) The Toronto Star source contains only a trivial mention. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of WP:CORP notability whatsoever. BFG1701 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I am new to Wikipedia and am very interested in the WikiProject: Robotics. I am also thankful that there are volunteers who check articles and verify information. Having read through the section “Adding information to WikiProject_Robotics”, I decided to add the article “RobotShop” with the objective “To improve Wikipedia articles related to robotics development, technology, research, and other related areas” which “covers […] robots used by consumers, industries and governments”.

The RobotShop page was created following the Wikiproject Robotics Article Guidelines as a company providing both robotic parts and services (domestic robotic repair, troubleshooting and general robotics education). However, I noted that “If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias. Neutral point of view is one of Wikipedia's five pillars.

Perhaps instead of deleting the page, allow others to add notability and add the heading below. It is far easier to encourage users to add content to a page rather than create a new page entirely.

Cbenson1 (talk) 20:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Are you (and JBrunet, the other single purpose account) affiliated with the company in question? Honesty is the best policy here. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

As indicated previously,

If you do write an article on an area in which you are personally involved, be sure to write in a neutral tone and cite reliable, third-party published sources, and beware of unintentional bias.

In this case, both JBrunet and myself are affiliated with RobotShop. Although this is discouraged, it is not grounds for deletion. From what I can see however, JBrunet did not edit the article. The ideal users to contribute / edit information in the Wikipedia knowledge base are those with direct information. This being said, a special point was made to prevent the article from being written as an advetisement or spam. Only the bare minimum of information was included in order to encourage others to participate.

My account was created in order to edit robotic information and the fact that the first contributions were related to RobotShop should not be the issue: Unfortunately the assumption of "single purpose account" is false: being knowledgeable in robotics (as well as being in charge of the RobotShop Learning Center) I had planned to contribute / edit articles related to robotics. Please take note of the Wikipeia Handling and Advicewhich states

If you are in a discussion with someone who edits as a single purpose account: Communal standards such as don't bite the newcomers apply to all users. Be courteous. Focus on the subject matter, not the person. If they are given fair treatment, they may also become more involved over time.

The phrasing "Are you (and JBrunet, the other single purpose account) affiliated with the company in question? Honesty is the best policy here." seems to indicate a trap and is not appreciated. One of RobotShop's core values is "Honesty is our best quality" and no attempt was made to cover or change identities.

Question: the following heading was useful in describing an alternative to deleting the page, why remove it? Is it general policy to remove suggested headings? {{Refimprove}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) 21:35, July 15, 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Those types of headers go on the article itself, not in the AfD discussion. And now would be a perfect time to improve those references. — Satori Son 23:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP IT - I have been encouraged by the RobotShop community to come here and share my thought about RobotShop notability. What I can say, I own the popular Roomba from iRobot since the beginning. When I got problems with my robot after only one year and a half, iRobot told me to buy a new one! Warranty was over and iRobot does not offer any repair services. I found RobotShop over the Web, it was the only place to repair the Roomba. My robot has been fixed very fast and it is still working today. What is a "notable" company? Is it those big companies quoted everywhere that take your money and offer bad services? Or is it this company who offer real services to people, in a new emerging market, where even the manufacturers let you alone with your problems?

I say keep it. I love RobotShop and this is a true pioneer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) 23:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) — Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep It RobotShop is a great company. Their website is easy to navigate and when i order things from them they are always timely with the delivery. You should allow them to keep their wiki page because people interested in buying or building robots might wiki first. Then they can find RobotShop's site that way, and I believe RobotShop would be of use to them because they have robot kits for all levels of builders.--129.174.88.5 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)Ross Varndell[reply]

~~Delete~~ - no reliable sources to establish notability. Press releases and blogs are not reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 17:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm satisfied that there are enough reliable sources to establish notability. Not a lot but sufficient to clear the notability bar. Other issues are for editting and don't factor into the deletion decision. -- Whpq (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps WP:Web as well as or instead of WP:COM? As per Satori Son's suggestion, references outside of RobotShop added. --Cbenson1 (talk) 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment: I still don't see any third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. And if you know who is emailing RobotShop customers and telling them to comment here, please ask them to stop. See Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking. — Satori Son 19:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you for the comment Satori Son, but I am not sure exactly what you are referring to? The "reliable sources" listed for notability includes major newspapers, magazines and television as examples. In this case all three were found very easily and are certainly reliable. As I have not received any mailing myself, I cannot make any comments on your second point. It is very easy to delete an article and significantly harder to contribute to it; this is one of the main reasons why the Wikipedia Article Rescue Squadron was formed. :::--Cbenson1 (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cbenson1 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Most of the "sources" are either standard government forms, press releases, or blogs. In the two newspaper articles, RobotShop receives a very trivial mention somewhere in the story. I cannot verify the reliability of the producer of the YouTube video, but it looks like an infomercial. Sorry, but not enough to establish sufficient notability. Regarding the canvassing, I assumed that since you and Jbrunet “are affiliated with” RobotShop, you might know who was soliciting RobotShop customers asking them to comment here. Since you don’t know, maybe the person who is doing so will read this.— Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you do not understand French does not affect the fact that the video on Youtube is reliable. This is not an infomercial, this is a complete reportage about RobottShop. [14]. Here the official source and very easy to find on Google. The references in the newsletters are more than trivial, they talk about RobotShop, their products and they contain quotes from the founders. Your comments are not objectives. I am sorry.--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Satori Son, the refferences provided for the History are Federal and Provincial government sources and recognized institutions that are quite reputable and accurate sources of information.Jbrunet (talk) 20:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - They are also primary sources. They prove the organization (and millions of others) exist, but do not demonstrate that it is notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. There is no one who thinks that RobotShop does not exist. Do you honestly think this link shows the company is notable? Or this one? — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ---- What about references 2, 14 and 15, who are reliable newspaper articles and TV show? You seem to only look at what is negative and avoid what is positive. Why you avoid talking about these references that show that RobotShop is Notable? Please answer, I would like you to evaluate these references and see you say that this is not good references? The fact that the article has some references proving that RobotShop is incorporated is not a bad thing--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I agree with the text in the discussion section. It seems to me there is a bit of American bias going on here. Things American appear to be automatically 'notable'. To me RobotShop is much more notable than lets say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dakota_Drug; however that page doesn't seem to be tagged for deletion. To me RobotShop provides a service and information I can't find anywhere else. --Cameleon123 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Cameleon123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist..." — Satori Son 13:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS: "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this...."--Cameleon123 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it!! I had searched for some applicable products (miniature actuators with control interface) for my latest projects for several weeks before I stumbled upon RobotShop. They seemed to have exactely the products I was looking for, so I sent them an e-mail. A few hours later I received a very helpful answer where they suggested some products I could use. Products that would later prove to be the solution to my little dilemma. Up to this date I have not found any other webshops that offer these products. The "next best" option were products from a somewhat similar company, only these parts cost 3 or 4 times as much as the ones RobotShop offer. I live in Norway, and I have now ordered products for several hundreds of USD from RobotShop (which is located in Canada). It goes without saying that this is a very special company with very special products. If not, I would have bought the products from a local dealer. I honestly think they deserve their own Wiki page. -Johannes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.48.95.64 (talk) 19:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — 84.48.95.64 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment The entire History was redone to be more encyclopedic. Refferences were also added.Jbrunet (talk) 19:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)— Jbrunet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - Not notable. (And the blind "keeps" from the canvased spa accounts aren't helpful.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm on the fence only as I haven't myself researched this ... for those working to improve the article you need to find articles about the company, services, impact etc. in local and business-related media, newspapers and magazines work well, online blogs less so (and PRWEB is not helpful). Also the tone needs work as it sounds promotionalish, see Dyson and 3M, for examples of more neutral writing and article structure. Banjeboi 23:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree the text in the products and services section needs work. However, In the references, I can see 2 newsletter articles and one TV show talking about RobotShop and their innovative products. The TV show talks about the company, their products and services and also the vision of the founders. RobotShop make clear impact on the society sponsoring robotic competitions and school projects. Furthermore, some researches on Google demonstrate that the domain name www.robotshop.ca is very well indexed and receive decent traffic. The searches for the term ROBOTSHOP and ROBOT SHOP get additional Sitelinks, and Google give these additional links only to domain name having authority and credibility for the specific keywords. I think the Wikipedians who wants to delete this article should evaluate seriously the possibility that RobotShop is notable. I know that blog is not really useful to prove notability, but I found this one interesting: Roslyn Robot’s Blog. They talk about David Levy, an expert in artificial intelligence who has released a new book. What is interesting is the reference to the text on the robotshop repair service page that talks about the evolution of human-robot relationship. It seems that RobotShop has something special. Something notable that maybe is not yet covered by the Medias. I encourage the Wikipedia community to evaluate all aspects of notability.--24.37.209.6 (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)— 24.37.209.6 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - If it is not yet covered by the media, it is not yet notable. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - That is, notable by wikipedia standards to justify having an article. If there are numerous media mentions and at least a few are more in depth it helps the other editors here accept that Robotshop is notable by the same standard that other articles have to meet. Banjeboi 12:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{WikiProject Robotics}} Added to discussion page.--Cbenson1 (talk) 13:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Robotics. Banjeboi 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold your horses As a regular editor of WikiProject Robotics, please let me just remove the spam-like material and have everyone who has voted to revote as per the revised edition. If I could have people do that, that'll be great. Thanks. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strongly Keep IT~~ - II believe the revision is adequate and show some reliable sources proving that RobotShop is notable.--Cameleon123 (talk) 17:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per editor please. -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I fixed the formatting of the newspaper references, and I think that there is enough coverage in reliable sources to prove notability. --Eastmain (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment None of the sources demonstrate non-trivial coverage. The Toronto Star article is the closest, but that article is primarily about robotic appliances; it only mentions Robotshop in passing. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the individual who started the article, I am unsure if I am in a position to cast a vote. My intention was to create a seed and have others add to it (something which takes time of course). Jameson L.Tai seems to have an unbiased approach which would necessitate additional time. Secondly, I agree that any content that appears to be an advertisement or spam should be reworked or removed. I agree with Whpq that it is best to omit premature "keep" or "delete" votes until the article has been reworked. Although I do not have a horse, I will grab the nearest four legged creature I can catch. --Cbenson1 (talk) 18:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Added 3 magazine and news article scans, taken from the archives. These should establish notability (Note: these articles are in French so hopefully this will not be used against them): Magazine Le Village, Isabelle Lapierre - Quebec Micro, April 2007 - Metro Montreal, September 22nd 2004 Jbrunet (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my analysis of each of the items shown as references.

1. ^ Industry Canada - Corporation

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

2. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée" (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Québec Micro magazine. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

3. ^ Lapierre, Isabelle. "L'aide du futur" (in French), Magazine Le Village. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, Magazine Le Village. Not an ad. Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the magazine, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

4. ^ Massicotte, Jean-Sébastien (June 18, 2005). "Tondeuses-robots. Des appareils sans fil... et sans pilote ! Newspaper article about RobotShop and its products" (in French), Le Soleil. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

More about robotic lawnmowers distributed by the company rather than the company itself. Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

5. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

6. ETS Centech: September 2002 Bulletin

Primary source which confirms that RoboShop was active as a partnership in 2002.

7. ^ ETS Robotics Engineering Program

University web page. Not a claim to notability.

8. ^ Quebec Government Company Registry

Primary source which confirms only that the company exists.

9. ^ Synnett, Cindy (September 22, 2004). "Robotshop" (in French), Metro Montreal. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Secondary coverage in reliable source, a daily newspaper. Not an ad. Printout of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy.

10. ^ 2005 SAJE/CLD 2005 Annual Report

Primary source.

11. ^ RobotShop is Upgrading - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

12. ^ RobotShop is Duplicating - Press Release

Press release – not a claim to notability.

13. ^ Abry.biz by Vincent Abry Interview with RobotShop's Mario Tremblay

Better-than-average blog, but probably not a reliable source by Wikipedia standrds.

14. ^ CRC Robotics Competition Sponsored by RobotShop

Primary source. Not a claim to notability.

15. ^ Google Scholar: RobotShopRoboGames Sponsorship

Google search.

16. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work", Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Part of text of article. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

17. ^ Turrentine, Jeff (May 5, 2005). "Relax, grass-cutting gizmo at work" (pdf), Toronto Star. Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Scan of article hosted at Robotshop rather than at the newspaper, but no reason to question its legitimacy. Main topic is the mower rather than RoboShop as a dealer.

18. ^ "Robotshop: La robotique à votre portée." (in French), Québec Micro (April 2007). Retrieved on 2008-07-17.

Same as #2

19. ^ Television report on RobotShop Distribution Inc., NerdZ TV show, Thursday, November 30, 2006, by Jean Fournier

Not broadcast television, but a licensed specialty channel in Canada. The program is listed in a press release from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters "CAB Announces Finalists for 2006 Gold Ribbon Awards". See the listing for the show at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0456243/ Hosted at YouTube rather than on the channel's website, so possible copyright concerns – but still a reliable source.

20. ^ Crowley, Dan (2005). The 505 Weirdest Online Stores: 505 Things You Never Thought You Could Buy .... Sourcebooks, Inc., 64. ISBN 1402203772.

Book from a commercial publisher. Acceptable as a secondary source.

21. ^ RobotShop Learning Center

Primary source, from the company's web site. ---Eastmain (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that membership in a Better Business Bureau does not confer notability. Similarly, advertisements do not confer notability by themselves. --Eastmain (talk) 20:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've removed several POV statements from the article and fixed the small awkward one-sentence paragraphs/subsections. Although it does not improve notability, it does make it sound less and less of an ad. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. AfD listed at WikiProject Canada / Quebec and WikiProject Companies. Banjeboi 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With the clean-up and additional references I've seen nothing to suggest that this company is anything other than what the article claims and sourcing seems to support notability. I have little doubt that there are more sources available in French as that seems to be the originating language and the subject matter is interesting so I have little doubt that the company will be getting even more attention. That they specialize in their field rather than excelling in self-promotion should not be held against them. Banjeboi 22:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the noted changes made within the past 24 hours I believe this article has been fixed according to standards. Since most articles pertaining to this company is in French, it is difficult for editors (including myself) who do not understand French to provide sources that may be improperly citing the article incorrectly. I believe at the moment this article is in par with most business stubs on Wikipedia. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 23:46, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually from what I've seen it's a bit better than most. Banjeboi 00:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Though the article has been cleaned up nicely, I still have yet to see any convincing evidence that the company meets our notability standards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the article currently stands, the reliable and verifiable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article rescue squad has done a good job. The article deserved deletion when nominated (CSD#A7 does not assert notability.) Now it has coverage in 2 local newspapers and the Toronto Star: the rare example of the tiny company that is notable. I get the impression from the discussion that more coverage can be found: if so it should be added. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 06:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All articles require time to grow when first created. Thanks to all who have modified, edited and improved the content. The article merits being kept in its current form and keeping it means the content can only be improved.--Cbenson1 (talk) 10:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability staisfied with the recent article upgrades, per multiple comments above. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Me-123567-Me (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you've read the version of this article when the article was nominated compared to its current revised, de-spammed version with several additional references. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that (1) quite a few of the keep votes are SPA accounts (2) the Toronto Star reference is trivial; the only non-trivial references are in French; I don't speak French, so I don't know if the references are non-trivial, or if they are notable and/or WP:Reliable sources and (3) we're talking about a retailer/distributor that sells and repairs robots made by other companies. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be rude...but shouldn't we be asking someone who actually understands French to verify these references instead of second-guessing and possibly casting doubt on possible good references? I mean I don't understand French either, so I wouldn't know. I've given an honest effort trying to get references for this article, but they're mostly in French. Perhaps a relist with a notice in the translation team? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And regarding the SPA accounts, I believe there are almost equal amounts of SPAs as real editors with established edit histories. I think the previous discussions and votes should be noted, but not counted, as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition. Also, this will prevent certain SPAs from proper vote counting. Same can be said about the delete votes. A simple delete vote above without much explanation hardly gives meaningful points for further discussion. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as votes towards the old version do not necessarily reflect the article in its current condition So does that mean that if I didn't reiterate my original !vote, that it would be discounted? No. If an interested party wants to change their !vote, they have that option. It's not assumed null unless re-validated. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article itself has changed significantly since it was originally written. Many of the original users who wrote "delete" and "keep" have not made any comments regarding its current state. Note that the most corporate websites have only a small fraction of the notability listed here. Next, please note the yellow "up for deletion" argument was changed to "delete" within 7 MINUTES after having slightly modified the article. According to Wikipedia, it's not the number of votes that bears the most weight, but rather the merit of the arguments. An increasing number of users have since returned to change their votes from "delete" to "keep" and their comments are appreciated - it would seem most users add their vote and never return, and most users (completely unaffiliated with the company) put in so much effort to keep the page active. I also hope everyone notes that if a concensus is not reached, the default is to "keep" the article. For those who do not understand French, one option is to use an online translator program, or eat a lot of poutine. --Cbenson1 (talk) 17:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone does not retract or change their opinion, that opinion stands. Just for the record, my opinion to "delete as insufficiently notable" has not changed. — Satori Son 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please tell me why Jameson L. Tai is asking for someone who actually understands French to verify these references??? Hey, take the time to read the full story up here. I mean, Eastmain took his precious time to do exactly what you ask for! Your comments are not really useful at this time of the discussion. You are not useful because you do not understand French so you cannot be a good judge. Give your place or give credit to Eastmain, who is fully bilingual and a regular editor of WikiProject Robotics.--Cameleon123 (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comments are verging on a personal attack. Please be aware of our policy on that. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Personal attack? I am sorry, I just asked a question! I honestly think that calling for a French reader after all the work done by Eastmain is not really appropriate and does not respect the work done by other wikipedians. Also, You seem to have a big bias about distributor/retailer, if I refer to your comment (3) up here. I know that we have to assume good faith, but this is difficult to believe in your objectivity after this. Finally according to your policy, "Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack" -Cameleon123 (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping things civil is the first thing editors need to learn and practice, especially on topics such as AfD discussions. I have made significant changes to the article and I believe I voted to keep the article, but yes, I do agree there is still no clear assertion of notability based on English sources. Making a simple request to having someone who understand French review and comment on the references is a by-the-book and necessary call in order to verify and clear the references. This is a open-collaboration encyclopedia, which will entail much work, time, and effort from contributors from all around the world. I'm not discounting Eastmain's contributions nor intentions, but please do not try to personally attack my comment, considering comparing Eastmain's work under WikiProject Robotics with my organization of the WikiProject itself. It is best that if you are seriously letting this discussion cloud your fair judgement in forming civil and constructive comments, to take a break and take a step back. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not know who you are and I really don't care. I base my comments on what I read here. I do not agree with you: your request to having someone who understands French review and comment on the references was NOT a necessary call at this point because this is already done by Eastmain. So saying this again in your last comment, you just continue to ignore the work of other Wikipedians and this in my opinion is not a constructive and civil comment. Tell us why you are not satisfied with what Eastmain did as study?--Cameleon123 (talk) 13:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have said before, and I'll say it again, Wikipedia is a large collaboration from many contributors. While I have not discounted or discredited Eastmain's work, your continued aggressive attitude towards this discussion is not constructive. Asking for other people to cross-check each other's work is commonplace and is vital on Wikis, and it has dawned on me that you're taking this article too seriously to form a productive outcome. I suggest you take a chillpill. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I expressed a Delete opinion (way up top) and I have reviewed again, and come to the same conclusion. There are references, but they don't establish notability. Having a corporate record with Canada or Quebec does not make a company notable; it merely makes it a legal entity. The company's annual report is self-published, and therefore not independent. This company is a distributor - that doesn't make them notable. Sponsorship of "robotgames" is advertising. A Youtube video is not generally considered a reliable source. The Abry.biz reference is essentially a blog; any entry that has to claim in its intro that it is not sponsored is suspect, in my opinion. (If you have to put a disclaimer up front, it's probably because you have a conflict of interest or otherwise appear to be biased.) I don't read French, so I have no opinion as to the validity of those sources, but it seems to me that if the only way to establish notability is in a foreign language, it probably belongs in that language's version of Wikipedia, not English. All of these things added up, plus a lack of ability to find reliable sources in English, lead me to conclude (still) that this article does not establish notability of its subject. (Note: COI does not strike me as a reason to delete an article; if it's notable, that can be cleaned up; this article's subject just doesn't appear notable to me.) Frank | talk 13:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I have made several attempts to rescue this article to be as non-"spammy" as possible, there are not enough references to justify the notability of this company. Conversation with User:Cameleon123 aside, this article does not fulfill current Wikipedia standards on notability of a corporation. (Previous vote has been struck out) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:KEEP IT Don't demolish the house while it's still being built

man tries to build a house. He has a few of his neighbors come to help. They are working very nicely and organized-like, like you would expect from people who are trying to build a house. Soon, a building inspector comes by. "Those stairs don't look right," the inspector says, pulling out a tape measure, "and by these measurements, they are not wide enough." The builder replies, "They aren't finished yet." The inspector moves on. "This wall isn't supported enough," the inspector says nonchalantly. "Of course not," the builder replies, "We haven't finished it yet."

"And look!" the inspector cries, "There is no ceiling! The owners of this house will be angry indeed when they get rained on." "They won't!" the builder retorts, "Because when it's done there will be a ceiling!" The inspector ignores him. "This house is no good, builder. It must be torn down." The next day he sends someone to demolish the house.

--24.37.209.6 (talk) 01:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was that even relevant to this discussion? - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are one of the inspectors who want to demolish the house (this article) while it's still being built ---24.37.209.6 (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moot. Content has already been merged and page turned into redirect. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konjac Candy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article's information has been effectively merged into the Konjac page. Therefore, the Konjac candy page does not need to exist. Coolotter88 (talk) 16:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if the article has been merged, then you must redirect to Konjac. -- Whpq (talk) 17:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Okay, the redirect page has been set up. Coolotter88 (talk) 19:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Oregon Ducks football team[edit]

This article is far too detailed for any team, let alone a college team. What's really going on is that someone is trying to use Wikipedia as their team's home page. Let's stop this now before it becomes a habit. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sounds a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT... but the bottom line is that this team for this season will get plenty of notablity from reliable sources.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced and many teams have season article so why not this one. Buc (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. --Elassint (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article is no more detailed than previous team years from other teams. See 2005 Texas Longhorns football team, which is actually a featured article. These pages provide information on seasons in a much more concise way than official websites. It is far easier to find statistics and game recaps here than at websites such as goducks.com. Aplaceicallhome (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see any reason not to: looks well-researched albeit prolix. BFG1701 (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)— BFG1701 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment "Let's stop this now before it becomes a habit"? I'm afraid it became a habit a long time ago. I totally sympathize with Clayworth's feelings on this, and I think a lot of newcomers are surprised that "2008 Oregon Ducks" is a definite keeper, while "2008 Oregon legislative elections" would draw some delete votes. That's just the way it is on Wikipedia. You're absolutely right that it is someone (lots of someones) who are making their own webpage with Wikipedia as the host. Sports fans are frustrated that they aren't allowed to edit the site maintained by the team itself, so they duplicate a lot of the material, and then give it their personal touch. On the other hand, fans of a sports team, TV show, or film often develop some skills when working on something they feel comfortable in writing about. You won't win this one, but don't worry about it. Mandsford (talk) 02:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response No doubt the content of the article can, should, and likely will be improved. But this discussion is not about the content, it is about the article itself--should it stay or should it go? P.S. I'd be okay with an article on 2008 Oregon legislative elections myself... or 2008 Oregon Spelling Bee... or 2008 Oregon Tiddly-Winks Tournament, provided there were enough reliable sources, verifiablity, and notability.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too detailed? For what? A print encyclopedia? Then it's good that we aren't a print encyclopedia. Top-level sports teams get an article for each season... people want to write them and more people want to read them. Nominator appears unaware we've been doing this for a long time. There's no question that the sourcing is there. --Rividian (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The College football project considers single seasons of notable teams to be notable. Please the CFB Project Notability essay. Granted, it is "slightly early" because games haven't started yet, but technically it is 2008 and the team has already had its spring practice. There's no harm in enthusiastic editors planning ahead.

Keep - Single Seasons, single games, etc are all considered notable. hands down keep. PG Pirate 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep — Deletion reeks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There are hundreds of single-season college football pages, and this one is an example of dozens of similar articles about the upcoming football season. Similar articles, such as 2005 Texas Longhorn football team and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team are featured content. JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected to (Hey Hey Hey under my) Umbrella --JForget 00:12, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rihanna Curse[edit]

Poorly-referenced and little more than a news article. All content already covered at Umbrella and 2007 United Kingdom floods. Stifle (talk) 15:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Umbrella (song) Unreferenced and trivial. Most of the hits in a Google search turn up only blogs and discussion forums, no reliable sources. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced and not notable. - eo (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Already covered in the Umbrella article. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. You said it Dad (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, implemented as protected redirects. I'm trying something slightly new here. We have consensus that these are not appropriate stand-alone articles, essentially for the reasons given in the nomination. But several editors assert that the material could be usefully merged to other articles. I'm a bit skeptical about this (the only sources cited are primary sources) but there are some limited cases where primary sources may be used. To allow for limited re-use of this material (to the extent it is well-sourced and as long as there is consensus for any mergers), I am implementing the "delete" consensus not through deletion but through protected redirection to the respective "list of" articles. The redirects should be nominated for speedy deletion on their talk pages, citing this AfD, if no merger has occurred after several months or so. Sandstein 06:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Reaper (Bleach)[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. The topic of the various "species" within the Bleach series has not "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Extremely excessive in-universe article sprinkled with personal essay style "discussion" and OR. Redundant to the List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, which already adequately covers the topic in an appropriate fashion.

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same guidelines and are redundant to their respective lists:

-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep for the following reasons:
1. The nominator copied and pasted the nomination of another article without changing much or specifying why this specific article should be deleted
2. The nominator hasn't specified what changed from the previous 2 AfDs, which have also not been linked in this nominator (this is bad form)
3. The nomination is misleading, and only specifies 2 more articles nominated in the nom's rationale, not in the title, which it should.
If the above problems are fixed, I'll gladly provide an explanation why these articles should be kept, although the argument is similar to the other nomination. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First has been fixed. An error in the AfD is not a valid PK reason. Also, there is one previous AfD for Soul Reapers (which apparently the AfD page didn't pick up). This AfD nom has different reasons than the previous one and is perfectly valid, particularly when most of the keeps were versions of WP:ILIKEIT and acknowledge the problems now being noted here. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - also, it should be noted that the previous reason for nomination (the result of which was decisive keep) was indeed very similar to the current reason, which is, insufficient out of universe coverage. This should be reason enough to remove the nomination, but it's up to the administrators. Meanwhile, I'll try to find the second nomination, which has apparently been lost among the mass of edits... -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - for any administrator who may be reviewing this AfD, please note that Collectonian refactored my comment. While I assume good faith and hope it was just an accident, I think that if it turns out to be intentional, immediate action should be taken. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you assumed good faith, you wouldn't have even put a note. It got "refactored" because of an edit conflict while I was fixing the nom you were complaining about. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - all quite blatantly fail WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#PLOT (and I'm sorry, Ynhockey, there's really no way I could possibly improve them that would allow them to pass NOTE). If possible, a Universe of Bleach article might be an appropriate merge target, but only after the material is heavily reduced. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per comments from Sephiroth.Tintor2 (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach if there is anything worth salvaging. Doceirias (talk) 20:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just leave it at the lists of characters, everything worth anything is there.StardustDragon 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fancruft. Madman (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A transwiki to the Bleach wikia would be legit. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, List of Bounts in Bleach, and List of hollows in Bleach. This is waaaay too much detail, but there might be something salvageable. -- Ned Scott 05:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve The List of Bounts in Bleach merge looks fine, but the other two articles are too big to merge with their respective lists, and while they could use some trimming of particularly useless information (such as the indepth description of each character's minor uniform differences in Soul Reaper (Bleach), that would still leave them too large, especially since any consolidation of Bleach articles (which Collectonian seems to be pushing for with his latest AfD spree) would probably involve other articles being merged INTO the Soul Reaper and Hollow articles. Considering Bleach's popularity, I consider it quite likely that they have, in fact, "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and that those sources simply need to be found. Also, doesn't Wikipedia policy state that you should try to improve articles when possible before nominating them for deletion? I wouldn't have brought this up if you'd made any attempt to discuss improving the article with WP:BLEACH (or even notified them that the article didn't meet Wikipedia standards) before putting a bunch of articles related to a popular anime up for deletion, just like you did last week. To be clear, I'm not accusing the nominator of bad faith, I'm just suggesting that when he finds articles that don't meet Wikipedia's standards, he should ask editors familiar with the content to fix the problems rather than proceeding straight to a deletion nomination. There's quite a few anime-related articles out there; WP:ANIME can't be expected to keep them ALL up to standards if no one works with them or even at least notifies them of problems. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Ned Scott. I think that this would be the best way to go, as that would preserve info for us autoconfirmed people instead of having to be an admin in order to look at it. Also, the AFD's came too early, as there was considerable consensus for a merge, not a deletion, at this discussion, and since Wikipedia has no deadline, the nominator should have let the merges proceed. Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my mild defense, despite being a participant in that conversation, I completely forgot about it until now due to nothing having been done at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I guess we just kinda sat on our hands there. Still, an entire research venue for such things as fan fiction, creative writing papers, and other things mentioned in WT:FICT#Why inclusion matters is at stake here, and I for one believe that a merger would be more appropriate as revision histories should be kept for posterity, just maybe protected from editing? Sasuke9031 (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge but not to the general article, but a combination article on the various species, with preservation of content and edit histories. There may be objection to it not being notable enough for an article, but there can not really be to it being relevant content. DGG (talk) 02:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary/listing of fictional elements of a non-notable topic which has not received significant coverage from secondary sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something like a Universe in Bleach along with Bounts, Hollow and Quincy or to the List of Bleach shinigami where a summary would suffice. How else would somebody totally new to the series would know about shinigami and what they do? Although the article is almost to the point of fancruft, I think some information could be used to explain what a shinigami does. Preserves the edit history as well so that information can be found, unlike a delete. This AFD is way to early.--Hanaichi 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment trimmed down versions of Soul Reaper (Bleach), Bount, and Hollow (Bleach) would make a good leads for List of Soul Reapers in Bleach, List of Bounts in Bleach, and List of hollows in Bleach respectively. But the level of detail currently in these articles is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Farix (Talk) 17:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The level of detail is excessive but the absolute notability is not below the threshhold for inclusion: major elements of the universe of a popular manga and anime running for several series. I also Comment to agree that the structure of this AfD is not at all clear with regard to what articles are nominated or the AfD history of each. --Stlemur (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing salvageable. You said it Dad (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it could be worked in to the character lists. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep but edit. Portions of this article can be realigned into the article on List of Soul Reapers and other articles about the Manga and Anime "Bleach." The initial section of content, however, explains effectively the purpose, duties, training and governance of soul reapers as is defined within the context of "Bleach." 11:18 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (CSD G7) (author blanked page) — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shawnglish[edit]

More neologism shenanigans. This was already Speedy Deleted, but now it is back (if not by popular demand). Ecoleetage (talk) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Tikiwont. Stifle (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost fits A7, but most assuredly doesn't belong here. Salt for good measure. Jclemens (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is just rubbish, no need to waste any more time here. WP:IAR for great justice. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nah, I'm all for dragging this one out. More or less nails it to the wall, and makes a G4 easier. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:NFT - no source, and I can't find any but blogs and myspace. JohnCD (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. Impressive. Language created by somebody who apparently speaks thirty five languages fluently. Sorry, but this is a clear-cut case of madeupinschoolitis with some pretty big brass ones. I call for a 20 MT nuclear strong delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Its obvious what "Shawn" means. --Elassint (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

— Tivedshambo _(t/c) 20:13, 15 July 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. Consensus, at least to the extent the contributions are based on applicable policies and guidelines, agrees with the nominator and Sephiroth BCR. A merger has also been proposed, but it remains completely unclear what could be merged where and why, so this is not really an actionable option. If consensus is established later on an appropriate talk page as to which material should be merged where (to the extent it is sourced!), a history restoration is not out of the question. Sandstein 06:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zanpakutō[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:PLOT, WP:WAF, and WP:FICT. The topic of the "fictional type of magic sword" known as Zanpakutō from the Bleach series has not "received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - the nominator is simply wrong. The Zanpakutō is a fairly recent invention so you wouldn't expect it to appear in books and such, and I don't read anime/manga-related magazines to know for sure that it appeared there (although I'm sure it has). However, various Zanpakutō are subjects of merchandising and cosplaying. Replicas and even related *keychains are sold on various sites and in stores, not necessary manga-related. Moreover, the Zanpakutō is central to the Bleach franchise, and everything in the article is notable, starting with the description and ending with the list. Therefore, being such a large article, it cannot be merged with Bleach (manga) or a similar article per WP:SIZE. To that end, it is similar to the article List of Middle-earth weapons and armour. According to WP:SPLIT and WP:SIZE: If an article becomes too large or a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article it is recommended that a split is carried out.. I think it doesn't get any more clear than this. No reason at all to delete the article. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Totally invalid speedy keep reason, and no, I am not wrong. Merchandise for the series does not make the Zanpakutō a notable aspect, nor is it a valid claim of size as the information is excessive and never would have been allowed in the main article at such a length per WP:PLOT and per WP:WAF. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - wholesale. Past the WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOTE issues, it's a list of weapons when we already have entries for every character on this. The concept of a zanpakutō can be explained in the List of Soul Reapers in Bleach article. Rest is excessive. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Sephiroth's well-reasoned commentsBFG1701 (talk) 20:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per comments from Sephiroth.Tintor2 (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge where relevant - Zanpakuto is certainly worth covering, but it does not need an article of its own. Doceirias (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the list, delete everything else. Also, make a list of Bakkoto and put it with their corresponding character sections. There are a few people that have their Zpkto's listed here and aren't on the list of characters; they should be put back there also. StardustDragon 21:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing significant here. Nominator has a good point, but probably transwikify to Bleach wiki if not already done. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete per se, but merge to appropriate page as outlined by User:Sephiroth BCR. This is what should have been done in the first place, and if there had at least been a merge proposal template on the page for a couple months, then delete would have been my vote. Per WP:ATD, keep in order to merge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 07:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete but the article is convoluted. A merger might be possible, however I don't see where. The list of Zanpakuto does need to go. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adroa (talk • contribs) 12:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete I've double-checked, and this article still contais information that is not treated in main articles. I think that it should be merged with a section containing list of all habilities, powers, and weapons(like Zanpakuto). I don't know if such article exists, but i think that this article should not be deleted until all information is passed to these articles. Raupi (talk) 12:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need. Just merge each individual weapon with their corresponding character, bring back Jirobo and the others that got the boot, and do the same for notable Bakkoto. StardustDragon 17:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since each zanpakuto is associated with one and only one character, the list can be merged easily into the List of Soul Reapers and List of Hollows articles, while the remainder of the article can be trimmed a bit and merged cleanly into Soul Reaper (Bleach). There isn't really any good reason to have a seperate article for these anyway, they're essentially just character abilities. 65.33.206.108 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except for Tosen, but that friend of his is dead so there's no risk. StardustDragon 20:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge without loss of content. DGG (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ME - Merge at least, this article does not deserve deletion because some ignorant fool does not like/watch bleach. Its only starting to become popular in the west (the 1st movie has only just been released in america (June 2008) when it was out in japan a good 2 years ago! ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.195.147 (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of that shit matters. It fits deletion criteria. It is not a "capitalist plot" to remove Bleach articles cause people don't like it. It is keeping with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Also, Bleach is in the fourth season in America, that's far from "just having been released." StardustDragon 20:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its also plain wrng. I enjoy Bleach, despite its excessive length. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete- This page is great for quick navigation and reference
Speedy Delete per above. You said it Dad (talk) 05:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I see above is no reason for a speedy. What I see is reason to ride it out. Based on the current situation, I can't really say how this will turn out, but speedy is way over the top. My advice, strike the word speedy (not the word delete though, as there are some very good points above on the delete side as well as the keep/merge) and enjoy your time editing. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the length and quality of the article, I would recommend at least transferring the content to a more suitable wiki. A Google search yields 181,000 results for Zanpakutō. Also, several comments in this AfD are ATA. — C M B J 03:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Edit - I am not very familiar with the subject at hand, but WP:WIAFA §1.b may also be a factor to consider here, depending on how this article affects the quality of the main article Bleach. But this still doesn't necessarily negate the fact that the article has no independent sources. — C M B J 04:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite right, an M/T would work in this instance. Perhaps the Bleach Wiki would benefit from this content? Sasuke9031 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the WP:WIAFA doesn't really help because this is a completely separate article from the generic Bleach article, and therefore, all that would really affect it is if someone merged it there. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge big old list is most of the page, and what remains can be smaller. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 07:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge with List of Shinigami (or Soul Reapers) if info is not there already.--Boffob (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Snow delete. TCari ^{My travels} 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacuna Coil's forthcoming studio album[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lacuna Coil's forthcoming studio album

poorly sourced and unnamed per not a crystal ball neon white talk 14:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Not notable. Anything useful could be merged into the main article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:CRYSTAL. Recreate without prejudice once the album name has been released. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 15:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer's Law. If the album page takes the form of "(name of artist)'s nth studio album", it's very likely to be shot down as WP:CRYSTAL. I see nothing reliable pertaining to this album yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 15:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure crystalballery, as noted above. No content of any substance. Recreate once there is something to create, but not before. PC78 (talk) 16:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Elassint (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER Lugnuts (talk) 18:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. As below, quality sources provided, no need for this to run any longer. Seraphim♥Whipp 16:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sister Nancy[edit]

This seems to be an article about a non-notable musician. Doesn't provide any sources. Admiral Norton ^(talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on sources: All music guide doesn't have a bio on her. Google is..well, tricky, because there's a great many occurrences of "sister nancy", some of which are definitely not the same person. Also, for anyone participating.. please don't come to us with arguments of the form "Sister Nancy is significant because..." - this is not useful to us. The only that's useful to us is independent, reliable sources. Friday (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Keep per the ref's that have been dug out. Cheers Fram & Skomorokh. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, advertizing. I would have speedied this. It seems new information has come to light. Keep. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it seems to be a non notable musician. However, a five minute search with keywords provided in the article would have given numerous sources, like this complete Jamaica Observer interview[15] and this short but significant mention in the Washington Post[16]. Books claim that she was one of the first important female DJs on the scene[17]. The Observer calls one of her singles a classic[18] (the BBC calls it an anthem[19]), which is also sampled on The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill. Considering that her heyday was way before everything was available on the internet, one can suppose that most sources about her are not online anyway. Fram (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the apparent existence of proper sources. Thanks Fram. Friday (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to close as notability seems uncontroversial in light of the verified non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources uncovered by Fram. Skomorokh 15:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite in light of sources provided by Fram. The actual article is an atrocity in its current state. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --PeaceNT (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Follett[edit]

The article's claim of Follett's being one of the 400s most-lent author is unverified (and I cannot find a source). Furthermore, considering the notability criteria for "creative professionals":

Regarded as an important figure or widely cited - doesn't apply
Originating a significant new concept, theory or technique - doesn't apply
created...a significant or well-known work...which has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or multiple independent periodical articles - I can see no sign of this being the case
their work has become a) a significant monument b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition c) has won significant critical attention d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleris of museums, or had works in many significant libraries - ditto

So it seems to me that Follet meets none of the relevant criteria. MatthewVernon (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.
Keep The list of works by this author is extensive, and includes some notable works like Earthsearch. Easily satisifies "significant critical attention". [20] DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep A search on EBSCO found multiple independent periodical articles:
- Title: Crown Court (Book Review);Authors:Veit, Henri C.;Source:Library Journal; 2/1/78, Vol. 103 Issue 3, p388
- Title: Churchill's Gold (Book);Authors:Sweeney, J.K.;Source:Library Journal; 06/15/81, Vol. 106 Issue 12, p1321
- Title:Forecasts: Fiction;Source:Publishers Weekly; 07/17/2000, Vol. 247 Issue 29, p180; bstract:Reviews two science fiction books. `Temple of the Winds,' by James Follett;...
- Title:SF/Fantasy/Horror NOTES;Source:Publishers Weekly; 01/29/2001, Vol. 248 Issue 5, p70; Reviews several books and science fiction titles. ...`Wicca,' by James Follett...--Captain-tucker (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Well-known and ref'd SF author, per Google. BFG1701 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Is this a joke? He's a very well known British sci-fi writer with 'Earthsearch' having been dramatised on the BBC, among many other works. Nick mallory (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Stacy Horn.

EchoNYC[edit]

Apparently non-notable chat forum. Yes, it's been mentioned in the New York Times and the New York News so technically does pass the "multiple independent" bit of WP:N. However, I can't see anything to distinguish this relatively small forum (3000 members) from any other, and there's no encyclopedic content that I can see in the article itself other than a date of founding and name of the founder – none of the "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance, which can be significantly more up-to-date than most reference sources since we can incorporate new developments and facts as they are made known" that's required under WP:WEB. – iride scent 14:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~DeleteKeep~~Redirect There is apparently a book about the web :site, but it's written by the owner of Echo. Delete immediately.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 14:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You wrote the article. What the hell is going on here? – iride scent 14:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  So then you want me to Keep it? I'll change my vote back to delete if you want. Let me know.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete I have to adgfree wit Manhattan Samurai. It eappears that hte original author was in error wwhen he or she created this article. The releavent information could be merged into Stacy Horn. Also, please watch the language. Smith Jones (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, that's a good idea. The article could redirect to a section in Stacy Horn's article. I, myself, have just given up on AfDs. They are too much of a crapshoot.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem notable despite references. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dee-lete. Non-notable. Madman (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had speedy-deleted this, but undeleted it on request to permit a discussion here. DGG (talk) 21:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
i, the article rcreator, allow this to be delete td and I anm hoping that you guys will allow me to copy and paste this infrmaiton into the Stacy Horn artocle. Smith Jones (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC) :D[reply]

Well, redirect. it is definitely a notable bbs/web site in terms of early Internet history, but i'm not interested in early internet history and simply wanted to add some information about it somewhere. so a redirect is perfect.-Manhattan Samurai (talk) 23:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, per new references found, and apparent notabiltiy beyond her familial notability. I fully expect the article to reflect the references found and linked here at AfD to be worked into the article. If they are not, I fully expect a re-nomination for deletion. Keeper ǀ 76 22:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Walker Bush Ellis[edit]

Non-notable presidential relative who fails to meet WP:BIO. I've certainly nothing against Mrs. Ellis (her late husband was my first wife's boss, for what it's worth), but her claim to notability rests solely on that her brother and son are notable, and notability is not contagious. There's a near-complete lack of substantive material about the subject, and it's telling that a significant fact in the article involves the important people present at her wedding. RGTraynor 14:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence the subject has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I honestly can't think of anything wrong with the article. It has sources, so the infomation is true, and since it is a relative of a President, I think it should stay. America69 (talk) 14:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep reliable and verifiable sources provided establish independent notability. Article should be expanded and additional sources added. Alansohn (talk) 16:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references do not satisfy WP:N or WP:BIO, since one is someone elses obituary which has a bare mention, one is a picture in a book on the Bush family, one is a family tree, etc. Being related to a notable person does not create automatic notability. More than a directory type listing or passing mention is required. Edison (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The notability of the subject is not established. The current sources offer no more than the most trivial of mentions. Nuttah (talk) 18:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historians and amateurs alike are interested in the siblings of major historical figures. As long as there's at least a paragraph of information available, I think it's fine to give them artcles. There's more that can be said about her: [21], [22] Zagalejo^^^ 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no-notability; not even asserted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the new sources still do not offer reason to keep the article. She seems to be mentioned only in passing and only as a relative of President Bush's. As RGTraynor notes, the articles are never about her. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Bush family, where "at least a paragraph" will be welcome. Historians, amateur and professional, won't confine themselves to a Wikipedia article in any event. Mandsford (talk) 02:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Certainly not to this article, in any event. I've no objections to a merge. RGTraynor 07:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I am somewhat prejudiced, though, since I am the principal author of the article.
While I agree that "notability is not inherited or contagious," I believe that Nancy Bush-Ellis is sufficiently notable in her own right (see the new sections I added today on "Political Activities," which highlights her activities in Europe to encourage voter participation, and "Volunteer and charitable activities," which mentions her financial support of establishing a rainforest preserve in Belize. In other words, she is not just a woman who attends kaffee-klatsches, but one who has serious interests in a range of fields. She has achieved notability, I submit, for both of these events. The notability argument is somewhat strengthened, too, by the citation from Time magazine; evidently they found her notable.
Thanks for listening; I will now defer to the judgment of editors more senior than I. — Objectivesea (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Time article has the same problem that is the same in each and every citation: it is not about Nancy Ellis. It is, in fact, about expat voters, and Ellis' sole mention in it is trivial: "Bush adviser Karl Rove, the President's aunt, Nancy Bush Ellis, and former Vice President Dan Quayle have all hit the European trail as part of the re-election campaign." That's it, and I think better of Time magazine than to believe that'd be their definition of notability. WP:BIO specifically enjoins against trivial mentions, requires that cites not be a press release, and that cites be both substantive and about the subject in question. The cites listed in the article are, in order, (1) a press release, (2) the obituary of her husband, (3) an article about a Missouri gubernatorial race, (4) a newsletter, (5) a genealogical chart, (6) a board of directors bio from one of her charities, (8) the aforementioned Time expat voting article, (9) a charity website listing her as an "honorary director" and nothing more, (10) an annual report listing her name among hundreds of others as a donor, (11) doesn't mention her at all, and (12) likewise doesn't mention her at all. The exception is the Kitty Kelley book, which may have substantive information about Mrs. Ellis and reasonably would at least mention her, but so far no evidence of the same has been provided, or any information as to what Kelley actually did write about her, if anything. So far, not a single substantive source has been provided. RGTraynor 10:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Zagalejo^^^, I feel that the coverage this individual has received is above the line as non-trivial. RFerreira (talk) 19:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could you identify any references which have more than trivial passing reference? I can't find any. Edison (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few more potential sources: [23], [24], maybe [25] (probably not important enough to mention in the article, but it's something) Zagalejo^^^ 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Refs 3 and 4 look promising. They are clearly about her. Are 2 refs enough to satisfy the need for "multiple?" I agree that the third, about a traffic accident, doesn't seem worth including in the article. Edison (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, two refs are usually good enough. Zagalejo^^^ 19:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strategic Public Relations[edit]

Unsourced, perhaps unsourceable OR; spam for named firms. AndrewHowse (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced essay. Someone's opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is a synthesis of material (possibly previously published but unsourced and unverified) used by the author to advance a position thereby violating WP:OR. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scot Brown[edit]

Subject does not meet the notability requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (people). No evidence this associate professor has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. Contested PROD, so comes here. — Satori Son 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another professor. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While he has some record of publication, it does not amount to more than any other associate professor. One book and a couple of journal articles is to be expected. Fails WP:PROF. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please consider the publications about him listed under References. --Eastmain (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I see book reviews and UCLA publications (or UCLA alumni association publications). Neither speaks to his impact as a scholar (every book gets reviewed). The alumni association article might speak to non-academic notability, but I don't think that alumni being upset over radicalism counts as notable, let alone something that satisfies WP:ONEEVENT. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 20:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: I'm going to agree with RJC and stick by my nomination. Close call, but I don't think either WP:BIO or WP:PROF is quite met. — Satori Son 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just another prof. Madman (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

could you perhaps explain this cryptic remark? DGG (talk) 23:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the references found by Eastmain. Edward321 (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability guideline is "more than the average college professor." An associate professor without significant press coverage, awards in his field, etc., doesn't qualify. RayAYang (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One book, just published, and a few articles and some miscellaneous publication is not yet a notable academic record. DGG (talk) 02:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RJC. --Crusio (talk) 08:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep.

I discounted some opinions from either side who did not address the problem at issue here (notability) or who gave no substantial reasons at all for their opinion (yes, Grsz11, you do need to bother explaining why). This leaves the community still about evenly divided about the notability of this family, with a slight tilt towards "keep."

As far as I can tell, neither side has obviously stronger policy-based arguments. The "delete" side argues that the family as such has not received the level of coverage required per WP:N and that notability is not inherited. Meanwhile, the "keep" side points to the media attention given to the individual members as evidence for the public interest in this family, and they argue that the article is really a summary style spinout of the article about the very notable politician. I'm not sure whether I can agree with these arguments for keeping the article, but they are at least defensible under the applicable guidelines, and this means I can't discount them. So it's a no consensus outcome for today. (Note: I have removed the fair use soundclip previously inserted at the end of this discussion, per WP:NFCC.) Sandstein 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama family[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This is a collection of non-notable individuals, many of whom have previously had articles about them deleted or merged into Barack Obama for notability reasons after extensive discussion. All of the same arguments apply here. The only notable people in this article (such as Barack Obama and Michelle Obama) already have extensive articles written about them. For the others, notability is not inherited. Their only notability is their connection to someone notable. Further, notability is not cumulative. If they are not individually notable, how can they be considered notable as a group?

Note that this article was previously deleted after an AfD discussion. This version is not substantially identical to that version so it is not eligible for speedy deletion. However, the title and subject matter are identical, so all of the arguments from that AfD discussion are applicable here. Loonymonkey (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having difficulty here assuming Looney's good faith in desiring open discussion of this matter. Eg (more precisely than his statements) commenters in the Malik Abongo Obama AfD----and a subsequent discussion on the article's talkpage----did not determine where exactly to merge its contents and moreso suggest merging it to a new Obama family article than into Barack Sr.'s, in fact that's what ended up being done, by that article's principal writer, Wikidemo; furthermore, some commenters in the previous AfD said their recommendation would be different if this former version had had more than two family members covered----their arguments, as one major example, cannot be part of any offhand suggestion that all arguments there are applicable here. And lastly!--------Looney simply deleted not only my interspersed interjection but also one comment I made after his, both in violation of WP etiquette and protocols, harrumpf!

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain civil in this discussion. It's a little early to revert to personal attacks. I did not delete anything. What I did was move your comments to the discussion section after you altered my AfD rationale, splitting it into two separate comments with your comments inserted. This is completely non-standard, against protocols and frankly very rude. Please discuss the deletion rationally in the discussion section without altering others' comments. Also, both etiquette and protocol dictate that new comments should be placed at the bottom of the discussion. I'm not sure why you feel that your comments belong at the top (or even within the rationale itself) regardless of when they were made. --Loonymonkey (talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't label me as attacking you personally, Looney. I'd described my impression I'd received only of your actions after seeing my comments had been removed. Only after I'd typed and submitted it did I notice that you'd moved my clarification of your statements to the bottom of the page, so I withdraw that particular part of my allegation regarding your problematic behavior.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, you may want to strike your comments above. Anyway, this isn't the place to discuss it. Feel free to comment on my talk page if you still have issues. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Much (if not most) of this material is new, and many of the members of the family don't have and may never have Wiki-articles (though I think some should--as discussed elsewhere). I never saw the previously deleted version, but understand this version is entirely new and it looks well done and deserves inclusion. I strongly oppose full merges of other existing articles into this article (we can just add wiki links to them), but see this article as a good overview of the very notable family of Barack Obama.--Utahredrock (talk) 13:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm ignoring the previous version because it was deleted, so my opinion is based on the current version. Although individual relatives of presidents are not necessarily notable enough for viable articles, there is established notability for interest in the family trees of presidents. In lieu of individual articles being created on these people, an examination of the family tree of a presidential candidate is viable. I would also support a similar article on John McCain's family and if one doesn't exist I strongly advise one be created in order to maintain non-partisanship here. No prejudice against revisiting this article in AFD should Obama not be elected, however. 23skidoo (talk) 14:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That argument seems to be a variation of the Notability is inherited argument. You're essentially saying that this article should be kept because of its association with someone so notable, but that if Obama were not the presidential candidate (or were to lose the election) then the article wouldn't be as notable. Notability, however, isn't inherited, no matter how great the notability of the related article. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - this family is not notable. This article is a WP:COATRACK at best; it exists as a place to showcase the fact that Barack Obama has a family, but does not assert or demonstrate notability of any member of that family. Those few who are actually notable (and some who probably aren't) already have articles. (The Kennedys, Rockefellers, Bushes, etc. are notable because they have many notable members who do or did notable things.) Frank | talk 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Anything I say will be what Frank said above, so per Frank.:)America69 (talk) 14:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable family whose few notable members have articles already Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How exactly is the family not notable? I find that... shockingly unbelievable. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well in spite of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I'd say the "Obama" family in this context doesn't meet our notability criteria for inclusion in the same way as the "Ford" and "Carter" families don't meet our criteria for inclusion. They have notable members but, are not notable as an entity in an of itself. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - first of all, clearly notable per WP:N and WP:BIO. There is significant coverage about this subject in hundreds, probably thousands, of reliable sources. In substance this is a subject serious people want to read about in order to improve their understanding of the world - they take note, here, via publications, and off Wiki. That meets the substantive criterion of notability. Second this nomination and other nomination discussions of Barack Obama's family member articles have an inescapable POV problem. Some people clearly do intend to either suppress information about Obama because they don't like the candidate, or because they do like the candidate and see the African ancestry and Muslim faith of some of his family as potentially embarrassing. They have said so directly, evidenced this via a pattern of edit histories, or said this in the negative, accusing the material of being a POV problem / coatrack they want to correct. But even discounting the motivations, systematic and persistent deletion of information about the candidate's family background has a POV effect whether intended or not. It suppresses information about Africa, race, and multiculturalism, and perpetuates the fact of Americans denying and hiding the less urbane side of their diverse identities. Third, the information here is the result of a "merge" result from other AfDs. There is no other logical place to put the material that would not result in a similar article so the outcome of a delete would best be to re-create the child articles, which would lead to a procedural Snafu. We really should get over this nonsense and stop attempting to delete important encyclopedic content from the project. Wikidemo (talk) 17:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Doing a Google on "Obama Family Tree" produces 9,540 entries for that exact phrase. The overriding rule WP:NOTE is If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable. The article as written provides a great and very useful family tree diagram. It will be a very useful dumping ground when lesser Obamas. Rarely do we see a topic up for deletion with that many Google pages. The debate is not whether we think the Obamas are notable but whether third parties consider them notable and it's clear thousands of people consider them notable. Americasroof (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability isn't conferred through google hits. I get thousands of hits on my own name, but that doesn't mean I can start an article about myself. As for the article being a useful dumping ground, well, yes. That's one of the problems. --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What other dumping ground would you propose, or are you trying to eliminate information about Obama's family from the encyclopedia entirely? Notability is demonstrated by sources, which are often accessible via google. That search result (39,000 hits for me[26] and 8 news hits[27] shows some interesting results, although it is far underinclusive due to its precise wording. All appear related to the subject though as usual the reult contains lots (though less than usual) of stray results. Wikidemo (talk) 19:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose that Wikipedia isn't the place for dumping grounds of non-notable information. And again, google hits are not a measure of notability. There are millions of hits for Barack Obama, many of which are going to discuss his family background in the context of providing biographical detail about him.--Loonymonkey (talk) 21:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently editors interested in the well-known families of namesakes that aren't blue-blooded don't contribute to articles on the topic, only tack things on to them. We don't move a file elsewhere, only deposit it. We don't merge various members' of such families' biographies, only commingle them. What's to be learned from this? That such information as

Jean Ann Kennedy and Stephen Edward Smith had four children:
Stephen Edward Smith, Jr.
William Kennedy Smith - 1991 rape acquittal, physician, activist against land mines
Amanda Mary Smith, married Carter Hood, one child
Kym Maria Smith, married Alfie Tucker

----when drawn from wide media coverage given the Romneys (and Rockerfellers and Vanderbuilts, per another comment below) is encyclopedic but when folks receiving wide media coverage are of less noble lineage, it's cruft.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 01:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or the McDucks (motto " FORTVNA · FAVET · FORTIBVS ," see Clan McDuck#Family tree), whose patriarch's worth was listed in 2007's "The Forbes 15" at $28.8 Billion.[28]

~~NEUTRAL~~ (however, if Loony's Anti- "Dumping" (ie merging) of Obama Family Members' Bios campaign should change individual members' article's AfD results from No consensus for deletion but consensus for merger to Deletion through stealth I change my "vote" to Keep). $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC) Sliding off the fence toward KEEP. Although whether Malik/Sarah/Madelyn Payne have indie articles or else biographical coverage in a composite article is shrugable, the present composite article is as good as any, for the time being. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 03:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The family itself is not notable in the way that the Rockefellers or Kennedys or Roosevelts are. Individual notable family members should have their own articles, but the family is not notable. Madman (talk) 21:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In cases of borderline individual notability like this the obvious course is to have a combination article, not try for articles on the individual people. Applies here just as with fictional characters.DGG (talk) 21:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The current article has 19 references, and there are several independent articles that are proposed to merge in with dozens of additional references. Almost all of these references are from articles major news outlets covering Obama's family (CNN, ABC, Newsweek, and many others). So, based on WP:N we have 1) "significant coverage" in the form of several dozen articles 2) from "reliable sources," specifically a wide variety of respected news outlets 3) which are clearly "independent of the subject." It meets all the criteria. Now, there would be some justification for removing some of the individual entries which do not contain any detail (or perhaps condensing them into a few sentences by category). And the family tree image is too wide to fit in the browser, it doesn't seem that breaking the page layout is appropriate. Maracle (talk) 05:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

----I narrowed the family relationship chart. (Much less wide now than that at Bush family#Family tree.) ( ^Y )

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 06:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong Keep:Obama's family on father;s side is black peoples, alot of purple flags for stubby articles to merge into it, Sarah obama still have to merge into this article. She is born in 1921.--Freewayguy ^{Call? Fish} 16:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG, as a collective it makes perfect sense to have this article. RFerreira (talk) 19:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The mixed successes and failures of AfD's on various individual family members make this issue muddled. The somewhat hyperbolic and un-WP:CIVIL comments on both sides don't help either. However, it appears that the individual family members will be a mixture of notable and non-notable individually, but there is enough independent interest in Barack Obama's close-ish family as a whole to merit an article (using WP:SUMMARY style where appropriate for members with independent articles). LotLE×talk 19:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no problem with this kind of an article, and it certainly has plenty of sources to back it up. It's basically an annotated list. As DGG says, this is much like a "list of characters" for a fictional topic. If this article was called, for instance, List of relatives of Barack Obama, we wouldn't be debating whether the family was notable enough. Mango juice^talk 20:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it were simply a list of relatives of Barack Obama (and not biographies), it would have a much stronger rationale for being kept as an article. Then it would be in the context of biographical details about Barack Obama (which is the only reason any of these people are being mentioned) and not pretending that they are uniquely notable. But as it is, this article is simply a coatrack on which to hang a bunch of biographical articles that have previously failed notability after extensive deletion discussions. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...As is the case with lots of list on Wikipedia. If you think the article is getting too far away from its status as a subtopic of Barack Obama, fix it: we all know that's the main topic here. And the article does acknowledge that, in the lead. It is irrelevant if individual entries have been regarded as not notable enough, and if any of those entries are too expansive, they can be reduced. As a topic, this is just fine. Mango juice^talk 03:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. If the result of this discussion ends up being "Keep" with the rationale that the inherent problems can be fixed through editing, it would be great to get some guidance from the closing admin as to what the apparent problems are and what the limits of the article's scope should be. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the record, I think that currently the family itself is not notable. Obama has an article - that is more than enough. If his relatives become governors, CEOs, etc then great. But at the moment it's daft to have an entire family tree and all of this based purely on Obama's profile. Are we to delete all of this if he loses the election, or is it all justified just because he is a mere nominee? I don't see an article on the Dole or Kerry families. John Smith's (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually we do. Wikipedia was much smaller in 2004, and Bob Kerry's family is not a group of Africans and expatriates. Nevertheless, we do have Dudley–Winthrop family, Forbes family, Cameron Kerry, Julia Thorne, Teresa Heinz, Alexandra Kerry, Vanessa Kerry, Rosemary Forbes Kerry, Cameron Kerry, James Grant Forbes, Robert Charles Winthrop, and Francis Blackwell Forbes. Many of those articles have lists of family members in turn. Wikidemo (talk) 23:05, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Obama is most certainly notable and being able to look up his family ties here is very useful indeed. Also, having this as a separate article, linked to the main one about the (now) candidate, avoids clutter. This is neat and tidy. I appreciate the work done on the part of the author(s) to put this together. --Achim (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Condense the two paragraphs of trivia about Malik (Roy) Obama and four paragraphs of trivia about Sarah Obama down to one encyclopedic sentence each and merge into the Children and Family background and early life in Kenya sections respectively, of the Barack Obama, Sr. article, where they are already mentioned.Newross (talk) 02:32, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Obama is very popular and many people are interested in his family background. The article passes WP:N, and it is well sourced. It is important to have a separate article because it will help people who want to know specifically about his family background. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This material verifiable from reliable sources, and we have editors willing to maintain it. While there are reasonable arguments regarding "inheritance" of notability, the topic of "family of B.O." appears to have sufficient aggregate notability to merit an article. - brenneman 05:49, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The family is obviously notable . . . and unique with many firsts in American history. The more notable of those included here should be linked to with their own article--and some wikifying. Outright merges of all family members into this article is strongly oppossed. Rely on links for more detail.--Canada1776 (talk) 09:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If any of these persons were actually notable, they would have their own articles. Also per Frank. Black ngold29 10:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - do I even need to bother explaining why? Grsz ^talk 19:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - same as last time: these people are not notable; any useful information about them can go in Barack's page. This may have been created anew, in good faith, rather than being a G4 recreation; but the content and reason for deletion are substantially similar. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any thought of putting any details like these in Barack's page is ill-conceived. His page already has several subpages.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many editors have made the argument that notability for this article has been established because many of the subjects have been mentioned in multiple reliable sources. However, this returns to my original point that notability is not inherited. Yes, there are multiple reliable sources, but none of these involve anyone doing anything notable on their own, they are always in the context of how it relates to the notable Barack Obama. By way of example, there have been literally thousands of articles written in the last week about Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's newborn twins, but there is a reason that we do not have an article about them on Wikipedia. They are not inherently notable and haven't done anything to make themselves notable other than be born in the same family as notable people. Likewise, most of the subjects of this article are not inherently notable and those that are already have extensive articles written about them. --Loonymonkey (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of the applicability of celebrity children are to Presidential candidates' families but there is in fact extensive discussion of the children in the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie articles. Notability, obviously, is inherited in that way. There is no "on their own" standard on Wikipedia. The standard is worth noting, as evidenced by coverage in multiple reliable sources. There is no consensus for refusing to discuss Obama's family members in the encyclopedia. The result of the other two deletion discussions was to merge, not delete. So the information was merged into the most logical place. If that article is now attacked to get rid of the information, where else would it be merged? The main Obama article is not appropriate - it would be of undue weight there. The article about Obama's father isn't a terrible place but what's the point of moving the information from here to there? All this does is to create a procedural mess. Wikidemo (talk) 17:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point exactly. The children are discussed in Pitt and Jolie's articles because it a biographical detail of those notable people. But the newborn twins do not have their own article. The reason they don't is because they are not independently notable (and trust me, if such an article were allowed on Wikipedia it would not only exist but would have been edited furiously the past few weeks). I haven't bothered to check the deletion logs, but I'm willing to bet such an article was deleted in the last couple of weeks for notability reasons. This is the "on their own" standard (that really does exist on Wikipedia.)--Loonymonkey (talk) 19:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Seems perfectly obvious that this is notable. --Sednar (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of actor families----as well as charts scrolling off way right in the browser, check out Barrymore family#Family tree, a problem contributors @ Coppola family (que music---& Cf. Corleone family#Family tree) solve this way: Coppola family tree.

\sim

Justmeherenow ( ) 20:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Notability now established by cited sources. (non-admin closure by nominator). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn of the Black Hearts[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC: bootlegs are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources. None provided, none found. Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ... The now infamous photo of Dead, slumped over his bed with his brain hanging out of his shattered skull was used as the front cover the a live bootleg, 'Dawn Of The Black Hearts', Dead's final MAYHEM concert recorded in Sarpsborg. Although the official explanation for Dead's death was that he had sliced his wrists with a large kitchen knife then shot himself, the 'Dawn Of The Black Hearts' cover raised questions, as it clearly shows the knife on top of the shotgun. link ... Mayhem were already notorious following the suicide of their vocalist Dead in 1991, after which Euronymous took photographs of the scene (later used as the cover to a Mayhem bootleg release) and, allegedly, ate some of his brains. link ... A favorite recording of many for its feral versions of these songs, this disc contains the essential summary of the Mayhem discography. link ... Is it even possible for a bootleg recording to be even more notorious or notable than this? --Bardin (talk) 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:MUSIC#Albums for the references Bardin has added to the page. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant as I am to give more publicity to sick people in need of help, probably notable. Keep. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Sutton[edit]

Being a QVC presenter does not provide inherent notability and that appears to be the only thing she's known for. Without the qualifier there are only false positives for the wrong Claire Sutton. TCari ^{My travels} 13:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per the Google hits. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable. Deb (talk) 20:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. You said it Dad (talk) 05:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne DZ[edit]

Non-notable radio program on a community radio station. It claims to be the longest running show in sydney, but I can't find anything to that effect in locations other than the article itself. Ironho lds 13:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear, Ironholds i'm new to creating additions to Wikipedia, and would appreciate some help, as im trying to understand why this post may be open for debate and deletion.. I was under the impression that Wikipedia was created to share information, similarly to the radio program that is being discussed. Not all community shows are "my spaced" and referenced all over the internet, especially underground music radio shows... as you dismissed contacting the station, myself or linked sources of interviews, i cannot comprehend what your code for inclusion is...? let me know what the issue is more clearly please.. so we can ammend this... regards, niepce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niepce (talk • contribs) 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "dismiss" anything, was I contacted about it? :S. Wikipedia is created to share information yes, but not indiscriminantly; we can't include everything about everything. We have a set of notability guidelines found at WP:NOTABILITY which govern what is and is not a notable page for field X. The general guideline is that if something has two or more independent, notable coverage, it's worthy of inclusion. Taking google hits for "Wayne DZ" as an example (although ghits are not on their own considered a reason for delete/keep) you find the page on the radio stations website about it (from which most of the article is copied) and a load of unrelated myspace, youtube and facebook pages. Ironho lds 15:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dear, Ironholds, thanks for your detailed reply, as i said i am new to placing additions and appreciate the time and comments, i know your doing a good job keeping illegitmate posts out, and i respect that thouroughly, now that i see the rules that dictate your comments, notability clause and Taking google hits etc, but i cant understand how you could dismiss a university run station and what is sydneys longest running underground radio show, with international filmakers, artists and musicians contibuting to it for the last 24 years..?

btw... 2 contributors, Richard Kuipers, Brendan Walls, work for Australian tv stations, and are both documentary film makers, and supporting this program and underground experimental music..

if you want to search them out feel free, and i would also appreciate any help with tidying up the page, as it is new to me. regards, niepce — Preceding unsigned comment added by Niepce (talk • contribs) 16:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flattery will get you everywhere :P. Again, university-run is not a notability clause. There aren't any specific notability requirements for radio programs, so we have to follow the standard ones. If you look at the article on BBC Radio 1, a station that's been running since 1967, you'll note that even there they don't have articles on every single program regardless of how long they've been running. You might want to include it in the radio stations page instead. Ironho lds 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable coverage outside of the local area, not syndicated to multiple stations, program does not even appear to be a daily-run program. --Winger84 (talk) 04:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not finding any coverage for this person. The unique name should make locating it fairly simple. The top hits in a google search on "Wayne DZ" are his website, this Wikipedia article and his facebook page, not a good sign for notability.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as nonsense, not notable, lack of sources, etc. You said it Dad (talk) 05:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It consists of original research and synthesis, per WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav Patriotic Songs[edit]

List article about a topic of non-documented notability and unaccounted-for inclusion criteria. Unsourced, OR introduction, uncategorised, misspelled title (it's not a proper name, the article author just means "Yugoslav patriotic songs" as a descriptive phrase). I was going to merge into Popular music in the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, but then I saw I couldn't do even that without sourced confirmation that these are in fact a representative sample of notable songs, and not just the article creator's personal favorites or the ones that simply first came to his mind. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A bad article in dire need of a rewrite; but a rewrite is what it needs, not deletion. The subject obviously has scope for notability. Keep. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant violation of WP:OR, synthesis of previously published material used to advocate a common theme to a list of songs hand picked by the author(s) of the article. As a point of interest as to how loosely connected these songs really are, entry #2 on the list ("Igra rokenrol cela Jugoslavija") has absolutely nothing patriotic about it other than mentioning the word "Jugoslavija" in the title and the chorus. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal opinion, and a badly written one, too. Madman (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per madman. You said it Dad (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete for failure to meet WP:ORG. Danlev, the time to establish notability would have been now. Sandstein 06:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

K2GXT[edit]

Disputed PROD for a student-run amateur radio club at Rochester Institute of Technology. This club fails WP:ORG for lack of 3rd-party WP:RS coverage. The article is written by the club historian, hence a WP:COI problem. • Gene93k (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Fails WP:ORG.--Sting Buzz Me... 11:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to RIT for reasons specified by Gene93k. CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable student club with no coverage by independent reliable sources. Fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nowhere near notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only external sources are a note that they're comms for a diabetes run and a press release. That doesn't make them notable. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see how this is notable at all, zap it. MrMarkTaylor ^{What's that?/What I Do/Feed My Box} 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the article just needs to be cleaned up and notability needs to be established. Give it a bit of time. --Dan Leveille^TALK 18:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep working on adding 3rd party sources to the wiki. Many are from QST, other magazines, and newspapers. KB1LQC (talk) 19:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please feel free to correct mistakes in the wikitext. I will honestly say that I do not feel comfortable with the syntax, but we all have to start somewhere. The biggest roadblock here is time. I am conversing with the ARRL on their QST Magazine articles, and other people/organizations/publishers about their information related to K2GXT. I honestly do agree that it is a bit concerning when one person has much of the info, I wish it would differ. However that is the case, I plan on finding a way to cite much of the information and host as much as possible when I find the means to do so. Many of the documents I have might be put into the RIT Archives in September. This would provide a very secure and long-term solution to publishing the documents containing the information. I encourage anyone who wants to help save this wiki to edit it. Related to K2GXT or not, please! K2GXT is one of those unique clubs with a diverse history. RIT has a huge engineering community, as well as a huge Photography, publishing, and image related community too. This diversity reflects in the clubs history and former activities in the Rochester area and nationwide/worldwide as I have been trying to show. There are events that K2GXT has been involved with, papers published in, etc that I haven't had the chance to take information for the wiki from. Any questions or comments please let me know. As you can see, I want to resolve this matter in a mature way by fixing the problem. I have no intentions of starting an "edit war" or whatever it is referenced to. Just simply getting the information on the wiki will be incredibly important to proving its notability. KB1LQC (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to a new sub-section in Rochester Institute of Technology#Campus life. The sources are insufficient to sustain independent existence under WP:ORG. TerriersFan (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several independent sources have been added to establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly from stuff in RIT. ARRL's webzine is questionable, IMO - could be wrong. The article in the Democrat only mentions them in passing. Unless ARRL can be considered WP:RS, my !vote stands. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Information about About ARRL KB1LQC (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment There is mention in the RIT Amateur Radio Club 1983-1984 Annual Report that states "Members used club equiptment to keep in touch with the Greneda crisis as Amateur Radio provided the only communication link from the invaded island to the rest of the world." a quick google search will reveal that amateur radio communication were indeed used in Grenada by Mark Baratella.^[1] Can someone can help find a verifiable source linking K2GXT to KA2ORK to help communicate with the students in Grenada? There may be more info locked away in the club room but I will not be able to go there until the end of August. KB1LQC (talk) 06:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article still doesn't establish notability. It's got to describe why, this organization is known outside it's area. Has it made some contribution to the field of amateur radio? Awards always help (there is one but it's relavance is not clear at all). Bottom line is, what makes this organization known outside of it's immediate area. If that cant be established, with sufficent verifiable 3rd party references, then it needs to go. This isn't RochesterInstituteofTechnology-pedia.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Article already has multiple sources outside RIT or the radio club; that's WP's definition of notability. The original nomination was for lack of third-party sources, which have since been added. If the above comment about it being an important communications link during the Grenada crisis checks out, that also makes it notable. Finally, because the club operates a station with internet-linked repeaters and packet digipeaters, it is part of the communications infrastructure of the Rochester area. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 14 references, 7 are primary sources (from university publications, websites, or a press releases), 1 is from the FCC (which doesn't do much to establish notability), 3 don't mention the subject of the article at all, and 1 is from a self published hobbiest website (which doesn't establish notability). The link to the American Diabetes page does establish that the group provided support but I don't know how much that does to establish notability here. The Rochester Democrat & Chronicle article is the one reasonably good verifiable 3rd party reference though it doesn't mention the subject the article either. The the only reference for the Grenada claim is above and that's to a self published source which doesn't help either. If this organization is notable, certainly there are better references than these.--Rtphokie (talk) 22:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The 3rd party references are 3rd party references, that is fulfilling what the complaint was, a lack thereof. Ok we are working to correct that and have made progress, do we need more, certainly, but it shows that something is forming. The Grenada Incident that I have mentioned could be checked out. As I clearly stated, I asked if anyone can help look for references to the claim. As for the self-published hobbiest website, amateur radio is a hobby and there certainly will be websites by other groups or organizations. Why would it not be a legit source? Technically, a professors personal website would have lack of validity in that case... even if considerable research was done, I would suggest making statements about references such as this more clear in the future. If references do not have a title, why not help and fill in the missing information? As I clearly stated on the talk page, I am new to this and any help is welcome. KB1LQC (talk) 00:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are three more references under the "references" header instead of "footnotes", which don't have inline cites. They are two issues of QST magazine and a newspaper article. All three are secondary sources. ( To the above poster: ) yes, primary sources and self-published sources by experts are valid, but this debate is about notability, and secondary sources establish notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I updated some info an referenced more that I just found on when the club formed. I also added our Valentine Day service as well as our Traffic handling during the Gulf War. KB1LQC (talk) 06:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment aren't there better references than that PDF file describing the service? Certainly some newspaper somewhere wrote about this clubs involvement in this service.--Rtphokie (talk) 04:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Yes there has to be, traffic handling was one of the most popular activities the club did, there are reports of over 1,500 messages being sent during one of the years valentines day events to people around the nation and world...The Gulf War service seems pretty important and I am sure something will turn up. I understand that the statements must be backed up by citing verifiable sources too so I am actively looking for them. There is still a lot of documents in Rochester, NY in the club room "history" cabinet that I did not take home (to Massachusetts, 400 miles away). I am pretty anxious to see what is there that has been saved now that I know what needs to be looked for. A problem with the online news archives is that many require a subscription to see the articles so I am hoping that there are some saved in that cabinet. KB1LQC (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - The problem I'm seeing is that they don't seem to match up to the constraints to WP:N - I'm really not seeing much here, and we really need it to meet those constraints. In the case of a ham radio club, I'll be honest, it strikes me as hard to do. Traffic handling - or rather, the nature of it - certainly works in the ham community. Frankly, as a ham myself, I think it's pretty cool what they've done. Unfortunately, you're also dealing with non hams - who run the gamut on those who think it's cool, all the way down to those who wonder if ham radio is kosher. Somewhere in the middle of that range are those who might find it interesting. All that said, though, for the purpose, I really don't see anything to make it to WP:N. Is there anything we can find outside of the community that describes in more detail? If yes, then I'll change my mind. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I hope you aren't planning a road trip to gather up those documents just for this AFD. While I'm sure those are wonderful historical documents for the club, they aren't really appropriate as references for this Wikipedia article as they are primary sources.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Nope, not planning a roadtrip, but I do go back to Rochester at the end of August/beginning of September for school. The documents I am talking about would be saved newspapers, QST, different things like that. KB1LQC (talk) 02:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I thought QST put back issues online to a small extent. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Comment Only a small, select few of the very very very popular articles, usually tech/building/project oriented ones. When I talked to QST about looking through all their archives of the magazine, they even told me it would take a while because the person would have to go manually through an actual magazine looking through each page for any info on K2GXT within them... makes you wish it was all on a computer and was as easy as a little search... KB1LQC (talk) 12:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep appears to satisfy nn. You said it Dad (talk) 05:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ Famous Hams KA2ORK Details

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. To facilitate matters, I've discounted all comments (in roughly equal parts from either side) whose mangled English, excessive use of exclamation points and/or generally rambling style indicates that they are motivated more by their writers' ethnic background than by Wikipedia policies.

I've also discounted several blanket assertions that the subject is unsourced. These are perplexing assertions because even the nominated version features a direct quote from what appears to be an academic work by American scholars (The Library of Congress World War II Companion by Kennedy et al.) describing the knife and its use; in view of this, the sourcing issue would have needed to be addressed in more detail by such "delete" opinions.

The opinions that remain indicate a rough consensus that, based on the sources cited in the article, a type of knife called "Srbosjek" is adequately documented as having existed in reliable sources (as the nominator has to his credit acknowledged). Insofar as doubt remains as to the extent it was used by whom on whom, where, when and why, these are issues that can be addressed through editing. Sandstein 23:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srbosjek (knife)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Right to the point: ever since this article was created by not-so-unbiased User:Joka, all sources presented by him in this article have been proven false, while the only evidence for the existence of this "special German Serb-killing knife" currently comes from two sources violating both WP:NPOV and WP:V. The first is the Serbian historian Bulajić, most notable for his genocide denial rhetoric concerning the Srebrenica massacre of the recent Yugoslav Wars. His statement does not in any way provide references to actual historical evidence concerning the alleged existence of this knife. Neither does the second "source" we have been provided with, namely the "Jasenovac committee of the Holly Assembly of the Bishop of the Serbian Orthodox Church". The very name of which speaks of the level of its professionalism and objectivity in historical/archaeological research pertaining to the killing of Serbs. Apart from that, it also does not meet the requirements of WP:V. As for the image of a glove knife allegedly depicting a "Srbosjek", one may entirely ignore it in these considerations as this claim is entirely unsupported. In short, this entire article is a gussied-up attempt at depicting a post-war myth as actual historic fact, and does not belong in an encyclopedia. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm listing my vote per above. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not what you'd call a sore loser ;). In light of all the sources brought forth here to support the existence of the knife, I withdraw my vote (and the nomination). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment As to the deletion proposal I advise the administrator handling this case to
- Reject - pointless disqualification of the person (User:Joka) who initially wrote this article - which (disqualification) is an act of incivility and attack on this person
- Reject The first is the Serbian historian Bulajić, most notable for his genocide denial rhetoric concerning the Srebrenica massacre of the recent Yugoslav Wars. - this has nothing to do with this article, Bulajic is not referenced here
- Reject - attacks on other editors frivolously accused of being someone's puppets
- Accept the most powerful testimony of the knife existence coming from Nikola Nikolić, a Jasenovac concentration camp survivor and a Croat and a physician who described the knife in his book.
- Taborišče smrti--Jasenovac by Nikola Nikolić (author), Jože Zupančić (translator) Published 1969 Založba "Borec":
- The knife is described on Page 72: 'Na koncu noža, tik bakrene ploščice, je bilo z vdolbnimi črkami napisano "Grafrath gebr. Solingen", na usnju pa reliefno vtisnjena nemška tvrtka "Graeviso"'
- Picture of the knife with description is on Page 73: 'Posebej izdelan nož, ki so ga ustaši uporabljali pri množičnih klanjih. Pravili so mu "kotač" - kolo - in ga je izdelovala nemška tvrtka "Graviso"'--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Reject", "Accept", what does that mean? I did not attack anyone, and you are obviously getting frustrated by the course of this discussion. The pic is not proof (its caption is irrelevant), and neither is a random book. Please read WP:V, we need proof based on actual professional historic research. References, facts, dates, not allegations of existence, "light reading", or some guy somewhere that says he "saw it". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This person misinteprets intentionally the Wikipedia verifiability rule or does not understand it at all. The professional historian work is done already and we have just to compile it. So Dedijer's The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican:The book library search shows [29] that 308 academic libraries across the World has this book - among them: Yale, Princeton, Duke, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge. Google scholar test [30] shows that the same book is referenced 108 times.
      Taborišče smrti--Jasenovac by Nikola Nikolić (author), Jože Zupančić (translator) Published 1969 Založba "Borec" Ljubljana [31] 5 times Jasenovački logor smrti by Nikola Nikolic (Serbo-Croatian version) [32] [33] 7 times
      Libraries: [34] - 10 libraries, among them Columbia, Princeton, University of Toronto.
      Google scholar test [35] [36] two times
      Libraries [37] 10 libraries among them - Stanford, Harward, Yale, University of Illinois-Urbana, Bayerische Staatbibliotek
      References, facts, dates are given and verifiable and the verifiability stops at this point. The picture of this knife is in the dr Nikolic's book - page 73 (Slovene translation Needless to say that Dedijer was a university professor who was visiting scholar and professor on the world-renown universities like Sorbonne, Oxford, Yale, Harward.
      These are just two most powerful references - the other five are visible in the article.--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article fails WP:V due to total lack of reliable sources. Article has already been deleted once [38] after its first AfD, only to be reincarnated for, as far as I can tell, purely political reasons. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think what you said reflects reality of the situation. Books by respected members of academic comunity (like Colic, Dedijer) that mention the knife hardly amount to "total lack" of reliable sources. Moreover, the fact that article was deleted once bears no weight on current discussion, since the issue has been fixed since, and previous deletion proposal has failed. It seems to me, rather, that the article was proposed for deletion for purely political reasons, i.e. to serve the POV of those who deny the atrocious use of this knife in the Jasenovac death camp despite the references provided (that were at some point even removed from the article before deletion proposal). Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above reasons. Ironho lds 13:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not ready to vote one way or another yet, but I find the above discussion about sources fairly confusing. The current version of the article lists three sources and none of them, as far as I can tell, appear to correspond the two sources mentioned in the nom. The first source in the current version is a mention in the "The Library of Congress World War II Companion" by David M. Kennedy, Margaret E. Wagner, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn. I looked it up on googlebooks and a preview of the page in question is available there:[39]. The second source listed is some book called "The Yugoslav Auschwitz and the Vatican". There is no preview available on googlebooks, so someone would have to actually find the book and try to verify if the reference is correct, but at least the book itself appears to be legit; here is a googlebooks listing:[40] and here is one from Amazon:[41]. The third source listed is: "Takozvana NDH, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973". Seems to be some book from pre-civil war Yugoslavia. I did find another mention via googlebooks:[42] in a book by Christopher S. Stewart called "Hunting the Tiger: The Fast Life and Violent Death of the Balkans' Most Dangerous Man". The relevant quote from there is:"One of the more sadistic guards, according to local legend, invented a knife called the Srbosjek, or Serb-cutter, which was basically a small, curved blade attached to a leather, open-fingered glove, meant for rapid slaughter". I'm a bit concerned by the "local legend" part, but the source itself is legit. Nsk92 (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is theoretically possible such a thing existed, and there is no question as to the existence of the legend (or myth, as I stated above), but to write up an article about an alleged knife is not encyclopedia material. One should keep in mind that this is a touchy subject, and that the motivation behind the rather clever ploy is most likely political and/or ethnic provocation. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because article is writen against wikipedia reliable sources rules and because of recreation of deleted article. One of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is Recreation of deleted material and because article has been deleted in January 2007 [43] situation is clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rjecina (talk • contribs)

The article does not fall under "recreation of a deleted article" policy, because, per wikipedia rules, the article that has a problem fixed does not fall under this, moreover, second deletion proposal failed. As for reliability of the sources, much has been said about this and some of the removed refereces have been put back in. To say the least, the very wikipedia rules are against deletion of material that has scholarly sources such as those that are now provided, so what you said has been refuted and even the person who proposed deletion has honourably admitted that and retracted his vote. Joka (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Article is having 2 english language sources. Only second is speaking about "knife", but this source is POV and has failed wikipedia verification rules. English language publisher of this book is Prometheus Books which is publishing dissenting books[44] and German language publisher Ariman publishing house which is publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense [45] and which members has recieved hero welcome in wartime Belgrade after publishing book--Rjecina (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick comment re Prometheus Books. If you read their mission statement at the link provided by Rjecina a little further, you'll see that what they mean by "dissenting books" is basically books written from a skeptical and scientific prospective and with some sort of anti-reliogious/pro-atheist bend. I don't think religious/atheist issue is particularly relevant to the discussion at hand and, I don't believe that it invalidates the source in question. Regarding English/non-English sources, sources are not required to be in English to pass WP:RS (in fact WP uses lots of non-English language sources). There may be some other issues that make a source unreliable but the language in which the sources is written is not one of them. Nsk92 (talk) 15:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Rjecina, I agree with your position, but please use logical arguments. Yes, the publisher isn't squeaky-clean, but it isn't the same person given a "hero welcome" is it? G4, is for material the same as or identical to the deleted material; not being able to see the previous page you can't tell that it is/is not the same, so posting G4 as a deletion reason is a moot point. Ironholds 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Plus, the most recent AfD was closed as no consensus. Nsk92 (talk) 15:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - If must important state controled newspaper (Politika) is calling members of sect which is controling publisher of this book "rare friends of Serbia in Germany" during Belgrade visit in which way we will call that ?
    - About G4 we are having agreement. Lets us call closing administrator to look deleted article and then if they are similar we will delete this. You agree with that ??--Rjecina (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree, yes, although if you look at how contentious the deletion was in the previous two nominations i'd still recommend leaving it to AfD. And again, can you provide a source for the "rare friends of serbia" quote? Ironholds 15:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "The Belgrade "Ekspres Politika" daily particularly lauded two members of this sect during their stay in Belgrade last spring as "rare friends of Serbia in Germany"-Belgrade November 16 1992 [46] --Rjecina (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        As I noted above, the most recent AfD was closed as no consensus, so a G4 speedy deletion now would not be appropriate. Nsk92 (talk) 15:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        We need to get the discussion back into focus, can we get a 100% reliable verification that this thing even exists, or can't we? Remember, we are talking about confirming or denying the actual existence of this thing, not discussing some aspect of usage. If this really was, as is claimed, a Wehrmacht standardized weapon, there would most certainly be records and surviving models. There are none. The previous AfD lacked focus on verifiability, and I fail to see its relevance here. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am not sure why, but the links to the two previous AfDs have disappeared from the top portion of this page. These AfDs are:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek,Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbosjek (2). The result of the first was delete and the result of the second was no consensus. Much of the discussion there is also about sources and there is a substantial amount of relevant info there, both pro and con deletion. It'd be good if the links to these two previous AfDs be added to the top of this page and in any event people should look them up before voting. Nsk92 (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks to be highly suspect and unless reliable sources from a trusted editor can be presented there is only one acceptable outcome for this page. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are no real evidences. It's all based on legend. Possible production of post-WWII-Yugo-fear factory. Zenanarh (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep There is more than enough scholar references supporting existence of srbosjek. Some of those who voted for deletion actually removed valid references and citations. The book library search shows [47] that 308 academic libraries has this book - among them: Yale, Princeton, Duke, Sorbonne, Oxford, Cambridge Google scholar test [48] shows that Dedijer's book is referenced 108 times. The Library of Congress World War II Companion By Margaret E. Wagner, David M. Kennedy, Linda Barrett Osborne, Susan Reyburn. Copy of the page relevant to this article is here [49]. The book library search shows [50] five libraries in the USA keeping this book. The book is referenced here [51]

--J. A. Comment (talk) 21:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If they removed them from the article they are not "lost forever", are they? I doubt the removal took place and was accepted for no reason. Can you show these references here? Provided they are unbiased/verifiable, that is. As things stand this thing has no proof, and has gone on long enough without adhering to Wiki standards. Also, could you please satisfy my curiosity: why does your only interest on Wikipedia appear to be this particular article? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J. A. Comment is currently part of a sockpuppetry case by Rjecina linking him to a previously banned editor (and string of other socks) with a distinct POV-bias on such subjects. While I don't agree with Rjecina's logic or methods, the evidence that JAC is a sock is very compelling. Ironholds 22:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, thought so. :) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep The article sources are deleted from the article, and are far from being disputed. I will reenter the references. Will come with more comments later on. Terse (talk) 11:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I keep telling you guys, get us irrefutable proof and this matter is concluded as far as I'm concerned. The sources are still in the History of the article aren't they? Just give us a an unbiased professional source referring to actual historical evidence (WP:V) (Preferably a non-Serbian source, nothing personal, but their authors on Jasenovac and the like are usually more than a little biased. The same could be said about Croatian authors.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 11:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the previous deletion discussion. The sources (that misteriously are missing in the present version) were given prety convincingly there, together with text from google books. I dont have much time now, but I will certainly return later today - my suspicion is that there is something fishy with nomination here - where are books by Nikola Nikolic, Vladimir Dedijer, ICTY proceedings etc. Terse (talk) 11:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that the person who nominated the article first time (it was deleted despite the majority KEEP votes) agreed to the references given second time, and didnt dispute the article subject existence. So according to wikipedia policies, that it was deleted once bears no weight here, as the concern was fixed; the article exists on wikipedia for something like 5 years now. Terse (talk) 11:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is a part from the second nomination discussion that contains links to google book quotations, proving that books mention the knife, so I suspect that (since references were since removed) either nominator was unaware of them, or that part claiming that sources are false is simply not true.

"The new article has scholarly references provided, and external links are added to ICTY trial in which this specific knife, used by Pavelic government in NDH, was called Srbosjek, as well as the dr Bulajic, president of the genocide research foundation in Belgrade and one of the most quoted authorities on Jasenovac genocide referring to this curved blade, used at Jasenovac, as "srbosjek".

As seen in the previous vote (majority votes was keep), local people are quite aware of the existence of the srbosjek knife, which was one of the most memorable exibits in Jasenovac museum most school people visited on excursions in the 80s. The scholarly references include book by dr Nikola Nikolic, holocaust survivor from Jasenovac, a Croat and medical doctor - his book is from 1948, in book by respected historian dr Mladen Colic (his full name is Mladenko Colic, he is one of the foremost authorities about ustasha military, a titoist, works at Belgrade Vojnoistorijski institut, and his book is often used in academic teaching at Zagreb university) from 1973, and in book by Vladimir Dedijer from 1986 or so. There are also some mentions in the english books by foreign (out of ex-yu) authors in the 80s. In the books I mentioned, the curved knife is described, as well as its origin, Vladimir Dedijer mentiones one being captured by the partisans. He also includes the account of 50 killing methods by Nikola Nikolic in his book. The knife was an exponate at Zagreb city museum, and the photo of the knife was one of the most memorable museum exibits in the Jasenovac museum in 80s and Titoist era. The knife is widely known as srbosjek (the name is used at ICTY, in press in 90s, it was translated to english as cutthroat or something like that).

For your convenience, I here list the books:

Jasenovački logor smrti - dr Nikola Nikolić, 1948
TAKOZVANA NEZAVISNA DRŽAVA HRVATSKA, dr Mladen Colic, Deltapres, Beograd 1973,
Vatikan i Jasenovac, Vladimir Dedijer, Dokumenti (Beograd: “Rad”, 1987)

the last book is also translated to English

Here is the part of the last book, which mentions the knife, and is in the part of the book scanned by google, so you can easily look it up: [[52]] In English, there is a book by Howard Blum, Published in 1977 by Quadrangle/New York Times Book Co. ISBN 0812906071, which also mentiones the knife, and the part that mentiones it is also available from google books [[53]]

Part of book by Nikola Nikolic are available online at jasenovac-info site. For instance http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/vecni_pomen/atanasije_en.html Notice the word "cutthroats" there. More parts of the book might be available online in Serbo-Croatian if you google it.

Finally, the photo and the sketch are available online from archive of Republika Srpska official site (most exibits from the old jasenovac museum were removed to Republika Srpska during the 90s wars)

http://www.arhivrs.org/jasenovac6.asp

the last two pictures of the srbosjek (exibit at Jasenovac museum, which I remember personally seing some 20 years ago, and also the sketch of the srbosjek knife).

You can notice that on the sketch, there is a writting "Grawiso" on the knife. The knife was produced by Solingen factory, which exist even today [[54]], and produces various knives.

Here is a more extensive part of the book by Howard Blum:

http://www.jasenovac-info.com/cd/biblioteka/pavelicpapers/artukovic/aa0006.html

Also check out this discussion from the Serbian wikipedia: [[55]]" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Terse (talk • contribs) 11:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1) The website presented by User:Terse is using data from the profoundly biased "Jasenovac research institute" [56], a Serbian organization who's goal is, quote: "To mobilize the Serbian people, and all progressive political forces worldwide, in a political struggle to end the war currently being waged against the Serbs" [57], hardly NPOV.

2) The second source is a state archive of a Serbian political entity held guilty of genocide by the UN, namely the Republic of Srpska, and is not based on any particular professional research. The state's position on WW2 Axis crimes is generally inconsistent with the historical consensus, and is always in the extremes when it comes to Serb victims. For example, the state's position is that there were 700,000 victims in Jasenovac [58], which would account for well over half of the total death toll in WW2 Yugoslavia (about 1,200,000). If we take into account the fact that there was an extremely bloody guerrilla war taking place, we can understand the audacity of that claim. On the other hand the USHMM and the Jewish Virtual Library came up with a figure of circa 100,000 [59], while the highest international number of Jasenovac victims is claimed by the Yad Vashem center (600,000) [60]. This lengthy explanation was necessary for the clarification of the reliability and verifiability of this state's official stance.

3) As for Bulajić, outrageous claims like this are hardly new for him. As was mentioned earlier, he is the author of a genocide denial "theory" concerning the Serbian massacre of Srebrenica [61].--Rjecina (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep There is a major difference between not wanting an article to exist because of the allegations of how the item was used, and because the item didn't exist. This item existed. The allegations of when and where it was used are portions of a very sad and disturbing part of the history of a region. Some of the allegations are more "proven" than others. I believe the article needs to stay, but in a more NPOV format. The entire article reads like an accusation. There are ways of phrasing this that meet NPOV. I am truly sorry that atrocities happened between ethnic groups, but hiding them does not help anyone heal. BMW(drive) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.Despite the lengthy post above by Terse, sketches are not reliable sources. Discussions at Serbian wiki are not reliable sources. Where are the reliable sources that meet Wikipedia policies on verifiability that say there was a knife called a srbosjek? I have checked the links you have provided and I just can't find any. If you can find these sources, everybody will be happy and this discussion will be over. Please provide them. And please bear in mind everyone that this discussion is not a vote. The article is going to be either kept or deleted on the basis of whether well established standards for articles are or are not met. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make a few things clear: My post QUOTED part of discussion from previous (unsucessful) deletion nomination, where the name srbosjek as well as references were discussed at length, and it was hence not mine original post.

Secondly, references there are NOT serbian wikipedia discussion, but a couple of books, one of which (by Dedijer) is still in the article (the serbian original clearly avaiable from google books quote speaks of this item), the english book. Other BOOKS (by Nikola Nikolic most notably, a Croatian doctor who spent time in Jasenovac I think), were removed from source list. This nomination is hence dubious, and to say the least there is a misrepresentation of references, which conclusively are proved (by google book quotation that can be clicked) to talk about this knife. Terse (talk) 13:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to a scholarly source proving the existence of this thing, if it is not that much of a problem. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources given are fully sufficient for the notable use of this term. The inclusion of material in another WP is not definitive. Our standards for inclusion of various topics are our own--some WPs are for some subjects more lenient about sourcing and/or notability, some less. DGG (talk) 18:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep. I have attempted to wade through the present AfD and the two previous ones. I am rather put off by the debate (POV pushing from delete proponents, socking from the keep proponents and a heavy dose of WP:BATTLE stuff). At the end of the day, my impression is that there are sufficient sources for the fairly wide use of the term Srbosjek. The English langiage sources mentioned in my comments above are OK and the pre-1990s yugoslavian sources mentioned by Terse appear to be OK (at least I am not willing to discount these sources without a lot more evidence of their unsuitability). Some of the content problems mentioned by the delete proponents can be rectified within the article itself (e.g. one can mention that some of the claims in the article are disputed). Nsk92 (talk) 18:59, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not reason for deletion. This article exists in six languages and anybody can add references from other language's version.--Dojarca (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --The subject is an unpleasant one, and no doubt offensive to modern Croat sensibilities, but it appears to be supported by adequate academic sources. Since this is a subject concerning a non-English speaking country, it is not surprising that English-language sources are few. I note that some one (above) cited further non-English sources. It would be useful if these were added to the article, perhaps merely as a bulletted list at the head of the refrneces section. If there are issues over WP:POV (and I am not sure that there are), the appropriate course is to tag the article, not to nominate it for AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Noone is trying to defend the Ustaše maniacs, and proving the non-existence of this knife would hardly diminish the "exploits" of one of the most murderous European regimes, but this is a matter of evidence. This knife certainly is a frequently mentioned legend, but so far little or no real historic data has been presented to show that this is not an attempt at turning this legend into scientific reality. I believe WP:V applies. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 15:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep repeating that there are no reliable sources. That is conclusively proved to be wrong, as books by Dedijer etc contain info about the knife, evident from given google book quotations. That you dislike Dedijer and other does not mean they are unreliable, as there are objective wikipedia rules of what constitutes a respectable source; Mladenko Colic is a university level expert in Ustasha military, another source that meets wikipedia criteria, and so are other outhors. You may claim that they are biased, though sources are varied, but you have no right to claim that they do not give a verifiable and reliable source info on the knife per wikipedia rules. You might as well deny holocaust based on claim that Jewish sources are unreliable, and you would probably be laughed off. University professors certainly meet the scholarly level requirement not met by many other articles that still merit a place here, and this important topic has scholarly, eyewitness, various nationalities etc. sources that prove the knife existence and use in Jasenovac. Joka (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - CommentThere is few question about this.1) Date when knife is designed 2)Start and end of production of this knife ? 3) Today name of Gebrüder Gräfrath . Today situation of article is that we do not know when of by who knife is produced ?
    - In May 2008 I have asked for NPOV internet link about this but nothing has happened but during first discussion which has ended with deleting 2 users has claimed that picture of this knife is in USHMM. This has been false claim or USHMM has been victim of fraud (because latter USHMM has destroyed picture)?? If somebody can find this picture on USHMM site I will change my vote --Rjecina (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I have to remind everyone here that "voting is not a substitute for discussion", or in this case, sources. So far, all sources presented to supposedly proove the existance of this knife have either been referring to an alleged knife, or are totally unverifiable, or are completely biased and unverifiable. The fact of the matter is that this is a perfectly possible post-war myth (or "legend") that noone has confirmed. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 18:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your qualifications are, to say the least, wrong. Sources are from respected historians, university professors, books used in academia even in Zagreb [62], and are "verifiable" as any book can be. It is not task of wikipedia editors to determine weather they are right or not, as you seem to think, this is OR, but only to check what sources contain (and they clearly speak of such a knife, proved here by google book quotations among other things), and that they meet certain objective standard - being widely accepted in academia (like Colic book), by respected members of academia, should suffice, even if you think authors are somehow biased, the topic merits an article, and POV issues are to be adressed there. You cannot just delete article since you personally dislike or distrust a source, that is otherwise a professor who held chairs say in UK and USA, as Dedijer, or a foremost expert in Ustasha military whose books are used at Zagreb University [63], as Colic. Joka (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Articles, based entirely on unreliable sources and blatantly false and abusing do not have a place in Wiki. --Lantonov (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you base your claim that sources given are "unreliable sources and blatantly false and abusing"? Are history university professors in USA and UK unreliable? Check Vladimir Dedijer, one of the sources whose book contains description of the knife use in Jasenovac, as proved by google book link given by other users; Note that Mladenko Colic is also University professor, expert on Ustasha military whose book is still used at Zagreb University as suggested literature for postgraduate research - i.e. Croatian academia clearly thinks him a scholarly source - see Deletion 2 discussion for much more details proving you wrong. Joka (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to remind everyone that the sources listed in the article are not verifiable, i.e. we do not know whether they really prove the existence of this object or not. As was mentioned earlier, this would not be the first time false sources were listed in this article. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that you are deliberately repeating your false claims, despite all the evidence given, for rethorical effect. How are the sources "unverifiable" when they are from books available in many libraries, with even parts of them on google books proving conclusively they speak on the topic and mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac? How are they "false", or unreliable, when their authors are well respected members of the academic community? If you keep repeating these accusations I will begin to think that what you are doing is in bad faith, as you are ignoring the overhelming evidenca that 1. books contain information about the knife and its use in jasenovac 2. books are sources accepted in scholarly discourse (Colic's book used in Zagreb as suggested literature [64], see deletion proposal 2 for more details and links). Joka (talk) 11:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep The users that push for article deletion are in fact misrepresenting the case of "unverifiable" sources, while it has been pointed out, by various users, that books in question do contain information about the knife and its use in Jasenovac. This has been proved by google books links that anyone can check. Moreover, references of scholarly work (by Colic, Dedijer and various english speaking authors), books by eyewitnesses (Nikola Nikolic book from 1948, a Croatian doctor held in Jasenovac - one of the many sources removed by Croatians who try to push POV of denying atrocities in Jasenovac) are said to be "unverifiable" - a gross misrepresentation. The authors are not even Serbian in some cases, and to deny credibility of old (Yugoslav era) witnesses acount is tantamount to denying holocaust by denying credibility of Jewish victims, saying "they are Jews, so they must be lying" - thats exactly what goes on here. Note that references predate the 90s war era by far. The existence of object in question (unfortunately, it is far from a legend, but even a significant legend merits an article), on which many BOOKS by authors scholarly or eyewitness speak, as well as second hand accounts by English speaking authors, certainly prove that this is not an invented topic. Even if one takes POV of denying the existence of the knife, by wikipedia rules, the article ought to exist as reliable sources (university professor books, like that of Mladenko Colic or highly respected (in western circles) Vladimir Dedijer - are per wikipedia rules reliable sources) speak of it. Wikipedia is not aimed at determining the truth - it is OR, and has some objective standards what is reliable source, and books by Dedijer (held university professor chairs in Yugoslavia, UK and USA!!!) etc certainly meet those. Joka (talk) 10:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To all those who claim that sources from such authors as Mladenko Colic or Vladimir Dedijer, both university professors, are unreliable, i suggest they read WP:RS. Moreover, Mladenko Colic's book (JSTOR review [65], the book is used even in Zagreb [66], today, at Croatia's biggest university so the book is clearly widely accepted (clearly, even by Croatian scholars) in academic discourse, which indeed is not surprising, as Colic was a leading expert in Ustasha military). Vladimir Dedijer was a figure of highest format, history professor in UK and USA (and Yugoslavia), member of Russell Tribunal, certainly a relevant source. The Jasenovac museum from SFRY era, that had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits, clearly is also a relevant source, and so per wikipedia rules, the sources given are neither fringe nor unreliable, as some users are trying to agressively assert in their POV. One cannot deny the ugly truth of henious Ustasha atrocities just by erasing articles that are supported by accounts that meet the standards wikipedia set forth. Joka (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - at least two Western authors mention the srbosjek - Wagner et al. and Christopher S. Stewart, not to mention a variety of sources from the former Yugoslavia. Even the US Holocaust museum acknowledges its existence. So it's clearly verifiable, and notable in that it was an important tool of the Serbian genocide in WWII. And even if it didn't exist, the legend would still be notable: just as the Nazis didn't actually make lampshades out of human skin but we still mention it in anthropodermic bibliopegy, so too should we give place to this story (which happens to be true, increasing its encyclopedic value). Biruitorul ^Talk 16:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have writen earlier give me link to USHMM on page which is speaking about knife (or to picture) and I will change my vote. Please do not write false statements--Rjecina (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and request. This discussion is a strong example of Wikipedia's main weaknesses. Lots of SPA comments/"votes" from people who have not edited the encyclopedia since the last time this article was up for deletion. Yet here they come, voices raised, that it should be kept. Check them out for yourselves. And all of the references they claim in support of their case are entirely unverifiable. I challenge them all to photocopy a single page of the books they claim as references, and upload the photocopy to Commons. Then post the link here within 48 hours. Go on then. Do it. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who recreated the article and added the references last year, and I was appaled to find out it was up for deletion again. I think arguments are what matter here, and I find dismissal of editors like that a bit offensive. As for your request, fortunately, google books has sometimes parts of books scanned and so you can for example instantly check that book by Vladimir Dedijer contains info on the knife [67]. Also, it is evident that Jasenovac museum had as an exibit photo and sketch of the knife (see link from the main page to photos; the site is part of UNESCO archive) - as many of the people from ex-Yugoslavia who visited Jasenovac on school excursions in the 80s vividly remember. I urge you to rethink your vote in light of the evidence, as DIREKTOR already did. Joka (talk) 03:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similar my earlier comment please do not write false statements. Jasenovac museum is in Croatia and not in Republika Srpska which is not known for NPOV policy about Serbs and other nations. If knife is real why has USHMM deleted picture and all comments about knife (if this has ever been on USHMM site)

If Dedijer is good source why his book is published outside Jugoslavija by publishers which are publishing intolerant and aggressive nonsense and person which buy this book are buying books:

To Kill a Nation: The Attack on Yugoslavia by Michael Parenti, Fools' Crusade: Yugoslavia, Nato, and Western Delusions by Diana Johnstone and Jasenovac and the Holocaust in Yugoslavia by Barry M. Lituchy. Because of all this reason book can't be accepted on wiki.

It is funny that user come back to wikipedia only to enter deleting discussion. Your only edits are things about Serbs and war so it is not surprise that your last edit has been defeated by RFC--Rjecina (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem attacks by Rjecina (who seems to be chasing quite a few editors who he is engaged in edit wars with) aside, just a few points about this. Jasenovac museum has been devastated by Croatian forces in 1991-95, and most exibition items have been moved to Republika Srpska before the 1995 Bljesak operation in Western Slavonia. Some of the material from Jasenovac museum, exibits available in SFRY there (srbosjek photo has been one of the more memorable items, a couple of editors pointed out this fact that they remember it from the exibition in the 80s, see previous AfD discussions) is posted on the RS archive page for that reason. From RS, some materials have been given to Holocaust museum in Washington, and has controversialy been returned to Croatia recently [68], causing controversy in RS [69]- the museum in Jasenovac itself has been closed in the 90s and was reopened recently. The new exibition is understating extent of the atrocities and has been much criticised for the fact that, among other things, killing items (srbosjek, malj - mullet etc) are not part of it

[70]. The photo in question is indeed part of the original Jasenovac exibition (from the time of SFRY). Croatian policies in regard to Jasenovac included such scandalous proposals as that of Franjo Tudjman to burry ustashe next to their victims [71] (quote "hteo je da miri antifašiste sa fašistima tako što bi im kosti pomešao u mikseru i sahranio u Jasenovcu"), and hence this is hardly a surprise, but the photo is part of the original Jasenovac exibition. As for Dedijer's book, original (in Serbian) is published by Deltapress from Belgrade, and what Rjecina is talking about is the publisher of one of the TRANSLATIONS (the book has been translated to several languages), and bears no weight on the original book merits, or indeed to credibility of Vladimir Dedijer. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read a little discussion among the weapon collectors about this knife. The knifes attached to the gloves were also found after WWI, sporadically, elsewhere in Europe, used in the trench combats by the individuals, always handmade. If I've understood well there was a "srbosjek" photo as one of the exhibits in Jasenovac museum!? There was no knife, there was a photo!!! Of a knife attached to a glove. If it was produced in Germany for killings in Jasenovac, wouldn't it be logically to expect some number of it found there. In Auschwitz, the Jews were killed by a gas, Cyclone G, blue crystal lumps which produced a poison gas in contact with oxygen. In 1945 a lot of these crystals were found there and now you can see it among other exhibits in the Auschwitz museum.

Many people who are voting here doesn't know or doesn't want to know what was post WWII atmosphere in communist Yugoslavia, which is very important for this discussion.

Although the antifascist partisan movement was started in Croatia and then rapidly spread to all region, there was also NDH - Nazi puppet Croatian state. The largest part of the Croats in the NDH territory didn't perceive it as Nazi in the beginning, since NDH gave them opportunity to live out of Yugoslavia, people were afraid of possible communist totalitarism, so called "the dictatorship of proletariat", which meant losing of their properties and ruling of the class of the workers and peasants. For the same reason the Serbs were massively mobilized to Chetnik forces, a royal Serb army, which collaborated with Nazis until 1943/44. They were largely indoctrinated by "Greater Serbia" ideas and there was a lot of the war crime committed by them in Bosnia and Herzegovina, by killing and torturing the non-Serbs, the Croats and the Bosniaks. In the same time the Croats mobilized in the NDH Ustashe committed a lot of war crime in Croatia by killing and torturing people from the "lower races", the Romes and the Jews (Nazi indoctrination) and the Serbs (revenge for Bosnia - people usually forget that there was a huge portion of the Bosniaks-Muslims mobilized in Ustashe, not only the Croats!). In 1943, after German loss in Russia, the Chetniks were massively changing their uniforms for the partisan ones, so in 1945 it appeared that almost all Serbs were the antifascists and not pro-Nazi Chetniks. In the same time Croatia was heavily bipolarized between the anti-fascist supporters and the anti-communist supporters. However probably the most part of the civil population in Croatia, not directly involved in the war, was more neutral and rather against the both ideologies. The Croats were massively escaping to the west in time period 1945-48 because of the massive communist persecutions of the Croats. In this period the partisan forces transformed into Yugoslav army massively persecuted the Croats and committed a lot of the "war" crime (war already ended). For example, in Zagreb, the capital of Croatia, there are a lot of the mass graves with the Croatian civils (the mostly civils, per some evaluations a few tens of the thousands) killed by the Serbian partisan battalions (ex-Chetniks) - they victoriously entered in Zagreb in 1945 and obviously revenged for the Ustashe crimes. So, although the anti-fascist movement was started in Croatia in 1941, in 1945 the half of the Croats were treated as the losers in the war. All Ustashe crimes were proccesed in the post-war Yugoslavia, while none of the partisan and the Chetnik ones. What's more, there was widely spread anti-Croat atmosphere pumped up in Serbia and by the Serbs, also the communist authorities created a huge political machinery and secret police agencies (OZNA) to secure their ruling position, the communist success was glorified to the stars, while Ustashe were the main monsters in the whole story, it all reached mythical heights. On every corner there was "Tito, partija, demokracija" (partija referring to the Yugoslav communist party), but no real democracy at all. The Croats were once again massively persecuted in 1971, since Croatian politicians and students supported democratic political system instead of one-party communist totalitarian system.

Serbian nationalists were taking advantage of their position in Yu society and exaggerated many numbers like the victims in Jasenovac. They claimed (and still claim!) that there was 1.000.000 of murdered Serbs, while in the official lists there were max 40-50.000 of the Serbs, Jews, Romes and Croats. "Srbosjek" is just a part of this propaganda story. It's possible that such knife was really found in Jasenovac, but there are no real evidences that it was called "srbosjek", that it was serially produced etc... It's all in the air, nothing really materially. If it really existed it was more likely a handmade tool used by some monster, maybe even nicknamed "srbosjek", who knows, lately utilized by OZNA agents for creating propagandistic platform. An atmosphere of fear is always easier to maintain if there is some materialization of it and a knife that killed thousands of people is perfect materialization for such purpose.

All discussions like this one should be placed into the proper period of time and relating occasions and this one case smells too much like propaganda. I mean there is not even one piece of it, just a photo and a story, the same in the sources as in this article? And 1.000.000 Serbs was killed in Jasenovac by that knife? Or by a photo? How many people can one monster kill using a knife in one day? How many such monsters must do it every day? How many knives is needed for doing it? How many knives was found? Just a photo? So 1.000.000 Serbs were killed by a photo? Are we all crazy here? Zenanarh (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from Croatia, your POV is somewhat understandable, but bear in mind that while you might personaly have an opinion about this knife and its use or even existence, wikipedia editors are not supposed to be the judges what is the truth (that would be OR and obviously could create many problems and many edit wars on controversial issues), but to REPORT in NPOV way on what has been said by relevant sources. Therefore, as scholarly sources that mention the knife and its use in Jasenovac have been established beyond reasonable doubt, so much that even the person who proposed deletion here admited that and retracted his vote, there is little choice but to follow wikipedia rules, that do not allow deletion of sourced material about items that clearly are documented just because some editors do not like it. Joka (talk) 17:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming from the planet Earth. I believe my comment was pretty NPOV. There are no the good and the bad guys in my comment. Just political and social environment of that moment. Problem is that you're talking about the "reliable" and the "scholar" sources, but possibly written by highly indoctrinated authors for particular purpose. Zenanarh (talk) 19:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, scholarly authors in history are not free from bias, and wikipedia editors have their own POV, influenced by many things, origin not being the least in these matters. Indoctrination goes many ways indeed. However, what matters here are wikipedia criteria, and the POV issues are dealt with according to standard policies, and deletion is not the way to go. As for what you say, please look at the sources and note that they are varied ideologically, and nationally. Nikola Nikolic was a Croatian doctor and eyewitness who was persecuted by comunists. Vladimir Dedijer was a disident (he fell with Djilas), Mladenko Colic a Titoist. So certainly there is no SINGLE pov from which these testemonies are coming from. No one would be taken seriously here in trying to deny facts about Auschwitz based on claim that Jewish sources were biased and Jewish professors indoctrinated, though thats what many holocaust deniers were doing in disputing their claims. Wikipedia is not supposed to side with anyone on do its own research but to report based on sources, which indeed confirm existence of such a knife. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny :) Nationalistic SPA account is speaking about bias ond POV--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Rjecina's arguments. Classical exemplar of Serbian Ustashi mythomania that WP should not fuel. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian mythomania? Nikola Nikolic was a Croat, medical doctor who was in Jasenovac, and his book (a source cited) gives one of the strongest testemonies about the knife. Other non-Serbian sources are also provided, and Jasenovac museum in the times of SFRY was governed from Zagreb, Croatia, and had srbosjek photo as one of the exibits in weapons used in Jasenovac section. Mladenko Colic's book is used as a recomended book in Zagreb University in Croatia even today. Your claims are unfounded. Joka (talk) 19:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner et al. promote "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Christopher S. Stewart promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? The US Holocaust Museum promotes "Serbian Ustashi mythomania"? Let's keep the rhetoric under control. Let's not deny the horror of Jasenovac. Imagine the (rightful) outcry if someone declared the gas chambers to be "Jewish Nazi mythomania"! I see no difference in this sort of Serbian genocide denialism. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:23, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never stated that any of them "promote it", as you deviously impute it to my behalf, nor was denying the horror of Jasenovac itself, but was referring to the article itself, namely the legend of srbosjek which has absolutely zero (0) firm supportive evidence, and a plenty of highly disputed and dubious ones. Your holy Stewart quote has in itself "..according to local legend.." which you can translate plainly as: "according to the myths promoted by Ustashi-obsessed Serbian historiographers". It wouldn't be the first nor the last Westerner that has fallen for 200-years perfected Serbian mythomania. Moreover, being a "Western source" makes him even less credible (with respect to this particular matter, not generally) since he's just translating some second-hand source. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

0 evidence? Other than documented eyewitness reports (by Nikola Nikolic, Croatian doctor etc), scholarly work (Dedijer, Colic), exibits from Jasenovac museum; maybe you would like to propose to erase article Jesus Christ claiming that there is 0 firm evidence that he ever existed, and disregard the works of historians and scholars who had published works claiming that Christ was a historic figure, disqualifying their research as Christian mythomania, disregarding the fact that they are not even all Christians. Joka (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My earlier comments have been show me USHMM Srbosjek internet link and I will change my vote. Now I will say show me link towards any respected Holocaust international institution which is speaking about Srbosjek and I will change my vote. If not 1 Holocaust international institution is not having Srbosjek and if Britannica is not having Srbosjek there are only 2 solutions: Srbosjek is myth or everybody is POV about Serbian victims.--Rjecina (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. Sole delete preference was WP:PERNOM and is discounted. Editors interested in reaching consensus on merging the article are invited to do so on the relevant talkpage. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silesian alphabet[edit]

There's nothing like 'one Silesian alphabet" - the language is codificated in 10 different ways, besides the article does not cite any resources since September 2007. It's not neutral showing three codifications (I know only the first one, I haven't even seen the rest of them although my Silesian is pretty good and I often read the Silesian web pages. I think each major codification should be described alone. Timpul my talk 10:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above. Timpul my talk 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I appreciate your frustration with the article, but the matters you've mentioned sound like cleanup issues to me. If the article needs to be expanded, and the subject is a bit obscure, perhaps it could be tagged for expert attention. It seems to me that the alphabet (or alphabets) of virtually any living language is verifiable and notable; the rest is best addressed with sound editing. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've added tags for WikiProject Linguistics, and put a language writing system stub template on the article. Hopefully that will help it grow. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Xymmax. Frankly, if we were starting over from the beginning, I'm not sure that it was a good idea to have the proliferation of every variant on the Latin alphabet used to write every language; I'd rather see the article at Swedish orthography than Swedish alphabet, for example. Precedent stands against this preference, though. When an alphabet becomes distinct enough from the Latin with a handful of diacriticals thrown in is a judgment call - it might still be the case that Lithuanian alphabet is a good idea. Where there is no formal standard - and apparently there isn't one for Silesian - this becomes harder. I'm not an expert on Silesian in any case. I say keep the information in the article, and make it clear that the "alphabet" proposed is not standardized and just a proposal, if references can be found for those assertions. Then again, Silesian language is not so immense that this couldn't be merged into a section on Orthography. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silesian language, if there is useful information. Could go into a section called "Writing system" or something, talking about how the Polish alphabet has been used to write it, until this alphabet came along (I'm no expert, but this is what I've picked up from places). There is a Silesian Wikipedia, so the script they use must be of some importance/relevance. Balkan Fever 13:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Silesian language as suggested by Balkan. It looks to me as if this is a dialect making a bid to be recognised as a separate language (though I may be wrong). If so, what form of the version of the Latin alphabet should be used may well be under debate. However, it does not need to be a separate article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete - Nabla (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Metro[edit]

Seemingly non-notable group. Prod removed by anon with message that group is notable "because of the regular rodio play it recieves and it's affiliation with other notable bands (namely Superchick). However i respectfully suggest that neither are enough per WP:MUSIC, the radio play being a single station and the "affiliation" with Superchick being limited to "a sweeping endorsement". tomasz. 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per esradekan. no sources too. You said it Dad (talk) 05:01, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:HEY. Both delete preferences ("spam" and "sources do not appear in articles") discounted as irrelevant to the deletion discussion per WP:PROBLEMS. There is unanimity amongst the remainder of respondents that coverage of the topic in reliable sources is sufficient for the Heymann Standard. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 01:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie conran[edit]

I removed a speedy from this page as the article does assert notability. However I'm not sure if she is notable enough to warrent an article Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm over the moon she collaberated with her brother. The only potentially notable bit is having written ( well, possibly written ) a cookbook, with a nice advert for that. The rest of it is a MySpace CV... with notability assumed to have passed from parental DNA. Given it was created by someone purported to be the subject, it's nothing more than an advert/blog/resume... Minkythecat (talk) 10:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, although the article requires a substantial re-write and there is a apparent conflict of interest. However, she has been published and awarded, and a search on Google gives a lot of relevant results. - TexMurphy (talk) 10:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google News finds enough coverage in reliable sources for notability including [72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79]. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Go to Google Books, go to Google News & Archive, go to Google, try different keywords, and when sources are not online go to your local fucking library and read them. Make it work, because authors don't need people kicking them around after all the hard hours they have spent getting their words just right. Sincerely, Manhattan Samurai (talk) 20:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources do not appear in article, no assertion of notability. You said it Dad (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because the sources do not appear in the article does not mean the article should be deleted. If sources exist then the article should be kept and fixed through regular editing as it clearly states in WP:DEL If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, There are many reliable sources available for this person, I just added Eleven (11) citations to this article. There may be some POV'ish words that should be removed but this person is clearly notable. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Edge[edit]

This is an article regarding a website which is relatively not significant. The edits seem to be made by the owner/officer of the corporation. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Chirag - this does not assert notability. Addionne (talk) 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. You said it Dad (talk) 04:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cryme Tyme Cenation[edit]

~~The is most definately a non-notable wrestling stable. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)~~ I know this is odd, since I nominated the article for deletion, but I have a better idea. Why not just merge this article with Cryme Tyme? -- iMatthew _T.C. 21:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete three weeks does not a stable make. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Darrenhusted. Adster95 (talk) 10:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –L A X 10:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.M.N. (talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definetly not-notable. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable, not even a stable, they have had only one live match together. If they team up for a couple more months, then notability could be established.--S_RX 14:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 13 62^talk 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable as of yet. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable Less Than Clippers 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Possible recreation if stable continues. I am not even sure that is the official name. Wait for a TV reference. JakeDHS07 16:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete Cena confirmed a stable and a name, meaning they are a stable for the foreseeable future. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RYANonWIKIPEDIA (talk • contribs)
- They have been together for only a few weeks. They are not notable enough for an encyclopedia. If, however, they begin to team up regulary for the next few months, the tag team in question will become notable. D.M.N. (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An obvious Delete, per WP:N, WP:CRUFT, WP:RS, and WP:CITE. Feedback ^☎ 22:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Forever A pathetic, non-notable, attempt at a "stable". --Kaizer13 (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CSD#G4. –L A X 11:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Korpela[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It's Just a copy of the other article that got deleted Adster95 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: Per #4 of the General CSD. -- iMatthew _T.C. 10:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD G4 the rules are clear. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

REEB[edit]

A research project. Not much clue to who is running it or where. And absolutely no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. I think this'll fall under G12 - Copyright Violation, as it matches text from this link, among others from the same site. Unclear as to the status of an EU government project, but the site has no overt copyright mark or release of information under a free license. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete violation aside, not notable, no sources. You said it Dad (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional vehicles[edit]

Unreferenced list with no clearly defined criteria for inclusion. What makes a vehicle fictional? Ecto-1 from Ghostbusters is listed, but that is basically a Caddilac hearse, so what makes it fictional? -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 09:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG OPPOSE - First, it's not a Cadillac hearse. It's a Cadillac ambulance. Second, the customization of that 1959 Cadillac Ambulance is strictly for the movie. The deletion tag should be removed! ----DanTD (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Ghostbusters article says the vehicle is a hearse , but in any case that is irrelevant, as I only used Ecto-1 as an example of a vehicle which is not fictional, but is merely a customised, real world vehicle. Lists need to have clearly defined criteria for inclusion, which this list doesn't have. The deletion tag must remain until consensus is achieved here. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - It's a combination car, which means it could be either one. Nevertheless, the car was strictly customized for the movie, and there are plenty of others like it on the list. Those that aren't customized are strongly associated with the movies, television shows, and other works of fiction they appear in. Therefore the list should be kept. This sounds too much like yet another sabotage mission against articles associated with works of fiction. ----DanTD (talk) 11:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addionne (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Restructure First, Let's assume good faith that JediLofty is not conspiring against fiction. Personal attacks such as these do not help your cause. I do agree with JediLofty - as a category, it needs more clearly defined criteria. I do think this is an interesting idea, however, and with some time and restructuring to be more specific, easier to use and adding references, it should be kept. I think, for instance, with the amount of video game vehicles on here, they could have their own sub-section - this would help make other things on the list easier to find... Addionne (talk) 13:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I don't know if you're aware of this, but there has been an excessive campaign by numerous editors to purge wikipedia of articles relating to fiction, mostly under the guise of maintaining reliability, and avoiding copyright violations. ~~One of the more despicable editors has been one known as TTN.~~ Perhaps this will help you understand why I'm making such an accusation. ----DanTD (talk) 21:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's assertion that Ecto-1 is not a fictional vehicle seems over fussy. In any case, disputed vehicles may be removed from the list without deleting the whole thing. Notable vehicles such as the Batmobile and Thunderbirds obviously qualify. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only used Ecto-1 as an example. I'm still not sure what criteria are used for adding vehicles to the list. The Thunderbirds or Batmobile are wholly fictional, so I could understand why they'd be on the list, but Ecto-1 and Herbie (just a couple of examples) are real-world vehicles. I'm not sure why they are included yet, for example, the M.A.S.K. vehicles aren't. If this is supposed to be a list of all vehicles that have appeared in fiction then it will surely become far too large and unwieldy - if it is supposed to be a list of completely fictional vehicles then something needs to be done to clarify this. If the article is kept there really needs to be some clear and limiting criteria for inclusion.-- JediLofty ^User_Talk 10:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for similar articles. Lists of [items of a given type] in notable fictions are encyclopedic, as almost all recent discussions have shown in cases where the objects in question weren't utterly trivial themselves, or where there were almost no uses in notable fiction. That just plain isn't the case here. The use of major settings and objects in notable fiction is notable, and can be sourced as for all fiction plots and characters and setting, from the fiction itself. disputed individual items in the list can be disputed on the talk page. DGG (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speed Clean-up. The list is not problem: the entries are. There is unsourced and non-notable entries. Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unmaintainable list that could be better served by categories of fictional automobiles, fictional aircraft, and so on. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Colonel Warden. Mathmo ^Talk 07:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this gives us nothing that the category "Fictional vehicles" couldn't. Deb (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, Pure vandalism. This includes blatant and obvious misinformation covers it nicely. TCari ^{My travels} 13:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Jalkson and the Molexes[edit]

This has been here more than a year, but it's a HOAX. Congratulations to BNutzer for spotting and tagging it. Evidence:

The article claims that Jimmy Page was a member of this band before leaving to join Led Zeppelin, but his article says he was with the Yardbirds.
Ditto for Angus Young and AC/DC; his article says he was with Kantuckee.
A Google search turns up references on sites like Lyricsmania.com and lyricsandsongs.com, but I suspect anyone can post on those sites. When you follow the references through, all they lead to is the lyrics of a single song called "Fuck the trees".
In particular, there is no mention anywhere of an album, although the article claims that "the album" (unnamed) "went quadruple platinum (that's four million copies sold)".

The author Sdjalk87 (talk · contribs) has no constructive edits, and no edits since this article. In the article history one can see that anonymous IPs have twice replaced the article with "This article is fake, it shouldn't even be on Wikipedia" or words to that effect, but have been reverted. I think they were right. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is absolutely definitely a hoax. Angus Young was only born in 1955 so would have been unlikely to have been in a group in the "late 1960s", and his family emigrated to Australia in 1963 anyway! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - hoax. Nice to know we probably drove away a couple of IPs who were trying to help by reverting and templating them. Oh well, nothing's perfect I guess. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism (deliberate hoax). Stifle (talk) 14:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine supermodel search[edit]

Revived hoax article of Philippines' Next Top Model, Cycle 2, only this time written under a different title. Starczamora (talk) 07:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for the same reason that I had said earlier, that this one doesn't have any verifiable sources. Probably a hoax. --- Tito Pao (talk) 08:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete even if it is not applicable for a speedy. There's no way this is true anyway, so why lengthen its misery? --Howard the Duck 09:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 as fairly blatant hoaxness. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Wax Radio[edit]

orphaned article which does not establish the notability of the topic. No 3rd party references. Rtphokie (talk) 02:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It seems to have a bit of a following. Lots of google hits turn out to mostly be forums, blogs, etc, but this looks legit. I think Dark Wax Radio makes the cut under WP:ORG. Plasticup ^T/C 13:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the link you mention appears to be a forum as well. Aren't there any better sources? If it's notable, certainly it's been mentioned somewhere, sometime in a newspaper or magazine review at the very least.--Rtphokie (talk) 11:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Before closing this AfD, please note that the link to this discussion from the article itself was broken until I fixed just a few minutes ago so editors that might have wanted to join the discussion were prevented from doing so. Personally I think this article has little chance of surviving, given the lack or references, but it would be bad form to exclude so many from the discussion for such a trivial reason, just in case. - Dravecky (talk) 15:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 07:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not appear to meet any notability guideline. There is a brief mention on a site that mentions every web radio site [80], but certainly nothing significant. JohnnyMrNinja 14:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. You said it Dad (talk) 04:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ty 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Epoch Notation Painting[edit]

Notability issues for over a year. So listed DimaG (talk) 19:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bduke (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC) --Bduke (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 07:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above I have sought some input from Australian editors. --Bduke (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks like gibberish or nonsense to me, and I've certainly never heard of it. Nothing on Google except for a long list of Wiki-mirrors, which suggests that it's not a widespread concept. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment, I've looked up some of the books that allegedly reference this, and there are some odd anomalies. For instance, a reference for "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" by Wassily Kandinsky is included, which indicates that there are 80 pages, but it took about ten seconds for me to locate the book, which only has 57 pages (and the ISBN's match up, so its not a similarly titled but different work). Likewise, The Encyclopedia of Australian Art by McCulloch is searchable on Google, but does not appear to have any reference to this particular 'writing' system within. Given the vague and demonstrably incorrect referencing, and the almost complete lack of anything else on the Internet concerning this, I'm even inclined to think that this may be a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Neutral Obscure, but there is a reference in "The Encyclopedia of Australian Art" (Alan McCulloch). Not convinced that there's enough coverage to make it notable but I'm reluctant to support deletion since the article is well referenced, the topic appears to exist, and the main problem appears to be a lack of electronic sources, which is not grounds for deletion. Debate 木 12:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Age archive is theoretically searchable to 1990 (http://newsstore.theage.com.au/ ), although you do need to pay, but the results of a search on references from the article do not reassure me... (nor do the comments below)

1. The art of painting in numbers, The Age 25 May 1991

No reference found.

2. Heathcote, Christopher Dr. Harking back to Romantic spirit, The Age, 6 August 1993

Abstract: David Strachan, 1919-1970 (Ballarat Fine Art Gallery, until 5 September); Peter Graham: Central Australia, 1954-56 (Lyttleton Gallery, until 21 August). THE ROMANTIC SPIRIT has been passing through a bad spell in recent years. Contemporary artists have begun to realise how flexible the term i The Age 05/08/1993 Cost - $2.20 984 words

I would suggest to user:Newepoch that a condensed version of the material would better sit within the Peter Benjamin Graham article, and this would not trigger the same notability requirements associated with creating an entire article. Debate 木 13:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article will be expanded to address above issues in the near future. The reference for "Concerning the Spiritual in Art" by Wassily Kandinsky refers to the 1972 George Wittenborn Inc softcover edition which does have over 80 pages. As for The Encyclopedia of Australian Art by McCulloch issue - look up Peter Graham and you will see a reference to Notation Painting. Will endeavor to put in electronic references in the near future. [edit] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newepoch (talk • contribs) 13:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Given the references, it appears to be notable. Personally, I can't see why, but that's another matter. DGG (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nanda Kishore Samal[edit]

Non-notable. <humour> Is the height of the template messages an indication of it's lack of suitability for inclusion in WP?</humour> -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After a half-dozen google searches, I'm not even convinced he exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per someguy. You said it Dad (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. If he is elected in 2010, a new article can be written then but at this point he doesn't appear to be over the bar of WP:BIO#Politicians. Sarah 02:04, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

George Colbran[edit]

Failed election candidate with no other notability. It had a prod template which was removed, with the editor citing "his business and how powerful he is". Owning a business in Townsville doesn't establish notability as far as I'm concerned Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having read the entire article, I can honestly say there is nothing that gives him noteability. Timeshift (talk) 06:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. His business/political activity is not notable enough. Jmount (talk) 07:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with Timeshift9 - I too have read the article and can not see how he meets WP:Bio - specifically WP:BIO#Politicians states Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I don't see the refs as being "significant coverage" and taking this article above the notability threshhold required. --Matilda ^talk 07:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep WP:Bio says a person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The multiple newspapers and broadcast references I feel are worthy. In addition, A person is generally notable if they have received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. The Order of Australia is certainly within this criteria as well. The fact that his political career failed does not mean that Mr. Colbran is strictly held within the bounds of the WP Bio Politicians criteria. Addionne (talk) 13:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that were true then we'd have kept Corey Delaney/Worthington, but we didn't. Also, other failed candidates also have news articles, as they were just that, election candidates, but they're now failed candidates. They still have news articles don't they? The presence of news articles does not establish noteability. Timeshift (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure we should the fate of this article based on previous similar articles - that is against WP:WAX. Addionne (talk) 13:43, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't twist what is said. My point is that news articles in themselves do not establish noteability and gave an example. Timeshift (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Recall the guy and he was quite likeable, but now that the election is over and he failed to win, he fails WP:BIO. I wouldn't be unsurprised if he wins in 2010, in which case he can have an article then. Orderinchaos 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: The article in its current state requires improvement, but this could be achieved. Colbran is well known in Queensland. To me, the notable aspects about him are his disagreement with Peter Garrett (when Garrett was formerly an environmentalist). Garrett and the band Midnight Oil campaigned against Colbran opening up McDonalds restaurants around Townsville. It was an amusing irony when Cobran eventually joined the Labor Party with Garrett. Colbran himself used to campaign against restrictions to junk food advertising for children. He had to eat his words, so to speak, after joining the Labor Party when Labor launched a policy to restrict junk food advertising. These are memorable aspects of Colbran that don't appear to be in the article. The article should be reworked to get rid of the trivial stuff, and add the more memorable facts.--Lester 02:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If a source can be found for this and the article amended I would change my opinion to keep --Matilda ^talk 02:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ABC 2007 ... but that is in the context of the election - I would like something to say it was notable at the time--Matilda ^talk 03:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Tony Mooney is not the mayor of Townsville anymore and he still has a page and is said to be notable so why isn't George notable....forget the election and look at what he has done for this area, this page needs to be kept but i will say that it does need a tidy up and add ALL the info about him.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 05:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Mooney was actually elected to the office of Mayor. Colbran wasn't elected as member for Herbert. Frickeg (talk) 06:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why are we using asterisks to reply? On a side note i've fixed up the messed chronology and duplication per article. Timeshift (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We use asterisks to reply so you can tell where one sentence ends and the other starts....keeping the page tidy.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 10:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While it seems he fails WP:BIO for politicians, it is quite possible he passes it as a community leader in his local area. Perhaps the article could be rewritten to emphasise this; after all, he did win an OA for it. Tentative Keep.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 09:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are "community leaders in their local area" noteable? Timeshift (talk) 01:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is a failed political candidate who happens to be a successful local businessman. 23rd most powerful person in a town of 150,000 people or so, according to the article. While I don't doubt he has some notoriety amongst his neighbors, all his non-local press mentions seem to center around his being a candidate. Thus, I conclude that he is not notable. RayAYang (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failed political candidate, shopkeeper. OAM is far from unique. Notability? WWGB (talk) 06:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong Keep 23rd most powerful Townsville person (excluding parliamentarians and media personalities). Andrew Lau II (talk) 07:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC) blocked vandal WWGB (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope nobody takes the above vote for real... this really is pathetic, the guy fails noteability on all fronts. This is a textbook case of non noteability. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Give your POV a rest Timeshift....he is a very well known businessman here in a City of nearly 200,000...plus he is involved in many other things (that need to be added on his page) he owns 9 restaurants, raised the money to build Ronald McDonald House, is one of the Management Committee for the NQ Cowboys....need I go on....and you say he is not notable, look at this guy David Carmichael he is just a chef with a few restaurants and yet he is notable, anyone can see that this page should be kept but re-writen to add ALL of his info.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 09:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not POV, simple fact. And just because one page exists but shouldnt, doesn't give precedent for just as other non noteworthy pages. Don't worry, we're right, it's a textbook case, and it's only a matter of time before this article is gone. Timeshift (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - failed political candidate with only local notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 20:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have the people that said that George in NOT notable read the Additional criteria part of the Wikipedia:Notability (people) page ......it clearly states A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included part of these standards are Any biography, The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them. Also The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, And being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject...need i say more, he is notable...have a read of this page Wikipedia:Notability (people) and you will all see that this page can stay.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 03:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which he doesn't meet. I also take note that the article's creator has just noted here that they have no problems with the article's deletion. Timeshift (talk) 10:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So??? it doesn't matter if the article's creator doesn't have any problems...it's not realy up to him anymore as it have been put to a vote....your very one sided arn't you....what have you got against George, and tell me WHY he doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (people) from what i have seen, he does.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sooner you stop thinking people have something against him, the better. I've come across many AfDs like this before, it's a textbook delete, you just have invested emotions in the article. I don't. That's why i'm a Labor voter and want this page gone - HE IS NOT NOTEWORTHY! But as i've already said, don't worry, this will all be over soon enough, with the page deleted. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that you vote that way, and that is your choice...but because you "WANT THE PAGE GONE" is not a valid reason to delete it, and who are you to say I have envested emotions in the article....bullshit.... I'm just sick of editors like you that have to delete notable page like this one because of your political preference....I don't care that he ran in some stupid election, I want the page kept as do others because of what he has done for the area, the awards and honor's he has received plus the success of his business.Thuringowacityrep (talk) 01:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't WANT THE PAGE GONE... I want NON-NOTEABLE TEXTBOOK CASE ARTICLES GONE which has happened for ages on wikipedia, and will continue to happen for ages on wikipedia. This page is just one of many soon to be sucked in to oblivion for clearly being non-noteable. And what political preference? I'd never vote Lib/Nat, Labor always comes first, and regardless I don't let it come in the way of my edits, your attacks on me make no sense. He is non-noteable and will soon be gone. Enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Lester. 202.168.11.22 (talk) 11:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 202.168.11.22 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. WWGB (talk) 12:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The True Patriot[edit]

Unnotable book; fails WP:BK -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself", "major literary award[s]" or any other of the book notability criteria in relation to the book. The book fails our book notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 06:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable pamphlet. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 08:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per bigdaddy. You said it Dad (talk) 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Learner's Online Collaborative Dictionary[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/English Learner's Online Collaborative Dictionary

This article should be deleted because:

1. It lacks notability, see Wikipedia:Notability.

2. The article was started by someone close to the business, which violates Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. BrainyBabe (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - ELOCD started to operate on 12th June 2008 and it's already made its way onto Wikipedia. It seems to be an up and comming business on the move. GregManninLB (talk) 06:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The editor who started the article, User:Triesz, appears to be the person who started the ELOCD itself, as explained here. It makes good sense as an entrepreneur, if you have an idea and start a business, to create a page for it on Wikipedia. However, that is not what WP is about. BrainyBabe (talk) 13:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find absolutely no reliable, independent secondary sources that treat this Web site. It may, I suppose, become notable someday, but at the moment the article is a borderline A7 speedy for nonnotable Web content. Deor (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Deor Madman (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability. You said it Dad (talk) 04:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, copyvio. TCari ^{My travels} 13:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Palisades Federal Credit Union[edit]

Delete nn organisation. None of the article references show notability, and GHits are all self published, press releases, blog entries, and directory entries. Mayalld (talk) 04:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google turns up only company affiliated or non-reliable sources and google news and the google news archives. I think it fails company notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shit on your neighbor[edit]

Card game that is close to made up one day. None of the external links work, [158 google hits] none of which appear a reliable source. May be a variant of Sheepshead but I cannot find any reliable sources to make a redirect make sense Peripitus (Talk) 04:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt, Kurt, Kurt... I admire your persistence. I also admire how freaking wrong you can be at times. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are a few references on google but none of them I could consider to be reliable, there is no evidence that this game is notable. Atyndall93 | talk 05:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kurt Sceptre ^(talk) 08:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I lol'd. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - notability is neither asserted nor established in this article. Borderline WP:MADEUP content. Frank | talk 14:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, clearly made up one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT, which this card game apparently is. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the arguments of the one proponent of keeping, Kurt (above), I call for a strong delete. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: how about just redirecting to Sheepshead like I originally had it? You could probably even include info about it there. This game does exist. I've been playing it since c. 1989. Aka crap on your neighbor.--Hraefen ^Talk 18:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not meet the non-negotiable requirements of WP:V. — Satori Son 21:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defecalete: Non-notable game. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 21:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eden (machinima)[edit]

Non-notable entry. Cited references are either self-published source or unreliable forums. Delete --PeaceNT (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you trying to be ironic or something? JuJube (talk) 07:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING as well as the more official Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read them both many a time, and they're both wrong. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know your opinion on this, but I think we should continue to follow the community-guided policies at WP:N until an absolute inclusionary stance is taken in Wikipedia. Addionne (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Do you not realize that these so-called "policies" are in fact merely reflective of what's already going on in the trenches? This means that the proper way of changing them is to do what I'm doing--make my effort in the trenches, and work to get others to do the same. If that happens, then these so-called "policies" will be changed to reflect that, because that's all they are. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 17:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Good luck with that. o_o JuJube (talk) 19:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete google turns up some results, but none are reliable, google news turns up nothing, you would think if it was notable at least one reporter might write an article on the internet about it. Because of the lack of sources etc. I think that it fails the general notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 05:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although I personally think this is interesting and realize the amount of work the project has taken - I do not think at this time it is notable enough for inclusion. Let the first season run through, and if it is good, it will get the recognition it needs to come back here. Addionne (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above - subject matter doesn't seem to be notable yet. Una Laguna^Talk 15:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — References are neither verifiable nor third-party. In addition, article fails to establish out-of-universe notability. MuZemike (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the sources aren't adequate to establish notability, forum posts and a self-published website just aren't good enough. EvilRedEye (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, WP:V and WP:NOR. The "keep" opinions emphasise that sources exist showing this is a notable genre of music, or scene, or something. That seems to be not very much in dispute and as such, I suppose that an article could be written about it. However, the current article (in either of the versions being edit warred over by Cosprings and JBsupreme) is not it. In the longer version, it is an assortment of unverifiable and unsourced claims about the merits of individual scene members, and in the shorter version, it is a equally poorly sourced brief account of various people being involved in acts of violence. Because in either case most of the article makes controversial claims about living people, and no version in the history appears to comply with the requirements of the policies mentioned, the article is deleted to allow for a rewrite from scratch that complies strictly with WP:BLP and WP:V. Sandstein 07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit hip hop[edit]

Keep - There are in fact plenty of reputable sources about "Detroit hip hop." [81] End of story. --Oakshade (talk) 05:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Oakshade; there are sources suggesting that Detroit may have an independent and notable hip-hop subculture. This seems to convey some notability. Atyndall93 | talk 05:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - people/groups like Insane Clown Posse, Esham, and to a different degree, Eminem, (and many more, but this is not my forte) are representatives of Detroit hip hop, a legitimate genre Theserialcomma (talk) 05:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the text of the article and Theserialcomma's argument above convince me that 'Detroit hip-hop' is absolutely notable, verifiable, and a distinct sub-culture of a popular form of music. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The title of the article is a good way to get publicity for detroithiphop.com. GregManninLB (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. The current state of the article is atrocious, but WP:HEY now it just needs to be rewritten. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have no opinion or knowledge of the genre but the article seems to be a blatant violation of WP:OR and WP:POV. Everything in the article seems to be a synthesis of available material put together by the author(s) of the article in order to advance a position. We should be able to verify through reliable sources that such a genre exists as well as that the history of emergence is correct and that the artists listed in the article truly do belong within the scope of what's described. The use of Image:Avis&Elsmer.jpg is also in violation of OR and POV in that it is nothing more than a picture of a building being falsely described as an obvious inspiration for a whole genre of music. This article is more suitable for a newspaper or a magazine rather than an encyclopedia. The genre may well exist but this article fails Wikipedia's core policies and guidelines and should be deleted and rewritten from scratch if and when it can be sourced properly. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles on topics in newspapers and magazines are what in fact establish notability by Wikipedia standards. Wikipedia is is not a paper encyclopedia. There are millions of topics like this one that would not be covered in a traditional encyclopedia like Britanica. You've made a case for article improvement, not deletion. There is easily enough reliable sources on this topic to write an article about based on those sources.[82] I don't subscribe to the "We must kill this article in order to save it" mentality. --Oakshade (talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a list of reliable sources to verify the existence of a music genre called Detroit hip hop. It is a list of articles containing the words Detroit hip hop, not even neccessarily in that order, which could mean about a trillion different things. Examples:
    - This article is about Kwame Kilpatrick containing the popular reference hip hop mayor of Detroit.
    - This article is included in the list of hits because of this sentence: ...death of Detroit rapper Proof has hip-hop artists and fans asking if rap produces violence.... Again, nothing about a genre of music called Detroit hip hop.
    - This article speaks of a Detroit hip hop scene. Every major urban area in the united states has a hip hop scene but having a hip hop scene does not mean that there is also an entire genre of music spawned from that scene.
    - This article is about an event called Detroit hip-hop summit. The name of the event is not an explicit confirmation of the existence of a music genre.
    - This article is about a rapper from Detroit performing in Europe. There is no mention in the article of any kind of a music genre. In fact, the words Detroit and hip hop never even appear in the same sentence.
  - Bottom line about the sources you have presented is this:
    1. The Google search from above is inconclusive as it returns a variety of related and unrelated articles.
    2. The existence of a music scene does not guarantee the existence of a music genre native to that scene. Hip-hop from Detroit does not mean Detroit hip hop as put forward by the article.
    3. There is a complete lack of references from reliable sources to back up the claims advanced by the article Detroit hip hop about the supposed genre's historical development, especially the socio-economical factors influencing the rise of the genre nor are there reliable sources to verify that the selected list of artists in the article can be classified in such a specific category of music. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Cherry picking articles that are not primarily about Detroit Hip Hop and then falsely claiming that no articles exist about Detroit Hip Hop makes it hard to assume you're editing in good faith. I can't believe I need to explain this but here it goes: Just because some articles in a google news search are not about Detroit Hip Hop does not invalidate the many articles that are about Detroit Hip Hop. Showing the search was to demonstrate that many secondary sources exist on Detroit Hip Hop, not every one in the search. I thought that was obvious.
        This article entitled "What's next for Detroit hip-hop?: Shell-shocked by deaths and negative publicity, rappers ponder a future of making music without the guidance of Proof and Jay Dee." is about Detroit Hip Hop.
        
        This article entitled "Detroit's strong hip-hop scene finally is getting its act together" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
        
        This article entitled Detroit hip-hop goes national - Homegrown talents find the winning..." is about Detroit Hip Hop.
        
        This article entitled "Outrageously violent lyrics define Detroit's hardcore hip-hop scene" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
        
        This article entitled "Street Beatz: What REAL Detroit hip-hop is all about" is about Detroit Hip Hop.
      - These are only some of the articles found on that google news search that are about Detroit Hip Hop. And yes, even as a "scene," Detroit Hip Hop is notable as you have pointed out an article about it. --Oakshade (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for explaining to me that those are only some of the articles found in that search immediately after i c-l-e-a-r-l-y stated that I'm listing examples (one could argue that "examples"="some") of why your search is inconclusive. You presented no specific article to prove your point but a link to a Google search. Since I'm taking the opposing stance to yours, I presented loopholes in your theory as possible proof of lack of reliable sources by (wait for it) "cherry picking" examples from your Google search because I was actually trying to find articles that do not conform to your theory. Even so, I admitted that there are articles speaking of hip hop from Detroit and Detroit hip hop scene which still in no way explicitly states (not implies) that a genre of music called Detroit hip hop exists yet you still provide links to me for those same articles. Kudos! By the way, excellent job on keeping focus on discussing the article and sources instead of discussing me, the editor. If you can pardon my preceding sarcasm, I still assume nothing but the utmost good faith from you because I can't possibly imagine thinking, simply because your opinion differs from mine, that you are working towards any goal other than improving Wikipedia. A very sarcastic Thank You for assuming that my goal here is something other that trying to help the project, not hurt it. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On second thought I am changing my !vote to DELETE per the compelling arguments put forward by SWik78. The present article is a blatant violation of our Wikipedia:No original research policy, carries a harsh point of view unsupported by third party sources and should be deleted if this cannot be resolved. Perhaps this can be rescued ala WP:HEY, but if not policy requires that this be removed. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some more artists that may be considered to represent 'detroit hip hop' are Black Milk, Fat Ray, Phat Kat, Guilty Simpson, and Uncle Ill (some of these artists may not have wikis, as they vary from being detroit underground rappers, to successful artists. also, see [[83]] for an interview where the detroit hip hop scene is discussed . for a more accurate google search about detroit hip hop, try searching (with quotes) "detroit hip hop scene". i see 2,230 results for that exact phrase. i am not from detroit, nor do i like hip hop particularly, but i have heard many references in my life to the hip hop and rap scene in detroit. this is not an encyclopedic testimony or evidence, just a note of my personal experience. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, a hip hop scene exists in every major city in the United states and Detroit is no exception. I'm contending that a "music scene" and a "music genre" are not the same thing. The article in question is presenting a case for the existence of the music genre called Detroit hip hop. There is a difference between the two. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If this article is deleted, then so should New Orleans hip hop, Twin Cities hip hop, Houston hip hop, & Chicago hip hop. "Detroit hip hop" is not a genre--it is a scene. See Canterbury scene for articles about a scene around a town or city. This article also just serves as List of hip hop musicians from Detroit, Michigan, just like on the pages I mentioned. Delete articles about fictional things. This is a real thing. Cosprings (talk) 19:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The emphasis on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument does not work. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 20:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- from detroithiphop.net we find the phrase "A lot of times people try to pigeon-hole Detroit Hip Hop’s sound." to me, this quote legitimizes the fact that there might be a specific detroit hip hop sound, making it distinct from other genres of hip hop. and [[84]] according to this interview at realdetroitweekly.com [[85]] with J Dilla "I say that Michigan (especially Detroit) has it's (sic) own sound." hiphopgame.com [[86]] mentions "keeping that classic Detroit hip-hop sound alive." i think my point is, there is a legitimate claim that detroit hip hop has a distinct sound, which i believe would qualify it as a genre. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand that this article will probably be kept despite my opinion of its worthyness or the lack thereof. You actually make a good point, Serial, but hiphopgame.com, detroithiphop.net and realdetroitweekly.com fail WP:RS so I'm of the opinion that information presented in those sources, whether it may or may not be true, should not be used in Wikipedia. The other thing that I'm trying to get across is that, more so than challenging the existence of a genre of music called Detroit hip hop, I'm challenging the article's synthesis of all those links presented by yourself and Oakshade as original research. Forgetting about RS for a second, there only seem to be bits and pieces of articles that very quickly mention something to do with a term Detroit hip hop, without any kind of a clear and explicit elaboration, which are then used to compile an elaborate story on the origins of a music genre without such an elaborate story ever being published before. That's what, in my mind, constitutes a breach of WP:OR but, like I said, I'm having a hard time expressing my exact point for which I can only blame myself that I kant rite gud (sic) :). I also do believe that articles can be in violation of WP:OR to the point where they warrant deletion and rewrite rather than repair (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars (2nd nomination)). SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As far I know, your belief that articles can be in violation of WP:OR to the point that they warrant deletion and rewrite is just a personal preference and not a policy of wikipedia. Anyone can blank the content of an article and rewrite it if necessary - and I have done so myself a few times - but deleting an article not only remove the content but the edit history and talk page as well. I don't think that's something that should be done if it can be avoided. The example you provided appears to be more of an exception than a rule and I note that the article has not been recreated in that instance. It was also the subject of edit wars and controversy that this article is not subjected to. --Bardin (talk) 15:16, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - In all fairness, I specifically used the words I also do believe rather than I also know it to be official policy for a reason and that is to make sure than I'm not trying to misrepresent my opinion for something other than just that - opinion - by attributing more importance to it. It's my opinion that we're here to document something that's been researched and published by someone else rather than to do our own research on a subject we would like to see includeed and then subsequently tweak and edit it until it can marginally pass our official policies and guidelines. I believe this article to fall into the category of such original research due to the fact that even once all of the links provided by Oakshade are taken into consideration, I have not been able to find a single one that actually explains what Detroit hip hop is. There are plenty of them that speak of an artist being a memeber of the scene (not genre but scene) but there is nothing about the genre itself. If I could have a reliable source presented to me that says, more or less, Detroit hip hop is a genre of rap music distinguished from mainstream hip hop by... I would change my vote and do what I can to improve the article myself. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I get the impression from this AFD that it is more of a scene than a genre. Even if there is nothing that separates the music of Detroit hip hop from "mainstream hip hop", as you put it, there's still a separate history which might be out of place in an article on "mainstream hip hop". I note though that one of the sources cited by Oakshade above is titled "Outrageously violent lyrics define Detroit's hardcore hip-hop scene". Seems like a good starting point to flesh this article out. --Bardin (talk) 11:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles cited by Oakshade are enough to convince me that this subject is both legitimate and notable enough for an article on wikipedia. The article might not be verified at present but the existence of sources indicate that it is verifiable. Violating WP:OR and WP:NPOV are not acceptable grounds for deletion. They are grounds for improvement. --Bardin (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A point about your argument that violating WP:OR is not grounds for deletion: in the link you provided that lists valid reasons for deletion (not acceptable grounds) click on the link in bullet point #8. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources is not the same thing as articles that contain original research. If we delete all articles that contain original research, there would be no need for this tag. --Bardin (talk) 15:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps, but I was just arguing the point you made about OR not being valid grounds for deletion when official policy cleary lists it as such. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly verifiable hip hop scene of high cultural significance. Plenty of research out there already on this, only some of which has been dug up by previous editors (remember, your best friends - libraries - are offline). Chubbles (talk) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. AFD is whether there is a possible of a legitimate article from the muck. The NOR policy is about the article content itself. Just like an article about Bill Gates would not suddenly be worthy of deletion if it became suddenly filled with original research, they are two separate points. I agree with SWik78 that people seem to be violating WP:SYNTHESIS in large part to create this article but I want to make it look like something first. There are two sources right now (and one is a dead link), (in either version), which is really low given the possible topic size. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Result: There is no consensus here, the article cannot be deleted. This article, like a majority of articles, has little references, if any. That does not mean that any of the information is original research, or unverifiable. There are thousands of articles like this one with a references/cleanup tag at the top and that's all is needed. Eventually the article will be good and well-referenced. I don't think I'm jumping the gun in just putting a cleanup tag at the top and removing the delete tag.Cosprings (talk) 02:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of sources and encyclopedic value. This deserves perhaps a sentence in a larger article. You said it Dad (talk) 04:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. RFerreira (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red Sector Incorporated[edit]

The creator is User:Redsectorincorporated. WP:COI? I don't see any notability. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update There is now a speedy tag on the article, per CSD A7. The article is less than an hour old and ready to get deleted. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The speedy tag was later removed. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is probably one of the most famous warez groups of all time. Who cares who created the article, that's irrelevant. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. spam per speedy.Becky Sayles (talk) 05:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete RSI may be well known in the cracker world but according to google and google news, no reliable sources have found the group good enough to write about them. They seem to fail organization notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 06:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. RSI is a famous cracking group and would be worthy of mention, so I was tempted to vote "keep but remove all trivia such as member lists and chronology", and then I read the article, and saw such a trim would leave only the first paragraph. JIP | Talk 06:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I'm an old Commodore Amiga demo coder myself, and Red Sector were about the most famous warez/demo group in all history in the late 1980s/early 1990s. If we wanted to reference something other than the Internet, it would be a simple matter to find evidence of notability. By the way, has the nominator noticed that the article Tristar and Red Sector Incorporated exists? This was a group that formed from the merger of Tristar and RSI. - Richard Cavell (talk) 06:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a totally new article formed hours ago. I brought this to AfD without the knowledge that that article exists. Do keep in mind that the user probably did not know either. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this barely if at all escapes speedy deletion (A7) and contains no assertions of notability or importance. It consists entirely of a list of people, subgroups, and BBSs, with a history/chronology of unremarkable facts. I have been unable to turn up any significant reliable sources that provide verifiability of even what little is in the article. --MCB (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The non-trivial coverage by Scenery Amiga and Defacto2 publications demonstrate more than sufficient notability. The 2,200 unique Google hits [87] are also an interested barometer given that this is an organization which existed during the pre-internet days. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update The username has been blocked by Tivedshambo because of its promotional nature, according to User talk:Redsectorincorporated. Also placed there was a speedy notification and a conflict of interest query, courtesy Becky Sayles. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 19:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per assertion of notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Since RSI were openly involved in illegal behaviour, I have always wanted to question whether they were actually incorporated or whether it's just a kind of affectation added to their name. I doubt very much that RSI operated as a business, since they wouldn't have had a significant revenue stream. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per atyndall. You said it Dad (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It appears that not enough is known about this period to make such an article verifiable or not original research. Sandstein 06:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown ruler of Persia[edit]

The claim of an "unknown ruler" may not hold up. Most of the Net research I've uncovered places the reign of Orodes I through the period given to this anonymous man. Here is an example that supports Orodes' reign being longer than the time that our articles have alloted him: [88]. Any Persian history scholars are welcome to chime in and establish notability. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up This site, for the Iran Chamber Society [89], puts Sinatruces on the Parthian throne for the years attributed to the unknown ruler. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a discussion on my talk page about this article. While I have been unsuccessful in the few minutes I have been researching to verify reliable sources discussing the subject, many sources confirm our article on Orodes I's statement that he ruled from 90-80 BCE. That period does not cover 80-77 BCE, though I can see how looking at dates that flow backwards can be confusing. I have also confirmed a gap—Orodes I's reign goes through 80 BCE, and Sanatruces' reign starts in 77 BCE, three years later. Certainly, then, putting aside any question of the article's correctness, the hole that the article purports to fill is in that period and consistent with this gap. This post was ending with the last sentence but, after edit conflicting with the above follow-up: Numerous reliable sources confirm the date of Sinatruces' reign to be from 77-70 BCE (targeted Google book search). Woah, wait a second; things keep getting curiouser—a similar search finds many reliable sources which also have Sinatruces' reign starting from 80 BCE. Hmmmmm.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification There is no confusion about the flow of years for the BCE. However, the first source I cited (from the Smithsonian Institution) has Orodes I's reign ending in 77 BCE, not in 80 BCE. Furthermore, this Google search [90] offers sources that supports the reign of Orodes I through 77 BCE. In any event, I am not finding any evidence that there was an unknown ruler in Parthia from 80 BCE to 77 BCE. I believe one of these monarchs ruled in that three year period. Hence, I think this article needs to go and Wikipedia's coverage of Parthia needs to be readdressed. Ecoleetage (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Some searching this morning reveals this history of Parthi; (look at the section entitled "Parthian "Dark Age" c. 95 - 57 B.C."), and (from the same site) unknown king and Unknown King (II). That led to this: this further confirmation of the "dark age" and a period when who the rulers of Parthia were is unclear; which led me to this page from the The Cambridge History of Iran where it states:
  "...so that it appears that in Babylonia in 90 b.c., a ruler called Gotarzes (I) was expelled by another called Orodes (I); the latter was in turn forced to give way to some further prince in 80 b.c..." (emphasis added).
  I think what we may need here is an article instead on the Parthinian Dark Age, which is at least verifiable, and in that article it can be verified that numismatic sources indicate that either one or two unknowns may have ruled in or about 80 - 77 B.C, but that the exact line of succession is unclear; it isn't called a dark age for nothing.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on comment Well, this is getting to be the Persian equivalent of Rashomon. Your Unknown King II reference places our anonymous monarch on his throne from 80 BCE to 70 BCE - which throws the proverbial monkey wrench into our earlier research by extending his enigmatic reign for seven more years (to 70 BCE rather than 77 BCE). I agree that a new article may be in order. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment³. The reign is stated as "c. 80 - 70"; c. stands for circa, or about; it flags that these are approximations and further flags that exact dates are unknown, not that he ruled during that entire period. So, I'll see you one Rashomon and raise you a Kagemusha:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have tagged the article for expert attention and requested help on the talk pages of the Ancient Near East and Iran wikiprojects and portals. Perhaps someone who sees my messages may be able to help. --Eastmain (talk) 23:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the facts can or can't be confirmed. Edward321 (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that if so little information on the individual can be verified, but that such a disruption in rulers transpired, then the article should actually be based on a concept similar to the Crisis of the Third Century. Hiberniantears (talk) 13:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either that, or substantially rewrite the existing article to cite the rival historic claims to Persian leadership in this period. That would require a sense of boldness that you would see in Yojimbo (gotta keep the Kurosawa references flowing). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is it an issue of rival claims or just not enough evidence? My search suggests the latter. There seems to be nothing stating his date or that of Sanatruces (sp?). A couple of other sources [91] [92] - both look reliable as sources, just not definitive. Doug Weller (talk) 10:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until facts are confirmed. Editors should follow guidelines on creating articles. You said it Dad (talk) 04:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DElete The evidence for the Unknown ruler seems to be three coins that cannot be attributed to a ruler. They are dated to c.80 BC, but that might be a guess. I would guess is probably better to regard them as of an unidentified ruler (possibly one of whom we know). Alternatively, it might be better to merge the content (basically the reference and a minimum of text) with the article for Orodes or Sanatruces (or both). We are dealing with a remote period, for which historical is thin, so that complete certainty is impossible. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At first, it simp[y looked to be confusion about the dates involved, but briefly examining just the sources mentioned here, it apparently represents a less than fully understood situation; making my guess based on what I know better (the Roman empire in the West), the underlying reality presumably was that there was no unambiguous chain of succession on an overall basis, and that different people claimed to rule partially overlapping parts of the empire at partially overlapping times. The firmest evidence is the coins, but that can show only who had sufficient power in the place of minting at the time, even when an unambiguous personal name appears. The actual article here is a unsound extrapolation of complicated material, and to call it a particular ruler, even un-named, at particular dates is unwarranted. In cases where there is scholarly consensus on a person referred to by an assumed designation, we can use it, but there's not enough evidence here for that. As the previous comments just above also seem to say, we await the progress of historical scholarship before we can make an article. DGG (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized_Pitch_Pro[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Specialized Pitch Pro

This page is contains information about a bike that is not historically notable, and does not warrant merit a separate entry. Josephus78 (talk) 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep — It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google and google news turn up no reliable sources, I think this bike fails notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not asserted or established. (It also looks very close to a speedy G11 (blatant advertising) to me.) Frank | talk 14:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOTADVERTISING. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:33, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - Unanimous vote MINUS the socks --JForget 00:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Great Name[edit]

Authors User:Ahwa85 & User:SecretChiefs3 are known POV-peddling sockpuppeteers. The article has one English-language reference that does not necessarily support the subject. This is supposedly a Islamic occult symbol, so why is its only source a book on Babi rituals? Appears to be WP:OR. MARussellPESE (talk) 03:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Criterion Looking at what links to this article, it's certainly WP:NN. If there's a place for the material that's actually verifiable to be merged, I'd be happy to see that. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not appear to be referenced or notable. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficiently referenced. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, no indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article provides all necessary references. No valid reasons for deletion have been provided. Nur110 (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC) — Nur110 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Do Not Delete' I am here to lend my support in keeping this article. The article needs expansion not deletion. Please keep it and provide additional information about the symbol. This is what wikipedia is supposedly here to do is it not? JohnDanielHammond (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — JohnDanielHammond (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I am a Researcher of Middle Eastern Spirituality. I have read all the cited sources, both the English and non-English sources. They are authentic. Those who wish to delete this article have not done the appropriate research to back up their stance. There is also blatant dishonesty on the part of some editors here, who are deleting the sources, and then claiming that there are no appropriate sources to back up the article. NO ONE should have a monopoly on Wikipedia! The article is a valid and appropriate contribution to the subject matter and the author has done the necessary background research on it. Fatimazuhra786 (talk) 13:01, 18 July 2008 (UTC) — Fatimazuhra786 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a legit user. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete: I too am a researcher. The article is fine and requires additional information to boost it. There are far worse articles on wikipedia requiring a nomination to delete. Definitely not this one. I vote to keep it. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) — Priestofshangrila (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's interesting how many self-proclaimed researchers with no previous edits are showing up for this Afd. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is even more interesting is that the parties who nominated and then supported the article for deletion possess a certain sectarian rivalry, shall we say, with this symbol and seemingly are acting as if they are on a religious crusade on wikipedia against it. New or not, no one other than the Wikipedia corporation holds any entitlement to wikipedia or its articles here. This is supposedly a community effort - however much certain religious sectarians are continually gaming the system here to stamp wikipedia with their own peculiar slant - and is open to anyone with an internet connection. So kindly assume good faith and stop acting as if you own this place. You do not nor is it any entitlement exclusively belonging to any single editor or administrator! Nur110 (talk) 05:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentPlease note that none of the procedures or protocols for nominating an article for deletion were observed here. The article was arbitrarily gutted of all content and then nominated for deletion. This violates NPOV and also does NOT follow assumption of good faith protol. Given this the very reasons for its nomination are invalid. As such the tag should be removed. The parties should then come back there and discuss the reasons, whys and wherefores for wishing to delete this article and then renominate if the issues are outstanding. Nur110 (talk) 04:33, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three notable Western language academic publications reference the device, one as recently as 2004:

H. A. Winkler. Siegel und Charaktere in der Muhammedanischen Zauberei. Berlin and Leipzig, 1930.
Father Georges Anawati. Le Nom Supreme de Dieu, Atti del Terzo Congresso Di Studi Arabi e Islamici, 1966.
(ed.) Emile Savage-Smith. Magic and Divination in Early Islam. Ashgate, 2004.

One editor removed all references and citations to the article and then nominated the article for deletion reverting it to its first version. This is not assuming good faith and is not a valid reason for nominating an article for deletion. As such I have removed the tag. Nur110 (talk) 08:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentBut here is the thing, your perforce deletion of the non-English *references* had nothing to do with the main body of the article. The non-English sources were in the references at the bottom of the article. Here is what the policy you invoke actually states,

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

This states nothing about non-English sources not being allowed at all, especially as it pertains to further reading references. What you did was vandalized the article and then nominated it for deletion without any discussion whatsoever then calling out your friends to come and support you in your actions. I have quoted the wiki criteria for deletion below. The article does not meet those criteria, and you have not even expressed your reasons for your deletion nomination. And here is where further the issue of good faith comes into play: instead of polishing or expanding or augmenting the article (or putting up a tag for expert input) you perforce took out all content, vandalized it then nominated it for deletion. Nur110 (talk) 08:46, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated in the discussion page of the main article, as an academic, my own approach to the issue is that the sources cited (English or otherwise) are both findable and available (I have checked both internet purchase and library sources). It would not be difficult to acquire the relevant sections for thorough translation, especially, as I previously stated, considering its importance in the body of work to which this symbol is central. Assuming good faith means that if I go and get these sources translated, I am not going to find that the general references made in the article are misleading, but rather helpful to the greater understanding of the topic area. This can be confirmed as far as needs by by citing the other scholars who have used these sources. For example, Adadm Gacek from the Islamic studies department at Mcgill University cites the Anawati article in his paper entitled "Ownership Seals in Arabic Manuscripts" (www.islamicmanuscripts.info/reference/articles/Gacek-1987-Ownership.PDF), alongside the Al-Buni articles:

(footnote 7)

"The word Huwa is often seen in Shiite manuscripts. Some Muslim theologians believe that this word is “the greatest name of God” (al-Ism as Azam) and is to be found in the Seal of Solomon (al-Khtami al-Sulaymani). See e.g. G.C Anawati. “Le nom de supreme de Dieu’. Atti del terzo Congresso di Studi Arabi e Islamaci, Ravello 1-6 settembre 1966 9Napoli, 1967), pp.10-11; J. McG Dawkins “The Seal of Solomon’.. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society (1944), pp. 145-150; Ahmad ibn Ali al-Buni (d.622/1225), ‘Sharh al-Juljulutiyah al Kubra’. in Manba Usul al-hilmah lil-Buni (Beirut, . n. d. ) pp 171-182."

I would also cite the following article in English which clearly identifies the symbol in question:

http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/PAPERS/GREATEST%20NAME/CHAPTER%20FIVE%20-%20SHAYKHISM.htm

Dr Stephen L Lamden, also clearly displays the symbol here:

http://www.hurqalya.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

and quite clearly refers to the same non-english language sources as the ones in dispute in this page.Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC) — Truegardenvariety (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I’ve just been going through the edit history for this page, noting the disagreements, and noticed a few serious discrepancies that suggest that the AFD should be very seriously considered for removal. I agree with the other editor that the protocol for removal has not been properly followed. I’ve cited the relevant Wikipedia policy on this as far as possible.

1. What appears to be the major issue here is that the AFD tag was attached, then the disputed parts of the article deleted BY THE SAME USER immediately after, and before recourse to ANY other measures which may have been helpful in making this a better article. I have examined the edit log for this page, and saw that editor MARusselPESE cited the article for deletion, then 7 minutes afterwards, deleted the sources they had issues with:

(cur) (last) 03:02, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (2,040 bytes) (Delete foreign language sources. Delete stale "citation needed" statements.) (undo)
(cur) (last) 02:55, 15 July 2008 MARussellPESE (Talk | contribs) (3,280 bytes) (AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Most Great Name) (undo)

Se also:

Comment Wow! Am I sick and tired of people who apparently aren't familiar with WP:Policies flinging accusations agains WP:AGF. WP:V includes an entire section on non-English sources (WP:NONENG). I deleted these perforce — note that I left the English language further reading alone — and what's left is MacEoin's reference that doesn't support the subject. At that point an AFD is obvious. MARussellPESE (talk) 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

How can the reasons for placing the AFD tag on the article then simply be validated by the subsequent actions of the same editor BEFORE any POST AFD notice discussion begins? The editord has simply made the case for nomination based on the changes they themselves made Doesn't this invalidate the AFD policy?

As far as further factors in deciding when an AFD should be applied are concerned, I’ve read through the policy, and placed notes in bold underneath.

Editing

If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem. These are listed here. Some of the more common ones include

  cleanup for poor writing
  expert-subject for pages needing expert attention
  notenglish for articles written in a foreign language
  npovfor bias
  stubfor a short article
  verify for lack of verifiability
  merge-for a small article which could be merged into a larger one.

Pages with an incorrect name can simply be renamed via page movement procedure. Disputes over the name are discussed on the talk page, or listed at requested moves.

Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.

Why did the editor who cited his page not put up a VERIFY tag instead if they considered the sources questionable, especially considering that the high standards of the original references (perfectly verifiable, library listed, and referenced in other English texts with just a small amount of searching) made them prime candidates for verification, not deletion?

2. Consider also, wikipedia policy on deletion which states:

Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

How many attempts have actually been made by the editor to locate reliable sources if they believe the other ones to be inadequate? They have simply blocked out the ones in question.NB. It was actually these removed sources that, through some basic searching, initially lead me to more material on this subject with available English language references.

Also, deleting disputed sources/references 7 minutes after the nomination for deletion flies in the face of implementing fair discussion, as well as for implementing WIkipedia’s own policies!

As per the Wiki deletion policy:

Discussion

Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. Likewise, disagreement over a policy or guideline is not dealt with by deleting it. Similarly, issues with an inappropriate user page can often be resolved through discussion with the user.

The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input. Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an administrator, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.

Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.

Do you know the subject matter? Rather than trashing it, go out and find sources. If not, look for someone who does know the subject matter. Or, if you're feeling particularly daring, go and research it, and become an expert on the subject matter yourself, so that you can find those sources much more easily.

What exactly do the editors know about this subject and how hard have they attempted to verify it? There is more than enough very valuable information on this page, that can no doubt be usefully expanded, and some of which has prompted me to investigate more extensive translation options for the cited foreign language sources. MOST IMPORTANTLY, the case for deletion, especially after some of the ways certain editor/s appear to have neglected the very policies on applying an AFD tag would seem highly questionable. Truegardenvariety (talk) 06:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am purposfully not casting a !vote here. This discussion has gone off track. AfD is not the place for addressing any concerns anyone may have about anyone's actions. This AfD discussion should be about the article. If you feel the article, as it stands, demonstrates notability, !vote "Keep" and explain why. If you feel the article can meet notability, make the changes to the article then !vote "Keep" and explain why. If you feel the article does not and cannot meet notability, !vote "Delete" or "Merge" and explain why. Concerns about another editor's actions do not belong in this forum. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (edited), this AfD has gone... interestingly... but, it would be nice to have page numbers for the footnoted sources. While I hope that the editors of this article will give us specific page numbers so we can try to verify this (my library seems to have some of the books) I am wary because of the level of sock puppetry and misunderstanding of Wikipedia guidelines that has gone on. Just a note to other editors. Don't vote delete based on the behavior of the creators of the article... its validity is completely independent from them and its that validity or lack thereof that will hopefully be found out here... gren グレン 21:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - having just read the article for the first time, my first impression is that it's poorly worded and sourced, and non-notable. If it is kept, I would reword everything. How can you start off a sentence with "According to legend... " ? Cuñado ☼ - Talk 00:27, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The question remains as to why Deletion was the first recourse, and the protocols for nomination were not followed, when there were/are so many other valid recourses for the inclusion of this article? If the article is sloppy or needs verification, surely there are other ways of addressing this, especially since the very cited resources were deleted so soon (7 minutes!) after the AFD tag was placed there.And again, why is this article a candidate for deletion when the possible links to other sections, invaliadating the WP:NN claim, including Wikipedia's own entry on Al-Buni, the Names of God in the Quran, which refer to the 100th name/Most Great Name of God and support the verifiability of the sources (I mean, Al-Buni is HUGE in the area of study in question), have been overlooked when editors taking issue with the contents have investigated this article?Truegardenvariety (talk) 00:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep' I have stated my views above. Keep the article. Priestofshangrila (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC) * This user is a actually a sock puppet. - MARussellPESE (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Please only !vote once. Edward321 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ar:الاسم الأعظم appears to be the Arabic article of this... gren グレン 02:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 04:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete--JForget 23:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and The City 2[edit]

~~failed~~ deleted w/o discussion prod: violation of WP:CRYSTAL and this one-liner "announcement" is also a violation of WP:NOT#NEWS. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 02:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, lets wait for one of: a title, a director, a plot, a single confirmed actor, a logo, anything that the Cars 2 page has.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to say that just an announcement that the sequel is going to happen is pointless and not worthy of inclusion until someone can actually provide useful information about it. If a person came to Wikipedia looking for information about the new movie all they would receive is a confirmation that the movie exists which is hardly encyclopedic. Atyndall93 | talk 03:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete confirmation of plans to someday start beginning to film a movie if a script materializes and the actors agree is not enough. This is a future film. JJL (talk) 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete until there is something to actually say about it. Wikipedia is not a news bureau. JIP | Talk 06:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but with that one citation, a comment (with footnote) can be added to the current Sex and the City (movie and tv) articles, although I recommend couching that comment with uncertainty (e.g. "as of X date one news site reported that X is in the works, although no details have been announced") Markeer 12:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the film article for now and create a redirect until more firm information is released. The fact a sequel is being planned has been reported in "non-trivial" sources - I Googled and found a report in the Globe & Mail, for example - but then again non-trivial sources also reported that Jim Carrey was going to star in a movie version of The Six Million Dollar Man five years ago, too, and that Sean Connery had filmed a guest appearance in Die Another Day. Plans change. 23skidoo (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete According to WP:NFF: Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles. Until we can confirm through reliable sources that filming has begun, this subject does not deserve its own article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and the notability guidelines for future films since this announced sequel has not begun filming. Films that are announced are never guaranteed to begin filming. There could be budget issues, script issues, salary issues, or interference of an actors' strike. Only recreate if filming begins. In the meantime, add relevant details to a "Sequel" section at Sex and the City: The Movie. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now until there is confirmation of such a title. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFF. No guarantee that this will even film. Steve ^{T • C} 15:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Look how many years it took to make the X-Files sequel. Alientraveller (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, as a non notable band per WP:N and WP:MUSIC. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Parents Favorite Music[edit]

I believe this fails WP:MUSIC. Prod was contested, and I held off on the nomination for a while, but author has failed to produce reliable sources, and an anonymous editor removed the notability tag w/o explanation. RayAYang (talk) 02:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Good luck in the future MPFM, but you meet none of the WP:music criteria that we have agreed upon here.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 03:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete0 google news results, no notable sources, user has been asked to add good sources. I think it fails music notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 03:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Speedy keep" is only valid if the nomination is out of process, which this is not, or doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being deleted, which is not true here since there are already arguments for deletion (which at this point outnumber those to keep). It does not simply mean "I strongly believe this should be kept". — Gwalla | Talk 07:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does when I use it. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Bear in mind that Kurt edits in a cloudcookoolander version of Wikipedia whereby ignoring what everyone else is doing he'll get them to follow him. He's aware that he's defying everyone else's standards; that's rather the point. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 07:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MPFM has appeared in the documentary Nerdcore for life (which the film itself has been reported over a few reliable sources) that has had numerous screenings since the film had been made, which would establish notability under WP:NF.--Watersquare (talk) 03:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, MPFM is a pretty influental and well known band in the nerdcore community, not only in their homestate but in other places as well. The band has been referenced and written about many times in Hipster, Please! one of the most read and well known nerdcore websites--Genoboost (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.38.176 (talk) [reply]
Delete, as nobody's written anything we can use as a source to write an article about this guy. Pretty basic. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Nothing else to say. Enigma ^message 08:35, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per enigma. You said it Dad (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 00:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jealousy Curve[edit]

Non-notable band Fails WP:MUSIC Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 02:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google news results, little google results outside of myspace and related sites, I would say little to support notability without sources for the article. I think it fails band notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 03:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sitting on fence. They do pass WP:MUSIC#C10 for the Cruel Intentions 3 soundtrack, but the only references I can find to confirm this are from their own site, or pages which just reprint the quotes from their site. Delete for failing to establish notability per WP:MUSIC Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Cruel Intentions 3 was direct to video. Did it even have a soundtrack album? — Gwalla | Talk 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply, that would would explain why I can't find diddly sh1t on it then. So basically they lied. A band who have hyped their own importance, well I never......... Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep — It clearly exists; nothing else matters. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 04:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a trout and I'm not afraid to use it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kurt, what is the point you are trying to prove? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That his medication bottle is empty! Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was out of line. Stay CIVIL, guys. — Gwalla | Talk 01:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of line!!!!! You're kidding me. Where were you when this was going down. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denver, several states away from my computer. At any rate, I fail to see how somebody else's incivility in a completely different conversation justifies incivility here. Just be polite, no matter what you think of another editor's behavior. — Gwalla | Talk 23:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. No reliable sources, only releases are self-produced, only (unsourced) claim to notability is getting a couple of songs on the soundtrack of a direct-to-DVD movie that did not spawn a soundtrack album (going by searches of Google, Amazon, and IMDB). — Gwalla | Talk 20:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No verifiable evidence this band meets any of the twelve criteria for sufficient notability set forth at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles. — Satori Son 21:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It.....Jealousy Curve has had airplay on 93.3 WMMR in Philadelphia, has a song listed on the Dane Cook Tourgasm Soundtrack http://www.soundtrack.net/albums/database/?id=4350 They won the Zippo Hot Tour contest to tour with All American Rejects in late fall/winter 2005. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/11/prweb309003.htm They were also interviewed by Matt Pinfield at the Dewy Beach Music Conference in early 2008. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrG06e0qonE And the local Fox affiliate did a Bio type piece on them back in March 2006. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4ZT5px4gSg The thing with the Cruel Intentions 3 "soundtrack" is a bit wrong, their song "The World is You" was played in the movie, but I do not believe an actual "soundtrack album" was released for that movie. Why is this even being questioned? They are one of the best known local bands in Philadelphia right now, and their fanbase is growing every day. Their two albums are self produced because thats how you have to get started in the biz today. But I would think the Tourgasm release and winning the Zippo Hot Tour should suffice for notoriety.--Gordo (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. -R. fiend (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another article that fails WP:MUSIC. Enigma ^message 08:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete fails WP:Music.You said it Dad (talk) 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 merge (non-admin closure) with Garib Rath Express . Ruslik (talk) 06:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Garib Rath[edit]

does not assert notabilty; unsourced; style not consistent with WP tradition Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Wanna know my story?}/ _{Share yours with me!} 02:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to ~~Indian Railways~~ Garib Rath Express. Possible search term, not inherently notable~~.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC) (edits made CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

The proper name for the train is Garib Rath, so I suggest the reverse. Merge Garib Rath Express into Garib Rath ChiragPatnaik (talk) 15:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing in Garib Rath worth merging. Maybe we should delete the current version of Garib Rath; move Garib Rath Express to Garib Rath, and then leave a redirect in its place...?--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 13:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, That's what I meant. BTW, who will close this? ChiragPatnaik (talk) 13:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news turns up tons of different news articles giving mention to "Garib Rath"[93] and I think that amount of news results would make the article notable. Atyndall93 | talk 03:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Redirect to Garib Rath Express - Atynda1193 is correct. There is a lot of in-depth secondary coverage of this type of service which has become significant in India transporation. Here are more secondary sources] on the topic. --Oakshade (talk) 03:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per User:CastAStone. The article is mostly a train schedule. JIP | Talk 06:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reason for article improvement, not deletion. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, so I don't know if my two bits count, but I'd say Keep it. Someone has to improve the article for sure. But, there is no reason to delete it, If you see Google Trends URLthere is interest in this area as compared to Rajdhani Express(which has a article. Cheers ChiragPatnaik (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Garib Rath Express, probably as suggested by ChiragPatnaik. We do not need two articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Constance Billard School for Girls[edit]

Unnotable fictional school with no extensive coverage in reliable third party sources. Fails WP:NOT, WP:PLOT, WP:N. Failed PROD with prod removed with reason of "will need afd, since it will probably be contested." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Nsk92 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it fails those three crucial policies... Leonard^(Bloom) 02:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is exactly one sentence in the article that is not directly from the books. Wikipedia should not be used for plot summaries.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say redirect for this, but the title is so long it's unlikely to be a search term. However, do redirect the redirect Constance Billard to Gossip Girl. Nate • (chatter) 02:58, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news only turns up 3 passing references to the school and google turns up no sources, I would say it fails notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mostly redundant with Gossip Girl; but, a redirect would not be unreasonable. JJL (talk) 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable fictional school. JIP | Talk 06:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional school. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gossip Girl. A major setting in the books / TV series. No valid justification has been offered that would exclude a merge. Alansohn (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the major setting of a major fiction. Enough reason--is certainly likely to have sources in the various reviews. DGG (talk) 22:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Gossip Girl. Squidfryerchef (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a reasonable breakout article per WP:SIZE. Also, please note that the target demographic for this is likely different than that of Wikipedia. Thus I expect things like Star Trek and gaming stuff will get a more favorable response here than something targeted at 12-year old girls. Hobit (talk) 00:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regardless of audience it doesn't merit an article nor does it fit with policy/guidelines. You said it Dad (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with nom that the article fails multiple policies. Editors above me who searched for sources came up as empty handed as I did. I don't see this ever moving beyond fancrap plot summary. I also think that it's an unlikely search term so a redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 04:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be of sufficient detail which, if merged, would overwhelm the Gossip Girl article and change its focus to a school article. Article does need some work but writing style and quality is not a measure to determine keep or delete per Wikipedia policy. Presumptive (talk) 06:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Whitrick[edit]

Considerably less notable than other people we don't have articles on, such as Corey Delaney. Fails WP:BIO1E, quite simply. Setting a record for being the first person in a certain country to commit suicide on webcam (there's no need for Anglocentricism - he wouldn't be less notable if he was the first person in Kazakhstan or Bolivia to have killed himself live on webcam) is not a real claim to notability. Meets verifiability, but ultimately it's more of a news story than an encyclopedic topic. Lulzislife (talk) 01:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possibly rename). Technically, this is indeed a BLP1E case. The key question is if his suicide is notable. If yes, there deserves to be an article on the topic. The content of this article is almost entirely about the suicide already. The title could be moved to something like Internet suicide of Kevin Whitrick, but I am not sure how much sense there is in a such a move. On the main question of whether the suicide is notable, I would have to say that the answer is yes, based on the coverage it received. There was quite a bit of national coverage, and not just around the time the event occurred but months later as well. E.g. there were stories about the fact that the police decided not to prosecute anyone, e.g. [94][95][96] (May 2007), then about the verdict in the inquest [97][98][99] (September 2007). There was also international coverage, e.g. [100][101][102], etc. There is also some evidence of the effect of the story beyond the coverage of the case itself, e.g. a mention in this January 2008 article [103]. GoogleNews gives a total of 31 hits for "Kevin Whitrick"[104] and 4 hits for "Kevin Neil Whitrick"[105]. I would say that the suicide passes WP:N, so the article deserves to be kept, although possibly under a different name. Nsk92 (talk) 02:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fully agree with Nsk92's excellent argument above, he may be notable for only one event but that one event was quite possibly the first of its kind. WP:BLP1E says If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event but many of the news sources provide a background of Kevin's life, family, and events in his life that would have warranted his death, enough information to write a moderately good biography on him. I would say that, because of what I have discussed above, the article is notable. Atyndall93 | talk 03:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the comments made above thus far, I don't think there is any question regarding the notability of this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 03:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the case that gets cited pretty much every time internet suicide is discussed these days. I'm amenable to the name change if people think it's needed, but I do think the article needs to stay. It's clearly notable, I agree with Nsk92 and Atyndall. Eve Hall (talk) 08:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A notable person, even if for one unfortunate event. Very sad, but also very real and reliable sources showing notability exist. Frank | talk 14:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Everything looks in order here. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 15:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Nsk92 and Atyndall. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - per WP:ONEEVENT. It's marginal, at that. On a personal note, I can't help thinking of his family and that WP is the first GHit we get for his name. Possibly move to a page indicating the event, rather than the person - Alison ^❤ 10:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a per above comments --The High Commander (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Very notable, it is the first case like that in britain.Even if it is one event, this is valuble information. Islaammaged126 (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficiently cited as a web phenomenon, will unfortunately be of sufficient lasting importance. DGG (talk) 02:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 unanimous vote --JForget 00:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back Off the Wall (Family Force 5 song)[edit]

Article has been prodded, but prod was contested (actually, it was mercilessly removed by anoter editor who didn't express anything at the edit summary), so I'm creating an AfD for it. The song fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL, because it is an upcoming non-notable song. Victor Lopes (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article makes barely verified clams about a song that "has been said to be coming out" (they can't even give a definite answer) and lacks enough verifiable and reliable material (Google news: 1, Google: nothing reliable) to "warrant a reasonably detailed article". Atyndall93 | talk 03:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song hasn't even been really verified as a single yet; WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 14:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above reasoning. LuciferMorgan (talk) 21:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 04:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 03:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Evan Brunell[edit]

Article about Evan Brunell was created by him; see . Represents a conflict of interest. In addition, sole possible reliable source is Telegram and Gazette, while other sources are directly related to him (his blog, his website, and his LinkedIn profile). Also has tried to create Most Valuable Network, but it was deleted as advertising. Basically, the figure does not seem to establish notability. Goosfraba (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this looks like vanity to me.--Lulzislife (talk) 01:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some other references (a different article from the Worcester Telegram & Gazette) and a column from the Edmonton Sun. I think that there is enough coverage of him in reliable sources that notability is proven. --Eastmain (talk) 02:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Even with the added sources it seems the much of the information in the article cannot be substantiated with reliable sources, also, Google news turns up no results, as far as i can tell, but its hard to tell as there is a journalist with the same name that keeps appearing when I try to search. Atyndall93 | talk 03:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Independent, reliable coverage does not seem to exist, even when searching for "Most Valuable Network" (and subtracting mvn.com). (I would also note that COI is not a reason to delete an article.) Frank | talk 14:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. You said it Dad (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is EvanAtMVN, and just want to respond to a couple people. For one, I have no problem with anyone editing my article, I apologize if you think it's a conflict of interest. I would argue, however, that I am certainly well known in the sports internet world. FOX, USA Today, ESPN, they have all linked to MVN. I did also try to create Most Valuable Network and it SHOULD be on Wikipedia but I haven't figured out how to make it not seem like advertising -- I have no interest in advertising. I have a lot of respect for Wikipedia and use it daily. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool, it is an informational tool. And to Atyndall who says "it is hard to tell as there is a journalist with the same name that keeps appearing when I try to search" ... that's me, Atyndall. I'm that journalist. Oh, and whoever turned up zero results at Google News: Please try again, myself personally and Most Valuable Network show up. Another link confirming myself: http://www.bcbr.com/article.asp?id=94466 Thanks, all.[[Evanatmvn (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)])[reply]
It's not "your" article, and there's nothing to apologize for with a conflict of interest...but it should be noted. You clearly have one, since you're the subject of the article; it's not a matter of opinion. (But, as I noted above, it's also not a reason to delete an article.) However, being quoted in an article does not confer notability. Frank | talk 02:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Soxred 93 04:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David J Parks[edit]

declined prod. being named "top forty under forty" once by a local chamber of commerce is not a sufficient claim of notability, nor is being on a board of regents at a university. likely vanity article (first campaign for public office is just starting), no notable achievements, never elected to public office. Anon2060 (talk) 00:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable, could not find further noteworthy information on him in a search. Risker (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It is likely that this is a vanity article, but it is best to assume that it isn't. I do agree that the notability of this particular politician is questionable, and there are certainly some NPOV issues, but I believe that this article stands a chance of being improved sufficiently. But perhaps I am being naïve...if there is indeed nothing to make this politician notable, then I would support its deletion. -Robert Skyhawk (Talk) 01:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Alaska is swarmed with local politicians just like this dude. No real notability. Tell him to come back if he actually wins the election. L'Aquatique[review] 01:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searching google news and the google news archives turns up little related results[106], google only turns up a couple of websites, as far as I can tell, no reliable sources can be sound to substantiate the claims made in the article. I think it fails human notability criteria Atyndall93 | talk 03:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Being a politician's assistant doesn't usually make you notable unless the subject was caught in a scandal, played a key role in an election or was a key campaign adviser for say Obama or McCain. Subject does not hold a political office at present. Artene50 (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:NOTE. Quite possibly he will be notable in the future, but nothing in the article or in searches of news archives indicates notability now. Frank | talk 14:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – certainly does not meet WP:POLITICIAN and appears not to meet WP:NOTE. He's not currently notable. — Lincolnite (talk) 17:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity article. RayAYang (talk) 21:30, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You said it Dad (talk) 03:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — No assertion of notability, clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN. macy^talk 22:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhilKnight (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luka Magnotta[edit]

Non-notable model/porn actor. Has appeared in a low-circulation local gay magazine and a few porno films. No reliable sources could be located except for the magazine he appeared in; however, he is the subject of rumours that link him romantically to a notorious serial killer, which means hundreds on hundreds of gossip sites and blogs. Risker (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to lack of notability. SirFozzie (talk) 00:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do I get a vote as an unregistered IP poster? if so then Delete, due to lack of notability outside of gossip and rumor. --65.96.67.105 (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure IP's can vote. Atyndall93 | talk 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both his aliases[107][108] turn up no relevant results and google turns up no reliable sources. I think that he fails human notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 03:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even more aprapos here is the fact that this handsome nobody completely and utterly fails WP:PORNBIO, Myspace sensation or no. That section of the notability guidelines was developed for a reason: to keep articles like this one out of the project. Perhaps if he wins a major award, lands a major role, or does anything that might make him a "handsome somebody", then an article he should have. But for now, most definitely and certainly not. S. Dean Jameson 05:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The page was semi-protected due to a recent IP editwar. As those doing the most work on this article are IPs/SPAs (not that unusual with porn articles as users don't necessarily want their "main" account associated with it, and a recognised legitimate use of a sock account), I've removed the semiprotection from the article to give the IPs a chance to improve and/or source it. – iride scent 14:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - no reliable sources to verifiy the notability of this model/actor/person. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rocks. You said it Dad (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armagh ladies hockey club[edit]

Non-notable local sports club. No evidence is presented to justify its importance within Eire's sports world. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - No links, and a total mess. Either Delete, or redo the article completely. America69 (talk) 01:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google news turns up 0 results and little on Google, I find this is unusual for a club that has supposedly produced so many champions. I think it fails orgniasation notability criteria. Atyndall93 | talk 04:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per America69. You said it Dad (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Carioca (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ar.Co[edit]

Being Portuguese, I can't say that I am aware of this school's local notability back at home. Online research doesn't seem to support its cause. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No g-hits (except it's homepage) and only one g-news hit which mentions it in passing. Leonard^(Bloom) 02:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 03:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Leonard^Bloom, there are little reliable sources to help prove the notability of the school and the article is completely unsourced. I think that it fails school notability guidelines. Atyndall93 | talk 04:37, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Hús ö nd 12:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even under the full name there's no evidence of notability. It appears to be a small private art school. TCari ^{My travels} 13:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability not asserted or established. Frank | talk 14:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. No evidence this school has been the subject of non-trivial coverage by multiple, reliable, published sources. — Satori Son 21:00, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tosqueira (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as blatant copyvio by User:PeaceNT. Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 03:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arabian Reseller News[edit]

Non-notable niche trade journal. Its influence, both as tech media and Middle Eastern business media, is not obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:19, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a copyvio of [109], so tagged.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 02:38, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 23:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese epic poetry[edit]

Being Portuguese, I am sorry to nominate this for deletion. The article fails WP:RS and the sloppy, historically inaccurate writing mucks up its clumsy attempt to suggest notability. (For the record, each culture in the Luso world has its own poetic traditions.) Ecoleetage (talk) 00:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice to re-creation. The article as it stands is nothing more than an abandoned shell, sadly. This is an apparently encyclopedic topic, but not an encyclopedic article. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very short article, serves no purpose. Also, some headings don't have anything written underneath, and no external links. Per:[110], [111], [112], and [113]. America69 (talk) 01:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there anything on this topic in the Portuguese Wikipedia that could be adapted for use here? Could material in Wikisource be linked here? --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you are fluent in Portuguese then feel free to Transwiki it. Atyndall93 | talk 04:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article is a stub. Stubs are often useful. --Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would have normally sided on the Keep side of the argument in a situation where the content is the problem, not the actual notability. But if the content is full of factual errors and would mislead those people who read it then it is better to have no article than an article that will factually mislead people. When someone is read to write a proper article on the topic they can always recreate. Atyndall93 | talk 04:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An 8 month thereabouts old article with very little reliable sources. Artene50 (talk) 06:09, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is too short to warrant distinction from Portuguese poetry or Portuguese literature, although its mention of The Lusiads should probably be incorporated into one or both of the latter articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Add the the information that is relevant and reliable toPortuguese poetry. Leonard^(Bloom) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not much to merge (it's probably all there anyway). Portuguese poetry should be able to handle the topic without this page. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Given that so few of the entries have articles, the consensus is that more is needed to avoid having the list be a mere linkfarm. As Sosh was making progress, I make an offer to move this to his userspace if he wants to continue working on it.--Kubigula (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile banking vendors[edit]

A linkfarm with 10 vendors and their respective websites. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Take away the linkspam and what do you have? A list of ten names. Maybe it can be expanded into something encyclopedic. But the original author hasn't shown any commitment to doing that. Montco (talk) 01:41, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment List now includes country of origin/HQ for solution vendor, and also the type of platform that is supported (SMS/Browser/Installed client etc.) - hopefully more soon. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as list of external links with too few notable entries (only 2).--Boffob (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry Boffob, but you still have not convinced me regarding how you define which mobile banking vendors are notable. Why do you think two of them are? Because they have wikipedia articles for themselves? Actually two of the market leaders in this field (Monitise and Firethorn) do not have articles! I can assure you they are very notable, but sorry, I don't have time to create the pages for them. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. You said it Dad (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Page has been updated with additional information since nomination. Sosh (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, had put my comments on the article's discussion page. I'm surprised you didn't mention this Boffob in our discussion there! Anyway, I think this is a very useful page. My arguments:

The list has been updated by at least four different registered users on occasions
It was intended to grow to include all vendors in this field
I had expected that more information would be added to the table as time went by (such as platform support, geographical market in which vendors operate, Number of banks etc.)
This is a subject that many of us are interested in, why are the vendors that are operating in this area not useful information?
Similar articles are deemed acceptable: List of ERP vendors, List of ERP software packages
There are a limited number of vendors in this space - the list will not grow to very large proportions.
Purpose of this list is to try and provide a table of the solutions in this field in a comparable way. (This information has not been collected together anywhere else on the internet to my knowledge).

Sosh (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Famous Hams KA2ORK Details

[1]