Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 26

< July 25	July 27 >

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 Closed. Wrong process. The nominator also has this article up for proposed deletion now. If the proposed deletion is challenged, this article can be taken to Articles for deletion at that time. Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Goodrich[edit]

Notability

Creating deletion discussion page for Mary Goodrich

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcast[edit]

Non-notable portmanteua. The term has already been transwikied. There is no need for this article. Computerjoe 's talk 22:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A redundant 3 year old article. There are already existing articles on blog and podcast abd that should suffice. Artene50 (talk) 00:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to podcast, ultimately this is in an audio format so it makes the most sense to merge this into there as a form of podcasting. Audioblogging is also redundant and needs to be merged to podcast.--Rtphokie (talk) 01:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with too many articles, so it's not worth keeping or cleaning.--Boffob (talk) 04:53, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cairo-Ismailia Rivalry[edit]

If this rivalry is notable, it's not apparent from the article, which is poorly written and based on unreliable sources. If these clubs have articles of their own, I recommend against merging any of this there. Contested PROD. Sandstein 22:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator -- non-notable rivalry. RayAYang (talk) 03:58, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falis WP:NOTE, "notability requires objective evidence". Two teams being called "rivals" in one article is far fom enough, and the only google hits using that name are wiki mirrors [1]. --Amalthea (talk) 13:56, 29 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q-Unit[edit]

Non-notable album, since the artist who mashed-up the songs is not notable either. Dunno if the reference seems to add up any notability Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC#Albums, (excerpted from page) ...if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles.... The artist has not notable, doesn't even have its own article. Also per All articles on albums or songs must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines... also in the same section, if we look at WP:GNG, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject... The sources ARE reliable, but it hasn't recieved significant coverage. Delete. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Time Magazine link just briefly mentions this subject indirectly. Artene50 (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:41, 27 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. Not quite notable enough. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Beda[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by the article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He's already signed by a premier league team, SC Heerenveen. I know some people may challenge this per the fact that he didn't actually play yet, but he's already going to get payed, so he's obviously going to play. As for him never neen played in a pro league, how's this for you? He played in this team which is in the league I just meantioned. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments like "he's obviously going to play" are a WP:CRYSTAL violation. For all we know, he may get injured in training and never play a match. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- if he plays a senior game, then he can have an article. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Recreate if and when he makes a debut in a fully-professional league or tournament. --Jimbo^[online] 23:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I removed the prod when I added a link [2] to the uefa.com site in the article, thinking that what is notable for UEFA is notable for Wikipedia. Alas. Chelseabob (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He just has not competed professionally yet so following WP:Athlete to the letter would say delete until he plays a game. Craig Montgomery (talk) 00:28, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you could find one more source like that, he would satisfy WP:BIO, which would as I understand it merit inclusion even it the subject fails WP:ATHLETE. At the moment, though, it's a Delete from me. - fchd (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The combination of that source, a couple more mentions today, and that he's signed a 3-year contract for a Tier 1 club are good enough for me. Nfitz (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mere "mentions" are not really relevant. Is there anything else substantial out there? - fchd (talk) 17:40, 30 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ohnesorge[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may fail WP:ATHLETE since he hasn't played for Clyde yet (he has only transferred ten days ago). He passes WP:BIO though due to significant coverage in reliable sources BBC dailyrecord theherald dailyrecord. --Amalthea (talk) 13:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. None of those sources are covering extensively in detail the subject, so they cannot be considered for WP:BIO. --Angelo (talk) 10:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. Seems to have had lots of recent media coverage which is indicative that he is a significant part of Clyde's first team. There's little point in deleting articles that will very likely be subject to a DRV in 3 days when the new season starts. Nfitz (talk) 17:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The season has already started in Scotland, and he wasn't even a sub for the first game.[3] I would say that we can't keep waiting till he actually plays. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- He was scheduled to play, but they had to pull him from the line-up at the last minute because of clearance issues according to [4]. Surely that goes to this being a Keep (rather than a Week Keep). The first actualy league game is on the weekend, this was a cup game against a Division 3 team. Nfitz (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm happy to restore the article as soon as he plays, but until then it's all WP:CRYSTAL. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The guy was in the line-up for a match, get's pulled at the last minute because of clearance issues (getting national media coverage), and you want to go to the trouble of deleting the article for what will likely be a 3-day period - unless he gets hit by a bus or something? Surely that's is an example of WP:POINT and a violation of WP:IAR. Shouldn't WP:Use common sense be used here? Nfitz (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Restoring the article can be problematic. Admins can take hours, if not days to respond. A user is very likely to duplicate the effort and recreate from scratch rather than using the existing article. Nfitz (talk) 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Admins don't take hours to respond if you swiftly contact them. Just leave a message on my talk page and I'll do my best, as well as any other admin around. --Angelo (talk) 08:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Some do - I've been waiting for one to reply for 3 weeks now ... but he seems to have made a major decision, and then vanished. But that's not the point. I might well follow the procedure of trying to recover the material. An overzealous fan of the team will simply create a new article, which wastes all the effort that was put into the deleted article. It's a complete no-brainer that this guy will be on the pitch in 2 days time. Why would we think of deleting the article at this stage? Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Finally, it's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation - it says "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place."; we've established that a match between two professional teams in league play is notable - and that this player will almost certainly be playing; WP:CRYSTAL isn't violated. Nfitz (talk) 23:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but unfortunately most people who vote on footballers' AfDs are apparently OCD - evidently this guy is completely non-notable until the moment the referee blows his whistle to start the first league match of the season, at which point reliable, third-party sources miraculously appear out of thin air and this player's notability is verified. ugen64 (talk) 04:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure what you're criticizing, but I agree in principle with this guideline: if a line needs to be drawn somewhere, the "needs to have competed" seems reasonable in almost all cases and is easy to verify. Once he competes it's going to be easy to find a reliable source for that (the team website can be considered a reliable source for that), so notability according to WP:ATHLETE will be met. --Amalthea (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ohnesorge has started every friendly match bar one (when he wasn't in the country), and has been stated, he would have made his competitive debut had there not been an error on his registration. His registration has now been sorted, and he will make his debut this Saturday in the league. Ck12 (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per ugen64 above. --Friejose (talk) 22:09, 31 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 Withdrawn by nominator. --Angelo (talk) 14:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akanni-Sunday Wasiu[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Move to withdraw as it appears that the Polish Second Division is indeed fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Played in 2006/07 for FK Vilnius which is in the top division of professional football in Lithuania and previously played in 2005/06 for Szczakowianka Jaworzno then in the Polish second tier; see SoccerTerminal. Meets WP:ATHLETE. Nfitz (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You have to prove that the Lithuanian league is fully professional. It likely isn't. Punkmorten (talk) 19:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Given that FK Vilnius' average crowds for the two seasons he was there were 429 and 575 (and other clubs didn't even reach 200) [5], I don't see how it can be. The Polish club were not in the second tier during his season there (their last season was in 2001-02,[6] so I doubt that they were in a fully pro league either. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:52, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "You have to prove that the Lithuanian league is fully professional. It likely isn't." - A Lyga is the "top division of professional football in Lithuania" according to Wikipedia. It looks like the team was in A Lyga when Wasiu was there, but has since been moved out. Nfitz (talk) 22:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That statement is not actually referenced, and without such, it is not a reliable source. Given that one club in the league had an average attendance of 89 (!!!), there surely can be no way that the league is fully professional. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if your trying to claim that the the top league in Lithuania doesn't qualify as professional, then we all need to read Wikipedia:Use common sense. Good grief, their UEFA Coefficient is higher than Ireland. Nfitz (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Possibly because the Irish League isn't fully pro either (the Irish national team on the other hand is much more highly rated because virtually all of its players play in England or the SPL). Surely common sense would say that a league with an average attendance of less than 800 in the two years in question cannot be fully pro. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 23:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting discussion - and I believe that the top level of soccer in these countries is as close to notable as required - we've had precedents on that before. But it's all moot as Szczakowianka Jaworzno played 2004/2005 in the second tier of Polish soccer, then called 2 Liga - the Polish Second League (renamed to Polish First League in 2008). There is no question that it is a fully professional league. Nfitz (talk) 23:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh really? Reference it. Punkmorten (talk) 07:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        ?? I did, both in my Speedy Keep, and then in the article itself. Here it is again [7]. Nfitz (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Juventus once had an attendance of 237 at a Coppa Italia match seven years ago... Gretna (who played in the SPL last season you might recall) has a 3000 capacity stadium and their lowest attendance in a league match was around 500... this kind of thing does happen occasionally. ugen64 (talk) 04:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, but we're not talking about occasional one-off "freak" low attendances though, we're talking about average attendances over the course of the whole season. Average attendances in the Lithuanian league are on a par with the Conference South...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a thing: I don't really want to allow all Sanmarinese footballers in this encyclopedia just because the Sanmarinese national league is a top tier (and the only tier, by the way, composed by teams who would easily be relegated in an English Conference league). WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN say clearly only players who appeared in a fully professional are notable, and I think it's quite an inclusive criterion. Players without a professional contract should never be allowed to stay here, unless in exceptional circumstances (and this is definitely not the case). --Angelo (talk) 08:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It appears that the Lithuanian A Lyga is professional according to this source, which also indicates that many clubs in that league draw significantly better than poor FC Vilnius, one of several clubs in the capital. Further, the level of at least some A Lyga squads is substantially better than many here have given them credit for, just ask Rangers' fans. For more on Lithuanian football, the site Futbolas is very informative. --Friejose (talk) 21:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In furtherance of what 57 said above, I have added a reference in the Polish First League article from the Warsaw Voice stating that the it was fully professional at the time Szczakowianka Jaworzno, and Mr. Wasiu, played in it. --Friejose (talk) 22:05, 31 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 A7 bio. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titus James Palani[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by an IP. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a previous AfD for this person at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus James. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Cheers - I'll put a speedy tag on it. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 23:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Many hits but none from reliable sources--mostly blogs or forums: [8] I checked on his name with 'Meaux' and couldn't find an independent source which confirms he plays at this third division club. Artene50 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alexf⁴² 12:15, 27 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) 22:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maic Sema[edit]

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played a game in a fully pro league. Was originally prodded, but removed without explanation by the article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Jimbo^[online] 23:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Might fail WP:ATHLETE but passes WP:BIO. There are numerous recent news articles about him - [9] - 17 in the last month alone. Nfitz (talk) 09:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shaky keep ~~Keep~~. He may have never "competed in a fully professional league", but he played in the second Swedish league, which I count as "highest level in amateur sports", so he passes WP:ATHLETE. --Amalthea (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Swedish football is not amateur, so that part of WP:ATHLETE does not apply. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hmm. I misunderstood what is meant by "amateure sports". After reading up on it, I saw that the second league consists of both professional and semi-professional teams. In my eyes that still a "fully professional league", but I'm not sure about that.
    He generates quite a lot of google hits, and there is coverage in reliable sources [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. I don't know if it's significant: He made a couple of headlines, but all of those are apparently minor newspapers. --Amalthea (talk) 15:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not really a notable subject, does not meet WP:ATHLETE and those news articles do not establish notability, they are not covering the subject in detail and many of them actually come from a common publisher, "Folkbladet". --Angelo (talk) 08:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the numerous news articles, he still fails WP:ATHLETE, and to me that's what matters. IceUnshattered (talk) 21:37, 31 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 00:23, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

16 East Broad Street[edit]

"16 East Broad Street is a building in Columbus. It was once the tallest building in the city for many years." Well, we say many years, the infobox says six. Noth that there are any sources or anything. A directory entry, then, but one without sources. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment According to this article, the building was home to the office of the National Football League, which is a solid claim to notability. I'll see if I can find anything else. Zagalejo^^^ 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunatey, I haven't been able to confirm that this was the tallest building in Columbus. It's listed as such at List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio, but the only ref they use is this, which doesn't say anything. I would ask User:Raime, who made the tallest buildings page, but he appears to be on a wikibreak. Zagalejo^^^ 01:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nice work, Zag! The reason is that it was where the office was located for Joseph Carr, who guided the league from small-town to big-city status during his 1921 to 1939. NFL Headquarters is notable enough, even if nothing else is found. Mandsford (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even without the NHL offices being there, historical buildings are usually inherently notable and can be retained as stubs until more information can be found. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; being the tallest building in a city is notable. Especially since it considered the "first high-rise in the city" (according to List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio), this building is notable and should not be deleted. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 02:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, those two facts aren't supported by the refs in List of tallest buildings in Columbus, Ohio. Zagalejo^^^ 03:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Edison (talk) 04:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, apparently, this is a historical building. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab}
Keep It is a notable historical building.Huang7776 (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article makes multiple claims of notability as tallest in city and site of NFL offices, backed by reliable and verifiable sources to satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 03:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to keep the article simply because of the NFL connection, but I'd still like to see some real evidence that this was the tallest building in Columbus. Zagalejo^^^ 04:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article has held a precious title, it has a main paragraph, it has a miscalanious section, it has references and external links, it has a stub message, and it has category links. I am curious what else it needs? Houstontowers (talk) 14:13, 28 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 added sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1600 Broadway[edit]

The 25th tallest building in Denver. No indication of why being the 25th tallest building in a randomly chosen town is in any way important. Sources are the usual two directories, and this is a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 21:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- No indication of why this building (which actually comes in at #27) is in any way notable. It's a poorly sourced stub. However, all the other buildings on the list have articles, so if anyone is able to turn this into an encyclopedia article I'd be willing to review my opinion. Reyk _YO! 23:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment; I am not sure what you consider to be "an encyclopedia article," but I made a few changes to the article. You may want to review it again. Thanks. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As with 1000 Connecticut Avenue (discussed below), creating an article just to keep a list all-blue is not only a bad reason, it's also circular reasoning. It starts with deciding that the top 40 buildings in a particular city are all entitled to their own separate article, then defends that idea with the concept that a Top 40 shouldn't have redlinks and bluelinks. If it's not notable beyond being among the 30 tallest buildings in "_____City, USA", it's not notable. Mandsford (talk) 00:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the article is sourced and now (after a few changes that I made) is a little more well written than before. Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Edison (talk) 04:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I appreciate Leitmanp's additions, which show that this is properly called the Colorado State Bank building. The Colorado State Bank doesn't have its own article, but it's part of the BOK Financial Corporation. I still don't think the building itself is notable, but the link could direct to an article about the bank. 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Keep per article improvements. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 03:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements.Huang7776 (talk) 03:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per improvements. rootology (T) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above Alaskan assassin (talk) 03:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LOCALFAME. Run-of-the-mill building. Article has references verifying the accuracy of the stated facts, but such can probably be found on any building you wish. And every building has some ranking in a city, whether it be the 9th tallest or 287th tallest. Article does not state what really what makes it unique or encyclopedic at a global or even a local point-of-view.
Weak Keep Sources provided establish notability. Article should be expanded with more details and sources. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 30 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 surprised). Article needs to be gutted and stubbed. Marking it for cleanup. Keeper ǀ 76 20:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Myself[edit]

An article with no non-trivial independent sources on a band whose members are all redlinked, which fails to explain the importance or significance of the subject, reads as personal opinion or essay. Guy (Help!) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I saw the label as No Idea, I thought the writer was really, really dumb, until I clicked on it and it went to that record label's article. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, they pass WP:MUSIC#C5 for their multiple releases on No Idea Records. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 01:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, No Idea cannot be deemed "one of the more important indie labels". LuciferMorgan (talk) 02:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep second party sourcing is needed to improve a very poorly written article full of hopeless OR. No idea has had notable artists release material. I recommend it be stubified to the basics. --neon white talk 03:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of sources. Needs more clean-up. Axl (talk) 16:19, 27 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 added sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1000 Connecticut Avenue[edit]

A 13-floor building. No explanation of why it is important or interesting, sources are directory entries and so is this article. WP:NOT a directory. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of apparent notability. Thirteen stories? Oh my! I'm getting all dizzy and swimmy-headed a lookin' at it. This is Wikipedia at its best and worst. The only reason it's here is that someone compiled a List of tallest buildings in Washington, D.C. and couldn't stand the thought that the "Top 40" of buildings wouldn't be all blue links. The double-brackets system is how articles get created. Say that you mention a building at 1430 K Street. Then you put brackets around it 1430 K-Street and discover it's a "red link". Can't have an ugly red link messing up the sapphire entries, so write an article to make 1430 K Street. Isn't that prettier? Yes, and it leads to articles like this, where there's nothing apparently notable about the 13-floor so-called "highrise skyscraper". The downside of a deletion is that it will become a redlink somewhere, and then maybe someone who actually cares about 1000 Connecticut Avenue will show why it should be considered important. Mandsford (talk) 23:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expanded it the most I could with more sources and information.S_RX 02:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; After SRX expanded the article with additinal sources, the article does not deserve to be deleted. Good work SRX! Leitmanp (talk | contributions) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow! 47 meters tall! Delete per Mandsford. Shouldn't it say "low rise building?"Edison (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is classified as a high-rise building due to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910. It is in the article.--S_RX 14:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't find a better source, but it looks like it's HRC's campaign headquarters.[15] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Where are the sources about this building rather than giving it as an address for its occupants? Guy (Help!) 10:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the architects (Pei Cobb Freed & Partners) are notable, but so prolific that it is hard to document every project. In fact, the project architect James Ingo Freed died while the building was under construction. So it is still under construction, not scheduled for completion until 2009 when press coverage and more information is likely to arrive. Height is not the issue for this building, as every building in DC is limited by the Heights of Buildings Act which we should have an article on. I imagine it is possible to dig up information on the building it is replacing, but I'm not going to. I was confused because the prior building's date is credited in the info box, which with the article's name makes this article sort of about the address which the title but most of the information is about the building being built not the one it replaced. Here's an article in the Washington Business Journal about it that looks pretty good. [16] and says it was Freed's final design, which I think is noteworthy. dvdrw 00:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per article improvements. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Armin van Buuren - Oceanlab} 03:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per improvements.Huang7776 (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds much like a run-of-the-mill building. Has plenty of blue links and references, but nothing that shows it is encylopedic at a global or even a local point-of-view. Sebwite (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 20:39, 30 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 from article space after having been moved to Template:10,000 or more runs in Test and ODI cricket. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 or more runs in Test and ODI cricket[edit]

Not sure what this is, a misplaced template, perhaps? Guy (Help!) 21:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to template mainspace. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy move- yes, it is a template. Reyk _YO! 23:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment- well, I've been bold and moved it to the Template namespace. Reyk _YO! 00:08, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Allan Bryson[edit]

Non-notable corporate officer. What Google results there are tend towards the Wikipedia mirrors and directories. No current Google News hits. Archives only list a wedding report from a local paper. No evidence of any signifiant coverage of any sort. Article has been listed as orphaned for nearly 2 years, and tagged for notability since September. DarkAudit (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep " chief financial officer and director of Finance and Corporate Strategy for Mellon Financial Corporation and chief financial officer and executive vice president of Mellon Bank," Unsourced is not a reason for deletion, and someone in that position is sourcable.DGG (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but no significant coverage per WP:BIO is. A Google news search returned one hit. A wedding back in 1977, and that was from a suburban paper. Google returned mirrors, genealogy sites, and directories from schools and fraternities he attended. Nothing that meets the coverage standard of WP:BIO. DarkAudit (talk) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment try without the middle name, there's more. Just a comment and not a !vote at the moment as I don't have time to review the sources, but there are certainly more than one. TravellingCari 03:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable corporate officer. Google News search turned up little; Lexis search on newspaper archives turned up only incidental mention in the context of business transactions involving his corporation. RayAYang (talk) 04:02, 27 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 close Wrong forum. This is a plausible enough typo that it shouldn't even go to WP:RFD, even if nothing links to the redirect in question. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danilo Di Lucca[edit]

Redirect with typo in the surname (it is Di Luca, non Di Lucca). No links in Moloch981 (talk) 21:20, 26 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cowznofski[edit]

Non-notable in-joke, only appeared in a handful of early issues of Mad. No sources to back it up, just some in-universe info relevant only to very obsessed fans of Mad. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. User529 (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources for a nonnotable neologism. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so bizarrely at variance with the content of the article that we must suppose that it was made without reading the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unnotable and unreferenced 3 year old neologism. Artene50 (talk) 00:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is so bizarrely at variance with the content of the article that we must suppose that it was made without reading the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I'd never heard of it before this AfD, but certainly seems notable.

The last two of these is probably best (article on the subject from the Chicago Tribune, book partly on topic) but the other two are also fine [17], [18], [19],[20]. There are a large number of others of lesser quality. But these are darn good.

Hobit (talk) 00:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that a merge and redirect of potrzebie and Alfred E. Newman might be in order at some point as an editorial movement. But deletion is clearly the wrong move here. Hobit (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a no-brainer. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain your !vote, Colonel Warden. For those of us not "in" on the joke, it clearly is not a no-brainer. In fact, the only thing that is clear to me is that the subject of this article lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. (!) JBsupreme (talk) 06:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Related to potrzebie, which certainly isn't going to be deleted. Also, I concur with the Colonel's comments on the votes above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, it is a non-notable neologism which lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. Perhaps Wiktionary will want it, but I doubt it. JBsupreme (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice the links I provided above? I think they generally cover the topic well enough, but would be interested to hear any problems you have with them. Hobit (talk) 00:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the Colonel - notability is not in question. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My main concern here is the lack of sources directly related to the term. Everything that has turned up so far has been related directly to Alfred E. Neuman. In that case, I wouldn't mind a merge to Alfred's page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 16:15, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Guitar (feat. Charlie Wilson)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (WP:CRYSTAL) and it fails Wikipedia's notability guidelines for songs. The album featuring this song (Graffiti) has also been nominated for deletion. ~Theleftorium (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Single won't be released for a while yet; no reliable sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL User529 (talk) 21:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. That is all. Thank you. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk"
Delete per above. Brianga (talk) 18:40, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison[edit]

Non-notable autobiography. Has been speedily deleted once. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real assertation of notability, no reliable sources. (And this is possibly the longest article I've ever seen with a stub tag.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

fixed that for you. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references and external links are largely tangential. Probably will not satisfy WP:BIO. Protonk (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per TenPoundHammer. Edward321 (talk) 22:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 00:05, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Vakil[edit]

No significant coverage of the individual is available. Subject fails notability. Has an assertion of notability. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is one in a relatively long list of chairmen in the history of the sports club. I can't find anything else that distinguishes him, so delete. Note: The director of the Iranian Offshore Oil Company has the same name, and produced some google news links. --Amalthea (talk) 12:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to Delete. He was a manager in Bonyad Mostazafan, after Bonyad owned the club, he was elected as chairman (for a brief period), his name is available in Persian websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vespa64 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you supply some links. I'm afraid I can't find any information about him in English that isn't from Wikipedia mirrors. I can't read Persian but any reliable sources are fine. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a chairman of the Persepolis F.C.. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was a chairman and I don't see how that establishes notability. ~ Eóin (talk) 02:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Navbox at the bottom says he is. Can you point to a source that says he isn't a chairman? Here is my source he is:[21]. Its reliable because its the league's website. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 22:58, 26 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, —Sean Whitton / 20:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your source *doesn't* say that he's the current chairman, it says "Chairman: Mohammad Hassan Ansarifard" (which isn't true either) and lists "Abbas Vakil" among a list of chairmen, which I interpret as a list of all chairmen in the club's history. The navbox is part of the article, and it says "succeeded by Golijani", who is listed in said list of "chairmen" directly beneath Abbas Vakil.
Furthermore, I very much doubt that it is the league's website, since it's in English, of mediocre quality and grossly outdated. The URL I quoted isn't any more reliable, but seems to be up to date at least: [22]. --Amalthea (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced WP:BLP Guy (Help!) 22:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be relatively un-notable. Fails WP:BIO as currently written. RayAYang (talk) 04:04, 27 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 Withdrawn. I'm still not convinced that this is encyclopedic info, but the consensus is stacked against me. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 22:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad's movie spoofs[edit]

List of Mad's TV shows spoofs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) These are indiscriminate, unsourced lists of every movie and TV that Mad has ever parodied. While I'm a semi-fan of the magazine, I think that such lists violate WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. Furthermore, these would be hard to source, save for using the individual magazines as sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As for list of mad issues, these are not indiscriminate -- but veruy specifically targetted. The comment in teat AfD, below, that the material on MAD so great that we must divide the articles this way is highly relevant here as well. DGG (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... but why not move this information to Mad magazine? Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article is full, being 96K already. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A useful appendix to our coverage of Mad magazine. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic relating to a notable magazine, easily verified by the magazine itself (and if that's not good enough, buy the CD-ROM "Totally Mad" which contains every issue ever printed; alternately there are numerous websites on the subject. In addition, this is a useful index of film parody, as by its very nature only notable films (or certainly films that satisfy Wiki's notability criteria) would be listed. 23skidoo (talk) 23:27, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heterosexual-homosexual continuum[edit]

This page is a POV-fork that tries to expand the the definition of sexual orientation to include 'Non Heterosexual-homosexual continuum sexual orientations'. it was established as part of an attempt to create original research on Template:sexual orientation Ludwigs2 20:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has reliable sources and interesting information. Don't attack me just because I like my articles interesting! Tezkag72 (talk) 20:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The present sketchy article needs expansion, but dos not strike me as a pov fork, but a start to either a pemissible alternative mannr of presenting the topic, or else a discussion of the specific concept, depending on how it gets developed. . DGG (talk) 20:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this WP:OR. Sourced from someone's essays on their own university user space. Guy (Help!) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's one of the references, there are others, and deleting an article based on one ref is wrong, especially when there are others referencing the same quote. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:41, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a bit short, but it's a new stub article. References are provided. A POV fork of what article? Admittedly it seems odd that at least half the article focuses on what doesn't come under the topic, but (a) this would improve as more is added to the article, and (b) if it's really a problem, then it's just that content that should be removed, not the article as a whole. Mdwh (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification (per comments given above): the first section of this article is a direct quote from the APA, here, in paragraph 2. the second section is entirely original research, appearing nowhere that I can find in the psychological literature. it may in fact be the case that the first section is sufficiently notable to have an article of its own; I just want to make sure that issue is clear. --Ludwigs2 19:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which bit is quoted from that article? I can't see how it matches up. Mdwh (talk) 22:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Looks like a good start but obviously needs much more information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.184.64.207 (talk) 06:48, 28 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gerald Mitchell (production manager)[edit]

I don't see this production manager and assistant director satisfying WP:BIO. I only found one Ghit before I gave up. Also, his IMDb entry is...umm...a tad thin. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, entry does not satisfy WP:BIO. Also, created by an single-purpose account, suggesting a family member writing a tribute. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete very much looks like a family member writing tributes, another article by the same user with the same surname has already been deleted. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It doesn't surprise me that you don't get many google hits for a guy who died in 1993. Production managers and assistant directors are very significant roles, but they tend to get ignored by the general public. -- Ned Scott 04:34, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 04:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most roles on a film are significant - that doesn't make them notable. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there looks to be a COI here as well. Deb (talk) 20:16, 30 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 merge into Quantum computer. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Challenges of Quantum Computers[edit]

Blatant how to content. Perhaps suitable for Wikiversity or Wikihow. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a very general discussion. Anyone whowants to build one relying on the information here alone will be rather disappointed. DGG (talk) 20:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Here is an instruction to quantum computing." And here is a policy that says we don't do instructions. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

read the article, not the sentence. Bad choice of words, just change to "This article describes the general methods underlying quantum computing." Or propose something of your own ion the talk page, and dont try to delete every article with a poor choice of wording. If an article can be improved, we're here to improve it, or at least that's what the deletion policy says.DGG (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - in no way is this an encyclopedia article; fails WP:NOTGUIDE. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep OK, so people don't like the writing style so we delete? The how-to manual style of the article isn't a reason to delete. It is simply not written in the form we'd like. The topic is notable, of serious research interest, and the article, while not well written seems to cover the most relevant issues. I personally know three faculty members at a top 15 research institution who work in this area and there are a fair number of papers published on this exact topic in top-end conferences and journals. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what data we can into Quantum Computing. I fail to see how this topic is separate and merits a different article. RayAYang (talk) 04:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into quantum computing. Yeah, the author wrote it in the wrong style, but that doesn't make it a how-to. This may neatly merge into that page as its own section or it may require rearranging, but it has useful information. MacMog (talk) 05:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per comments above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 15:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per comments above QuantumShadow (talk) 14:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created the page, because there are many different techniques for quantum computing. This page is just at its beginning, it should give an overview over the techniques and how the process is going on. It is the result of a seminar i had on my university. I am not shure if its good to merge it to the quantum computing page because it would grow the next days. And of course i would be glad if anyone who knows something about this subject can modify the page or just, if he is a better writer, replace it. And sorry if it is not written correctly it is my first wiki page, i will look, how similar pages are written Andhoh —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into quantum computing and then after proper cleanup and copyediting spin-off these sections, which are too long. This article definitely consists of lot of useful and encyclopedic information, but I don't see how to avoid serious overlapping with the quantum computing in current article without going through merge and spin-off procedures.Beagel (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with quantum computing. This is very useful information, but doesn't need its own page. J kasd 06:44, 30 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). Ros0709 (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William T. Russell[edit]

A difficult one, this - so I am bringing it to AfD for consideration. Article started simply as a link to a page "Bill Russell for Congress" which may give a clue to the editor's primary intention. I tagged it as spam and the article creator removed the tag. Since then he's added (and is adding) details of a decorated US Army officer so notability may be established. However, the link to the campaign page remains and if you look at the editor's talk page you will be led to a similar, former, campaign page [here] for this very editor, where one of the tenets of the campaign was strengthening the armed forces. So I believe there is a huge COI here and that WP is being used as a soapbox. WP:POLITICIAN does not attribute notability to unelected candidates. Ros0709 (talk) 19:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Comment ... although the article also includes a link to the oponent's page which leads me to think that COI or not, the article is aiming for fairness and balance. I withdraw the nomination (with apologies to the editor). Ros0709 (talk) 19:41, 26 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 and redirect to Cars (film). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radiator Springs[edit]

This article is about some location in the Cars movie and has no chance to assert notability. It fails WP:FICT and should not be on this site. ZeroGiga (talk) 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, in-universe part of Cars, no relevance to the plot. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? Radiator Springs has no relevance to the plot of Cars? Are we talking about the same movie? DHowell (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is some interesting material in this article about the creation of the fictional town, based on real locations. The list of characters and plot spoilers should be removed. -Steve Dufour (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's basically a big unsourced trivia list. Do you really think it could be sourced to anything that's not a primary source? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a marginal case. However the existence of Radiator Springs could be established by almost any review of the movie. Then facts from related sources could be added. If the article survives AfD I will work on rewriting it. -Steve Dufour (talk) 20:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't say it was a marginal case. Any review of the movie would mention the setting in passing by way of reviewing the movie. How is that not a trivial mention? Protonk (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, WP:NOT and WP:WAF. Doesn't cite a single source (primary or otherwise). Delete and rediect to cars or just redirect to cars. It doesn't matter to me. Protonk (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails just about every single relevant policy. WP:FICT, WP:V, WP:TRIV, just to name a few. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. There is already a section for this in Cars (film); we don't need a seperate article. Merge if there's anything worth saving, delete if not. PC78 (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge or Redirect. Full agreement with PC78. No point having this info in 2 places. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N due to the lack of significant coverage (meaning sources that address the subject directly in detail), so there is no reason for there to be an article about the fictional town separate from Cars. If there is anything verifiable to say about the town, it can be included at the film article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 11:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion is fine; one less target for the trolls. --Skywatcher68 (talk) 18:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivia and in-universe only info about a non-notable fictional location. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect or weak keep. This is a major setting in a hugely popular film. Even if its notability independent of the film is questionable, it is indisputably a valid search term, as evidenced by many hits at Google News Archive and Google Books. Much of the current article seems to be based on information found here and here; but sources of better reliability might be this San Jose Mercury News article, this Tulsa World article, and a book called The Art of Cars. But notability is also suggested by a Radiator Springs-themed area of Toon Studio at Walt Disney Studios Park in Disneyland Paris; and a coloring book called "Welcome to Radiator Springs". There is no reason to delete this article for lack of notability when an appropriate merge target exists. DHowell (talk) 02:31, 31 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 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dana Goldman[edit]

Unnotable economist/professor. Fails all criteria of WP:BIO. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article does nothing but quote his profile posted on his employer's website. -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See this Google News archive search and this Google Scholar search and these USA Today headlines. --Eastmain (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A radiologist, professor of both Health economics and of Radiology at UCLA, there will surely be quite a bit to find. And given what Eastmain found, it raises the question of whether people should be nominating for deletion without having searched at least Google and GN & if relevant GS and GB. Not that these are sufficient to find al l references on many subjects, but even just they are often enough to show notability. And if the the nom fails to do so,should someone !vote without looking for themselves? DGG (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 22:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to DGG's comments, GoogleScholar results[23] are impressive with top citation hits of 460, 357, 192, 172, 156, 129. A GoogleNews search for "Dana Goldman" RAND gives 88 hits[24]. Passes several criteria of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added. Jclemens (talk) 23:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reminder that hits on search engine are not a criteria for notability. None of the search results appear to provide anything beyond trivial mentions that cannot be used to establish notability. Remember articles are required to 'address the subject directly in detail', not just mention a name. On this basis the 'keep' votes would best be reconsidered --neon white talk 03:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but see WP:GOOGLE for all the things they ARE good for. Please WP:AGF that those of us who look at and post search engine results are aware of the limitations that they have within WP:N. Jclemens (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made no claims that anyone was acting in bad faith. The fact remains that hits on a search engine cannot be used to establish notability, it simple is not a criteria for obvious reasons. The sources found by a search must be significant and in this case i cannot find any that are. --neon white talk 15:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources found appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:ACADEMIC. He is an authority in his field quoted by the media as such. (Example 2 of that guideline, to be precise). RayAYang (talk) 04:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, i cannot find a source that cites that fact. --neon white talk 15:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes, USA Today, etc. These are just a few that popped up from one of the Google news links above. RayAYang (talk) 15:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in those two is significant or has any detail. According to policy it must "address the subject in detail". Both articles contain no more than a brief quote attributed to him and cannot be used to establish notability and cannot add any substance to the wikipedia article. --neon white talk 16:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neon, WP:ACADEMIC is distinct from standard notability criteria in this regard. Indeed, the first possible criterion for notability is "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources." Dana Goldman meets that criterion by a mile. I suspect academic notability criteria are different from standard ones because academics, even really great ones, tend to get full-length biographies only in the obituary, so the usual press-coverage type sources are often missing while alive. RayAYang (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We really don't have any sources that back up the view that he is a significant expert. Both USA today and Forbes simply describe him as a director at RAND and make no claims of him being an expert in the field, significant or otherwise. Criteria 2 or 3 would be the most likely but there would still have to be evidence of that. --neon white talk 17:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being director for a major policy field at RAND is to public policy circles what holding a chair is to university circles. It definitely says that the holder of the position is an expert. Media sources have cited him as such. RayAYang (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GS citations to an article are when properly used are a reasonable approximate minimum indication of exactly what is meant, by being used by scholars in the field as an authority. They are not search results in the Google sense, but instances where other scholars have referred to the work. We cannot use it to rule out in an automatic way, for most pre 1990 work is not in GS, and items from quite a number of major publishers are omitted also. And we do be watchful, for typically around 1/3 of the items are citations from other than real academic sources. But that a work has been referred to over 400 times by sources listed there is a sound criterion of notability. Web of science or scopus are screened better, but they do not apply to all subjects, and cover only journal articles. DGG (talk) 03:00, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per DGG, Eastmain, and Nsk92. Could someone please correct the following phrase in the article: "Presently, he holds the RAND Chair in Health Economics here he is is Director of Health Economics"? I couldn't figure out what exactly was meant there. --Crusio (talk) 09:25, 29 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 Deleted under WP:CSD#G7 per User:TenPoundHammer - a good faith atempt by the author to request deletion of the article. No need for an AFD. Pedro : Chat 20:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nike One[edit]

J.C. (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to be a car which exists only in a video game. How can that be notable? -Steve Dufour (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G7 Although the nominator has not provided a reason, the nominator is also the page's lone contributor, so I assume they want to get rid of the page. I've gone ahead and placed {{db-author}} on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:23, 26 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) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Banjo-Kazooie series[edit]

This article has no chance to assert notability, and is a game guide. Game Guides are not needed for this site. ZeroGiga (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very true but it is used to give farther information about the locations. Plus there are tons of pages just like this if you are gonig to delete this page why not the rest. Plus this page has had high notification from Banjo-fans. You need to have a better reason for this deletion.--Anfish (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:WAX. There are other pages like this, and they have the same problems which probably can't be fixed easily. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In-universe game guide. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 21:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in-universe fancruft User529 (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a strategy Wiki site on the Internet; we could divide it and put it on there. Website's called StrategyWiki. Link 486 (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 05:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a game guide. RobJ1981 (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this constitutes a game guide. This is merely describing the various locations of the series. If that alone constitutes game guide material, then every other fictional locations article should be deleted because they are almost exactly the same. The real problem is asserting notability, verifiability and some general cleanup. --.:Alex :. 09:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lines like "The player must first venture through an engine room (where instant death will occur if they fall down) and slam two switches to stop the propellers." and "Moves learned in Spiller's Harbor are the Wonder Wing, Shock Jumping, and shooting Ice Eggs." are why everyone is saying this is a game guide. I could almost see this being an overview section in the official strategy guide or something similar. There is very little (if any) content in this article that has meaning to someone unfamiliar with the series. Also, note WP:OTHERSTUFF. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete fails to meet the general notability guideline because there is no coverage about these locations in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 09:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which this what this article represents. MuZemike (talk) 22:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:19, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An article that is list of locations in a video game which details items, obstacles, creatures and characters inside said locations clearly falls under WP:NOT#GUIDE. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pure in-universe/game guide material which should belong on a fan site and not an encyclopedia. Salavat (talk) 16:14, 31 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) 18:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom Profiler[edit]

Fails noability tests. --Seascic ^T/_C 18:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by WP:SPA, no independent sources and no assertion of importance; most likely the creator's own software project. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability because it has no reliable sources. TALKIN PIE EATER REVIEW ME 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources other than the subject's site unfortunately. May have WP:CBALL issues since it was released only this month. Artene50 (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability as per WP:N, no WP:RS. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:27, 31 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) 18:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einar Kuusk[edit]

Fails notability tests. It also doesn't help that he himself is writing his own article. --Seascic ^T/_C 18:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support salting the article as well. --Seascic ^T/_C 03:22, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability has been vociferously asserted but I don't see any that meets our criteria; essentially, self-promotion. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 18:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Self-promotion. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with extreme prejudice as auto-biogrophy/self promo User529 (talk) 21:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. WP:COI WP:AUTOBIO, doesn't meet WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Did anyone try to speedy this?--CyberGhostface (talk) 04:15, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - not notable He may yet become notable - when he has sources that he has not published himself.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 12:58, 27 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:14, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mad Magazine issues[edit]

Indiscriminate and looooooooooooong page listing what was parodied in every single issue of Mad. One of the sources is a blog, and a couple sources appear to be fan sites (e.g. the Mad cover site). I do not feel that such a directory could ever be useful. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is interesting and maybe even useful, but it is not an encyclopedia article. -Steve Dufour (talk) 18:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not good content. Perhaps each one could establish notability, but not as a list. NonvocalScream (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sure, it's thin (because reproducing every Table of Contents on one page is inconceivable) but it's still an authentic guide to contemporary popular culture and politics as seen at the time (from Walter Mitty and the Army-McCarthy hearings to Stephen Colbert and Iron Man). It can't be easily reproduced in other ways, although a comparison with contemporaneous issues of, say, Esquire, TIME, or LOOK might well be enlightening. Many users once had collections of MAD that they wish they could still consult. Shakescene (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does it help the project though? It's basically a directory, and it's hard to source without using primary sources (i.e., the individual magazines). Plus, I don't think that the covers qualify as fair use when presented in this fashion, and no other magazine has a directory like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are thousands of scholarly sources related to this topic. The nomination's objection that the article is too long but not useful verges on parody itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources about the impact of Mad parodies on culture, but do we really need a list of everything they've parodied? I think this list is definitely indiscriminate in nature. If there is any important content in those Google Scholar hits (which there probably is), why not just put it in the main Mad article? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 19:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editors of the main Mad article are warned that This page is 96 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. There is much to be said and so we need several articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. There's still a better way to do this than by listing every single issue, methinks. Maybe a subarticle with a title like Cultural impact of Mad magazine? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an entirely reasonable subtopic split from an article on a highly notable subject. "It's a directory", "not an encyclopedia article" are very peculiar arguments to delete a list. "No other magazine has a directory like this" is WP:WAX; absence of x is not justification for excluding y. I view this as analogous to Category:Bibliographies, and would definitely welcome similar lists for other highly notable publications. The notion that it is indiscriminate seems wrong; the topic is precisely defined, with no ambiguity as to inclusion criteria. I share the concern that if lists like this are accepted as notable by virtue of their parent article, this could be used to justify excessive amount of detail (i.e. List of MAD issues, 1970-1980. List of MAD issues 1980-1990 etc.), but if we restrict them to one article, which in turn is restricted by WP:SIZE, then this concern is dissipated. The list has problems, sure, not least the images, but there are no compelling reasons to delete it. Again like bibliographies, sourcing is not too huge of a concern; simply listing publication details doesn't require anything stronger than primary sources. In summary, this is a list of narrowly defined scope, on an encyclopedic topic closely related to a highly notable subject. Skomorokh 20:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Skomorokh's got the right idea, though I see wisdom in potentially dividing this list into decades (with clear criteria limiting the info included to avoid expansion creep). If you'll indulge me in a moment of OSE, here's an example of a Playboy issues list that might give ideas for how to better present Mad's content. I do agree that the current format is phone-book-esque in length, and the fair use rationale for the covers is untenable unless I'm missing something, but those are issues that can be resolved without deletion. Townlake (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and divide as suggested. Core content for wp. Could well be expanded once its been divided. Personally, I think that for this magazine, the covers are sufficiently iconic to be suitable fair use if only selected ones are used. The others can be described in words. , DGG (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me begin by mentioning that years ago I went looking for a book covering the history of magazines. True, there are books like Quentin Reynolds' The Fiction Factory, a history of Street & Smith covering all of their major magazines, but I wanted something with a history of all magazines. I found one survey of magazines written by an academic who had made a habit of buying any first issue he spotted, but it had a great many research gaps. I then realized the Borgesian futility of finding such a history, never compiled because (a) academics and librarians despised pop culture magazines (and thus never saw them as worthy of study) and (b) new magazines begin and fail at an astounding rate. Amazingly, there is someone, Phil Stephensen-Payne, who is attempting to document thousands of magazines in an accessible format of both text and visuals. When the Mad list appeared here, I found it of interest because it was being set up to show all covers and encompass all movie and TV parodies with links to the Wikipedia pages that were the subjects of the parodies. This meant if one read a parody and didn't get it, they could nevertheless read about the original subject they were unfamiliar with. I did some research to add source information, such as the fact that one Dragnet parody spoofs the TV series while an earlier one satirizes the radio series. It wasn't long before almost all the covers were removed. Next, someone decided to add the "debuts" of leading Mad artists, but when the names of certain artists were entered, it led to a dispute with a claim that only some artists, not all, should be listed. Next, a template was added requesting a context to justify notability. To respond to that, I wrote a fairly lengthy intro that was relevant, and I managed to cover aspects of Mad not covered in the main Wikipedia Mad article. That intro deals with some of the reasons the list is of value. Pepso2 (talk) 23:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~weak~~ delete - In theory, it is likely possible to construct a list article (or series of lists) that would be able to provide an encylopedic review of the issues of Mad. However, the article as it currently exists is a poor framework to start from to develop such an article. (And the covers certainly need to go at this point - none have any related commentary in violation of FU policy.) -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I consider this rationale invalid, per WP:PROBLEMS, WP:POTENTIAL. If anything, you have made an argument to stub the article, not to delete it. Regards, Skomorokh 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply - In some few instances, and i think this is one of them, throwing the existing monster out and starting fresh is the best action for achieving the ultimate goal of a decent article. there is no sourced information here that we would be potentially loosing in such a process. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Calling the article a "monster" and indecent is a little melodramatic, I think. It does not necessarily follow that unsourced content is not valuable. The publication dates and parody targets seem accurate and uncontroversial, and are certainly of interest to readers looking for information on the magazine's publication history. Extrapolating from the traffic stats, this list gets 30,000 hits a year from such readers, with only one complaint about accuracy in its history.Skomorokh 23:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - only a little melodramatic. And since when is a Wikipedia article supposed to be a font of unsourced information? WP:V applies to list articles as well as to any other article. -- The Red Pen of Doom 04:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- furthermore finding a reliable source to make the identification of the target of the parody or source of humor is going to be lacking for 95% plus of the issues of the magazine leaving only original research. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - beyond furthermore I don't see why this is necessary. Some parodies' targets may be ambiguous, but most will be clear to almost everyone who was in the U.S. (and had access to a television) at the time. I don't see why secondary sources are needed to substantiate why "Dr. Kiljoy" refers to "Dr. Kildare", or what film "Mutiny on the Bouncy" is mocking. This contrasts, by the way, with the need for secondary sources, rather than an editor's mere opinion, to verify what "Mistress Mall's picture", "an icicle on a Dutchman's beard", a Brownist, a cinque-a-pace, or the "Picture of We Three" mean in Shakespeare's Twelfth Night. (Some references are hotly debated among the scholars, while other red-hot topics of 1602 are now so hopelessly lost that Harley Granville-Barker advocated just cutting them in production as perplexing the playgoer for no good purpose.) Shakescene (talk) 05:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - because we require third party verifiable sources for all articles, including lists. And per the article itself, there are "Forgotten and obscure sources" and from an argument for 'keep' above "This meant if one read a parody and didn't get it, they could nevertheless read about the original subject they were unfamiliar with. I did some research to add source information, such as the fact that one Dragnet parody spoofs the TV series while an earlier one satirizes the radio series." the obvious is not always completely obvious. The article in its current form is counter-productive to producing a viable article.-- The Red Pen of Doom 05:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't feel like the description of the issues are unverifiable, since they can be confirmed with a hardcopy of the magazine. FUR problems aside, a list of issues does strike me, as DGG describes, as core encyclopedic content. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Usefulness or the lack thereof is not a reason to delete. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepper Skomorokh. Not an indiscriminate list, and verifiable. The magazine is notable. The list is useful. Edison (talk) 05:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - MAD issues have had quite a cultural impact. The cover images need to go from this list though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the only table-of-contents article that I have seen so far that I would vote to Keep. I am concerned that most of the links are to the thing being satirized, rather than any third-party comment on the parody provided by Mad. For related background I can offer two links: Talk:TATE ETC.#Wikipedia is not a directory, where it is argued that TATE ETC. is not an important-enough magazine to justify a table-of-contents article on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BSTJ papers, which is about the Bell System Technical Journal. In the BSTJ case the argument was that the papers and the journal were hard to find, and some of the papers were famous. Nevertheless the article was deleted, and I support that decision. In the current case I'd argue that the magazine issues are culturally important and that relevant commentary will be added over time, though I know that is hard to predict. I believe it is arguable that the magazine cover images can be included under Fair Use. We are trying to document the magazine issues (and dedicating an enormous amount of space by Wikipedia standards) so I think the covers can be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 22:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for a similar reason as I gave for keeping the list of movie parodies. Notable and influential magazine; certainly notable enough to warrant a list of this nature. As I indicated in the other AFD, there are plenty of sources to confirm the accuracy of this material, starting with the magazines themselves, plus all but the last year or so's issues have been made commercially available on CD-ROM, too. Looks like a WP:SNOW situation to me. 23skidoo (talk) 23:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not an issue. I cannot understand why this was nominated for AfD. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do KEEP this article! This is valuable archival information not readily found elsewhere, and documents an American tradition and icon. MAD Magazine is part of our cultural history, and this article should be retained in that context. Drjpccm (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The above comment moved from the talkpage by Skomorokh 21:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is Mad Magazine, after all -- how could you delete that? Forego (talk) 00:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listphobia is not a reason to delete. Squidfryerchef (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Listphobia is not a reason to delete" is hardly a stellar reason to keep either. Skomorokh 10:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a well-written table on an extremely famous topic and it seems to me the only reason this was nominated is because it is a "list". Even paper encyclopedias contain lists and charts. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good reasons. I quite agree. Should have said so in the first place ;) Skomorokh 13:47, 31 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MediaFire[edit]

No evidence that this meets WP:WEB. The only non-internal reference is a hit analysis website, which is just like the Google or Alexa test, which is not an indicator of notability. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Clearly meets WP:WEB:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. (CNET, PC magazine, PC World, Lifehacker...)
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization: PC magazine " Top 100 Undiscovered Web Sites"

And many other reasons why this is notable, I see absolutely no reason to delete this. SF007 (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB. If you delete this, you might as well delete Miniclip... Don't get any ideas! Tezkag72 (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam. Spam, spam, spam. Horrible. Guy (Help!) 22:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or else show us the "multiple non-trivial published works" needed to establish notability. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep CNET article and PCmag are enough IMO. Not the best notability ever, but meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two paragraph mentions and a sitemeter hardly qualify as non-trivial coverage. RayAYang (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ned Scott 07:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Clearly meets WP:WEB, and if Rapidshare is included in Wikipedia, Mediafire should, too; since Mediafire is somewhat growing larger than Rapidshare. And for those saying spam, look again, please identify the parts that are spam. (Rapidshare provides the same functionality with less bandwidth for users, so people are now moving to Mediafire.)--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 07:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're deleting this article, you might as well delete Rapidshare,SendSpace,FileFront,Box.net,YouSendIt,SteekR since their function is the same and some of them are even less notable than Mediafire.
And for the WP:WEB points, they have been listed by user:SF007 at the top--Kelvin_HO^{Wiknerd(talk)} 07:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hobit. Johnleemk | Talk 08:12, 31 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 "and on the 7th day the Lord sayeth No consensus and went for a nice lie down." (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 20:33, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Watson (creationist)[edit]

The article has been on wikipedia for nearly three years and does not have a single WP:RS. Seems to have marginal importance writing three fringe books from Christian "Science" publishers 30 years ago. Delete as non-notable. We66er (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the lack of referenced information about him prevents a worthwhile encyclopedia article to be written, but not because of the "incorrectness" of his views. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Obscure and minor creationist. None of his books achieved any prominence. Therefore not notable. Only reference currently in article is a broken citation to an unreliable source quoting brief mention in a further unreliable source. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 21:30, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a article from the Daily Nebraskan as a reference. Note that at least two of the books cited were reprinted subsequent to their original publication. He seems to have written many more books than the three mentioned. See http://www.worldcat.org/search?q=au%3ADavid+Charles+Cuningham+Watson&qt=hot_author , and a number of them were published by Hodder and Stoughton, a recognizable mainstream publisher. -- Eastmain (talk) 21:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, Worldcat proves an unreliable source on this point -- some, perhaps most, of the books there attributed to David CC Watson were in fact written by David CK Watson. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Eastmain. Note that at least one of his books listed at that link was published by Inter-Varsity Press, a major christian publishing house. Perhaps the article should be renamed from (creationist) to (author)? Jclemens (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Inter-Varsity Press is in fact two publishing houses. The British one (with the hyphen, which was presumably Watson's publisher for the book in question) is the "publishing arm of Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship" ("membership of approximately 10,000-15,000"), and most probably not "a major christian publishing house". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IVP is (or at least was) a significant christian publishing house. The problem is however that Worldcat has miscatalogued many of the books, it attributes to him. I have managed to link 5 of the 21 definitely to him from other bibliographic sites, but not others, at least some of which are definitely NOT by him. See my furhter comment below. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- He was certainly significant enough for David Watson (evangelist) to have to write as David C K Watson. The disambiguator "creationist" is unsatisfactory as only one of the three books listed is about creation. However I would oppose the disambiguator "author", which would justifiably apply equally to the more significant David C K Watson. Accordingly Rename to David C C Watson, which was (after all) the style under which he wrote. The source cited by Eastmain lists 21 works (plus three translations into perhaps Welsh and Korean, plus two probably misidentified as his). NN authors do not usually get translated. By all means tag as "unreferenced". Peterkingiron (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete' the one reference cited is a student opinion piece in a college newspaper.If he's notable, there should be something better to be found than that. DGG (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; I recall him being cited in Christian magazines in the 1980s, requiring the distinction that Peterkingiron states above. Rename as David C. C. Watson (with dots). The title "David Watson (author)" is already taken by yet another person, and probably needs to be a disambiguation page. - Fayenatic (talk) 22:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note I have moved what was David Watson (author) to David Watson (anarchist) and redirected its old page to David Watson, which is a disambiguation page. I have also been through all articles that link to the old title and changed them to the new one. We do not need another disambiguation page. I do not propose to PROD David Watson (author) as unnecessary (though it is), because I have not altered technical pages from projects etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this person has not been the primary subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources. Obscure is right, if he ever was in the limelight it was very brief and not in any way lasting. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability established by third-party sources. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not too notable, but I added a couple of obits - from The Hindu, very short, but has biographical data, and a creationist magazine, longer; a decent article can then be built from these, (which may be useful in tracking down more obscure data), his publication list per Eastmain and a few passing mentions in other RS's.John Z (talk) 01:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The CSM source that John Z found indicates that he retired from that organization in 1995. A google book result (from Intervarsity, see later) says that he went to India as a missionary after the war, which in context would mean after WWII. So his professional/active period ran from circa 1945-49 to circa 1995; before the web explosion - when most materials were not published online. Thus online searching is of limited value; the bulk of reviews of his work and the like would be in print sources and probably not available online. The following additional reliable sources are also useful for expanding the article: web copy of 1990 magazine article gives his primary influence as a creationist; this web page shows he was a founder (the single individual typically named by those from IFES as the UESI founder was a founder of the second unit of that branch, not the first unit which David was a founding member of and which founded before the IFES affiliated second unit) of what has since become the branch in India (the UESI) of the International Fellowship of Evangelical Students (USA branch: InterVarsity Christian Fellowship; UK branch: Universities and Colleges Christian Fellowship). The following additional online reliable sources that are demonstrate his significance without being useful for our article: Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies (pg 817) cites him as a modern exemplar of a particular theological perspective; this web copy of a 1997 or earlier article in a creationist magazine names him as a "leading creationist". All in all, a clear keep, but research in dead tree sources will likely be required to produce a good article. GRBerry 04:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have been asked by Eastmain to "revisit" my original opinion above. So what do we have in the article to date: two obituaries (one extremely brief, one in the newsletter of the Creation Science Movement with which he was closely associated), a one sentence quote in the Daily Nebraskan and a brief biographical sketch attached to a piece Watson himself wrote in some Christian newsletter. As to sources not yet in the article, The Creationists does mention him three times, but the only solid mention for his being fired from a teaching position for incompetence (the other two are a bare mention & a quote from him on Morris' & Whitcomb's books). The Answers in Genesis piece that GRBerry links to is by Watson, not about him. The UESI piece just gives him three very brief mentions, that does not list him as the "founder" of anything, nor as the central driving force (just as a participant in a meeting that led to the group's formation, the editor of the group's "student newsletter" and a participant in the group's "Central Committee"). The biblicalstudies.org.uk piece (which is at best a questionable source) simply has him in a table of answers to 7 questions, and does not discuss him any further than that. Does this amount to "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (per WP:NOTE) or Watson's meeting any of the criteria of WP:ACADEMIC. The answer is still no (so my opinion is still "delete"). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 05:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC) On closer examination, biblicalstudies.org.uk is self-published (by Robert I. Bradshaw) and so cannot be used as a source on a third party. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sure it's a stub article, but there's nothing wrong with that. Understand the difference between "verifiable" and "verified" -- Because it looks like he's no longer alive, it is unlikely that he will be used as online sources in the future much, but that doesn't negate the notability. Could use some cleanup/etc.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: what "notability" is there to negate? Has WP:BIO been re-written to state that if a person receives a couple of obituaries (one extremely brief, one in a very minor and associated publication), wrote a few articles (likewise in very minor publications) and books, and receives the briefest of mentions in a few marginal sources they are 'notable'? If so, I haven't seen it. There is no indication that Watson's writings received any real attention outside of the creationist community or that they were influential within it. What verifiable "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" has he received? The most significant source (in both depth & prominence) to date only attests to his incompetence as a teacher. WP:ONEEVENT would seem to apply, but if people insist that he is notable, we could rename the article to David Watson (incompetent teacher). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:22, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry, I didn't mean to upset you, just wanted to express my take on the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did not "upset" me, but the level of proof by assertion frequently found on AfDs does rather irritate me. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Voted for Keep above -- I have just expanded the article, using references found by others. On investigation some ofm the works found by Eastmain [25] are listed on other bibiographic sites as by "David Watson" or even "David C K Watson" and seem to have been misidentified. However, it is clear that the subject here was an early proponent of the modern creationist view. These views are of course controversial, but they are views genuinely held by a significant number of people, and hence encyclopaedic. This in turn makes the subject of this article notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know secularists regard creationism as a non-event. However the relationship between the book of Genesis and science is a significant issue for Christians. Some of their views are extremely on the fringe, but not necessarily all. I appreciate that one of the sources is autobiographical, but this is not self-serving: ultimately it is praising his mentor, Hannington Enoch. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:56, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong on both counts. (i) Creationism is not "a significant issue" for all Christians -- it is mainly an issue with conservative Evangelicals (and a smaller number of conservative Catholics), which constitutes a minority within Christianity. Many of the most vocal critics of this pseudoscience are themselves devout Christians, who would be justifiably insulted that you label them as "secularists". (ii) Watson was not a prominent Creationist. He was not a leader of the Evolution Protest Movement, nor did his books have any discernible impact. Whether his 'autobiographical' material was "self serving" or not is irrelevant as it has zero value for determining notability, regardless. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Peter was challenging the "Primary sources" tag; I agree with him and have removed it. As for Watson's notability, I recall clearly that he was prominent in the UK in 1970s-80s, but it would take time to locate paper citations, as proposed above by GRBerry. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTE: "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large." Memories of 20-40 years ago have a tendency to play tricks (magnifying things with personal relevance, minimising things without it) -- which is why wikipedia notability policies depend on WP:RSs, not OR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 14:12, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough innuendo. Please be more specific in your reasons. I cannot figure out whether you are alleging that Robert Bradshaw, or the Biblical Creation Society, or myself, had a strong connection to David CC Watson. For the record, I never read a thing by him. I did, however, buy a book by David CK Watson for somebody else, and do remember the difference between them. IMHO it would make Wikipedia a more useful encyclopedia to retain a stub about David CC W to distinguish him from DCKW and other David Watsons (pending expansion from reliable paper sources). - Fayenatic (talk) 17:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No innuendo involved -- merely replying in the context that you yourself set here. "Works by [the UESI] are unlikely to be strong evidence of interest by the world at large" (outside the confines of the Indian student Evangelical community, of which Watson was a part). This issue is separate from that of Bradshaw, which I've already replied to fully on article-talk. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability and primary sources are separate issues. No-one is claiming that his role in establishing UESI made him notable. To demonstrate notability, time is needed to track down paper records about his role in creationism. It doesn't help that you've been removing uncited material just four weeks after tagging it.[26] The argument about UESI is about primary sources - it was your edit summary that labelled the UESI as "associated with him", 57 years on. - Fayenatic (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the template -- "Primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of the article are generally not sufficient for a Wikipedia article." "Sources affiliated with the subject" is clearly describing sources that are not indepedent of the subject -- with what is "independent" being defined in WP:NOTE. As far as removing material, the material (i) had a broken, unreliable source (ii) had previously been deleted from the article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, they are not sufficient on their own, but this article has other sources too. As for removing material, I was referring to Watson's service as director of the ICR, not his role in the Huxley debate. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on added sources: This obituary, listed as a source above and proof of notability, says nothing about his life or his work. There is a simply trival mention (the obituary) and a marginal mention (a brief obituary on a creationist website) which is not enough to warrant an article. Church/creationist mentions and a one/two sentence obituary is not wikiworthy. If this happens to some of best sourcing that can be done I affirm deletion. [Eastmain asked me to revisit my comments.]We66er (talk) 18:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable person, plain and simple. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable person - even with the kitchen sink thrown in. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He may not have been the most notable person, but that does not make him non-notable. I think the new additions to this article prove that it is worth keeping. Also some strong arguments given by Peterkingiron and others above. Formicarius (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing Admin The above editor, Formicarius, created a new account yesterday after this discussion began. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification -- I still assert that the relationship between the early chapters of Genesis and modern scientific theories of origins are a problem that Christians have to address. My statement that the subject wrote as David C C Watson is possibly not quite correct; the basis of what I said was in fact that David C K WAtson wrote with that style to distinguish himself from another David Watson. I think I picked that up orally in the 1970s. The added sources provide a basis for facts about the subject. Being among the founders of the Evangelical Union of Students of India, provides minor notability, as does the publication of books. I am unable to judge how notable the books were. I suspect the sources on this would be reviews in the Christian press at the time of ther publication. These sources are not readily available to most of us. My first reaction was that he was more notable than I now believe, but still notable enough for the article to be kept - as voted above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
Delete, none of the sources in the article establish notability, they mention him in passing and his work seems to have had little long-term influence. As the tag line of the article he wrote says "David C.C. Watson is a former missionary schoolmaster." - that seems a good summary of his importance. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:24, 31 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 Ōtsu incident. Obviously isn't getting deleted, and most everyone seems to want to merge or redirect it, but to be honest, most of the article is already covered at Ōtsu incident. Any snippets of info I missed in the article are, of course, still in history, so have at it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tsuda Sanzō[edit]

Only notable for one thing. There is more information on him in the article on that one thing: Otsu incident than in his article. - Steve Dufour (talk) 18:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Leonard^(Bloom) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We tend to have articles on assassins: John Wilkes Booth, for instance, even they are only known for a single event. Deleting this one seems like systemic bias and won't be consistent with other parts of Wikipedia. Finally, that the article is short is, as always, a call for improvement not deletion. -- Taku (talk) 03:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article says he is an assassin, yet he did not kill his intended victim. There also does not seem to be any reason to believe he was an assassin in the original sense of the word, a professional killer in the service of political interests. -Steve Dufour (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So he is not an assassin, contrary to what the article says? Then the article has to be changed accordingly. Also, assassins are still assassins if their attempts are failed, by the definition of the word, as I understand. I also don't think we have to think about the motivation behind the assassination, which is irrelevant to the question of the notability. My counter-argument thus still stands: if one is known for "assassination", successful or not, then he (or she) is still considered notable. -- Taku (talk) 03:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other article says that the "politically correct" view of him in Japan is that he was mentally ill. So we don't know for sure that he even intended to kill the man. The opening sentence really should be something like: "Tauda Sanzo attacked Prince Nicholas of Russia with a sword in 1891." Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as per nom. The article seems unlikely to ever grow beyond a stub; the subject is notable only for one event; there is a lack of significant coverage of the subject aside from his actions. When assassins get their own articles, it is usually because they catapulted to celebrity in their own right -- media articles of the time and histories consider aspects of their lives independent of the singular event. This assassin doesn't appear to meet that bar. RayAYang (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Following discussion, change to Merge to Ōtsu incident. Article can always be branched back out later. RayAYang (talk) 18:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the argument. However, he seems like a kind of assassin who was unsuccessful in the attempt but was successful in gaining notoriety. Here are few links I found via Google. [27] [28] [29]. In particular, according to [30], his name appears in history textbooks used in a school. Finally, what makes you think the article cannot be more than a stub (which is not a good deletion argument by the way)? Did you actually read the corresponding ja article? -- Taku (talk) 05:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This must be re-written as Tsuda was an attempted assassin, or maybe a failed trained assassin. The Otsu incident which this is related was a large event in Japan so for this alone he attains notoriety so the page should be kept. Yes this is a good example of Wikipedia's systemic bias to western events.Yama88 (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is sadly true, and somewhat unavoidable, at least in the English language version of Wikipedia. Should English-language sources (or suitable translations) be found to attest to notability, I should be happy to reverse my position. RayAYang (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. We in the West don't know much about Asian history. I found the Ōtsu incident article outstanding. -Steve Dufour (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To establish the notability of a topic, Japanese sources are sufficient. (Because the "notability" in wikipedia doesn't mean notability in English-speaking world.) Where did you hear otherwise? (Also, see my post above.) -- Taku (talk) 11:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are we even having this discussion? At the very least, this seems like a poster child for WP:BEFORE: Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD. My !vote is Keep, and if it is turned into a redirect, so be it. Neier (talk) 13:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. Maybe I should have proposed a merge. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes keep or merge but please don't delete.Yama88 (talk) 10:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I vote to merge to Ōtsu incident then. I have already added the picture from this article to that one. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect this article on yet another birdbrain to the article on his incompetent murder attempt. Pardon me for being pointy here, but in general I don't think that murderers, torturers, child-molesters, rapists etc merit articles, especially articles graced with their photos. (In case you're wondering, no, this isn't my personal view, which would be that their very names, though not their crimes, should be allowed to sink into oblivion. Nothing ethnocentric about this: if I were the monarch of Wikipedia I'd zap the article on these nitwits too.) There could be circumstances that override this; here, there aren't. -- Hoary (talk) 10:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, tell us how you really feel? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Hoary. Given the depth of coverage, or lack thereof, a redirect to Ōtsu incident doesn't seem unreasonable at all. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 19:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Ultra. IceUnshattered (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 08:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged: The Jonathan Wamback Story[edit]

Non-notable made-for-TV movie (made-for-TV movies aren't inherently notable, are they?) Best source I could find was this, but that's only one source, so I'd say this fails the general notability criterion. On top of that, the page is a big rambling plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Canoe.ca is a reliable source by any standards, but it cannot be regarded as a secondary source in this instance. No hint that the movie has ever been rebroadcast, or is available on DVD. Keep. According to the IMDB profile here, the movie was nominated for 6 Gemini awards. Those are the top awards in Canada, so that's notability right there. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The movie was apparently part of a broader campaign against teenage violence that attracted some attention; how much attention was directly attributable to the movie itself - not just the events that inspired the movie - is an open question. I'll look into it. The plot summary does need to be drastically truncated, and the notability of the movie does need to be established - it clearly isn't yet. ~~(As an administrative matter, the link to the AfD in the article tag is currently a redlink.)~~ Townlake (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral / Default to Keep I couldn't find anything better than the Gemini stuff on a couple brief searches. I don't find the nominations themselves conclusive evidence of notability (nominations aren't awards), but those noms are a good starting point for further research, and that research should be given time to occur before deletion. Townlake (talk) 23:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article comprehensively fails to establish importance. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability; atrociously written. Biruitorul ^Talk 23:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 01:07, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The film gets plenty of relevant google hits, though they mostly appear to be directory listings and such. I did find this which provides some real-world context for the story, though it's not a third party source. The film has also been nominated for several awards ([31], [32]). PC78 (talk) 01:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awards do show a notability. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:02, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Awards establish notability. In response to a question asked by the nominator, yes made-for-TV movies are inherently notable if they can be verified, etc. If they receive national broadcast on a major network they are as notable as TV series. And to segregate them from "real" movies (i.e. theatrical release) is unacceptable as it requires violation of WP:NPOV to make such a judgement call. 23skidoo (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No films are inherantly notable. They are all required to meet notability criteria, i.e. WP:NF. PC78 (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability criteria for films without question. This should not have been nominated for AfD. In future, it might make sense to enhance or edit an article rather than try to get it erased. Ecoleetage (talk)

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

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

Asia Cherie Washington Gardner[edit]

The result was speedy delete Beeblbrox (talk) 19:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history on this one. Article was a copy-and-paste of another article, and the creator is just inserting new names in the key places. Zero G-hits, non-notable, and a bad faith article all around. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Originally a copy-paste of another article with some text swapped. Now it's a sub-stub hoax (no hits for the name), so I'd say it falls under blatant misinformation and/or vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good to me. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:51, 26 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. Kurykh 04:48, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upside Software Inc.[edit]

This article was tagged for deletion as blatant advertising, but I didn't find it that blatant to speedily delete it. The company in question doesn't meet the notability guideline, and reads a bit like an ad. Maxim_(talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Depends what you call blatant advertizement. Reads like a sollicitation to buy stock in the company, even though that goal is not explicitly mentioned. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to fail WP:Notability (companies). Still seems quite like a press kit rather than something encyclopedic (or that can be encyclopedic). Wikipedia is not just a directory. --Closeapple (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:24, 31 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. While no, they're not neatly organized, there's enough sources here now to keep the article provided it gets a little work done on it, which seems to be underway. Needing cleanup isn't a reason to delete. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blountville Middle School[edit]

Not notable. Local U.S. middle school. Article cites no sources (other than the school website) and does not identify any attribute of the school that is out of the ordinary. Main contributor has been given ample opportunity to correct the situation. Orlady (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 16:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Came across this in my watchlist. Though lacking sources, I think the creator's thought was that the condemnation of a working school made it notable. I was interested in the section about the school's building problem, yet there were some tense problems switching from section to section. Grk1011 (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a page thats been around for almost 2 years, and it does have accurate info. But I agree, it needs some cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs) 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been here for almost 2 years, and it has been tagged as needing references for almost 1 year (since September 2007), but none have been provided. It does not conform with WP:Verifiability. The deletion nomination is based on the WP:Notability guideline; also see the proposed guideline WP:SCHOOL. I know from other communications that you attended this middle school and that makes it notable in your eyes, but you need to provide evidence that it is notable according to Wikipedia standards. Similar issues apply to the other school-related articles that you have created and edited. --Orlady (talk) 20:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some sources I found on google, I'll add them if i get a chance.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30073002_ITM

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3757693

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30715323_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29870535_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30354249_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29394923_ITM

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3724129

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=3730907

http://www.timesnews.net/article.php?id=9004571

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-29635768_ITM

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-30260257_ITM

Grk1011 (talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:SCHOOL is a failed guideline, so it's not really a useful reference at this point.—RJH (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable. Karanacs (talk) 01:54, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There really isn't anything to base the notability off of since there is no guideline. Grk1011 (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of guidelines: WP:ORG, WP:V, WP:N. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

there are references on this article now — Preceding unsigned comment added by Setnick (talk • contribs)

Comment: Setnick, listing a bunch of URLs at the bottom of the article under the title "references" is not the same thing as providing reference citations to support the information in the article. This is much like writing a term paper -- the statements that you make in the article need to be supported by sources. See WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing sources for the policy and guidelines on doing this properly. For examples of articles where sources are cited, look at Alvin C. York Institute, Tennessee and Longhunter. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I was hoping he would put them inline. I'll do it if i get a chance. Grk1011 (talk) 15:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the references need to go inline but that is an editorial matter. However, the multiple non-trivial references clearly meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 16:41, 29 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) 18:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Four (64) Recommendations to Prevent Extremism[edit]

Non-notable government committee, although i'm not sure under what rules this would come. Ironho lds 14:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Preventing Extremism Together which is the actual name of this report. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the subject is not notable, moving won't make it any more notable. The first sentence also needs to be refactored in the case that the article is not deleted. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The government report itself is not notable, but should be mentioned in other articles on the incidents. Steve Dufour (talk) 18:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is so incompetently written that it does not point to the main article about the events. But that is where tis report should be mentioned. Useless title; no redirect needed. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:24, 26 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 closed per nominator's request. Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sixty Four (64) Recommendations to Prevent Extremism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable government committee. The creator keeps exclaiming we should keep it because the info is in the public domain, which would be fine if it was a copyvio issue but is hardly relevant. Ironho lds 14:44, 26 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. The only clear argument in wikipedia terms to emerge from this debate is that there are not sufficient third party sources to establish notability. Should they be found, then the other issues may need to be addressed. Ty 04:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pietro Psaier[edit]

It's been flagged up via OTRS that this article may well be a hoax - certainly in terms of how close the relationship between Andy and Pietro was. A quick Google reveals little more than copies of the press release used as a reference, and that remains the only reference on the article since May (that discusses the close relationship; the other reference only has a fleeting mention of Pietro). I'm not convinced this is good enough sourcing, so since no sources are forthcoming, I'm nominating it for deletion. It's also worth noting that without this claimed close relationship, the artist is not likely to be notable. —Sean Whitton / 14:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment see this post on warholstars.org putting the case for a hoax: [33] (it's on the front page at the moment, but could move).--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 14:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources per nom. And the warholstars.org analysis is comprehensive and convincing.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That article makes as strong a case for "hoax" as I think can be made, and without any real references here, the only recourse is to delete as it is highly probably this is in fact made up. Fascinating stuff, btw. Ford MF (talk) 15:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Delete without prejudice to re-creation if sources are found. This is a difficult one. I agree it's as fishy as hell (for instance, I can find no reference to the "Italian-American Institute of Art" outside Psaier bios). But I'm not happy with the argument that original research in a blog article [34] - however convincing - over-rides reliable sources attesting to his existence The Independent and Art in London magazine). And even if it is a hoax, it's not a hoax by a Wikipedia editor but exists in the real world as a phenomenon, so should be documented. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes should be documented as hoaxes, not as fact. Ford MF (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...and the warholstars account focuses on whether or not the artist was licensed to use the Factory name, and whether or not he worked for Warhol, as the gallery websites maintain. Concluding that he wasn't and didn't (which I still think is convincing), it then goes on to make the (less convincing) claim that the artist didn't exist and is the creation of an otherwise reputable auctioneer in Surrey. Evidence for the defence: one of his works is in the Wellcome Library [35], acquired in 2000-1 [36]. So now we have a couple of lines in The Independent stating that he once exhibited with Warhol, and a work in a reputable library. A bit short of meeting WP:CREATIVE at the present time, but willing to change my !vote if anything else turns up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above...even best case scenario...maybe a Warhol employee, maybe not..a waiter at the Gaslight, hmmm, a somewhat obscure artist, hmmm......Modernist (talk) 16:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Independent article - from 1997 - definitely shows that Psaier existed, and was associated with Warhol in some way. So this clearly isn't totally fictitious. DS (talk) 14:44, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete till something more substantial turns up about this person, who for all we know could well have just been one more of Warhol's groupies. -- Hoary (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that everyone take a deep breath, sit back and see the warholstars article for what it really is. I am one of the people mentioned in the article - please see my post on the discussion section of Psaier in Wiki. There will be the relevant information posted but we need the time to collate it in order to set the records straight. Jacqueline Chapman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.186.177 (talk • contribs)

Well, I can see I'm alone in this, but I'm not clear why people are letting a blog post of unknown credibility override a newspaper reference. That said, there really isn't enough information around to keep it. If you want the article kept (or more likely recreated), you need to provide reliable third-party published sources about him. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI am the original author of this Pietro Psaier article. I started the thread on wikipedia as I own several prints and paintings by the artist. While there maybe some debate over the link between Warhol and Psaier there is no doubt that Pietro Psaier was an artist, I bought his work from a reputable auction house in the UK and I have receipts to prove it, amongst which I have seen his work appear again and again in galleries and auction houses across London and the UK. Some of Psaier's work I've seen pays a close resemblance to that of Warhols but most I'd say is totally unique pop-art that is totally unattributed to Warhol and goes to show Psaier needs to be recognised in his own right as a pop-artist.Gooders 23:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Delete. The warholstars.org posts may not be a reliable source but they are enough to raise real doubts in my mind. It's either (a) all a hoax, or more likely (b) a real but obscure artist is being hyped for commercial purposes by alleged association with Warhol and The Factory. In either case, we should be wary of letting Wikipedia be used to lend support. ~~The external link in the article doesn't work;~~ (see below) the Nicholson one can't be regarded as independent; the reference in the Independent is a very glancing one. This falls well short of the standard required by WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. If he were real and significant, he would surely have left more trace than this. The article could be re-created if sufficient references from independent reliable sources are produced. JohnCD (talk) 20:40, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the external link in the article had been mistyped: I have corrected it so that it does now work, but it is a press release from the Nicholsons auction house, so cannot be counted as independent. JohnCD (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've added references to a Spainish book called 'The Factory' on Andy Warhol and Pietro Psaier. And references to recent pieces sold at auction by Christies and Bonhams including a colloborative piece by both Andy Warhol and Pietro Psaier. I hope this puts an end to these hoax myths.--Gooders 00:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Comment It has been recommended I don't particpate unless I have "something significant to contribute." I do. I have posted new findings at http://www.warholstars.org/pietropsaier.html. Also none of the references sited by the original author prove the allegations he has made in the article. The reference to the Spanish booklet is just a catalogue listing - no text. The auction items have not been authenticated by the Andy Warhol Authentication Board and are therefore not collaborations. What is the artist's date of birth and why are there no friends or family or anyone else who knew him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 09:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the artist Pietro Psaier painted the work and Andy Warhol signed the work why would the Andy Warhol Authentication Board need to authenticate its a Psaier not necessary a Warhol. Second, why would Christies with their reputation sell such an expensive piece if it hadn't properly authenticated. To the other questions, what is Banksy's date of birth, friends, family? Yet he is allowed to be recognized as an artist on Wikipedia, so sorry I don't see the relevance. --Gooders 10:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Banksy is deliberately obscure about his identity as part of his schtick. No one actually could reasonably doubt the existence of Banksy. Not so this guy here. Ford MF (talk) 15:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry if my comment comes out in bold again. I'm new to all this. First, why on earth would Andy Warhol sign something that somebody else painted? Second, I'm a great fan of Banksy's work. But he does have people who know him. They just don't identify his real name. His dealer, Steve Lazarides who has an excellent gallery and roster of artists, knows him very well. He just won't give out his real name. If you want to start a Pisaier page that doesn't link him to Warhol then go ahead. My concern is that online sources like Wiki are being used to try to increase the value of Pasaier's alleged work by linking him to Warhol. This is not fair to the guy on the street who doesn't know a lot about Warhol's life who then buys a work thinking that it has some link to Warhol. I've not been able to access the Christies site ever since you put that link up so can't comment on that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok moving forward with this Wiki, and taking the following as facts we can establish that Pietro Psaier is not a hoax and was actually a pop artist. He has sold work through all the major auction houses Sotherbys, Christies, Bonhams (I have links for all). Christies sold a collaborative screenprint in 2005 by both Pietro Psaier and Andy Warhol (link is working) where as this piece may or may not have authenticated by the Warhol board, the fact is Christies did sell it, so there must be some truth to the connection between the two artists. I am happy for the wiki to just stick to these facts and would be happy to re-write it if agreed.--Gooders 11:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Comment I have just read through the warholstars blog and I am not happy about claims referred to this wiki, for one it just gives one person’s unbiased viewpoint and gives no-one the opportunity to react to it and secondly because it includes the names of innocent people like myself of incrementing acts simply for contributing to a wiki?? Yes I have a background in art and design, hence why I am commenting on an Artist's wiki. Paul is a fairly common first name in the UK and I am most definitely not the other Paul mentioned, it clearly denotes from the entries to this wiki my contributions and I most definitely did not write the full biog of the artist on this wiki or any other site. And if the author of the warholstars blog is reading this if he could kindly remove the false claims and references of my name from his blog in the first instance. --Gooders 12:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Comment Paul, no problem. I've replaced your name with initials. But you could have just emailed me from the site. I assumed you had read the article before you made the previous comments. I've replaced your history with a revision history of the article. I'm not trying to offend anyone I just want to get to the bottom of things. I still can't access the Christies page though. The Bonhams page isn't of interest to me because it doesn't relate to Warhol. What I am objecting to is the allegation that this artist was part of Warhol's Factory and collaborated with him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 13:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can access the Christie's site do a serach 'Andy Warhol Pietro Psaier' make sure you have the 'past lots' dropdown selected, two pieces should come up. Previous comments refer to whether or not the artist was licensed to use the Factory name, the Bonham's piece refers to a 'signed & stamped' label 'Factory Additions New York', further proof in my mind that the artist was involved with the Factory. Thanks for removing my name from your blog. --Gooders 14:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)--

Christie's? It troubles me that basically every reference to this guy seems to be from people trying to sell his work. Ford MF (talk) 15:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Gooders - Thanks. But can't access Christies now. Must be busy. Regarding Bonhams, possibly someone signed his name to an already existing print or it was an unauthorized copy. Factory Additions was set up to do Warhol prints. They didn't do prints by anyone else. As I mentioned before the Authentication Board didn't authenticate it. I wonder who is behind all this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - a four-page update has been posted on the warholstars site here. JohnCD (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think the warholstars blog should be referred to as it doesn't cite any facts and is mainly made up of the author's guess work. I think its really important to start to organise this wiki with actual facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.115.188.2 (talk) 09:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are very few actual facts about in this case. What we have is on the lines of "a piece claimed to be by Psaier was sold by Christies on such a date" or "someone told the Independent reporter that Psaier was an associate of Warhol and included his electric chair in a 1970s joint exhibition". I think what we find in the warholstars blog, e.g. "Matt Wrbican, the chief archivist of the Warhol museum, made the following statement... 'As custodian of Warhol's archives, I can state unequivocally that I have never seen any reference to (Pietro Psaier) in them. It's my belief that his alleged friendship/collaboration is a complete sham and hoax' " is at least as much a fact. One needs to keep asking the historian's questions about any "fact": Who said it? and How did he know? JohnCD (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you go to the ABOUT section of warholstars.org you will see the list of publications in which it has been cited as a source. It is not a blog site. If you go to the SOURCES section you will see my own sources. Everything on the site is referenced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is what Kenneth Goldsmith said about warholstars.org in the book "I'll Be Your MIrror: The Selected Andy Warhol Interviews" (NY:Caroll & Graf Publ. 2004): "Although I've never met him, I must acknowledge Gary Comenas, creator of warholstars.org, a site I visited daily during my research. Gary's site could be the very best resource on Andy Warhol there is - either in print or on the Web." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 10:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update I need to clarify "Factory Additions" in regard to the Bonham piece cited as a reference. The source of information is "Andy Warhol Prints: A Catalogue Raisonne 1962-1987 (Edition Schellmann in assn. with Ronald Feldman Fine Arts, Inc and The Andy Warhol Foundation for Visual Arts, Inc., rev. ed. 1997). Factory Additions was a company that was established by Andy Warhol in 1966 in order to produce prints. (p. 21) It produced prints from 1966 - 1974. (p. 278) Therefore, any works by any other artist using the label "Factory Additions" had nothing to do with Warhol after 1974. Any certificates bearing the words "Factory Additions" dated after 1974 had nothing to do with Warhol's company Factory Additions. The Bonhams piece is dated 1982.

Also, previously it was alleged that Psaier had something to do with Warhol's printer Rupert Jasen Smith. Until 1974, Warhol worked with commercial printers such as Aetna Silkscreen Products, Inc. and Salvatore Silkscreen Co. Inc. (p. 278) Alexander Heinrici was Warhol's primary printer from 1974 to 1976. (p. 278) In 1977 Rupert Jasen Smith became Warhol's printer until Warhol's death in 1987. (p. 278) Therefore, Smith had nothing to do with Warhol's Factory Additions and nothing to do with the 1960s Factory output. UpThere (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question - what is the earliest-dated reference to Psaier that anyone can find? With the single exception of the 1997 reference in the Independent, everything cited, and anything I can find, seems to be 2005 or later. JohnCD (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Another auction reference!! but 1994 on Christies website Bob Dylan Print --Gooders 17:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Comment The auctioneers press release previously used as a reference has already been discounted because the auctioneer was selling his art and had a vested interest. The same is true of any auctioneer selling his work. I have never read a biography of anyone which used an auction site as a reference to prove the existence of that person. There has never been a mention of Psaier in any reputable art journal such as Art Review, Art Forum, Art News or the Art Newspaper. He has never been mentioned in any art histories or biographies. I suspect that the reason a few people are trying so hard to get him into Wikipedia is because they own something by him and want it to increase in value. A so-called Psaier would be worth a lot more if there was a Warhol link. It has been shown that there isn't. Wikipedia is about knowledge and should not be used for financial gain. 77.103.8.29 (talk) 18:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well suprisingly I disagree auction houses like Christies and Sotherbys have very strict criteria and employ the very best art specialists in the business, making mistakes with Warhols is not an option. I personally love Psaier's work for what it is, great pop-art which is why should Psaier should be listed on Wikipedia, regardless of the Warhol link. --Gooders 22:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulgoo (talk • contribs)

Comment: I would add once more that the information needed to clarify everything will be forthcoming. In the meantime I would ask that people refer back to the original warholstars article in which the author slandered and maligned those he mentioned in the article with no evidence at that point in time. He even went on to state that Psaier never existed. He has also used Wiki as a platform to hype his own product, his website, the same as he is accusing others of doing. To slander and malign people on a public platform - both on his own website and Wiki - without having gathered evidence at that point to back up those accusations is giving this author the attention and publicity he so obviously craves.

Conspiracy theories are a part of modern history unfortunately and we now have auctioneers, galleries, the general public, state departments, newspapers et al involved in yet another one according to the author ....

Is wiki doing anything about its site being used as a public platform to publicise warholstars? He constantly places his sites name in his posts. This is no different to what he has accused the owners and sellers of Psaier's works of doing in order to increase the value of the Psaier works they own. As the original complainant to Wiki accusing people of being involved in a hoax and inaccuracies, Wiki had advised him not to take part in this discussion unless he had a significant contributions to make. The history of his posts indicate the contrary, they are not all of a significant contribution. The links between Wiki and his site are also evidence of this.

In answer to the question: What is the earliest dated reference? The evidence we have of Psaiers artworks goes back as far as the 1950's.

I will not make any further comment regarding this matter until such time as we have a completed package.

I am only making this statement now at a sense of outrage that wiki has been used as a platform for slander. This is a very serious matter and I would hope that those in control of Wiki would be able to do something to prevent this ever happening again in the future to anyone else.

Jacqueline Chapman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.186.177 (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' Chapman above has a vested interest in this. I have mentioned her in my article at http://www.warholstars.org/pietropsaier.html. She has slandered me at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pietro_Psaier. Last night someone using a false name from a hotmail address emailed me with some 'documents' relating to a Studio Psaier. They don't prove the existence of Psaier. They are clearance forms for works of art. I have never said that works of art bearing this person's name do not exist. There are works of art out there signed 'Psaier." But anyone could be producing them and signing them. Whoever is doing it could still be alive. As I have mentioned above Factory Additions stopped trading after 1974. There is no record of an address or history for anything called 'Studio Psaier.' The forms were done in order to release the works of art for travel, etc... In regard to the dating of the works, we do not know if the dating is true. Anyone can attribute a date to a work. A true date can only be established through modern dating analysis (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_forgery). These works have never been through that process. For all we know, this hoax could be similar to the "Nat Tate" hoax where David Bowie created an artist and fooled the art world. "Nat Tate" never existed and I strongly doubt that someone named Pietro Psaier did. Let's stick to the facts here and not throw insults back and forth. As I mentioned in my article, the producer of the the film that Chapman is working on has already admitted to me by email that my points are valid. Gary Comenas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.103.8.29 (talk) 03:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted per WP:CSD#G7 [37] Pedro : Chat 20:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy W Hodge[edit]

Non-notable singer, fails WP:MUSIC. Despite the article's assertions of numerous TV appearances, there is no IMDB entry for either "Timothy W. Hodge" or "Timothy Hodge." No reliable sources crop up, and the only hits pertaining to this artist (there's a modestly known R&B singer by the same name, if a good bit older) are his own website, this article, various Wiki mirrors and a couple self-posting music sites. Fails WP:V. RGTraynor 14:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC & WP:BIO. Also throw in to the mix Romaine Hodge, Betty Jean Hodge, The Ross Singers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RED ALERT I just nominated this page as a speedy, I hadn't noticed it was at AfD as the creator apparently removed the AfD notice... Beeblbrox (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author has now blanked the page, changing to G7 speedy. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:33, 26 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.

Im a relabile sources for the above pages that are up for deletions, if u need more information just ask me, or do ur research --Sunpop (talk) 16:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)sunpop--Sunpop (talk) 16:51, 27 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 nomination withdrawn- having seen the other AfD (which wasn't linked on the talk page for some reason) I am going to make an attempt at rewriting it myself.

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is based entirely upon original research, with people writing what they have found in the game, or possibly based on game-guides/blogs, none of which are cited. No reliable sources are cited, and I doubt many could be found, and even if they could, I think it would be better to just start the article from scratch- this currently reads like something between a game-guide and a plot summary. J Milburn (talk) 14:15, 26 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) 20:11, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citizen Siege[edit]

I am nominating this article for deletion because it is about a film that was planned back in 2006, and there has been nothing produced in that time. Apparently, the most recent citation is IGN in January 2007, indicating the project as "in development". IMDb's entry does not show that it is filming, so the article does not yet warrant existence per the notability guidelines for future films. Useful information can be placed at Oddworld#Citizen Siege, and article can be recreated if filming ever begins, which is not a guarantee in the film industry. Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 14:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The film is in "pre-production" according to IMDb, and I can't find any sources from the last 18 months. PC78 (talk) 14:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. Pre-production means just that... storyboarding and marketing the ideas... seeking financing and distribution commitments... putting together a cast and crew... acquiring rights, etc. A project can fall apart and die a lingering death at any one of these stages. If/when it begins filming, press coverage should allow it to be returned and much better sourced. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pretty much all that is known about this film can easily be contained in the main article on Oddworld. Having an article on this is a hoax magnet from people like User:USA02/92. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 14:51, 29 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. BJ^Talk 18:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A mouse (in my house)[edit]

The self-described "debut single" of a non-notable musician who himself fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC, no release date confirmed. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V. Ravenswing 13:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 14:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete- per all of the above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erik the Red 2 (talk • contribs)

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

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

The result was keep. Chick Bowen 02:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The FredCast[edit]

I'm only finding a single mention in a local paper. Awards mentioned are nominations only. Not seeing enough here to meet WP:N Rtphokie (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The existence of this site meant a change of plans for a presidential candidate at one point, but that could be regarded as WP:BLP1E, and not much of a notability assertion is otherwise made. If kept, may I suggest creating FredCast as a redirect to this? -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:25, 26 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 00:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geeks in Space[edit]

Not finding sufficient references in 3rd party sources. Subject lacks notability. Merge to slashdot? Delete? or can someone find enough references to demonstrate significant coverage? Rtphokie (talk) 13:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep given the subject and the difficulty of finding conventional sourcing for such topics, adequate verifiability is already present. It would be nice having more, but that can be said about most Wikipedia articles. DGG (talk) 20:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm still not seeing any references. Still doesn't meet WP:N as is.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep based purely off my own knowledge of it. Clearly important and I strongly suspect good sources exist. Hobit (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:V. From my uninvolved perspective, it's notable enough. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Easy keep per DGG. —Giggy 09:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It was pretty notable in the tech community, and more sources can be found, I'm sure. Jonathunder (talk) 17:53, 28 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 per WP:CSD#A7. Frank | talk 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ttw808[edit]

An unnotable internet celebrity, not providing any sources to justify its notability. StaticGull Talk 12:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as unremarkable person/website. --Deadly∀ssassin 12:17, 26 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 per G3. —Animum (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pauly (Singer)[edit]

I'm fairly certain these are hoaxes, some have been tagged for speedy as such by User:Ironholds, but I'd like to swing them by here first. Marasmusine (talk) 11:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- yup, I agree this is a hoax. Reyk _YO! 11:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- agreed, obviously. I've tagged some of them as csd's since hoaxes to the point where they act as vandalism is I think covered. Ironho lds 12:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to concur with my fellow editors -- a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and block user for being an unrepentant hoaxmonger. Stuff like this needs to be stopped before it really gets going. JuJube (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 all as blatant hoaxes, already tagged. I, too, am finding no proof that these even exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:31, 26 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 a7, website, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MovieKids.org[edit]

Taking to AfD as a technicality. Virtually no content and no assertion of notability qualifies the article for speedy deletion as db-nocontext or db-web. However, the speedy tag applied was removed by an editor on a vandalising spree four minutes before they were indefinitely blocked. Speedy Delete. Note - the author did place a hangon tag and request time to finish the article but that was some hours ago now. The actual content there "MovieKids.org is a reliable website about Kids in Movies. PS It's really reliable as a source and never wrong." suggests the article is a joke. Ros0709 (talk) 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus dude, "some hours ago"??? I don't live on WP like some people. Just leave it for now. I'll fix it soon. Canadian Actor Expert (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Movie Kids is notable and super-reliable. Not like Wikipedia, which is riddled with inaccuracies. Replovandalate (talk) 11:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This website is an inspiration to People of Weight like all of you. Kitty Lighter (talk) 12:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly no content, no reliable sources to verify the information. If this can be fixed and proved notable, please contact me after this has been done. RedThunder 12:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hardly any content and no indication of notability. StaticGull Talk 12:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. And what's with the insults by Kitty Lighter and the hostility from Replovandalate? tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the very similar comments from the same people at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Laszlo. User:Stagemom67 is there too - the now-banned editor who removed the speedy tag from this article. Ros0709 (talk) 12:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kitty Lighter and Replovandalate, whose "rationale" speaks for themselves. JuJube (talk) 13:22, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's a Speedy Delete, why bring it to AFD? All it does is create a fruitless discussion of meatpuppets calling it "super notable" and condescending veterans pounding their chests like high and mighty nerds. SashaNein (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was already nominated for speedy deletion and another editor removed the tag. Can you clarify your intention - you have highlighted 'speedy delete' which conventionally suggests that is your opinion, but the text is ambiguous. Thx. Ros0709 (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7. No assertion of notability. The speedy was not declined, the tag was removed by a vandal who has since been blocked. That should not save an article from a speedy when it doesn't deserve it. This isn't a contested PROD, this a bunch of people throwing a tantrum, and we shouldn't fall for it. DarkAudit (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed your new speedy tag - not because I disagree with speedy deletion, but because I believe there are additional issues raised here which the closing admin may want to also look into, such as the fact that certain accounts whose first edits were to !vote against concensus on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Evan_Laszlo have now appeared together here and done likewise. Ros0709 (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion and the logs will still be there. The article is still speedy-worthy. DarkAudit (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WTF Keep. Kitty Lighter (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak Delete tiny article on non notable subject--UltraMagnus (talk) 10:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete website has no notability and non verifiable based on non-trivial coverage in reliable 3rd party sources. It probably still meets the criteria for speedy deletion. The article may or may not have been created to lend "weight" elsewhere (which I believe we have a policy against). Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the problem here? The tag was removed by a vandal, and the others are SPA's. Usual procedure in such cases is to deny them recognition and speedy the article. Why should this one be different? DarkAudit (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be speedied, if we kept this article on the pedia then we would end up with a million irrelevant nonsense pages. Wikipedia is not the place to dump Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:51, 29 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. Lack of coverage to verify notability. --PeaceNT (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kali Littlefield[edit]

Actress. I would say this is self-promotion but there is a four year difference between the date of birth here and on IMDb. Is she notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To answer your question........ah, no. Fails to show any sort of notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She certainly exists but doesn't appear very notable at present with only 5 shows on IMDB here Artene50 (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The listings on IMDB are not merely "shows". These listings are actual feature length films. I say keep. She is probably popular with kids. 97.101.121.210 (talk) 03:27, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just by looking at google.com much of the actresses notability is presented. It does in fact seem that the actress is commited to play in the starring role on a childrens show. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.9.250.98 (talk) 03:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article on forbes.com clearly proves her credibility because it does state her age of 17 and it describes how she has been signed on as a fictional title character in a series of fiction books and DVDs.EyeCandy12 (talk) 06:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC) — EyeCandy12 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable actress trying to break out, but so far only has small bit parts in shows. The Kali Kronic thing appears to be unreleased and self-promoted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There's no call for accusations of discrimination--all articles must have independent references and an assertion of notability. Chick Bowen 02:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

7th Moon[edit]

This is an article about a sprite art cartoon. Googling "7th Moon" yields so many unrelated hits it's futile trying to wade through them all, but it's telling that the website for this thing has had a grand total of 291 hits since 2004, and one of those was me just now. Reyk _YO! 10:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination. I'd also like to comment: the Geocities... it burns!!! tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither the article nor the provided references even assert notability, the "official page" raises serious doubts that it might be anyway, per nom, and a google search yields not a single additional reference. --Hit #293 (Amalthea) (talk) 19:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete This page was created as a prototype for stories of the kamishibai medium. It is underrepresented and I feel that the kamishibai page that exists on Wikipedia does not help because it does not demonstrate the creative potential of the kamishibai medium. By creating pages for each story, we can treat them in the same way as manga, anime or any other medium of storytelling. There are good stories, and the other authors are looking to the success of this particular wikipedia page to determine if it's worth putting forth the effort of educating others on these stories to draw in a wider audience. To delete this article not only undermines 7th Moon, but also the efforts of all kamishibai authors whose work is considered less legitmate than any other medium because of the discrimination demonstrated here. Kamishibai is a great medium, and while 7th Moon may not be the greatest example, it is the first to go to wikipedia, and other great stories that are noteworthy will remain in obscurity if this page is removed. It is a legitmate medium and deserves equal representation as comics, manga, graphic novels etc. Furthermore, I have come across many pages containg content that is not necessarily noteworthy, including out of print RPGs that were barely known when they were in print such as Blue Planet, Trinity, and Gamma World. While searching for angels, I came across a link to a wikipedia page in english on a game that had only been released in Japan. Wikipedia is littered with references to obscure stories, and it is not fair that this page gets singled out by a few readers who happen to not care for the story. Today, 7th Moon is just a sprite kami read by a handful of people, but one day it may be well known either as a kamishibai or as a professional cartoon, and it's legitimacy should not be diminished because it is not well known right now. It is a story, it is published, even if in a poorly known medium and just because it wasn't released by Random House, Marvel, or Disney, that should not be grounds for deletion. Perhaps the obscurity of this story should get it removed, but if that's so, then we should consider the removal of any article on any B-grade movie(such as Attack of the Killer Tomatoes), or any TV series that got canceled for low ratings. I would ask that before the final decision is made, that all those involved actually read the story, it is available for free through two of the external links, and then determine whether it is as good as the anime that it is compared to. Furthermore, to the editors of this site, I know that this notice for deletion did not come up until I notified the kamishibai community of it's existence and I have reason to believe that this may be sabotage from haters who do not like this story to begin with and are being biased against it. If a proven unbiased judge can determine the worthiness of this article, I will accept their judgement, whether it is to keep it or remove it, but I do ask that all factors be taken into consideration from both sides and that this isn't just removed because the only people who take the time to comment on it are people who don't like it. I'd also note that the page history shows that someone who has not commented went through the page and fixed some flaws without noting whether it should be deleted or not, so at least one wikipedian seems to think it's okay. Honestly, I realized all of this might happen when I started this page, but I also took care to make sure it met wikipedia requirements as best as I could, and I would question whether there's even anything left to make new wikipedia pages for if this doesn't make the cut. I apologize to the wiki foundation for wasting their time on this, I seriously thought I'd be blazing a trail for a new medium to be represented on wikipedia, and I never wanted for any controversy to come up over it, I honestly thought this would be a positive contribution to wikipedia. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidariude (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 05:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I really don't know what this is about, to be honest; I've never heard of the series or of the "kamishibai" medium. I'll just say this, Hidariude: it would help your case if there were some articles you could mention as sources (see WP:SOURCES); maybe noteworthy publications/people mentioned or reviewed your work somewhere? We don't have a wikipedia page about every deviantart user who hopes to make it big... anyway, it seems as though you are looking at Wikipedia as your chance of getting your work out there. Please don't use wikipedia that way; the point of wikipedia is to have articles about that which has already been talked about by notable sources somewhere in the world. There are other places to showcase your work, other wikis even. Once you make it somewhere else, then it would make sense to have an article here. Most of us are not experts in art here, so we rely on others to decide what is worthy of inclusion and what is not; there's even a rule about it. Esn (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Independent, significant coverage doesn't seem to be there. Chick Bowen 02:51, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Sterling-Vete[edit]

Motivational speaker, etc. Promotional article written by his agent. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. COI article on an uncredited extra for a few television shows. No reliable sources to back up any of the other claims, and I doubt there are any, as per a News search and a Books search. --T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 13:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. However indicative, Google is not the lynchpin to go by. Simply perusing a few links given in the article reveals this and this, where the subject certainly has received non-trivial independent coverage, establishing notability. WilliamH (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:N Only 15 hits on him on Google. Artene50 (talk) 00:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS, thanks. WilliamH (talk) 16:08, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm unsure myself, but the web searches above obviously focused on "Brian Sterling-Vete", whereas he was and still is usually credited as "Brian Sterling". Film work seems not notable enough by itself, and I wouldn't consider the two links WilliamH quoted to be "significant coverage" either ... OTOH he has lots of smaller halfway notable things listed, albeit the majority isn't sourced. Hmm. --Amalthea (talk) 20:03, 29 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 (no consensus). TigerShark (talk) 08:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Car shipping[edit]

This article appears to have been created with good intention but is problematic in that the references which it contains take you straight to commerical sites with forms to provide quotes and take orders. Thus, deliberately or not, the article is spam. The author claims these are the best references to be found, which suggests a distinct lack of notability. There's discussion on the talk page. This subject, pruned somewhat, would seem to make a sensible new section to the car article. Ros0709 (talk) 09:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Delete - was going to suggest a rename when I looked at this article earlier, contents don't seem to be really about subject title. As 'car shipping' would logically include all sorts of transportation of cars including from manufacturer to dealer, attempting to define it as consumer level only seems to be an excursion into WP:Original Research. It's really attempting to deal with 'Online car sales' and 'Car delivery services' but still lacks independent reliable sources for those topics. -Hunting dog (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article reminds me a little of the deleted article Online car shopping (see the AfD debate). This article has the attributes of a how-to guide (something Wikipedia is not), as highlighted by the inclusion of second-person pronouns, and it is focused on a particular commercial activity. Unlike the other article it is sourced, but the sources are essentially how-to guides. More significantly, if I were attempting to write an article about the shipping of cars, I would not write this article. Instead, I would want to write about the process of shipping cars from manufacturers to dealers (by ship, rail, and truck), not about how to arrange transport of an individual car to a private buyer. --Orlady (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep just improve it,and adjust the title on the basis of discussing on the talk p[age. -remote delivery? or ? LETSCHANGETHETITLE is not a reason for deletion. And if someone wants to write an article about shipping of cars to retailers, a that's a perfectly good topic, but that does not require deleting this one. First time I can remember seeing the argument: ANOTHERARTICLEDOESNTEXIST. DGG (talk) 20:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just improve the article. Car shipping is a common aspect of everyday urban life. Tezkag72 (talk) 20:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its commonness makes it notable. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - its certainly a popular thing to attempt to spam links for services - see another new article on subject at Auto Transport - any ideas what would be the better title? We should at least only have one... -Hunting dog (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I redirected that article to this one. Good find. Ros0709 (talk) 07:55, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once stripped of problematic wording and content, leaving only usable neutral and factual content, it barely consists of less than a section's worth of content, easily coverable in car. It is in such bad shape there is nothing usable to copy-paste merge, it's a complete rewrite job. MickMacNee (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems like a notable subtopic of the automative and shipping industry articles. A million if not billion dollar industry. Article needs improvement but that alone isn't a reason to delete. --Rividian (talk) 20:31, 28 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.

Kyle Schickner[edit]

The result was Bad faith nomination by sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user .

thr article has no merit. The person in question is nobody famous, seems like a vanity article. So many other articles that do belong here, and this one surely doesn't. Waste of time and space. LonChaney (talk) 08:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —triwbe (talk) 09:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- A well written and thoroughly sourced article, and in my opinion the subject passes WP:BIO quite comfortably. Reyk _YO! 09:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - as per Reyk. Can not be a vanity article, there is no evidence of COI. Plus nominator (LonChaney (talk · contribs)) is a "new" editor who's first edits were to vandalise this article and vandalise an old AfD here. --triwbe (talk) 09:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bad faith nomination. For interest, compare and contrast the activities of the "new" editor who nominated and User_talk:Schatzberg. Ros0709 (talk) 10:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is well sourced and shows notability. Jons63 (talk) 10:46, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO, cited frequently. Bad faith nomination from user abusing multiple accounts. WilliamH (talk) 11:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't see any reason to delete this article. @ LonChaney: See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. StaticGull Talk 13:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Passes WP:BIO. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 12:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete Those are all overly biased opinions, and for all the wrong reasons. I've seen articles about people that "matter" get deleted on here. Yet an article about a two-bit director that no-one knows nor cares about stays? I don't think so. Plus, I already noticed there was a page removed from another one of Kyle's films that doesn't exist, so there must be some (if not plenty) of merit as to why it should be deleted. We'll let Admin figure it out, it certainly doesn't belong on this website, no-one knows about his work, no-one cares, and I don't have multiple accounts, so keep your snide comments about me to yourself. This is about why "Kyle Schickner" page should be deleted, nothing else. Oh, and P.S. ---I wasn't trying to vandalize the article, I just didn't nominate it for deletion properly, until someone else explained it to me. Thanks. LonChaney (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not knowing or caring about something is not a valid deletion rationale. On that basis, whole chunks of the encyclopedia could be deleted (which defeats the point of the project somewhat). Some people clearly care about Kyle Schickner, namely, those who covered and cited him, establishing notability in the process and accordingly, the basis for an article on him here. WilliamH (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly, that isn't a good enough reason for the article to stand. Anybody who lists an article about anything, cares about it, so your rational makes no sense. LonChaney (talk) 17:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand: I refer not to the people who wrote his entry on Wikipedia but the sources that wrote about him on which this article is based on in the first place. Their coverage of him establishes notability, as obviously an encyclopedia, a tertiary source, is not the place to establish it. WilliamH (talk) 18:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Caring about an article is not the question. The only reason for deleting here is notability and attribution, both of which the person/article has. If he was a "nobody", then I am sure the article would be deleted and maybe even salted to prevent recreation. The decision is not made by one admin, it is made by consensus and I do not see bias as every entry is an argument, not a vote. --triwbe (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as the article clearly passes WP:BIO and ban the shit out of the Single Purpose Sockpuppet. SashaNein (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was especially disgusting to justify removal of content by claiming to be Schickner's PR agent. I don't even know anything about the subject, yet your editing has shown this to be the ultimate bad faith nomination. SashaNein (talk) 18:04, 26 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) 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clitoral-vaginal index[edit]

Fails WP:N. Google search shows 23 ghits [38], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Scholar shows only one paper on this [39], but that is not multiple and not significant coverage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator says it all, some results, but not enough of them. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I created this article as it was on the list of Wikipedia:Articles requested for over a year or two years, or something. -mattbuck (Talk) 09:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Pending reliable sources. Black-Velvet 10:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - for a geocities reference this is one of the best I've seen yet, but the topic still doesn't seem to be used outside that one book? --Amalthea (talk) 20:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, the nominator says it all. Forego (talk) 00:07, 30 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. Article can be recreated if sufficient sources are found. Ty 00:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kirk Weddle[edit]

A photographer who verifiably exists and who verifiably took a rather good photo that appears on a well known pop LP. OK so far, but nothing else is asserted in the article, and some googling turns out bare assertions that he has worked for this, that and the other corporate client, as well as lots of bloggery and the like, but no more that I can find. I wouldn't be surprised if Weddle deserved an article, but there's not yet enough to go on. -- Hoary (talk) 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History of photography-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Searching on Google news and google turns up (I would say) enough results to prove Weddle's notability. Because of these results I think that the article meets human notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or maybe redirect. He gets about 300 unique Google Hits, but looking through the first ten pages of them, I can't find any vaguely reliable sites which come close to offering substantial coverage of the man himself; none says anything more than "he took the photo on the cover of Nevermind", with a little background on the photoshoot itself. Both of the references in the article are actually about Spencer Elden, who oddly seems to be more notable than the photographer himself (though even he falls rather short of WP:BLP1E, and I see there's a merge suggestion on his article). Even Weddle's own resume doesn't list much in the way of concrete achivements besides this one album cover. If all that can be verifiably said about him is that he took this one photo, a redirect to Nevermind#Packaging and a brief mention there seems more appropriate. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 12:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 03:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it is possible for a photographer to become notable on the basis of a single photograph. However, this article (and its self-references) give us no reason to believe that Weddle has become notable. The article merely establishes that the photo is famous, not the photographer. TheMindsEye (talk) 12:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough here Modernist (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Might want to do some searches of his name followed by art fair or gallery just to see what pops up. A search of his name followed by retrospect might be good as well just to see if more info can be added to this. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment Googling for the combination of "kirk weddle" and "art fair" brings one (1) hit: this AfD. And using "gallery" instead doesn't obviously lead to anything impressive. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Since Weddle's concept made Spencer Elden notable later down the road I would think that reveals the notability of the image and thus the artist. I'll help out with this article best I can. It needs major work. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 23:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I'm puzzled. How is Spencer Elden "notable"? I'd got the impression that he occasionally appeared in small "Where are they now?" features. (Here: "Quite a few people in the world have seen my penis [...] So that's kinda cool. I'm just a normal kid living it up and doing the best I can while I'm here.") -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2005 California Golden Bears football team[edit]

This article is a list of one college sports team's results in a particular season. It should be deleted because Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed., nor is it an indiscriminate collection of information. Reyk _YO! 08:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little on google or google news to back up the stats displayed or that one year's worth of football player's are notable. Because of this I think it fails general notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Google News is not the only way to find sports statistics. Yes, the article is improving and needs more sources but a google search on football statistics from 2005 is not a reason to delete.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:48, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep OTHERSTUFF notwithstanding, to see what this article could potentially become, compare this article with the very well sourced article for the 2006 Golden Bears. The fact is D1-A NCAA football is covered in extraordinary detail by reliable sources, and an article on one college football season is hardly indiscriminate. Townlake (talk) 17:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Division I FBS college football teams (the California Golden Bears are one of them) get ample and significant coverage by the media in the United States, thus meeting WP:GNG. There are over 7,000 articles that cover or mention Cal's 2005 football season. BlueAg09 (Talk) 19:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure, the article needs a lot of work but it should not be deleted. Seancp (talk) 19:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems a number of these season-page deletion noms come from our foreign colleagues who don't realize exactly how big a deal American college football really is --i.e., bigger than anything but the highest level of foreign soccer leagues. So for the reasons stated above, I say keep it. --Bobak (talk) 20:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bobak (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Uh, did you read WP:NOTDIR? It lists the several things it covers and sports team seasons are not among them. Please read policy before you start an AFD over it. Consensus is clearly in favor of these sorts of articles. --Rividian (talk) 21:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, yeah, I did read WP:NOTDIR- particularly the bit that says Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. I made the reasonable judgment that this can be applied to directories of every sports game ever played. If consensus is against me that's one thing, but don't talk down to me by accusing me of not having read the policy. I have. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment Speaking for myself and as a member of the college football project, I welcome notability discussions. Wikipedia should be as good as it can be, and discussions like this one help that to happen. Sometimes it becomes frustrating during AFDs because of the work and attention put in to articles, but overall we assume good faith in all nominations.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I assume he didn't know about the consensus, but it also seems reasonable he didn't really understand WP:NOT. It lists what directories it excludes, it doesn't exclude anything that could theoretically be called a directory. --Rividian (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rule lists what sorts of directories it excludes... and teams by year is not one of them. It's pretty clear about that, so it seemed reasonable that you hadn't read or at least didn't understand the entire rule. It is not a blanket ban on anything that could be called a "directory", we have articles that are part of a "directory" of people elected president of the united states, a "directory" of countries that have joined the UN, etc. --Rividian (talk) 23:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please review CFB:SEASON. Consensus and tremendous amount of precedent support single-season articles for notable college football teams.--Paul McDonald (talk) 11:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - overview articles of sports seasons are acceptable content. matt91486 (talk) 04:16, 30 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 00:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark A. Heckler[edit]

Unnotable university president of a private university. Fails WP:BIO as he has not "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." A few "news" items from local papers and the university websites, but those do not meet the requirements for being "intellectually independent." Additionally, he has not "received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them" and he has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record" in his field. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable and independant sources found on google and no results on google news. Because of this I think the article fails human notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep first, all presidents of higher education institutions are considered notable her, as shown by previous afds, and agreement on this in the pending revision of WP:PROF. Saves the trouble of arguing just how large a university counts. The reason is that they are not appointed unless there's some pre=-existing notability: he, for example, has been full Professor of theater at two significant institutions, and I'll add some relevant material about that. DGG (talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

three refs added on his professional activities--he turns out to have been the President of the major professional organization in his subject. That's just 5 minutes at Google Scholar. Why didn't the nom. look? DGG (talk) 21:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't seen anything yet saying Google Scholar is considered WP:RS, so I don't look there. I'm starting to wonder if you are following me lately...you seem to pop on every CSD, PROD, and AfD I do...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I've been on discussions with DGG before myself. Can't say that we've always agreed (we probably have disagreed more than agreed) but that's OK. The user has never been anything but cordial. I doubt that the user is "following you around" intentionally, but may (like me) troll through the AFDs a lot, looking for places to make comments where help can be given.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:35, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. University presidents, even for small universities, are generally considered academically notable. Nsk92 (talk) 17:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as deletion would require that this article be unimprovable, a conclusion I find highly unlikely based on what little's already documented. Jclemens (talk) 00:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I wouldn't call this a "small" university (it isn't "huge" either), College and University Presidents both past and present have been considered notable for some time now on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Google Scholer is certainly not a RS, but it is a darn convenient tool for finding them. --Crusio (talk) 00:43, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Absolutely keep. This article will continue to be improved and his status increasingly notable, especially as a recently instated President of a fairly well-known university. Triberocker (talk) 03:52, 28 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. DGG is quite right, though--obviously some merging is needed but that can be discussed elsewhere. Chick Bowen 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good ol' boy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Clearly, as of July 26 08, the article is garbage: a bunch of unverified impressions about how someone perceives this term is usually used, complete with "quotes" that don't quote anyone and embarrassingly unverifiable junk like: "Good ol' boys are generally thought to..." and "the term thus has generally a positive connotation..." On the other hand, there is a list of cultural references, most if not all of which are verifiable. Does that make it worth keeping, on the hope the facts can be augmented and that the garbage around the facts might be replaced with some actual content? 89.176.31.200 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:89.176.31.200 attempted to nominate this article for deletion. The above are his comments on the article's talk page in support of the deletion nomination. I believe the article should probably be kept but 89.176.31.200 does have some points to be considered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that this phrase, being in such heavy usage, merits an article and is notable. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just tried a google search for "good ol' boy" -network and got 200K+ hits. Also, Merriam-Webster online has a definition for it: "a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers". (OED doesn't have it, so it's hard to really verify this definition through attestations.) But this raises another question: does the term really need an encyclopedia entry, rather than just a dictionary entry? To put it another way, when all the unverified garbage is removed from the current version of the page, is there anything left besides a definition and a list of notable attestations? 89.176.31.200 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I was wrong, OED has it:

orig. and chiefly U.S. good old boy n. (also good ol' boy, good ole boy) a white male of the rural southern United States regarded as exemplifying traditional southern values; an uncomplicated, easy-going man; a ‘man's man’ [...] 1948 N. MAILER Naked & Dead (1949) ii. 25 What a bunch of good old boys there were in the platoon. 1965 T. WOLFE in Esquire (Electronic text) Mar., He is a coon hunter, a rich man, an ex-whiskey runner, a good old boy who hard-charges stock cars at 175 mph... He is..the true vision of the New South. 1977 Time 14 Mar. 28/3 White House watchers also think they can glimpse a tad of arrogance showing through the good ole boy pose. 1993 D. GILB Magic of Blood 54 Like any good old boy, he..finds it very hard to refer to non-white people without calling them something. 2004 New Voice of New York 26 May 13 The confederate flag is still being flown, and the good old boys are still hanging around the feed store.

89.176.31.200 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Notable phrase, but the content of the page is mostly junk and original research. Should perhaps be cleared back to a stub to start again. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect On further investigation. This should be a redirect to Good old boys. This article covers the same phrase and is in better condition, all it needs is reference to the pronunciation that drops the 'd'. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The articles are duplicative, but consider in which direction the merge & redirect should go on the relevant talk pages. This isn't the place to discuss such editing issues. DGG (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008* (UTC)
Merge and it really doesn't matter which direction, since one will be a redirect to the other. I'd suggest merging into the singular, and letting the plural be the redirect, but I fundamentally don't think it matters. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 27 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. Article is in need of a rewrite. Chick Bowen 02:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan J Hamilton, MD[edit]

Non-notable and none asserted. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Blatant copyvio along with zero references. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I cannot actually decide on this article, on one hand, if you do a google scholar search for him then you will find he has written a bunch of papers that would convey a lot of notability. On the other hand that article is very likely to be a copyvio (even though google turned up no results for it). So I am going to asume good faith and not vote delete because I think its a copyvio and will just stick with neutral. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability very strongly asserted, at least if one bothers to actually read the article, and see : " Fellow of the American College of Surgeons in 1994. In 1995, Dr. Hamilton was promoted to Chief of Neurosurgery and became the Chairman of the entire Department of Surgery" [at University of Arizona], Numerous publications are asserted also, though they need to be cited. Similarly, "Commanding Officer for US Army Mt. McKinley Medical Research Expedition " As multiple appearances on major national media are also specified, they can probably be found also. And the book listed is published by a major non-technical publisher . As for copypaste, I think it so likely that I will rewrite the article to save the trouble of searching for where they took it. DGG (talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gaah, really needs cleanup for readability. Agree that notability is asserted and RS should be findable based on those assertions. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I put some paragraph breaks in the article in an attempt to make it more readable. I agree that it has the appearance of a copyvio but neither Google nor Google books find a match. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but definitely agree on the copyright violation. A lot of cleanup seems to be called for on this article, possibly paring it down to a stub. RayAYang (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I tried to search Web of Science, but unfortuately it appears that there are several AJ Hamilton's. The publications that I think are from the subject of this article have a decent, but not stellar, citation record. One article on which he is third author out of 8 ("ENDOTOXIN-STIMULATED OPIOID PEPTIDE SECRETION - 2 SECRETORY POOLS AND FEEDBACK-CONTROL INVIVO") has been cited 157 times. His h-index is 15 and the total number of cites is only 634 (including those mentioned 157). Last publication was December 2005. On the other hand, I may have missed some articles by using the "author set" feature of WoS. DGG cites the fact that Hamilton is a "Fellow of the American College of Surgeons", but I am not sure that this is an honor that confers notability according to WP:ACADEMIC. As far as I can see from the article on these fellows, it just means that one has to be a good and ethical surgeon. While that is very commendable, it doesn't sound like notability to me. In all, I think I'll abstain. --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete yet another doctor who served at yet another hospital in yet another leadership roll, does that make him notable?, i think not, we don't list all deans and directors of schools either. --Buridan (talk) 19:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(personally, I'd favor an change to strike out all afd comments including the words "just another". :) )In general full professors at major colleges are notable, and even those who are reluctant to accept it , agree that full professors in the UK sense, which = heads of department in the US ,at major universities qualify. He reached that position because of multiple peer reviews by his true peers--such appointments are not made lightly at a flagship university like Arizona. I'm not going to argue that we are more qualified to judge than they. the profession estalishes the notability, we merely record it. DGG (talk) 09:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the profession establishes the level of competence or achievement in the field. That is distinct from notability. 152.3.245.45 (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; content clearly rejected, though perhaps the topic is not. I will redirect all campuses to the main article without a merge, since as noted below there is no significant content not already included. In my capacity as an editor I will stubbify the main article. Chick Bowen 03:24, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globe University/Minnesota School of Business[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Globe University/Minnesota School of Business

also nominating

No significant coverage in secondary sources, Wikipedia is not a directory, written like an advertisement. Khatru2 (talk) 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, pure spam by a for-profit "school". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Purely because it is written like an advertisement and makes no effort to cite reliable, impartial sources. Black-Velvet 06:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Little or no results in google news, I can determine that these partnerships exist, but I cannot say that they are in any way notable. Also the article smells too much like spam for my taste. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep and combine the articles on the campuses. It's a degree-granting institution, and we have so far covered every single one of them. That doesnt make us more a "directory" than covering all 50 states. It's even accredited, though only by the Accrediting Council for Independent Colleges and Schools, but some of the specialty programs are by their professional accrediting boards. Spam is dealt with by rewriting, not deletion. A nomination totally out of line with the way we deal with this topic. We even do non-accredited colleges if we can find anything to use as an adequate source for V. Where we have been drawing the line is minor trade schools, and sometimes its hard to distinguish them from colleges--but this one give as BS and MS, and so isnt a trade school. DGG (talk) 19:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep and merge as well described by DGG. We don't delete tertiary, degree awarding institutions and spammy pages are cleaned up not deleted. TerriersFan (talk) 19:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge the several different locations of this "accredited" school are virtual copies of each other with minor changes in course offerings. If the main article is kept, the others should be merged with the original.--Triple3D 12:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Merge. A page for each campus is overkill, so merging them all into one would be the best solution. Grk1011 (talk) 17:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Globe University/Minnesota School of Business". Delete the other as there is nothing to merge from there (it is mostly institutional information belonging in the institutions website, with no encyclopedic value, and WP is not a webhost) - Nabla (talk) 17:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drastic (rapper)[edit]

Fails WP:N and WP:MUSIC. No sources at all to confirm any claims to notability. Google searches are hard with a name like Drastic. (Search for drastic rapper and strange things come up) Delete Undeath (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All I can find in the way of articles is this: [40]. I'm pretty sure the article fails WP:MUSIC, as has been said. Black-Velvet 06:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No google news results or google results (outside of myspace and such). Because of this I think it fails musician notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 22:26, 31 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 00:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantica Online[edit]

First the good: nicely presented article. Perhaps that's why it survived nomination for speedy deletion (CSD#A7 - non-notable web content). The problem is, it's for an online game which is still only in beta and there are absolutely no sources that assert notability. Does not meet WP:WEB. Ros0709 (talk) 06:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The game seems to have attracted a bit of attention: [41], [42]. So it almost passes WP:TOYS. Black-Velvet 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I must say, that even for a closed beta, if you have a look at its Google News Results you can see that a significant amount of the press are interested in this beta. I would say that because of this multitude of sources, it meets [[WP:N|general notability guidelines —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The Kotaku reference certainly looks verifiable and establishing of the article's notability, so WP:CBALL wouldn't necessarily apply. In addition, WP:WEB doesn't necessarily apply since it is not just a website. MuZemike (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Was also covered by WarCry, a webzine for MMORPG players, as part of the marketing campaign for the initial launch. I recommend waiting a few months to see how much commercial success it has; given its odd design (turn-based combat in an MMORPG?!), it might turn out to be completely non-notable. CWC 13:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepPictures anyone....--SkyWalker (talk) 18:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of pictures is not lone justification of keeping the article. MuZemike (talk) 19:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes i know. The pictures are pretty don't you think so?. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator) I think the game is notable because it has received significant coverage, as others have pointed out. Furthermore, I think the design of core elements of the game, which is different from those of most other MMORPGs, is the very reason it has received the amount of coverage it has, even though it's still in closed beta. GroeFaZ (talk) 19:28, 29 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. The consensus that this topic does not make sense as an encyclopedia article is clear--the notability of the topic per se, under this name, was never established. Clearly there is some text worth moving to the main article, however. All text is retained in the article history and can be merged in as needed. If that is done, please note the merge in edit summaries to maintain history continuity. Chick Bowen 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts in search of a thinker[edit]

Article seems like a personal essay and is unintelligible to someone who is not abreast with the topic. It may be possible to add any intelligible content into Wilfred Bion if appropriate. Mvjs (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Wilfred Bion The topic does not seem to be notable but there seems to be some salvageable information about Wilfred Bion's work, I think it fails N|notability guidelines but should be useful in its author's article. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 06:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This didn't fit into any speedy deletion category so it wound up here. This is an original research, cite spanning essay. Wilfred Ruprecht Bion was a Freudian psychologist with skeinish, extrapolated theories (let's call them notions) which influenced psychologists' thinking on group dynamics (encounter groups) during the mid-twentieth century. His playful, creative thoughts in search of a thinker remark was linked with an articulation of his opinions on how to observe group behaviour. This essay is an individual writer's own creative take on what Bion was getting at, with scattered paraphrasing. The only sources cited are Bion himself and thinly so. The topic belongs in Bion's biography, supported with secondary source interpretations, not those of an individual editor as we have here. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Exceedingly Deep Thought, far too deep for humble Wikipedia. -- Hoary (talk) 07:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thoughts without a thinker seems to be somewhat related to Thoughts in search of a thinker and may be subject to the same fate. Mvjs (talk) 07:06, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an article. JuJube (talk) 13:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would-have-been-nuked-already-if-there-was-an-acceptable-criterion-delete It's an essay, nothing else to it. Violates WP:SYN, WP:V, WP:OR. Is an original idea trying to pass off as a notable topic. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Solid keep. I have found significant coverage of the topic in multiple reliable sources. To the closing admin, please consider waiting while I have a chance to rewrite the article.Skomorokh 12:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Is it a bit of a mess? You bet, but AfD is not clean-up. Article needs to be focussed, NPOV, cleaned up and content cited. These are all clean-up issues requiring regular editing. Banjeboi 22:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 18:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

White Rock, Willard, Utah[edit]

Delete no showing of notability, our neighborhood Starbucks is also a popular place to hike, doesn't make it notable however; this...well, it's a rock, folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google, google news etc shows no notability. Fails notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 06:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show some notability. --Polaron | Talk 14:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. The complete text of the article is "White Rock is a popular hiking destination in Willard, Utah". One sentence. It doesn't look or seem notable in any way shape or form. I guess the picture could be merged in the Willard, Utah article somewhere. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is at least named and known to the USGS: U.S. Geological Survey Geographic Names Information System: White Rock. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:33, 27 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) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yin & Yang: Might and Magic School

Possible hoax, not yet notable per WP:CRYSTAL Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 05:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As well as being a non-notable future event, google news, google etc turn up 0 results, I think it fails notability guidelines. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 06:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL problems, indeed. Ecoleetage (talk) 11:57, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as well as even I had a hard time finding any source to verify the content in this article. Please also note these related articles that really should be considered in conjunction with this discussion: List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Characters and List of Yin&Yang: Might and Magic School Episodes. If sources do turn up during the course of this discussion, these short sub-articles should be merged and redirected to the article in question for the time being. Also, the article needs a lead. If it is a television show, it should say that in a first sentence. I did what I could style and format-wise with these three articles, but sources are key here. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 29 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, Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:04, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:HOAX. This is supposed to be a new season/spin-off of Yin-Yang-Yo!, but doesn't show up in Google at all. If this were real, Disney would be promoting it, and there would be Google hits. --Phirazo 15:02, 30 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) 18:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anup[edit]

Delete nothing indicating the significance of this dictionary definition cum baby naming reference Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete google searches and google news searches turn up really nothing mentioning this baby name. I would say it fails general notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 07:33, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete no content. JuJube (talk) 13:24, 26 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 00:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pyorrhoea[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC standards. Non notable label and google hits only show few band links, while the other links are about the disease. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Note that Empire Records page isn't even about a label. No assertation of notability whatsoever. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 06:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak neutral per Ecoleetage's finds. I'm not fully convinced, but they may just make it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 17:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Side note: link to a Polish Empire Records (label) has been red-linked already. -- User:Poeticbent

A7 No assertion of notability and, as TenPoundHammer said, Empire Records links to some random sitcom. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 07:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The band has an album coming out in the U.S. in September [43]. The "Empire Records" in question is a Polish label, not a U.S. label [44]; I will fix the link in the article. When considering articles about bands from the non-Anglophonic world, putting aside a bit more time for research is advisable. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per A7 In order to qualify under criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC, the group would need to have issued two albums via a major label or better known indie label - they have not. LuciferMorgan (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 15:50, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good coverage at NeuFutur Magazine. The article needs to be properly developed, that's all. --Poeticbent talk 17:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you're citing says that a group may be notable if they have "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable". Can you prove that NeuFutur complies with WP:RS, and offer other links (to comply with the demand for "multiple non-trivial published works")? LuciferMorgan (talk) 19:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More links Coverage from the metal review site Live 4 Metal (a well-regarded online media source for this music genre) has been added to the External Links section of the article. The band has also been featured on the bonus CD that accompanied the DVD release of the Metalmania 2005 concert -- see here: [45]. That was released by MVD, a major indie label. I would be impressed if more people made an effort to enhance the article, rather than erase it. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: regardless of the label notability the inclusion of 2+ reliable sources about the band passes WP:MUSIC. Ironho lds 14:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability has been confirmed. Director33 (talk) 02:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I saw these guys at MetalMania. They are very well known in Poland and Central Europe. Forego (talk) 00:09, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:MUSIC. Three notable reviews usually do the trick. No one can cheat the music until one knows what to play. Can't say the same about the literary essays. greg park avenue (talk) 17:49, 30 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 Withdrawn. Note that I don't consider high schools inherently notable, but if this truly is the only Waldorf school in the U.S. that makes it notable (it would help if I could, you know, find a source that says so.) Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 06:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

High Mowing School[edit]

Non-notable school. Only news hits are for events held at the school. tagged for primary since December 07. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. High schools are usually notable, and this is a high school. The New York Times ran an obituary when the shcool's founder died, presumably mostly because of her work with the school. I added the obituary as a reference. --Eastmain (talk) 05:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The only Waldorf boarding school in the US, and High Schools are generally notable, as all those other undisputed articles on High Schools prove. --Catgut (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: High schools are notable on Wikipedia and this one is clearly notable in the states. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is notable as a high school, per WP:SCHOOL#Indicators_of_probable_notability. It is also the only Waldorf boarding high school in North America and one of the oldest Waldorf schools in the U.S. Among the notable alumni are novelist Nancy Huston, actor Judson Mills and David E. Blackmer, audio electronics inventor. --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Checked up on the school notability guidelines and found that the article meets many of the notability criteria.

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 04:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Curnutte[edit]

No reliable sources found for any of his accomplishments — the indie CDs he released, the song he wrote for River Road, or the books he wrote. Only link is his official website. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 04:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find anthing on google news to show any notability. Seems to fail musician notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The sources listed by Esn would work as minor references but cannot be considered reliable, independent sources that can establish the notability of the company (or its founders). Chick Bowen 03:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Trails Animation[edit]

Claims to notablity are backed up by only a trivial source, and I can't find any other secondary sources to verify said awards. Declined speedy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched on Google and Google news, neither turned up many results to show notability. I think it fails company notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - quote from the company notability criteria: "This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people).". As this is a very small company consisting of mainly a husband and wife, I think this falls under that. Quote from requirements of WP:BIO: "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them." "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." I would say that as people, Andy and Amy Collen definitely are notable. Since their claim to notability has been accomplished under the roof of the tiny company which they founded, it is only sensible to have the article be about the company. Esn (talk) 21:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Esn (talk) 21:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - there are plenty of sources: Interview with Andy Collen, Article about "Winter", Review of "Winter", confirmation of Boston Motion Picture Award wins, Another article about "Winter", Andy Collen's profile at Independent Exposure film festival website, mentioning some awards, Heartland Film Festival "Crystal Heart Award" source. The innovative animation technique in "Hero Sandwich" is another point in favour of keeping the article. Esn (talk) 21:47, 31 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 redirect to Thriller. Didn't even need an afd. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lady in My Life[edit]

DELETE: Wasn't released as a single, hasn't appeared on any notable chart, it isn't even a song that Jackson plays live very often if at all. It should be redirected to Thriller (album) to stop fan boys continuing this. — Realist² (Speak) 02:27, 26 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, nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Lessac[edit]

unremarkable person. I can't find anything particularly notable about the books, no mention of exactly what he "taught" at his various institutes and the fact that the "new software for text-to-voice technology" based on his work is being developed by a company with his name in the title implies a vanity project and means it's impossible to judge exactly how worthwhile said software is. Ironho lds 01:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC) AfD Withdrawn: further edits and other users contributions show that he is indeed notable. My apologies to y'all for wasting your time. Ironho lds 03:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He is a notable voice instructor. See The New York Times for several articles mentioning him, some behind a paywall:
- New Ways of Correcting Stuttering; Field for Research
  - Arthur--Lessac, director of and Speech Institute of NewYork City, amplifies this information in. -- a communication to this department. ...April 8, 1956
- FROM VIENNA AND TO A REUNION IN NEW YORK; Notes on the Refugee ...
  - Arthur Lessac, voice trainer for the Group, dropped in to act as inter preter. He need not have come out that stormy afternoon, for better, clear et English ...March 10, 1940
- COMEDY BY KANIN SHIFTS PRODUCERS; Hillard Elkins and Al Goldin to ...
  - Hired by Center Repertory Arthur Lessac has been op-, pointed instructor of voice,' speech and diction for-the training program of the Lincoln Center . ...July 27, 1962
- LINCOLN THEATER BEGINS REPERTORY; ' After the Fall' by Miller ...
  - A capacity,audience of 1158 persons saw "After the Fall," Arthur Miller's first play in ... the dancer, and diction and voice projection from Arthur Lessac. ...January 24, 1964 -- Eastmain (talk) 02:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. An article in American Theatre magazine at http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-53567284.html says: "Arthur Lessac is widely acknowledged to be one of the nation's three or four most important figures in modern voice training. The trainer created the famed Lessac technique..." --Eastmain (talk) 02:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The subject is of marginal notability and the article needs a good rewrite. But nonetheless, this passes WP:RS. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:22, 26 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. I'm not impressed by the canvassing that seems to have occurred, nor am I impressed by the arguments of the many anonymous keep !votes. The bottom line is that significant reliable secondary coverage is absent, and that means Wikipedia does not consider it notable. Okiefromokla ^questions? 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It Trill[edit]

This website does not meet WP:WEB and lacks non-trivial coverage by reliable third party publications. While there is a list of "references", do not be deceived as none of them are actually about the website at all, and instead focus on a news story about rapper Rick Ross and his previous two year stint as a corrections officer. JBsupreme (talk) 01:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is only notable for the Rick Ross event, if that. Craig Montgomery (talk) 02:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are for an event only marginally related to the site, and I'm finding nothing else that asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 03:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on google or google news suggests that this website has any notability. Because of this, I think it fails website notability criteria. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!!! Keep it trill is for the trill —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.165.231 (talk) 03:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Keep:Don't delete! I also visit the trill website regularly for news etc. Keep It Trill is one of the fastest growing sites... and you want to delete a reference to it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.220.2.105 (talk) 03:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Do not delete! The reasons you all have given for deletion is absurd! What gives you the right to say whether the website has notability? Did you even see the website? I visit this site daily for news and they have all of my support. They report everything fairly and even with the Rick Ross story, NOTHING was biased. They did not form their own opinion, they just gave the facts and let the people reading form an opinion for themselves. Just check the comments on the articles.
Keep: All websites start somewhere. Just because it lacks a history, means nothing. It obviously reports news just as many other websites and if you check the Alexa Website rankings, its ranked in the top 100k websites for more than a week now. To be this succesful, they must be doing something right. Especially considering they haven't been around for more than a few months (this means they must have some type of following!). Give them a chance. As far as the person who made a comment about google notability, what does that mean? If you search keep it trill, it is the first result. If you search the word "Trill", it is on page 5. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.164.51 (talk) 02:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- While Googling brings up numerous references to "Keep It Trill", none of them are for the website. And, for the mystery person who wanted to "don't delete" the article ("keep" is the proper word here), your reasons for keeping the article is not valid enough. -- azumanga (talk) 06:33, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Azumanga, you may want to try googling again. It is the 2nd choice that pops up. KeepItTrill.com . You may also want to go to alexa.com to check its traffic rankings. It is becoming a major website and has a large presence on the web, in its short existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.164.51 (talk) 07:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, son. Why does it need to show up on Google for it to be a real website? Besides, they just don't give news, they also help underground artists with websites and MySpace pages, so maybe you idiots should revise the wikipedia page. And I laugh at those who say it doesn't have notability. Yeah, They haven't been sued EVER for slander, but the website lacks notability. Get ya facts straight before you decide to be morons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.148.161 (talk) 12:11, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - KeepItTrill.com breaks the latest in hip-hop regarding news, new releases, rumors, etc., and to delete it from a site that permits just about anyone to change entries, many times based on inacurate info, is absurd. The website is good for hip-hop but not good for haters who want to question the validity of it's existance. Wouldn't it be better to give the website a chance to catch up with your terms & policies before dismissing it? I think so.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J2k813 (talk • contribs) 13:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC) — J2k813 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: "Keep It Trill", the website, only has one entry on Google. There are many other references to this phrase, but none refer to this site. Hence, I'm sticking to my guns for a "delete" nomination. By the way -- sign all your comments with four tildes. Also, if all these unsigned comments come from one person, keep in mind that such is frowned upon here at Wikipedia. -- azumanga (talk) 21:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Are yall serious?? Go to google right now and type Keep it trill, the third entry is the website. Try Trill Hip Hop News, it's the 5th entry.. This site reports daily news on a daily basis and supports underground and upcoming artists as well as known artists. They do interviews, reviews and reports on albums, Hip Hop events including Bun B, Ozone Awards this year, Texas Music Summit, artists, and writes their own hip hop news articles as they can. It also gives less fortunate underground artists opportunity to publish their music to the public either free or at a low cost. It offers services that include everything from design to cd replication at lower costs than anybody else is willing to do in the industry. Hip Hop is a way of life for many, Keep It Trill tries to keep it alive for the less fortunate artists who are trying to get some exposure.

-MAYBE, if this has to be deleted.. instead have keepitTrill, just as allhiphop has theirs. ~Thanks for readin...70.118.127.3 (talk) 04:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.118.127.3 (talk) 00:48, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All of these comments are i.p logged, so you can rest assured that they are individual responses. I will have to suggest that you brush up on your google skills. I am not sure how you can not see keep it trill listed as the 2nd entry in google. KeepItTrill.com - "The Trillest Hip-hop Website On The Internet" is what comes up. Not to mention it is the same for yahoo and many other search engines. Keep It Trill uses SEO for their news blogs and articles pull up for their website when searching for various topics related to hip-hop. As a close friend to the owners of Keep It Trill, you would be making a big mistake by trying to discredit them, as they are hard working and very legit people. 98.196.141.233 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- First of all, I suggest brushing up on WP:COI; Conflict of Interest is also frowned upon at Wikipedia. Second, all but one IPs here come from Comcast, which suggests that something is not right. -- azumanga (talk) 02:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So you have a problem that a majority of the users use comcast? May I ask where you live? Comcast is the dominant service provided in Houston, Dallas and Atlanta. I know this first hand as I have lived in each of these places and visit them often. These cities happen to be target markets for Keep It Trill (seeing how it is a southern based website - and the owner is from Texas). I'm not an expert at I.P logging (or whatever its called), but isn't there a different I.P address for each computer? And can't you even narrow each i.p by city? or by region at the very least? As for conflict of interest, I do not see how that could apply for this rule, seeing as how I did not create the article, nor the owners of the site (not to my knowledge anyway). I am simply here defending the entry in their honor. If anything, it seems you are set on discrediting the website, due to your inability to search google accurately? That is just my assumption, but I can send you several screen shots showing keepittrill.com in google, yahoo, ask, etc. Do you have something against hip-hop websites, or do you just not like Keep It Trill for some reason? The stats are undeniable, so you can't say the site isn't relevant. 98.196.141.233 (talk) 03:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "keepittrill" ends up with only 189 unique G-hits, while the the words broken apart net 363 uniques (about as accurate as you're going to get, as it only considers that one phrase in the search). Not really all that notable. The site's big notability is that they found a picture of a rapper as a prison guard when said rapper has vehemently denied it and says that it's not him. We don't help spread rumors. And yes, we can track IP's down to a city. Also, there is no bias against hip-hop here, it's just that the site isn't well known enough to be notable, that's all. As for Alexa results, this graph says it all. It's only gone up to the claimed number because of the picture, and after it all dies down it's going to plunge back to the pre picture levels. I can say that one site that I visit daily is in the top 75k, but we don't have an article on that, so we can't base the decision on Alexa results alone. Nate • (chatter) 06:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable site. Plus the page stinks of weasel words. Reads to me like an advertisement and a desperate plea to "show" notability with the Rick Ross incident. PG Pirate 17:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - Good site. I visited this site and it seems to be on point with many other hip-hop websites that I have visited. I researched these Alexa rankings you guys keep talking about and it indeed does confirm the results. The previous poster is right about the spike starting when the Rick Ross photo broke. The site seems to have had a drop off in traffic since, but it seems like it is remaining steady in the 60k ranking range for about a full week now. That story could have given the site enough exposure to bring in a whole new audience and they may return on a daily basis since they now are aware of the sites existence. If anything, I think we should all see how the next couple weeks play out for the site to see where they rank then. At that point, we will see if it really has notability, or if they just caught a lucky break with the Ross photo 74.244.90.209 (talk) 19:46, 28 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) 18:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caerlon[edit]

Delete - no indication that this is a notable game. Contested prod. ... discospinster _talk 01:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It doesn't say why it is notable, plus the references really only show that this game exists. Craig Montgomery (talk) 02:39, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No coverage in independent sources, etc. The usual grounds for unestablished notability. RayAYang (talk) 05:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. JJL (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if the sites which are listed as "references" are notable, the referencing is done improperly. Fails WP:N. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 07:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No inline or independant references to suggest notability. Also, if you look at the creator (User:Caerlon) I think this may also be a conflict of interest. —Atyndall ^{[citation needed]} 08:17, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is nowhere found in the article's history, so there is no direct COI. MuZemike (talk) 19:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Seems to be written like a WP:ADVERT; also no references cited to verify the article's notability. MuZemike (talk) 19:26, 26 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) 02:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dracos[edit]

This article has been speedied twice, although both have been declined due to uncertainty. In fact, it is only reasonable this "private island" doesn't get much media attention, if at all. A few has already doubted its existence, and I propose for it's deletion. Dengero (talk) 01:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If it exists, it is non-notable, but from the look of things I highly doubt it does. Then again if things really are run there by various US agencies no wonder there are little or no media references. Ironho lds 01:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Hoax. The map actually shows what appears to be Armathia, and I can find no proof that a Dracos even exists in Greece. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User Lifebaka has reasoned it was not blatant enough to be a hoax. Dengero (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. (Circle gets the square.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 02:13, 26 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 - author-blanked. ... discospinster _talk 01:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walking to your grave[edit]

A not yet released album by a NN band, and also per WP:crystal. Twinzor (talk) 01:06, 26 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. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:26, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brhmoism[edit]

A google search produces a single result - a trivial mention in a reliable source. Consequently, delete because of notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 13:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unsourced religion that claims it has "universal appeal' and hardly any followers. If fact, that latter claim by the article clearly indicates lack of noatability. Edward321 (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Brahman which is probably what the editor is referring to. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 17:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is something new... ChiragPatnaik (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the overall smell of this is that it's a promotion for a self-published pamphlet (see http://brhmaandpujanbook.tripod.com). However, I've asked at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics if someone who reads Hindi could glance at the news reviews. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alansun Reply to above On site -That is not a pamplet but the 31 page registered/copyright Hindi book Brhmaand Pujan.which is offered 'free' for world welfare or knowledge hungry readers.The intention is to share knowledge to the seeker absoletly 'free of cost'.. Could some one of you help in translating them and refer here what exactly this educational book meant?--Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not only is the article poorly written, it's likely the page creator added it (along with Esai and Esa Masi) simply to advertise the aforementioned pamphlet. The link for the pamphlet is posted multiple times on the author's talk page. Beemer69 ^chitchat 19:49, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sun Reply to above Yes I agree the article is poorly written and lack sense of grammar or might appear as some lay writer's work. but the content/material/intention/purpose stay crucial and may be accepted wikipedia/arbitrory judges as they are far matured/judgemental entity and not aspiring/under trained editors.Regards. --Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Outside comment

I was about to log off when I saw the post on the Indian notice board. It's a bit too hazy to read some of them clearly, but yes, something about Brhhmand pujan is mentioned. (The spelling can be transliterated in many ways as the alphabet is a conjunct. It does speak of an "author/writer" Naresh Sonee. I'm not sure about how credible these papers are, cause I've rarely seen some on them on the new stands in Mumbai. However one of them is published in the Dainik Bhaskar which is a reputed publisher. (Its the one that has 25th June 2003 circled & a mega monsoon ad on the right) See this too: [46]. =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sun reply to aboveArbitrory of wikipedia will be more interested to know which news paper had said what in their news or reviews coverage? Reputation or validity of the newspapers is secondary all indians know about them that they are authentic and most popualr newspapers but here the content of news/reviews[references/notability] are more important than praising how popular the news papers are. Yes they are reputed reliable newspapers and they dont entertain false hoax news/reviews. Regards --Dralansun (talk) 10:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Concur with PhilKnight & Gordonofcartoon. Even though I can spot three relatively noteable (noteable, not credible) newspapers on that page being refered. Punjab Kesari, Rajasthan Patrika & Dainik Bhaskar. Hindi Language Newspaper tend to be sensationalist (yes, I'm generalising, there are several respected newspapers as well. and Rajasthan Patrika and Dainik Bhaskar from their larger centers are quite respected) and will sometimes carry stories that are quite frankly unbelievable. Imagine "woman gives birth to martians" etc. The Govt. of India mention is nothing but a copyright ~~on process of the Puja (Puja is a ritual/ceremony)~~ on the book, so that in itself does not provide noteability. The mention to Esa and Esai is irrelvant. They are words used for Jesus and Christians n large parts of the India, which again means nothing. In any case, if the English press and the quality Hindi publications from large publishing centers have not touched it, means that it is bunkum. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2008

(UTC)

BTW we will get a lot of such people on Wikipedia soon, now that it is apparent that wikipedia is a hugely trusted source as far as google is concerned. Wait till the hordes of Search Engine Optimisers start turning up here to write articles... :( ChiragPatnaik (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sun reply to above Dear Chirag I regret for your lack of knowledge. But then too I respect you . However pls note: prayers / rituals could never be registered by any Government . Neither such 'legal section' exist in the world. However acquainting you again Brhmand Pujan is a book published in 1999 and it is registered under Copyrights law of India. Pls properly re-read the notice on that offered website . It's an ISBN No. issued by the Government of India and not aspiring / under trial- training editors of some private firm or voluntary organisation. Moreover Brhmand Pujan is registered under School/College Educational Department of the Government of India . Any Governing Educational dept. never register any vague philosophy unless it is meaningful or useful for educating students or mass in whole. Religions has no place there. Within few days original certificate may also be posted on the news site which show a government stamp. I had made this request to the publisher.

And what I feel Chirag from your quotes above you had hurriedly, hastily gone on that news website and read the name of the newspapers so you are praising or acknowledging reputed newspapers who had covered news on Naresh Sonee or Brhmand pujan book but you are ignoring the content published by these reputed newspapers for Brhmaand Pujan or Naresh Sonee. There was a press conference even on Naresh Sonee. Had you noticed that some newspapers had also criticized the matter? I request you or everybody whomsoever wish to join this controversial debate to prior summit here the whole content of news Hindi to English what actually the news & reviews said along with dates & facts. This will be a generous contribution from you or all who are helping or opposing this controversial page on Brhmoism to get deleted or grow. However, running or flying away by throwing some dirt or pebbles on the page, author or me is not a responsible job of educated editors in wiki indeed . With regards- --Dralansun (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently in this matter For instance…..My case an stakes of Brhmoism , Esa Masi , Esa seeks Wikipedia-Arbitrary intervention urgently. For instance….. Mythology , Superstitions , Blind Faith , Fictions , Philosophy , Religions , Spiritualism , Consciousness are awkward or illogical claims to get Registered/Notifications/ References . Yet wikipedia has such topics otherwise which wikipedia / encyclopedia media caretakers paparazzi has noticed Buddha getting enlighten under Banyan tree , however Krishna orating Gita discourses to Arjun during crucial hours of busy bleeding war , or Jesus doing miracles or issuing commandments. In those days there were no internet , media or paparazzi to register, record claims references or sources and yet their claims are recorded in wiki. Naresh Sonee's Brhmoism is not a superstitious, blind faith institute or any religion. It's a self thesis of philosophy, a novel way offered to realize 'Universal God or it's spiritualism.

Needless to argue more - Various news papers had either reported or recorded the factual existence of such matters through news and reviews. Claiming and recording are two different aspects and so cannot be measured or weight with equal parmeters. Even internet search throw many pages and hits on Naresh Sonee and Brhmaand Pujan existance or notability What else this debate needs? Just fight like school boys only to prove the existence of such ‘genuine voice’ wrong? Should not such crab fight end in wikipedia to claim me wrong and concentrate to read the complete article and then realize what is the ‘ intention or purpose’ of Brhmoismand why it should not be ignored by wikipedia.

I agree and apologise that my tone or flair of language or interpretations may be worng in the 'questioned'article. but can't all be improved by gentle generous editors to wiki? Should only professionally managed trust who profit or are previlaged to promote, propogate themselves with money or otherwise under the flags of some religion be posted on wikipedia either. Here are some lively prove- Asaram Bapu , Murari Bapu , Deepak Chopra and many more. I leave this matter to the expert senses of Wikipedia-Arbitrator. Arbitrator should read my appeal of discussion below and read the 'intention or purpose'of articles and decide why this notable page should not be in wikipedia? Regards --Dralansun (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Naresh Sonee Brhmaand Pujan on google search

gives many hits in 0.03 seconds which Hon’ble Administer should selfly check pls. Below are examples of google hits-

Google Give So Many Search Hits For Naresh Sonee & Brhmaand Pujan

Reference-Notability-Verification can the Administrator get from below mentioned sites. They are in formet pix of many HINDI NEWS PAPERS coverage on Brhmand Pujan .

So if you still feel doubtful , translations of these news-reviews or content of the book should be sought or confirmed by Wiki Indian Project Community or WikiProject Hindu philosophy who are expert in Hindi-English Language or such subjects. Usually roaming editors of Wikipedia are interested in particular subjects so do not help.

BRHMAAND PUJAN is registered under Government of India

Ministry of Human Resource Development,

Other registration details can be get from above notability sites.

Debate on Notability should not challenge common sense . For instance: Many ‘Tribal’ community or their regions or religions are yet not explored /mentioned/covered/registered by search engines so that does not means such matter or mind do not exist or wastes. Same way many Tribal religions or community has or do not have written literatures due to lack of approach or awareness but Geography / History channel or encyclopedia explore and cover them because such wise class are knowledge hungry to seek and spread information and knowledge.

Same way- Literature/News/Reviews of Brhmaand Pujan or Brhmoism cannot be denied from above given site. They are enough to prove notability/verification/references/acknowledgements. For instance Christians in India are commonly and generally 90% called 'Esai'. To Jesus Indian calls 'Esa' and such words do not exist on internet or English world .

Carefully note: Only 10 to 20 % literate class in India are familiar with Jesus or Christians and they too prefer names to be called 'Esa' to Jesus & 'Esai' to Christians. But does that means or proves that ‘Esa' Jesus or ‘Esai’ Christians never exists & will never meet standards of today’s internet or wikipedia or encyclopedia? Wiki Editors should judge the subject or issue from it’s very existence or notability-references and not through the popularity of a ‘subject, matter or community’ existing on ‘internet search hits’ mere. How one can get stamped from the Government / associations/ missions in such cases of notability? For instance on internet- no body knew what 'body piercing' was 12 years ago ? All started from tribals – or say came to fashion again with someone’s efforts to change the fashion to past . But can you erase 'Body Piercing from wiki now ?

So today with due respect to Wiki & the objectors here of Brhmoism – Pls. allow me to start a new page on Esa or Esa Masi the Jesus of/from India and Esai the Christians of/from India . And then, let Christians of the world challenge and acknowledge my stake that this two words lacks it's authenticity, references-notability-verifications etc. Today Esai , Esa Masi words you may not find on internet search hit. But Jesus and Christianity in India are popular by such two names mainly.

Till then good wise minds should allow my pages to stay & are requested never to delete my matter of Brhmoism , Isa Masi or Esai unless verified or judged from the judgmental angles of Hon'ble Administrators/Arbitrary sections who are concerned members of WIKIPEDIA. Deleters or objectors should empathy the pain one put into creating an article. I beg the critics to completely read the intention or purpose of the article in question and then follow their impulse and also help me out in improving Brhmoism, Esai Esa masi format. I suggest the Administrator should also clear the Esa search diricting to my raised page Esa Masi the Indian Jesus. No body should be allowed to scrap such Universal pages of wiki interests. People like me may lack language or grammar approach but my ‘contents’ matters significant to world.

And pls. mind well Brhmaand Pujan or Naresh Sonee has a good hit than Esa Masi or Esai on any so called search engine. Followers of Esa Masi are millions Esai in India but they lack authenticity on search engine. The same claim is of Brhmoism today. For instance ; Esa , Esai , Esa Masi does not have a single hit on search engine but these names has multimillions followers in India.

To prove my claims right, for instance on date July 27, 2008-

Jesus who is called Esa in India by this name has not even gives a single hit on google

*ESA SEARCH HIT is 'NIL' on GOOGLE

Christians who are called Esai in India by this name has not a single hit on google

*ESAI Search HIT is 'NIL' on GOOGLE

Jesus who is called Esa Masi in India by this name has not a single hit on google :

*ESA MASI Search HIT is 'NIL' on GOOGLE

Regards/--Dralansun (talk) 12:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Dralansun has created articles on Naresh Sonee and Brhmaand Pujan/ Brhmand Pujan in the past that have resulted in deletion because of notability issues. There has apparently been some coverage in Hindi-language newspapers, but whether it is enough or of suitable quality to satisfy notability, I do not know. Aleta ^Sing 19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 20:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete This is unsourced OR, and possible nonsence. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Sun reply to above Schism, I understand your emotionally hurt and your feeling toward your own religion so you had strongly opposed above. Going through your Ism schism I have noticed you are a strong believer of Vaishnu Dharma Vaishnavism and its member too which is a staunch private religion in India and alike other religion too you too strongly believe in superstitions, blind faith. And so how could you or any other religion could so easily entertain or surrender to such page Brhmoism who want to spread non-bias community and unite the world in ‘One Religion’ . Brhmoism is not a professionally religious expert people . We have no missionary or religion. It’s a slow and self progressive people of like minds. We only wish to ‘unite every religion of the world sharing love, brotherhood so You too should join us without leaving your religion. We have full respect for every religion. So will you mind translating the Hindi paper first what it say about Brhmaand Pujan and then come to any conlusion. In the news there Rajisthan Patrika & Dainik Bhaskkara renowned Vaishnuvi Pandit Saint Vallab of Rajastahan had already praised the book in an temple inauguration in Rajasthanwhere the Saint/Priest was called . Both news paper had covered in their news 5 years back. Have courtesy and broad mind Schism, The world and wiki is for all- May Brahman give you sense and empathy others situation also. Soon we will be posting one college principal letter and Vaishnuvi Sanasta Guru letter on the news-review sights . read it what it say? It's a is very awkaward & humilating situation here as the fighit or this battle is being fought with all of you at one side. It reminds me of great people like Arjun , Krishna , Jesus , Buddha , Mohemed who all were one man army first and the world recognised their deeds only after their death.God bless u all who oppose too -Regards --Dralansun (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete: OR term and propagation of a single book, which is NOT a RS.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Upon further review, this is clearly an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a new religion based on a self-published pamphlet, but no notability. ~ priyanath ^talk 15:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 19:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THIS CASE NEED ALL NON-RELIGIOUS EDITORS OR WIKI ARBITRATORS HERE WHO ARE WISDOM FULL OR LOOK TO EVERY RELIGION WITH EQUAL LOVING & RESPECTING EYES HOWEVER, STAUNCH LOVERS OF THEIR RELIGION WILL NEVER DIGEST THAT THEIR LONG TIDIOUS HARD WORK DONE ON WIKIPEDIA OF THEIR PRIVATE MYTHOLOGICAL RELIGIONS GET CHALLANGED OR DISTURBED BY BRHMOISM . THIS IS THE REASON MY ARTICLE SAY-BRHMOISM IS FORBBIDDEN AS/BY RELIGION. ON THIS DELETION PAGE TOO IT'S NOTHING ELSE BUT BRHMO-PHOBIO SPREADING LIKE VIRUS IN WIKIPEDIA. ARBITRATOR MUST PLS. CHECK MY CLAIM AS MAXIMUM OF THE CRITICIZER ON THIS DELETION PAGE HAS WRITTEN/CONTRIBUTED MANY ARTICLES ON THEIR PERSONAL MYTHO RELIGION SUBJECTS. NOW I LEAVE ON WIKIPEDIA HEAD TO DECIDE IF I AM HURTING MANY SENTIMENTS OF THEIR EDITORS OR ADMINISTRATORS HERE. BELEIVE ME I RESPECT EVERY RELIGION. JAI BRHMAAND- I HONOUR ALL OF YOU AND THE 'GOD UNIVERSE'- THE BRHMAAND.MY APPEAL TO YOU ALL IS 'LET WE ALL RELIGION UNITE & LOVE/RESPECT EACH OTHER'. WHAT WRONG BRHMOISM PHILOSOPHY SUGGEST ? Regards --Dralansun (talk) 19:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dralansun, if your CAPS lock key is stuck, you can use the shift key to type normally. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is mostly filled with OR, but too little evidence of significant coverage by independent reliable sources. Does not pass WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 21:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of third-party sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: for all the reasons mentioned above. Don't want to do a repeat telecast. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 06:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Aleta ^Sing 22:52, 30 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.