Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 July 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 6 July 8 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. - Philippe 19:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. Entire article is sourced to the organization's own documents, or non-critical, non-reliable sources. Jehochman Talk 21:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This organization also appears to be a major source of linkspam, perhaps an orchestrated public relations campaign. In addition to deleting this article, the following links may need to be removed. Jehochman Talk 21:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references, including two reviews of the site and two newspaper articles which quote Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. As well, this review by the Apologetics Index (already mentioned in the article) is critical of the site. --Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very well. Let's discuss these references:
    • "Web Site of the Week: www.religioustolerance.org". The Dallas Morning News. September 15, 2001. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • "Religions Tolerance (review of website)". School Library Journal. 1 April 2004. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • "Paganism growing fast in U.S., Canada". UPI. June 26, 2008 at 1:42 PM. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
    • Draper, Electa (June 26, 2008). "NEO-PAGANS-ART-DEN". Chicago Tribune. Retrieved 2008-07-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • I do not see how these establish notability. The first two require payment, so I could not check them. The last two are mere passing mentions. They are not articles about the Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. Being quoted or mentioned here and there does not necessarily establish notability. Jehochman Talk 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the first two, the previews ought to be sufficient to confirm that the OCRT's website was reviewed by reliable sources. Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance is as much about the website as the organization, so a review of the site is directly talking about the subject of the article. AccessMyLibrary.com pages can be accessed free of charge if you have a library card from a participating library. The paganism articles both quote OCRT, indicating that two newspapers regard OCRT and its website as a reliable source of information. --Eastmain (talk) 01:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jehochman, it is not required that reliable sources have free online archives. That you can't find a way to read them easily for free is irrelevant. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Warning: the above comment is a strawman argument. I said, "The first two require payment, so I could not check them," which means I could not check them, not that they are invalid. Eastmain, did you actually read the articles, or just the summaries? Jehochman Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable group doing notable things. I remember they were cited in a large number of news articles in the late 90s and there were articles written about them. COI: I've had very negative personal interactions with one of the founders in the context of the organization. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The group's activities seem to have been reviewed by enough independent sources to pass the threshold for notability for organizations. That said, the article appears to need substantial clean-up and additional sourcing, and careful attention to WP:NPOV and WP:RS issues. In general, content about social impact, importance, controversies, criticisms, etc. particularly needs to be sourced to independent sources. Sourcing it to the organization's own sources tends to result in highlighting the organization's own point of view on these matters. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 03:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; organization (however small) that operates a fairly well-known and oft talked about website - less so these days than hitherto, sure, but that doesn't change anything. They are, indeed, a poor SOURCE for Wikipedia articles and most references to them should be replaced with something better. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it is so well known, where is the coverage by independent sources? All I have seen thus far is a few passing mentions, and a ton of linkspam. Why is it a well-known website? Can you provide a reason, not just an assertion? Tell me please, how did this tiny organization get 1045 external links from the English Wikipedia? There was clearly an organized linkspam campaign going on here. Who did this, and why? Jehochman Talk 10:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It may well have been inappropriately linked in most or all of those cases, but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted as punishment. The notability of subjects is a separate question from the behavior of Wikipedia editors. We wouldn't want opponents of organizations to start linkspam campaigns in hopes of getting the organization's article deleted. --Shirahadasha (talk) 12:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Correct. However, there is a high correlation between linkspamming and creation of articles about non-notable entities. I brought this article to AfD because I thought it needed close scrutiny. My own evaluation is that this web site is not notable. It's Google PageRank is only 4, as displayed on the toolbar. Most notable websites have a PageRank of 6 - 10. That's a redflag to me. A second red flag is that the article was almost entirely sourced to the organization's own website. Whether this discussion results in keep or delete, there is value in bringing attention to these problems. Jehochman Talk 12:42, 8 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. Fram (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Edge Magazine[edit]

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

Delete. Entry is non-notable. The magazine has a limited circulation territory. Freddyboy (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete appears non-notable and non-verifiable. Appears to be lots of "The Edge" magazines but, I can't find proof that this one even exists (in reliable 3rd party sources) much less its notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*comment, Notability needs to be established. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)comment from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 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. - Philippe 19:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhir Neerattupuram[edit]

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

The article has some claims of notability, but is totally unreferenced. A Google search returns only 5 hits, 4 of them being related to the article and its image, and one of them being an unrelated post at the Google Groups Help Forum. All this makes the article a candidate for deletion per WP:V and even WP:N, if we consider that the claims of notability are unverifiable. Also, the author of the article is called Sudhirn, he has a copy of the article on his User page, and one of the first versions of the article contained a "self article for me" at the bottom. Therefore, the author may be in a WP:COI. In addition, the article has been prodded, but it was removed by the author (he also removed some maintenance tags). Victor Lopes (talk) 23:44, 7 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. Delete arguments are weak and outnumbered, but the merge opinion is not a viable result of a debate I can enforce: there are limits to what I can do as the closer. I would suggest that if someone wants to restructure our coverage of this area, they should boldly do so. Mangojuicetalk 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M&Ms - Shell Shocked[edit]

M&Ms - Shell Shocked (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced 1 liner article about a video game with no indication of its notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Change to Merge to M&Ms Video Games along with The Lost Formulas, following recent addition of information on this article. MuZemike (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, now a valid stub. Game shows up on Google, GameFAQs, and IGN. Consider doing something like what I just did when faced with an article that doesn't meet standards. Do you want to help the article or just be lazy and delete it? --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, article should also be moved to M&Ms: Shell Shocked just to be finicky. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 04:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: the article has changed enough since several of the early !votes that it would be worthwhile relisting so the discussion can take place on the article as it now stands.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GR|JPG-GR]] (talk) 00:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City-Link Express[edit]

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

Sham article which serves to promote the Malaysian company. Details are given at Talk:City-Link Express since nobody will bother to review the article's history. Spammer has successfully deleted {{prod}} and {{db-spam}} templates with no consequences. DanielPenfield (talk) 23:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - . Your arguments are well researched, Daniel. It's impossible to save any of this, since the text is too tainted to use it as a basis for a neutral, unbiased article. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ,WP:VSCA deluxe. Thanks for the helpful links. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and Rewrite appears to have some notability [1], [2], and [3]. Also note that removing a PROD tag is perfectly acceptable (and the tag even says it is okay) the Speedy tag was removed by a user other than the author as was one occurance of the PROD. The article needs a significant rewrite to be less "spammy" and improvements tags shouldn't be removed before the issues are addressed. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is is not an "automatic save". CSD#11 states "Pages which exclusively promote some entity and which would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Let some good faith editor come along and re-create it. User:Supplychainavid has had more than enough time to remove the promotional text, but has instead merely restated why you should really go out now and buy services from City-Link Express ("cost-effective", "systematically reduces operating costs", "Its logo has been recognized by many in Malaysia") -- DanielPenfield (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but, I bothered to look at the history of the page and the talkpage. I don't deny a possible COI but, that in and of itself isn't a deletion criteria. If you wish I will remove some of the "spamminess" myself (or you could undertake it as a WP:BOLD move yourself. I totally agree with you on the possible behaviour infractions btw in regard to the removal of improvement tags but, that isn't an issue for AfD. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:21, 8 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 Kevin Grevioux, because DarkStorm Studios no longer exists.  Sandstein  23:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alius Rex[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book. Aside from a link to the publisher's site, there are no sources of any kind, reliable or otherwise. A Google search turns up only a handful of relevant hits. Contested PROD (removed by original author with no explanation whatsoever). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Kevin Grevioux, where it already gets a passing mention. Grevioux is notable, and his launch of the Darkstorm imprint seems to have made an impact of a sort in the world of comic books (see mentions here and here, for instance), but none of the other Darkstorm titles seem to merit a Wiki article and this doesn't seem notable enough to be the exception. --Karenjc 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to DarkStorm Studios - as mentioned above the launch seems to have got attention and we can slot that into a section on their titles. I found this on Alius Rex at Broken Frontier, as well as stuff at Newsarama [4] and Comic Book Resources [5], all from a quick skim of the comics sites I usually draw on for reviews and interviews. It'd then give us precedents for dealing with any other similar titles and if any section gains enough sources and material that it looks viable we can split them off. Note though what Broken Frontiers say: These are imprints from Alias Enterprises (where some are already listed) so another option might be a merge there (although it could need splitting off quite quickly) but that is an option (which works lsihgtly better, for me anyway, than a merge with Kevin Grevioux. (Emperor (talk) 01:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 01:49, 3 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring themes in The Mighty Boosh[edit]

Recurring themes in The Mighty Boosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable. Anything of use could be added to main article. This is like on big trivia page relying heavily on bullet points. An example of trivia: "When trapped in a life threatening situation, Howars and Vince have a tendency to recall good times they have had together, usually involving food. This almoast always leads to a song." Tenacious D Fan (talk) 21:54, 7 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LDS Test and Measurement[edit]

LDS Test and Measurement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously tagged as spam for speedy deletion but contested. Article was created by user:Lds.spx and is peppered with phrases such as LDS is a name that has been traditionally associated with high quality vibration test systems, LDS' solutions are designed to perform the most demanding tests, Engineers around the globe rely on LDS instrumentation and LDS' vibration test systems meet virtually any test requirement and have proven themselves under the most demanding requirements Ros0709 (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete G11 (spam). So tagged again. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it's listed on the NYSE, so putting aside the current tone, doesn't that fulfill notability reqs? Niczar ⏎ 23:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, it is not listed on NYSE, it's parent company is. Notability is not inherited from parent companies to their subsidiaries, it must be ascertained on it's own. Arsenikk (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:CORP. No assertion of notability in article, and news search shows nothing. It is on the verge of CSD#G11 for blatant advertising too; if kept it needs a very thorough copyedit (read: removal of most of the prose). Arsenikk (talk) 00:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I punched down the language a bit; the sensible thing is probably a merge to SPX Corporation. WilyD 01:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate spam. From the title, I thought this would be something about some alleged ritual in the the Mormon church (Latter Day Saints, LDS) I hope some hardworking young exec doesn't lose a job over this. Mandsford (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as corporate advertising for non-notable company. Anything relevant can be merged to the parent company's article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, also as too close to the Mormon church (LDS) and thus likely to be confusing. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muslimania[edit]

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

Unsourced neologism (see WP:NEO). Contested prod. Speedy close and delete, anyone? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete no references, no notability. Recommend speedy deletion. Chikwangwa (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)!vote from banned user struck The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - unreferenced dictionary definition of a neologism. Aleta Sing 21:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Clean Skies Foundation[edit]

American Clean Skies Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Besides the mess of other issues, the organization flunks notability.
Speedy Keep. I retract my nomination. —Latischolartalkcontributions 21:45, 7 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 (non-admin closure), redirected by nominator, nom withdrawn.. Protonk (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper Mario DS[edit]

Paper Mario DS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystallballism, unverified sources, speculation. I couldn't find a speedy deletion criterion. Corvus cornixtalk 21:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Paper Mario. It sounds like the game is just a port, which is generally not considered inherently notable, especially when it has not been released yet. The redirect article already has a better written section on the topic. -Verdatum (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of the other article. That works for me, I'll redirect and this can be closed. Corvus cornixtalk 22:53, 7 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. Bduke (talk) 07:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Losing streak (sport)[edit]

Losing streak (sport) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sorry if this is linked from the main page somewhat but this term is nothing much than a dic def, and a list that has the potencial of being be way too broad and WP:NOT#DICDEF Delete Secret 21:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, tries to be an article and a list at the same time which does not work. I don't even think a list on this theme could stand without defining much more narrow and specific parameters for inclusion. Nsk92 (talk) 23:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Neutral. It could be that this article may be developed into an analog of the Winning streak (sports) article. I don't have particularly strong feelings on the issue, but I am not a fan of the latter article either. The criteria for what is or is not a winning/loosing streak and could/should be included in such an article are rather arbitrary. But maybe this one should be given a chance.... Nsk92 (talk) 16:20, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Winning streak (sports) then surely that should be up for deletion as well. Personally I'm neutral on the subject as I think as they both currently stand they could be good but also have to somehow avoid getting too long and I'm not sure what the answer is. Therefore I won't nominate Winning streak for deletion. Dpmuk (talk) 23:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Extraordinary losing streaks are certainly notable and worthy of inclusion. But I agree with the nominator that the dictionary definition is inapproriate. If, besides the list, this is all we have, the article should probably be retitled List of Famous Losing Streaks in Sports or something similar; the same with Winning streak (sports), which really is just a list. —Latischolartalkcontributions 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Kind of a clever vehicle for sports trivia, isn't it? First, a John Madden explanation of what the phrase means (Ya lose one game, then another, and another, and another, and BOOM, ya got yourself a streak going... only it's a losing streak), and then the Al Michaels follow up with, "And speaking of losing streaks, Tampa Bay lost 26 NFL games in a row once, John." "When was that, Al. Twenty-six huh? When was that?" "I got no idea John-- the damn Wikipedia article doesn't say." "Al, you gotta have information so people have information, some sourcing so that people know the source where the sourcing came from... touchdown, you got an article. And that's the name of the game. Mandsford (talk) 03:13, 8 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 Speedied. — Scientizzle 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wood in popular culture[edit]

Wood in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

article created as disruption to make a point - no useful value Toddst1 (talk) 21:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. This was created by an SPA for the purposes of trolling. Lets not waste any more time. RFerreira (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. Like he said. -- Alexf42 21:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by Athaenara per CSD G12 as blatant copyright infringement. WilliamH (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Richard Johnston[edit]

Sir Richard Johnston (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Confusing, Bad quality, looks like crap. AlwaysOnion (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of peerage.com and the geocities page linked in the article. So tagged. Deor (talk) 21:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflist) Keep: Sounds like a candidate for a good cleanup, not for deletion. I'll have a poke around, but regardless this does not mean any of the WP:AfD criteria. Just saw the copyright violation. Clear speedy del candidate. Plasticup T/C 21:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy keep per consensus, snow and iar. — MaggotSyn 13:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eyeshield 21 characters[edit]

List of Eyeshield 21 characters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article appears to contain a list of characters in an anime/manga series. It is far too long, contains excessive detail, and uses only the primary source for its information. The article also does not establish how all this character background is relevant beyond the scope of the original series. I'd call it Fancruft...but that seems to be a derogatory term these days. Several Times (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep A character list is a legitimate spinout article to keep the main series article from growing too large. This article being too large and too detailed is a sign it needs improvement, not deletion. Edward321 (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Nomination gives no reasons for deletion, only for cleanup. Character lists are considered acceptable spinoff articles, by consensus. Doceirias (talk) 23:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - nominator's rationale indeed is a cleanup one, not one backed by any sort of policy or guideline. Aside from that, character lists for long-running series are widely considered acceptable spinouts per current consensus. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the more-or-less established consensus that spinout lists of this type are acceptable for fictional topics of long-running series. Overlong and/or excessive detail is, per editorial policy, reason to clean up not delete, and I note that WP:FICT specifically recommends that a merge back to the parent article be attempted before proposing deletion. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - rationale is pure clean up, not a valid deletion. A list of characters for an anime/manga series of this length is a very appropriate spin out from the main. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'd like to clarify that this deletion proposal is primarily based off of the lack of sources, and does not demonstrate real-world notability as described in WP:FICT. I'd love to see the page merged and/or edited instead of deleted, but it doesn't appear to meet the existing guidelines at the moment independent of what the consensus on character lists is. --Several Times (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - According to the relevant section of WP:FICT#Creating_fictional_element_lists, character lists are acceptable splits. Primary sources are usually considered sufficient for characters lists when the notability of the series itself is not in question. Certainly, the article contains very excessive coverage, and that needs to be trimmed - if real world sources are available, those should also be added. Neither of these are grounds for deletion, merely specific things that should be mentioned in the cleanup tags. Doceirias (talk) 03:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Battling fancruft is indeed a fine intention, but I consider general character lists a legitimate spinout for almost any series, no matter how messy the lists are. – sgeureka t•c 06:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination seems to be the equivalent of "Clean the article up or I'll get the article deleted" and that is not okay. JuJube (talk) 09:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with a Massive Cleanup: I think maybe we sort of went overboard with some of the character information and making the article as big as it is but I did think of a way to clean it up: we split off certain teams into their own articles (just like Deimon, Ojo, Seibu & Shinryuji) and then every other team on this page will have a drastic reduction in information to shrink it down but keep all that we currently have. Then we can go back and add notability information to the seperate team articles. -StrangerAtaru (talk) 13:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator's rational simply makes no sense. We do not delete articles because they need cleanup. The nomination is especially dubious when the nominator has done nothing to cleanup article the list beyond nominating it for deletion and has not even discuss a cleanup effort on the talk page. --Farix (Talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:51, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulab A. Khan[edit]

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

Another HOAX biography. Subject had a (suspiciously?) starry education - Le Rosey, Eton,Trinity, Stanford, and Harvard - and is now "one of the most successful venture capitalists" worth $3 bn; his success has "garnered international media attention", but relevant results from Google are only this article and a reference in ILW.COM which is headed "here are some entries from Greg Siskind's blog" and which links back to an earlier Wikipedia article Ghulab Khan, deleted by PROD last December.

His firm Ghulab Khan Capital Partners (GKCP) is "one of the world's leading venture capital firms" and has an equally (suspiciously?) starry list of investments - Apple, Cisco, Ebay, Google... but its "official website", linked from the article, is a single text-only page on a free hosting service. A Google search produces 5 entries, two for this article and the others link back to it. (Question - when we delete a hoax article like this, should someone notify sites like timesdaily.com who have picked it up and repeated it?) A search for GKCP produces nothing relevant.

Author Peter1001 (talk · contribs) has no other edits. This one got past New Page Patrol and has been here since May; congratulations to Xn4 for spotting and tagging it. Time to Delete. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete (maybe even a speedy as an obvious hoax?), per nom. Just in case, I also did a GoogleNews search which produces 12 hits[6], that all appear to be unrelated to the subject of the article. Nsk92 (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly non-notable. (Sadly, being a hoax is not grounds for Speedy.) Edward321 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, though probably not obvious enough to be speedied - after all, ILW seems to have believed a previous version of the article. Huon (talk) 23:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Hoax articles are speediable as vandalism (per the misinformation "clause"). Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:24, 8 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 all four. Fram (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Ranch[edit]

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

Non notable song. Never released as a single, never charted. Reliability is not asserted. I contributed most to this article, but can say that it is fancruft.

I am also nominating the following Tenacious D-related pages for similiar reasons:

The Metal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Non-notable song. Did not chart. Not released as a single.
Kickapoo (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - Non-notable song. Did not chart. Not released as a single.
Sax-a-boom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - only of note amongst Tenacious D fans who have seen The Complete Masterworks. Page is well cited - I cited it - but notability is not asserted.

I have merged all useful (cited information) into the relevant Tenacious D articles, so nothing of use is being lost.

Tenacious D Fan (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All except The Metal as it is probably there most notable song and was featured in Guitar Hero (3 i think...) - -[The Spooky One] | [t c r] 00:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to discuss. You (nom) say you were the main author of these articles, that deletion will be uncontroversial, and that you've merged all useful content. Deleting would be a GFDL violation, because you've merged. Just be bold, redirect the articles to the relevant albums (or whatever page you used as a merge target) then speedy close. No AfD discussion is needed. AndyJones (talk) 16:29, 8 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. This content fork was the wrong way to go about moving the page, and the new name is inappropriately commercial. Instead, USB NX was moved to the new name NX (software) per Latischolar. Closing early because this isn't really about deleting article content. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution[edit]

NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a duplicate of UGS NX, which contains the article's edit history, and title is blatant advertising. —Latischolartalkcontributions 20:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response by normsch. Yes, this is a copy of UGS NX. It was created because Siemens PLM Software acquired UGS. The intent is to redirect all links that had been to UGS NX, to this page. When that is completed, UGS NX will be eliminated. I am concerned about the blatant-advertising comment about the title and am open to suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Normsch (talk • contribs) 22:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I can't do it myself because I'm not autoconfirmed; otherwise, I would have fixed this myself a long time ago. I propose MOVING UGS NX to NX (software) or another similarly neutral name. It has to be UGS NX, not NX - a Siemens PLM Software solution, because otherwise you'll lose the history of the article, which is illegal under the GFDL. Once that's done, UGS NX can be made into a redirect while links are updated. I'd be happy to take care of all of this. This article should be deleted because of the title and to preserve the edit history of UGS NX. —Latischolartalkcontributions 23:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: if nothing happens by the time I'm autoconfirmed, I'll just be bold and take care of the UGS NX page move myself. —Latischolartalkcontributions 00:03, 8 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 (non-admin closure). And the award goes to...those who came out in unanimous favourable consensus. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictitious Academy Award nominees[edit]

List of fictitious Academy Award nominees (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Interesting trivia, but doesn't merit its own (short) article. SeizureDog (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Definitely needs a change of title, and no excuse for not sourcing this. Stated briefly, the article is about actual nominees, whose nominations were made under a cover name not their own. Thus "Robert Rich", 1957 winner, was actually Dalton Trumbo; "Roderick James" was an alias for the Cohen brothers, Joel and Ethan; "P.H. Vazak" was actually Robert Towne; Pierre Boulle and Ian McLellan Hunter received awards in place of other people; etc. Neutral on this one, because it might have potential but it needs a lot of work. Mandsford (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I strongly oppose deletion of this article. I will offer my responses to the above comments.
    • I would not categorize the information in this article as "trivia" at all. At best, that classification is a matter of opinion, about which reasonable minds may differ.
    • Academy Awards are among the most prestigious (if not, the most prestigious) awards given within the film industry. And, certainly, having fictitious people and/or fictitious names as either winners or nominees is indeed a rare, yet notable, event. It is certainly encyclopedic. (For what it's worth, I have seen far worse pass for "encyclopedic" on Wikipedia.) This is by no means trivial or "trivia". In fact, there is clearly encyclopedic historical information and encyclopedic historical reasons underlying some of these fictitious nominees (Hollywood blacklisting during the McCarthy Era, for example). This is exactly the type of information that belongs in, and one would expect to find in, an encyclopedia.
    • I agree with Mandsford that this material needs to be sourced. Sources will be – and are – quite easily found and readily available. All of the information contained in this article is certainly not in dispute. It is rather well-known and generally accepted. Sources are not going to be difficult to find to verify the information herein contained. And, just because sources are not included, does not mean that they do not exist. As such, the article should be improved … not deleted. Such improvement would include the addition of sources. Furthermore, as Mandsford states, "it needs a lot of work". I can agree with that. And, by policy, working to improve an article (as opposed to deleting the article) is the preferred means to addressing poorly-written or poorly-sourced articles.
    • As far as a rename, that may be slightly tricky, but not impossible. In many cases, there was an actual nominee (a real person) who, for whatever reason, used another name (in some cases, a fictitious name and, in some cases, the name of an actual person). Mandsford has delineated several such instances above. However, there has been at least one case in which a completely fictitious person was nominated for an Academy Award: Donald Kaufman was nominated for Best Writing for Adaptation. in 2002 at the 75th Academy Awards. To that extent, Mandsford's post above is not fully accurate. And, to that extent, renaming of the article must consider instances such as Donald Kaufman in which the nominee is indeed fictitious. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep based on Mandsford's info. While the article is badly named and badly in need of sourcing, it is a notable subject. Edward321 (talk) 23:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename I thought this was a list of movie characters who had been nominated for Oscars, but it's actually a list of occasions when an award or nomination has been granted to person working under an an alias. That's a pretty notable topic, not trivia, and as Mandsford says, there should be no excuse for not sourcing this. --Canley (talk) 01:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: for all the above reasons. It needs renaming, citing and possibly a restructure. I agree that ficitious nominees isn't completely correct, but I'm not sure what name covers fictious nominees (Donald Kaufman), "one off" pseudonyms (Robert Rich, Roderick Jaynes, P.H. Vazak) and covers (Pierre Boulle, Ian McLellan Hunter) without covering any name that isn't the nominee's real name. Duggy 1138 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems notable enough, but needs sources/refs! Lugnuts (talk) 07:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, of course, but it does need better sourcing and it must be renamed. You would expect an article with this title to reference Diana Barrie. AndyJones (talk) 07:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an interesting encyclopedic list. But it does need sourcing and a rename. Vickser (talk) 13:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Someone's reordered the page, I've added a few cn's and started a discussion about what it should be renamed on the talk page. Duggy 1138 (talk) 08:19, 9 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 with Bangin' on Wax Waggers (talk) 12:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steady Dippin'[edit]

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

Prod was contested without any edit summary. Reason was "very short article. Can't go further than a track listing and infobox". Tasc0 It's a zero! 20:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - no reason given for deletion. --T-rex 20:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Nominator's history with this rap group's article and album articles is worth exploring; it is full of contentious editing. User may be attempting to make a WP:POINT with this nomination. Chubbles (talk) 21:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to album, not enough content for a separate article. Ten Pound Hammer

and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:26, 7 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. Mangojuicetalk 17:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madrasah 'Arabiyyah[edit]

Madrasah 'Arabiyyah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner; no indication that this school is secondary or otherwise notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect to Raiwind. I have not found anything significant in a Gsearch but such schools often have little or no web presence and, to avoid systemic bias, we may have to await local searches. At the moment a merge to the locality seems the way to go. TerriersFan (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait. I just notified the page creator about the AfD. If information can be provided to substantiate that the school really is "famous" and that notable 'ulama really did graduate from there, the article should be kept. —Latischolartalkcontributions 01:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete, no notability claimed and no content to keep. (But waiting, say, a week until the creator comments would be worthwhile.) CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. No notability established.Yobmod (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 08:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine rhetoric[edit]

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

Delete unsourced oneliner with minimal context and virtually no content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article is a tiny stub, but that's not a deletion criteria. It satisfies WP:N and WP:V, with 462 Google books hits, including many that show clearly non-trivial discussions of the term. I've added one reference to the article resulting from seeing this AfD; it's not a topic I'd usually edit, but I figured it would be a good idea to provide some context showing that it is a term discussed in scholarly literature. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Informative, sourced stub on a notable topic in a notable ancient civilisation. Possibly merge to a suitable article until there's some more content.  Sandstein  23:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. It's a notable subject, and there is a source now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:11, 13 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) 14:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Prah Jr.[edit]

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

User:Feickus tagged this for AFD on June 12, but didn't complete the nomination process. They did, however, leave the comment "There isn't any references for this article." on the talk page. This person is the current mayor of Smithton, Pennsylvania, however, so although it is a very small town (pop. 444) whose mayors may not be inherently notable, the article itself isn't speediable since it does make a notability claim. Procedural nomination, no !vote. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A local politician and a mayor of a very small town. GoogleNews gives a grand total of 26 hits[7], but most are false positives. A few are about him[8][9]. Too little coverage to pass WP:POLITICIAN, in my view. Nsk92 (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Would be happy to switch opinion to keep if some RS were added. --Dweller (talk) 12:44, 14 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 CSD G11 and A7. Oren0 (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Coacha[edit]

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

Fails WP:WEB and WP:BIO, reads like advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 14:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:25, 7 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Keating[edit]

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

Non-notable mayor of a small town. No assertion of notability, no references. BradV 19:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • KEEP Joseph Keating because he is a CITY MAYOR not a "small town mayor". Go to Pittston and Luzerne County, Pennsylvania's wiki links and they will tell you that Pittston was incorporated as a CITY in 1894. If Luzerne County's three other city mayors have a wiki sight, then why not the fourth CITY and it's MAYOR of Pittston, Joseph Keating, have one too? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joesr55 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don't be so quick to have a go at someone else. Certainly in the UK Pittston would be considered a small town based largely on it's size as we don't incorporate cities the same way as in the US. I don't know if the proposer is based in the UK but don't be so quick to assume they are delibrately belittling either the city or its mayor. See WP:CIVIL. Dpmuk (talk) 20:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what kind of legal entity it is, it has a population of 8,000. Where I live that's a village. BradV 20:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As it stands the article gives no reason why the mayor is notable and so fails WP:N, as being the mayor of a small city is not itself notable. Dpmuk (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is no inherent notability in being the mayor of a small town of 8,000. Typically such an official will only have local news coverage and will fail WP:N. If he is inherently notable, then every mayor of any town of 8,000 or larger throughout history would have inherent notability, and I have seen no consensus for that. Edison (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, individual is well below the standard for WP:POLITICIAN. For that matter, so are Lou Barletta and Thomas M. Leighton (even Wilkes-Barre is under 50,000). His predecessor Tom McGroarty is barely more than a stub. If there is a mayor of Nanticoke with a page (John Tool is the incumbent), I couldn't find it. --Dhartung | Talk 05:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable. Relevant information belongs in the Pittston article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this were merged with the article on the city/town/whatever itself, there would be no change in content. --Earin (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep First of all, according to the United States: "populations of 8,000 or larger" are not considered "TOWNS" like the previous speaker continues to portray it as; THEY ARE CITIES !!! Not as notable as New York City, but if they are considered cities by Luzerne County, one of the most populated, largest in landsize, and notable counties in all of Pennsylvania, then it is worthy for Wikidedia. The Luzerne County link is very proud of its four cities, which includes Pittston. For this notable county to even consider Pittston as a city then Wikipedia must too. Remember: On the WIKIPEDIA wedsite for Pittston it says that Pittston was "incorporated as a city". This can not be disbuted: United States of America, Pennsylvania, and Luzerne County, and even Wikipedia consider Pittston to be a CITY !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.157.186 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete it's too small a city (or town, whichever word you'd like) to justify notability ex officio. Vickser (talk) 13:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Stop getting so up tight on whether people call it a town or city. I'm sure every one here will happily apccept it's been designated a city but this does not mean that this is a term they themselves would use in everyday life as different countries have different defintions and so they may call it a town regardless of its offical designation and mean no offence by this (as discussed above). Ultimately what one person would call this settlement is irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion here is whether the mayor is notable enough to have his own article. The size of the settlement is largely unrelated to this and being mayor of a city does not automatically make him notable although obviously mayors of large cities (which this clearly isn't) are likely to meet notability requirements easily as just by becoming mayor they are likely to get significant press coverage. Could we please now keep this discussion to whether the mayor is notable enough for his own article rather than discuss what this settlement should be called. Dpmuk (talk) 13:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments The countries of Nauru (10,000), Palau (16,000), Tavalu (9,700), and the Vatican City (less than 1,000) have populations close to that of Pittston. If these countries can be called "countries" then Pittston can be called a "City". And if these lands have websites proclaiming their leaders, then why not Pittston? Pittston City Mayor, Joe Keating is notable because he governs over a city that represents the Greater Pittston Area. The Greater Pittston Area has a total population of over 50,000 people, and covers over a landmass of 65.5 square miles. JOSEPH KEATING is notable because of what his city has been through over the course of the last few decades. The city has been through an economic depression since the 1980's, in which it lost 10,000 + people since the loss of manufacturing jobs. TheKnox Mine disaster, Battle of Wyoming, Bufilino Crime Spree, and much more history occurred in the Greater Pittston. Mayor Tom Leighton is also notable because of what his city went through: Economic Depression !!! That's why he has his own wikipedia website. Lou Barletta is notable because he is running for U.S. Congress and is a strong advocate for ending illegal immigration in his city of Hazelton. These are all notable mayors of cities (that have populations equivalent to or greater than some countries in the world).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.157.186 (talk • contribs)
    Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? If so, put them in the article and it will likely be kept. BradV 14:48, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: This AfD does not propose to delete the article on Pittston nor that on Greater Pittston; the AfD concerns whether the article on Joseph Keating is to be retained. —SlamDiego←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:The assertion that this mayor is on par with notability with Lou Barletta is laughable. Barletta was the face of one of the country's toughest illegal immigrant laws and got his city sued for it. (although interestingly, none of this made it into Barletta's article) The coverage of that alone is enough to throw one over the top. Montco (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I put in a "Reference" section today. Sources are now cited. I also added important, factual information. Now let us end this debate and give the City Mayor article back to the readers of Wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.132.243 (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Bradv asked you for reliable sources for the claims to notability that you made in the comments above, not merely for the few claims about Keating that are made in the article. Those few claims don't establish notability for Keating. —SlamDiego←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, moving any peculiar, properly sourced content to other articles. Just three sentences of the eight sentences in the article are actually concerned with Mayor Keating. The content of those three sentences is, in sum: that he's the mayor, that economic conditions were tough when he took office in '05, and that some people want him out because they think that he's corrupt or ineffectual. The political unit of which he is the chief elected official is just 8000 people, and he's been mayor for less than four years. —SlamDiego←T 13:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pending any sourcing to establish notability. Just being a elected doesn't necessarily confer instant notability. If there was really something notable going on with this guy, then the author should be able to run over to the Times-Tribune or The Times Leader archives (the larger news rags in NEPA) and find something substantive. And if they can't be bothered to cover him, I guess he isn't all that notable. Montco (talk) 10:06, 12 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, unsourced WP:BLP oneliner.  Sandstein  23:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itamar Orbach[edit]

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

Delete unsourced oneliner about a rabbi, with nothing to indicate that he's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The article doesn't assert any notability. There's

practically nothing on google and nothing at all on google news. With no easily available sources, and none suggested, I've got to go with non-notable. Vickser (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Do not delete Rabbi Orbach is a Rabbi of a large American community in Israel. Merkaz HaRav is a notable institution, and its faculty should be treated as such. Searching for his name in Hebrew will bring better results.- Ygerst


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 14:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iron pit[edit]

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

Article does not establish notability and contains personal attacks. Includes a list of pranks; that's not WP material. Several Times (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - nn gym. Actual article content is mostly a violation of WP:NFT --T-rex 20:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nn, fails WP:CORP. I deleted out the practical joke stuff because it appears to violate BLP. Brilliant Pebble (talk) 06:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. I excised more non encyclopedic content. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:53, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Loyd[edit]

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

Not notable article, not even an article just a couple of lines and a waste of space! Adster95 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:11, 7 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) 14:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prisha[edit]

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

Delete unsourced oneliner about a given name with no indication why this name among millions is significant; WP is not a baby naming guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per wikipedia not being What Should We Name the Baby? and the lack of any other encylcopedic content. Vickser (talk) 13:13, 8 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 due to crystal ball and notability problems. Davewild (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italian American Network[edit]

Italian American Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:RS (the Reuters link is actually a press release that ran on Business Wire, not an independent news story). Ecoleetage (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete Pure spamvertizing, fails WP:RS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:N, WP:CORP, and possibly WP:SOAP. Created (doubtless by some harried wage-slave with a boss demanding "More publicity!!!" breathing down their neck) concurrent with the articles about founder, board members, et al that were recently deleted. When they actually start a television network and relaible sources write about it, then perhaps an article would be warranted. L0b0t (talk) 20:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for all the reasons outlined by Lobot-- right on. The article says that they have "plans" to "soon" launch an actual TV network. Well Mamma Mia!!! The fact that there's no date given for a launch should be a clue about how well those plans are going. For now, it's just one more website. Mandsford (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let's wait until they get picked up by an actual cable provider before they have an article here. As it is, it's just a bunch of internet videos for now. Nate • (chatter) 00:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  23:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Subirana[edit]

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

A shadowy historical figure -- so much that even the vague and contradictory article acknowledges that almost nothing is known about him, and the very few texts that cite him play like a conquistador equivalent of "Rashomon." In any event, it fails WP:BIO. Ecoleetage (talk) 19:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I wonder if this is a hoax. The references seem to exist, but even though they are on Google Books, I get no hits on Google Books or Google Scholar for "victor subirana", "subirana de veliz", "siboney forucan", etc. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baldip[edit]

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

Thing made up in one day. Other than that, it really defies description. UsaSatsui (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TStein (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 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, with the expansion, consensus has shifted and believes that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ranch Road 1[edit]

Ranch Road 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete unsourced oneliner about a road that bypasses a former president's ranch, is that sufficient to confer notability? If so, let's break out the maps of Plains, GA; and Santa Barbara, CA, Crawford, TX, to find out what roads are near the ranches and farms of some other former presidents and soon to be former president. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. no notability whatsoever. Czar Brodie (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a state-designated road straddling two counties. [10] WillOakland (talk) 21:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:N. It is hardly surprising or notable that a road led to the ranch of L.B. Johnson. Edison (talk) 03:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm usually kind to roads, but an ordinary ranch road being notable just because it's near LBJ's ranch? I don't think so.--Oakshade (talk) 05:51, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for now based on TheCatalyst31's expansion. Per general consensus on state designated highways. If there is something historical or unique about it, that would help convince a lot more editors. --Oakshade (talk) 20:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirected to "Farm-to-market road" until someone writes a decent stub. WillOakland

(talk) 08:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is a state highway: [11] and the only "Ranch Road" as opposed to the more common "Ranch to Market Road": [12]. I'm not sure about the notability of FM/RM roads in general, and the article's really not great, but being the only one of its type should be worth something, as well as being old US 290. Maybe there should be a list of park roads in Texas, with this mentioned in it; it's technically not one, but serves what is essentially a park, and there are two in the same area: [13][14] --NE2 13:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep now that it's expanded. --NE2 03:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a state-designated highway, and farm-to-market roads/ranch-to-market roads are generally considered notable. This road also has the distinction of being the only RM road designatied as a Ranch Road, as mentioned above. As for the quality, I've expanded it so it's at least a decent stub now. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 19:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per above this is a state-designated and maintained road. If it's removed, then all Farm to Market and Ranch to Market roads in Texas and all county road articles for the U.S. will technically need to be removed as well. 25or6to4 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a state-designated and -maintained road. It is part of Texas's secondary highway system. I'm not absolutely convinced of secondary highways' notability, however, compared to the higher bar that's set for the primary system (if it were a really important road, it'd be bumped up to primary status, no?) but what notability it loses from being in the secondary system, it regains from being the street LBJ lives on. So, adding up the minuses and the pluses, you get a "keep" vote from me. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 07:02, 11 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, consensus is that the new sources found during this AFD establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liebert (company)[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORP, seems purely promotional with no secondary sources. It used to be a barely-decent stub and has now turned into an advertisement. -WarthogDemon 18:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The anon adding more to the article is also registered according to WHOIS to the same Liebert Co. hmmmmmm.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a very notable company in its field, and there should be plenty of information available on it to write a decent article. I'll see if I can find some. BradV 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I added some references. I think the company is notable. I also removed at least one exclamation mark and in general tried to make the text more NPOV. --Eastmain (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major company in the field. DGG (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added references establish notability. The peacock terms have been removed, and the article no longer reads as advertising. Jim Miller (talk) 12:28, 11 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 nothing to delete, merged to List of sustainability topics. If people think that is useless, it would need its own AfD.  Sandstein  19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of sustainability topics (0-9)[edit]

List of sustainability topics (0-9) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete not a good idea even if we were to all agree what sustainability topics are and why 0-9 should be a division of them... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no content --T-rex 20:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of those articles that makes you say out loud, "What the hell?" Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is a "sustainability topic", why are they divided into subdivisions, and why is 1907 populations in that list? DarkAudit (talk) 01:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we have a List of sustainability topics. Was this perhaps broken out from there? It's not very clear to me what it is all about, though. AndyJones (talk) 12:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See here. Several people are currently merging stuff to form the list. The reactions to the lists for each letter of the alphabet varied from speedies to prods, but only one person went all the way to AfD, as far as I can tell so far. I'm going to merge this along with two others that got missed (W and S). So speedy close as dealt with already, and separate AfD for the merged list if desired. Carcharoth (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To clarify a bit more, User:Granitethighs (a new user who is an academic, but who is still learning the ropes) did this topic listing as separate alphanumeric pages, instead of one page, and User:Yamakiri initially PROD'ed some of the articles, while others tagged them with speedy. Then Yamakiri merged a lot of the articles, but the history still needs to show that Granitethighs wrote the original lists, so I've been making sure all the redirects are undeleted and properly merged. Only a few people, including Yamakiri, actually went to the user's talk page to try and sort things out. I'll drop him a note to explain how to do this sort of thing in future. Carcharoth (talk) 12:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see. Speedy Close and Keep (as redirect) then. AndyJones (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep as it is used for top level sport in an (albeit small) country. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:15, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Park (Stadium)[edit]

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

Delete unreferecned oneliner about a stadium on an island with 600 people, unlikely any stadium there is notable - and certainly no showing that this one in particular is...WP:N Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:21, 7 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, indisciminant, nothing additional to category. Davewild (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Lebanese businessmen[edit]

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

Should be a category. Damiens.rf 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no reason to have this. There is nothing notable about a businessman being Lebanese --T-rex 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Category:Lebanese businesspeople is already in exsistance --T-rex 20:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is what's called the indiscriminate list. If all you want to do is have a list of names... it's been done. Mandsford (talk) 21:13, 7 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 endorse redirect and protect.  Sandstein  23:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moezilla[edit]

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

Article was resurrected for no good reason. Habanero-tan (talk) 18:20, 7 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. --jonny-mt 03:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Broadlands bridgend[edit]

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

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about a non-notable housing estate. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I tried to do some elementary cleanup, no opinion as yet on keep vs. delete. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge anything useful to Bridgend -- even in a Wiki-world where every town is notable, this is just a subdivision of Bridgend. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 13:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs a bit more of a tidy up (better referencing, probably a move to a better title) but it looks like a reasonable start to an article, and is distinct enough as an area to merit an article of its own. Waggers (talk) 12:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mere subdivisions or housing developments are not notable the way towns are. There are no sources here to indicate the significance of this one. Mangojuicetalk 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 04:20, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Now That's What I Call Music! 71 (U.K. series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While it is a near certainty to be released, this article should still be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL without any verifiable sources Wolfer68 (talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leave it - what's wrong woth it existing, it will be an album, so why delete it when we're just going to recreate it in a few months...? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.37.127 (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - future albums without a tracklisting should be deleted --T-rex 20:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-just put a lock on this page for gods sake, that way encyclopedic info can be added when they come out, release date, cover art etc. By locking it anonymus users cannot spam the page

Besides the USA Now 29 is allowed to stand, and that hasn't got much on it, so theirs should get deleted if ours goes under the axe ICryOverSpiltMilk (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now 29 is allowed to stand because there is no AfD for it. This debate is for NOW! 71 (UK) not NOW! 29 (US). Also Now 29 has a confirmed release date posted on its offical website and is sourced on the article; no such confirmation exists for Now 71.
Good point, I'm nominating it for deletion --T-rex 23:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Unsourced spam magnet etcetera. And for those who ask, the problem with allowing it to stand is simple. If Now! 71 is allowed to stand on the grounds that it will "almost certainly" be released, then why shouldn't somebody then create (and spam) Now! 72, which in all likelihood will also exist? And then Now! 73? And then Now! 74? And then Now! 100? And so on? The line clearly has to be drawn somewhere, and the only logical place for that line is with the current release. I've tried to have this series protected before (back around the time of Now! 67), and their response was to send it to AfD. It's clear that the only way to deal with these is to shoot on sight and recreate once some sourced information exists; and no sourced information is ever available beyond the latest edition. Kinitawowi (talk) 18:49, 14 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. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming about giraffes[edit]

Dreaming about giraffes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Although the founder could be notable, I don't think the company is. StaticGull  Talk  17:50, 7 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. If any user wants to merge, trim or "clean up with a chainsaw", well that's an editorial matter. Though if enacted without any kind of consensus, don't be surprised if it's quickly reverted. I'm sure all you lovely people, who give a damn about this article, will work things out. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoon City[edit]

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

Nothing but a plot summary. Even though it's the central setting for the games, there doesn't seem to be any out-of-universe info at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The last debate closed in january on the basis that the article "was sourcable". This is the difference between that version and the version today. I don't see an assertion of notability from the sourcing. I'm also suspicious that the source in question even exists. WP:FICT tells us that notability is not inherited (or WP:TOYS, take your pick for a community standard). This seems to be a textbook case of why we ought to be cautious in closing articles on the basis that they will be brought to marginal status over time. A (gated) search of that EGM issue doesn't come up with that article name, just a review of RE that doesn't mention Racoon city. Electron Gaming Mon ~ Electronic Gaming Monthly ~ 2008 January Jan 01 224 in Wilsonweb. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong, maybe even speedy keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. One of the most notable fictional locations in video games that also appears in film, in books, even spoofed on Robot Chicken. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also the major setting of two films and numerous novels and comic books (check all of these books and reviews of them, for example). And it's not a one time location in some random game, but in many, many games and yes, I have seen it covered in video game magaines as well. Also, it has considerable reader interest. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The setting of Raccoon City has transcended the video games, and has entered the general pop-culture consciousness. Examples: The Kentucky Kernel [15] took a novel approach in reviewing the Resident Evil (film). The New York Times states Raccoon City is "played, for once, by a proud, undisguised Toronto, complete with CN Tower" [16], in which Toronto City Hall is portrayed as Raccoon City Hall. There is also the aforementioned Robot Chicken parody and the documentary "Beyond Raccoon City: Unearthing 'Resident Evil: Extinction'" [17] which appears on the special edition of Resident Evil: Extinction. Regarding Raccoon City in television commercials, George A. Romero(of the "The Dead" fame) directed a commercial for Resident Evil 2 which depicts the Raccoon City Police Station.[18] To date it is the setting of multiple, games, movies and novels and part of a recognizable and notable international franchise. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm inclined to think that we should build articles from sources, not look for sources in order to justify an article. Not all mentions of the text string "Raccoon City" will amount to significant coverage of the topic. We are sure (as it is a setting in a major VG and film franchise) to see the name bandied about but mere mention does not denote significant coverage. But I think further reminders would serve to be unhelpful so I'll leave it at that and take this one off my watchlist. Protonk (talk) 19:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: I have begun revising the article further and I encourage Ataru to use the sources he found to help in the effort. Thansk! --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While I do support keeping this article, I'd note that the article was flagged for rescue after the AFD nom. [19] I believe Ten Pound Hammer's nom to be in good faith. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Six months is a perfectly reasonable time to ask for some non-trivial sourcing to be added to the article. TPH acted in good faith. If it was 6 days or six weeks, I would be inclined to believe you. Protonk (talk) 04:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This fictional city transcends the original game media. Raccoon city is almost synonymous of 'zombie apocalipse scenary' in popular culture. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clean up with a chainsaw and if neccessary merge to the series' article. This does not in any sense transcend Resident Evil (any reference to Raccoon City is an RE reference) and any sources would fit just as well into the series article; let's get this cut down (there's a lot of crap), merged up, and split it if there's so much well-referenced info that it can stand on its own later. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 04:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Cleanup or Merge when AMIB doesn't vote Delete, I think that's a pretty good signal that an article shouldn't be deleted. JuJube (talk) 09:24, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the subject is perfectly valid, notable and backed up with good refs. Everyking (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Le Grand and Everyking. Plenty of valid info here with proper referencing. GlassCobra 21:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a longer article for Libery City from Grand Theft Auto... can't delete this and keep that. - tbone (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Alright. I said I wasn't coming back but I guess I lied. I've found the text for the egm reference. Seeing that, as well as the NYT and the USA Today reference (both available free online) convinces me that the coverage in the three reliable secondary sources is trivial. Each is approximately a 1-liner and none are separate from the comment on the movie or game (whichever applies for each article). Raccoon City is no more significant from being mentioned in those reviews than Rura Penthe is for being mentioned in a review of Star Trek VI. I'm not saying that Raccoon City isn't the central location for the series. In its current form, the article could be merged with the RE series article. But I am kind of boggling at the comments here about the soundness of the sourcing and the depth of the coverage. Please read the sources in question. They (EGM, NYT, USAT) no more cover RC than to mention it as the setting for the movies and games. This isn't about inclusion or deletion, per se. It is about applying the spirit of WP:N (and WP:NOT). We may disagree about the guideline itself but as it stand we ought to let the process reflect it. Thanks. Protonk (talk) 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Meh. I seriously doubt this will be a standalone article in two weeks time. Editing will tell. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If the decision is to keep, then it would violate the spirit of that decision to edit it down and merge it. Everyking (talk) 09:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Since when? A keep AFD has never been a badge of protection against editing and merges. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, seeing as AmiB and I both did a good deal of the editing down. I have no problem with this being deleted or merged. It doesn't have reliable sources, WP:EFFORT is nice but doesn't mean a page meets guidelines. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Decently sourced at the moment. HiDrNick! 14:34, 9 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. I agree about renaming and will do that. Bduke (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Customs House[edit]

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

Non-notable arts centre, though just where this is located is never entirely clear in the jumbled text that is being put up for nomination today. Too much of the article reads like marketing collateral, and the WP:RS problem is obvious (this was cited when the article was declined a speedy delete). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:55, 7 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kjell[edit]

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

Looks to be non-notable. There seem to be no sources in English at all; I can't read Norwegian, but unless someone can supply some sources beyond the trivial coverage linked from the Bokmål Wikipedia ([20]), it should be deleted. Ptcamn (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete it. This is basically a humorous sketch from a tv-show. Not worthy of an encyclopedia article.--Barend (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for violation of WP:OR, WP:N, WP:V and WP:RS. As a native speaker of Norwegian I cannot manage to find any reliable sources, except promotion for the television show where it was "proposed" (this show is not particularly serious either, making rather fun—in a respectable way—of Norwegian culture). The discussion page on the Norwegian (bokmål) Wikipedia has a bunch of editors arguing about their original research on the matter, with quarreling of where to put it in the alphabet. User:meco, who is also active on the English Wikipedia, claims he found no references at all after extensive research at the main library in Oslo. Arsenikk (talk) 18:08, 7 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bolt (2005 film)[edit]

Bolt (2005 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable film; no non-trivial mentions; won one non-notable award - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per WP:NOR. Nobody seems to rule out that an article could be written about the topic, but this is not it. "Merge all except the OR" isn't possible either as long as nobody has identified what of this is not OR (it appears that all of it is).  Sandstein  22:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Representational theories of consciousness[edit]

Representational theories of consciousness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to be WP:OR, or synthesis. ukexpat (talk) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:14, 7 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. One RS citation, and even in that, reference to this company is fairly trivial. Dweller (talk) 10:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filiquarian Publishing LLC[edit]

Filiquarian Publishing LLC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability asserted, and it doesn't appear that reliable sourcing is out there to support a notability claim.Delete SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Notability is asserted in the lead: the online retailer Buy.com lists 339 titles under the imprint and some titles score highly in the Amazon.com sales ranking. It is a company making cutting-edge use of "print on demand" technology and as such has engendered main-stream media interest, including a piece in Fortune magazine. The article is not uncited: at the time of this posting there are nine separate sources listed. (Included are the sources for my assertions here: I have not repeated them in this post.) Other citations (in addition to the nine quoted) are in the form of inline links to compare the text in the company's published works with the original Wikipedia sources: the compared texts are themselves the source. However this format has drawn criticism from one detractor (now undergoing a one-week block for contentious editing in regard to the page) and these could be converted to more explicit footnotes if required. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disclosure: having read the instructions after making this post, it seems that I need to disclose myself as the article creator. Apologies for the omission. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are citations offered, but they don't seem to be enough to indicate notability, which requires significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the company. The Fortune article is not about the company itself, and doesn't seem to give significant coverage to this particular company. The other sources are forum and blog posts (not reliable), from the company's website (not independent), from websites that are selling the company's books(not independent, or significant coverage of the company itself), or from whois (not significant coverage). I'm not sure the number of imprints is very useful in assessing notability. Do you know of other sources that can be used to establish notability? Silverfish (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, having read multiple edits by Moonraker and Dougweller, it is apparent that these individuals have a vendeta against Filiquarian Publishing, llc. My immediate fear is that the company could decide what these two individuals are writing is slanderous / libelous and that Wikipedia could be held responsible. The anonymous poster that has been discussed at length a number of valid points which would make be believe that either Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnldfl (talk • contribs) 04:22, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the anonymous post above: May I assert that my intention was to provide a neutral and fair article. This is the reason that I did not include in my initial posting here in support of "notability" the company's republishing, for money, of Wikipedia articles: I did not want "Wikipedia as part of the story". It is illogical to complain that the article is part of a vendetta, when the tendentious posts by the IP editor only started after the creation of the article. I do not recommend that every post the less-than-edifying history of this piece be reviewed: it would be highly tedious and unlikely to throw much light on the proper subject of the "keep/delete" review here. It would, however, demonstrate that the two editors named are the victims of a vendetta, and not the perpetrators. The IP editor concerned is currently serving a one-week block for harassment.
The piece is not libellous: every fact is sourced. Some sources are not up to the normal WP standard, and in some cases these were submitted to community assessment on the talk page before inclusion (example here). There are few valid points in the IP poster's numerous emendations to the page, but where found they have been copy-edited for retention. Examples here and here. Indeed the other editor named above has sought to engage with him/her over the article. One paragraph was deleted in response to an error the IP editor pointed out (example here).
The claim that "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" is nonsensical. It probably falls short of the no legal threats policy, but I would ask that contributors to the discussion remain civil. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In no way did I threaten Old Moonraker. I just stated a fear that I have by his actions. I have gone through the history section of this article and am worried about a number of things he has written. This article quickly became more of a hit job on a company that he is not happy with than an actual informative article. That is why I voted for deletion. Please don't bring personalities into this. It needs to be also said that if PediaPress is not notable enough for an article, which has gotten a great deal of media attention, than why would this similar company without media attention be notable enough to get an article.—Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want personalities brought into this, why did you attack Moonraker and me? You have specifically accused us of carrying out a vendetta and of possibly trying to cause a lawsuit. You could have brought up these issues on either the article's talk page or my talk page or Moonraker's, but you decided to attack us here. If you really had read the history, you'd see how I responded to the complaint that Elibron did not own Filiquarian by removing the statement with an edit summary "I can't verify the Elibron connection so I've taken it out". The anonymous IP editor clearly has a grudge against PediaPress, but if you think he has any other valid arguments please put them on the article's talk page. Your arguments are about fixing the article, not a reason for deletion. I don't know if the mention in Fortune Magazine is enough or not, but it is not 'no media attention'. (I have looked hard for anything else and come up dry, so if that isn't enough, I agree, it should be deleted). As for PediaPress, could you please point me to where it was decided it was not notable enough for an article?
I would like an apology for what is a pretty unpleasant attack on other editors.
Doug Weller (talk) 10:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I did not attack you or Old Moonraker. I merely stated that your actions were worrisome (and I stand by my previous statements). The fortune article states that this company a. publishes books and b. uses print on demand technology. Those are merely facts, and are in no way newsworthy. There are over 7,500 companies that publish books using print on demand technology, but that alone doesn't make them notable enough to deserve their own page. Your contributions and Old Moonraker's contributions to this article are laced with attacks on this company for which the article was started. There is an attack on the fact that the webpage doesn't include contact information. There is an attack on the type of content that this company uses. There is a comparison section of books and their wikipedia counterparts which appears to be an attack and doesn't even have a reference to state where or how the comparison was made. There is clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules (which IMHO based on the facts they clearly are not). For me to say that your actions could be a legal concern is not an attack on you, but is how I realistically intrepret your actions (and Old Moonraker) and once again I find them to be worrisome. —Preceding comment added by --JNLDFL (talk) —Preceding comment —Preceding comment was added at 12:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information on gfdl rules? I may have contributed to that bit. I want to see the diffs of the edits you claim I made. I don't see how this can be construed as anything else but a personal attack ('clearly false', 'intentionally misleading') and you should be providing evidence. Doug Weller (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doug, I have mentioned specifics instances above and have not personally attacked you. Stating facts in not an attack. The reality is that you apparently have a problem with this company that you have attacked and should abstain from posting about this company due to your obvious negative opinion. Jnldfl (talk) 03:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you refuse to provide any evidence that I have actually been involved in anything. [21] shows me amalagamating some stuff that was scatterd and adding the missing words 'comply with' to the sentence " Filiquarian Publishing, llc claims to comply with all legalities related to using wikipedia content". [22] shows me removing some nonsense about sheepdogs, Filiquarian making toaster ovens, and the sentence "Accept for the fact that Filiquarian Publishing does have web addresses for author information in every single book they publish." which was an IP editor's personal comment and not backed up by the source he gave. [23] is where I removed the same IP editor's statement that all legalities were being followed and all rules complied with (again with a source, a blog, that made no such claim) with Filiquarian "claims to all legalities related to using wikipedia content in their books by following the GNU Free Documentation license although they apparently do not meet the requirement that calls upon anyone distributing the work to acknowledge "the authors of the Wikipedia article used (a direct link back to the article is generally thought to satisfy the attribution requirement)." which is both tentative and so far as I know accurate. I did not and have never asserted that they do not meet the requirements, only that it appears that they do not. Is that clearly false or intentionally misleading? The pdf of a book I read didn't have links, etc. And finally [24] where I removed the speedy delete tag. Closing Admin, I'm sorry that I've had to post this and that the editor attacking me insisted on doing so here, perhaps you would like to remove the attacks and any responses of mine. Thanks. Doug Weller (talk) 05:32, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I think most of the problems with the article were due to an IP editor, possibly because he feels mistreated by PediaPress, I have been thinking about the notablity issue and I agree that the Fortune mention, which seems to be the only RS comment on it, isn't enough to establish notability. Doug Weller (talk) 05:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again Doug, I never attacked you.Jnldfl (talk) 09:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And once again, I note that you wrote "clearly false and/or intentionally misleading information to make it sound like this company is breaking gfdl rules" and "Wikipedia or these two Wikipedia editors could be targets of legal action. Maybe that is their intention?" which I can't construe as anything other than an attack. I have provided the diffs for my edits to the article and asked you what was wrong with them, and all you do is claim you haven't attacked me. Now if what you mean by that is that you accept that my edits were not false or intentionally misleading or that you think there is any chance that my edits were an attempt to provoke legal action, please say that clearly. If not, then please be specific about what edits of mine you think are clearly false or intentionally misleading and why. Doug Weller (talk) 19:39, 12 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, though without prejudice to recreating as a well-written and referenced article. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Botswana rock scene[edit]

The Botswana rock scene (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a horribly written, unencyclpædic article that isn't needed on Wikipedia. Tavix (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep, and merge Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.  Sandstein  19:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks[edit]

Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Content fork of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks and Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 5 April 2008, user Imad marie (talk · contribs) launched an AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [28] with this comment:

"This is an anti-Palestinian propaganda launched by some editors. The title of the article gives the impression that celebrations broke out in multiple countries all over the wold, however when you read the article you find that it only covers the Palestine's celebration. What relevant material here is already covered in the International Reaction section of Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks and there is no need for a separate article here."

The AfD was closed as Keep.

On 17 April 2008, user Imad marie started a new article[29] named International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks which was later renamed to Reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks.

On 24 April 2008, user Imad marie next launched a second AfD of Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks [30] with the comment:

"I have already nominated this article for deletion three weeks ago, the result was "not delete" and a recommendation to discuss merging the article. So why am I nominating the article for AfD again now? Because a new article has been created: International reactions to the September 11, 2001 attacks, and discussions happened on whether to merge/delete the celebrations article, no consensus was reached about that, and that's why a deletion review is needed here. The way I see it, the celebrations article is a content fork of the international reactions article, and arguably a POVFork, the celebrations article covers a minor event in the context of the reactions to the Sept 11 attacks, and does not include any significant information that the reactions article does not."

This second AfD was also closed as Keep.

Since that time user Imad marie has been trying to push through a merge of the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. There have been numerous CoI issues raised during the merge discussions and subsequent actions taken by Imad marie.

As I see it, the "Reactions" article was actually created as a content fork of the "Celebrations" article. The specific purpose of this article was to downplay (or elminate) issues brought up in the "Celebrations" article and replace them with pieces of material brought in from other articles such as Aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, September 11, 2001 attacks timeline for September, and World political effects arising from the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Due to the heavy COI influence shown by the primary author and the clear purpose behind the creation of this article I believe that this article should be deleted as a content fork. If the authors of this article wish to improve and expand the scope of the "Celebrations" article, that discussion should take place on the "Celbrations" article talk page to achieve consensus on the scope of any resulting changes. StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as per my nomination --StuffOfInterest (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Very strong keep Such an article is definitely warranted, even if its current condition isn't good, though the celebrations article should definitely be merged to this IMO, it has too small a scope, I would have said delete in that AfD myself.--Serviam (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Celebration is a reaction and as thus should be merged. Tavix (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge agreed, celebration is a kind of reaction. This will help maintain a non-point-of-view.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Tavix. mauler90 (talk) 15:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Super-strength Keep. No valid reason given at all for deletion - of course the reactions from world leaders, other personalities and the wider public is worthy of an article here. In addition, the nomination appears based as well on some fairly odd thinking -
1) How can a wider article possibly be a content/POV fork of a more specific article (celebrations being of course, by definition, only one type of reaction)?
2) WP:COI refers to commercial or other involvement in the topic under debate, not to an editor having known views about a related article.
3) This article was only created fairly recently because no proper article had been put together earlier, and it is wholly inaccurate to claim that it was built up from material brought in from existing articles and that the aim of the article was to "eliminate" or "replace" material in the Celebrations article. It was meant in part, yes, to provide some balance to that article - but isn't that what WP:NPOV & WP:UNDUE are all about?
4) How on earth is material about the condemnation of the attacks that is included here going to fit into an "expanded" article called "Celebrations of ...", as the nominator recommends?
Possibly the worst AFD nomination I have ever seen. Nor has the nominator notified people involved in editing the article that they have nominated it. --Nickhh (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an additional comment, and just to clarify where I stand given that others have suggested it, my view is that not only should this "Reactions" aticle be kept, but that the "Celebrations" article should be merged into it (as has been suggested previously, and as in fact the substantive material mostly has been). The "Aftermath" article is a separate issue as it covers very different ground - practical issues and consequences that followed from the attacks, mostly internal to the US, as opposed to condemnations, comment or celebrations from around the world. --Nickhh (talk) 07:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Recommend merging the "celebration" article (which IMO, grants undue weight to the issue of celebration of 9/11 among disaffected Palestinians) into this one. the topic "reactions to 9/11" is likely to always be a lightening rod but the it is notable. Protonk (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge"Celebrations" into "Reactions". Comment: User:StuffOfInterest makes it look like I had hidden agenda to eliminate the "celebrations" article, this is not true. I (and User:Nickhh) made it clear in Talk:Celebrations_of_the_September_11,_2001_attacks that the "reactions" article should replace the celebrations article. Comments like this and this were made before the creation on the reactions sandbox, so there is no conspiracy going on here. Imad marie (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Celebrations" into "Reactions," and flesh out "Reactions." There have been plenty of reactions to constitute an article separate from "Aftermath," as aftermath would cover circumstances beyond verbal comment and stated political positions as I believe are denoted in the content of this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratuk (talk • contribs) 22:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - IMHO a 'celebration' is a reaction but is also separate from "aftermath" and the content in both articles is enough to warrant a separate article in its own right, even if it is a combined one. Taifarious1 22:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - "Celebrations" into "Reactions". It does not matter in the slightest which article was created first; the latter is logically the parent article of the former and thus cannot be a content fork. Also, this AfD is a gross WP:POINT and a rather obtrusive failure to WP:AGF, but with consensus already moving towards a merge here, I guess it's a moot point. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 22:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, as a separate article, with no merges. Yes, a celebration is a reaction, but the "celebrations" story is a distinct controversy in and of itself, with sustained coverage and significant effect beyond the time of the events in question. Much of the coverage in the "Reactions" article is of very generic short-term type, such as condemnations by various heads of state and hightened security measures. Most of this coverage falls under WP:NOT#NEWS category, but there seems to be just enough in the article beyond such short-term coverage to justify keeping it. By contrast, the "celebrations" story had sustained in-depth coverage that lasted months and years after the events, and is still continuing. Examples include [31][32], [33], [http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=35516], etc. (the last one discusses a book that appartently also contains substantial coverage of the event). The issues of balance and neutrality can and should be addressed in the "celebrations" article itself. Nsk92 (talk) 23:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content and POV fork, Imad has shown that she is unwilling to merge the information properly due to CoI and bias related issues so merging is quite out of the question. Also, duplicates material included in the "Aftermath of 911" article. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 08:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although it is not the reason for my vote, I must say that I am leading towards the view that any AfDs which comment extensively on the actions and motives of other editors, rather than the content of the article in question, should be immediately and ruthlessly closed. On point, "reactions to (major event)" spin-out articles are completely standard practice on Wikipedia - see [[ Reactions to the 2004 Madrid train bombings]], Reactions to the 2008 Sichuan earthquake, Reaction to the 2005-2006 Fijian political crisis, Reaction to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, Response to the 2005 civil unrest in France, Responses to the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case, etc. etc. <eleland/talkedits> 13:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The Celebrations article into the Reactions article. Setwisohi (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong with a "reactions" article. Its content is very different from both the "celebrations" and the "aftermath" articles. YahelGuhan (talk) 07:57, 12 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki Minaj[edit]

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

Non-notable, fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:08, 7 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, default to keep, but probably clean up and rewrite to be about second moon theories in general, not just the titular one.  Sandstein  22:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilith (hypothetical moon)[edit]

Lilith (hypothetical moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is a ridiculous combination of original research and synthesis of material ranging from Jules Verne's fiction to the "research" of the astrologer Spharial. Article fails WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:SYN, WP:N, WP:FRINGE, and WP:NOT L0b0t (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The wording of the nomination comes perilously close to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. References to to Petit, Verne, and Goldstein-Jacobsen, in published works satisfies notability and renders WP:FRINGE (which is guideline, not policy) in applicable. Since this article does, however, address other hypothesized second moons, I would support the article being renamed something that addresses its more wide-ranging nature, and turning this into a redirect to that article. 23skidoo (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete. Yes, it is riddled with OR, but it links to a couple external websites and it certainly satisfies WP:N. The article needs a thorough (and skeptical) re-write, but I am not convinced that it should be deleted. You might be able to make a case under WP:FRINGE, but right now I don't see it. Plasticup T/C 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The subject of this article is Lilith The Dark Moon, the only cited source for this is the "research" (if one can call it that) of an astrologer named Sepharial. The Petit and Verne mentions speak of a moon but not the Dark Moon that Sepharial claims to have discovered. There is some heavy original research and synthesis going on to connect these disparate claims and events. Article is sourced to 2 astrology books, one of which was written by this astrologer Sepharial who claims to have discovered this moon. Having just 2 sources, only one of which is independent of the subject, fails WP:N and WP:RS. WP:FRINGE tells us that "Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources." Article has no reliable sources so it fails there too. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced. Plasticup T/C 14:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is about an one hypothetical moon named Lilith or about all hypothetical moons of Earth? Your definition fails. Zero Kitsune (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per L0b0t's excellent summation.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment why not convert it to a serious account of the History of the hypothetical moon? Unless one exists already? I see Paul Schlyter has an account covering 1846 to the present day in German. I have added this start to the Talk page. -84user (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see why L0b0t's arguments justify deleting the article rather than rewriting it. Yes, it's pseudoscience, and yes, Sepharial was probably a crackpot. But he's a notable crackpot, and his ideas are of historical interest. Further, astrology books are certainly unreliable sources if you want to use them to prove the existence of such a moon (which the article doesn't try to do), but they are reliable sources on the practices of astrologers, and the concept of Lilith is indeed used in astrology. --Ptcamn (talk) 17:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep But only as part of an article on hypothetical moons of earth (so, really a merge into a new article and delete this one?) I was about to agree, but look here [34] The same Google Books search on Lilith and "Dark Moon" turns up something in a Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology: Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology, some other stuff as well. I agree with 23Skidoo, we should have an Doug Weller (talk) 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strong Delete. The subject is interesting. Astrological theories are notable regardless of their correctness or if they seem ridiculous (as agreed this one is). The articles big weakness is a serious lack of references, given the subject matter (that is new to me) I can not help but wonder if it is almost totally made up. The section "In astrology" has had plenty of time to come up with references (September 2007), and should be deleted as these were not forthcoming. Although the article is quite old, and with the exception of the said paragraph "In astrology", I note that many of the reference requests date July 2008. Accordingly, the article needs more time to prove it's authenticity in other parts.Czar Brodie (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One thing this article does not need is more time. The current tags are recent but if you check the talk page and the article's history, you'll see it has been tagged, untagged and tagged again several times since its creation in September 2006. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 20:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did a brief scan of the talk page and history. I could not find evidence of tagged, untagged. Can you direct me to a point in time or a link to this behavior? Otherwise my position continues to be the article needs references, not deletionCzar Brodie (talk) 01:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, first tagged here[35] on 27 Sept. 06, 2 days after article creation - tag vanishes in about 45 minutes[36]. Article tagged again on 28 September 06[37] - tag vanishes about 3 weeks later on 16 October 06[38]. Tagged again on 25 October 06[39] - tag vanishes on 15 November 06[40]. Tagged again on 15 November 06[41] (this tag is still on the article). Second tag (footnotes) added 24 September 07[42] but Smackbot didn't date it until February of 2008, this tag is still there. The article has had a lot of material added and removed from it but it has yet to improve. The 2 sources cited are the very same sources that have been there all along and they fail WP:RS just as much as they did in 2006. The article still suffers from the same lack of focus it did in 2006. The factual astronomy portions of the article could be the basis for an article dealing with the history of astronomy but this article is not that by a long shot. Cheers. L0b0t (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced. Thanking you for the links, Czar Brodie (talk) 02:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A number of Google Books hits suggests that the topic is notable. OR, NPOV, etc. are reasons for cleanup, not for deletion. In addition to astrology books, I found a couple of more mainstream books[43][44] that mention Lilith within its historical context; apparently there were several claims of "new moons" during the late 19th century that proved to be false (just like there were many false claims of new chemical elements). --Itub (talk) 14:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Itub, your opinion was my thinking until L0b0t kindly directed me to the article's editors dubious behavior of deleting the tags requesting a cleanup, see above. What I think is the problem here is, is not so much the existence of Lilith as a false claim, this is noted in the "discoverers" page: Sepharial, but the various unrefereed information that springs from this "discovery" in the article. I am not against the mixing of astrology and astronomy in an article, what I find seriously odd is that given the amount of literature on both these subjects, no proper references were given to back up the articles numerous claims. The article has had plenty of time to clean up, deleting the tags requesting a cleanup is not, in my view, the proper way to address the problem. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the tags is, if anything, a behavior problem of the editor who deleted them, and should be handled by the usual dispute resolution procedures. It is not a reason to delete the article. The article may need a substantial trimming, but even some of the dubious "original syntheses" invoked in the nomination turn out not to be so original on further inspection. For example, the relation with Verne. See [45] (first result). --Itub (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though perhaps rename to something like "second moon theories" or "second moon hypothesis" to include claims not directly related to Sepharial's Lilith. --Groggy Dice T | C 22:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good idea, I was thinking that some sort of rename would be an option but hadn't thought of a good name. History of the hypothetical moon was suggested earlier, but it sounds a bit awkward to me. --Itub (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, of course, all that hokum about fortune tellers would need to be excised in favor of actual history of astronomy type info. L0b0t (talk) 14:28, 12 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, article doesn't assert notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic (christian-metal band)[edit]

Titanic (christian-metal band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seemingly non-notable band. Closest claim is that their drummer's cousin was in a famous band. Prod removed by creator with comment below. tomasz. 14:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If obscure bands that fit into ridiculous genres such as viking metal and folk metal are considered suitable (examples include: alkonost, Troll Gnet El) then why not this? They have an official website, a MySpace page, a listing on Encyclopedia Metallum (Titanic), and are easily found on amazon.com (Screaming In Silence). It is also worth noting that Troll Gnet El are not even listed on amazon.com, yet they aren't considered "non-notable", even without a "cousin who is a famous drummer"....

So, if a bizarre folk-metal band from Russia who are not known outside their home country isn't considered too obscure, then I don't see why this band is...

Baron Von Watermelon (talk) 02:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, tomasz. 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. This article doesn't actually make any assertions of notability, so it is eligible for speedy deletion under CSD {{A7}}. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete by {{A7}} organization with no assertion of notabtility. -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 7 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 Vincent Massey Secondary School. PhilKnight (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vincent Massey Reach for the Top Team[edit]

Vincent Massey Reach for the Top Team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficiently notable, albeit successful - this is a high school quiz team. Recommend merging some content into the school's article at Vincent Massey Secondary School PKT (talk) 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge anything usable into the school's article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge suitable content into the school's article. DigitalC (talk) 04:13, 8 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 G12 copyvio. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PhosphorTech[edit]

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

The speedy tag placed on this article was removed by a third party editor with no explanation, so I thought I would bring it here for opinions. Article appears to be pretty blatant advertising. TN‑X-Man 13:28, 7 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, due to crystal ball concerns. Davewild (talk) 17:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur International Airport[edit]

Mirpur International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod tag removed without significant improvement. This proposed airport is described in the article as "shelved" and the references do not state that it's underway, merely that it's needed. Doesn't meet WP:CRYSTAL Accounting4Taste:talk 13:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As of December 2007 there was still some discussion in Pakistan. Plasticup T/C 14:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL violation unless status changes--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:CRYSTAL Although the article has been made to look good by User:Rajput m16, there is no actual substance, or verifiable sources to warrant the article. The first of the two supplied references on the page simply states that the former Prime Minister of Pakistan mentioned it would be built 'if' private sector finance could be obtained in 2006, it couldn't so the project was shelved, That statement may also have been nothing more than a 'Vote Getter' to the local business owners . The second reference does not mention anything about an airport in Mirpur, referring only to one travel company providing a local check-in facility and transport to Islamabad airport, 55Km away, as a convenience for people from Mirpur. The local government development authority The Mirpur Development Authority official website shows no reference at all to any airport development or planning and there is no obtainable source material locatable on Google! Richard Harvey (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Discussion is not planning. New airport construction begins with concept development followed by financing arrangements. Until the concept is formally developed, it is just an idea, not a future airport. - Canglesea (talk) 02:12, 8 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. The consensus shows favor in simply keeping the article based on the notable reference found, not merging and redirecting to Education Week, being one of the proposed options. Non-administrative closure. Jamie☆S93 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eduwonkette[edit]

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

Delete nn blog Mayalld (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put up the article because its a blog carried by the leading trade publication in the field (Education Week) that is making headlines often enough to be the subject of a feature-length profile in the New York sun. I typped {{Unreferenced}} instead of {{reflist}} so the references failed to show up and Mayalld 's apparent automatic function deleted it without reading the entry. I wrote to him to explain that the blog is notable, and to suggest that he read entries before deleting them. My mistake. Instead of reading the entry, he got ticked and put up this REMOVE notice. If you really want to debate the notability of this blog, fine, but please at least read the article in the New York Sun and google Eduwonkette. Trigger-happy deleters are one of the reasons why people get frustrated and cease to write on Wikipedia.Elan26 (talk) 13:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan[reply]

  • Comment I did NOT delete it, either by an automatic process or otherwise. I added a PROD to it, because I believed it to be non-notable. As the author contests the PROD, I've taken it to AfD. Mayalld (talk) 13:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not a strong keep, but the blog/blogger is cited here and there, and has a full article in the New York Sun. - Bilby (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Education Week. It's probably notable, but it would be better off as part of a larger article.--Michael WhiteT·C 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Education Week is fine with me. I am not, however, happy about the threats and bullying I am receiving from Mayllad.Elan26 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)Elan26[reply]
    • Comment You have been neither threatened nor bullied. You have been warned for making personal attacks following your comments in the AFD about my motivation, and the accusations that you placed on my talk page. Mayalld (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NYSun article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NY Sun articles establish notability. Dpmuk (talk) 23:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the article in the NYSun. Vickser (talk) 13:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the NY Sun article.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 18:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per NY Sun article. Ostap 00:32, 9 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. Onorem has made major improvements to the article and it looks like a viable stub with room to grow. TN‑X-Man 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeblood (novel)[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article consists of a plot summary with no real claim to notability. TN‑X-Man 13:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as it's a sequel to an award-winning book.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  19:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denial of lesbianism[edit]

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

Delete pure WP:POV unsourced WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article has sources and a potential to grow.--Old Bella (talk) 13:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the article doesn't flesh out much more you could probably make a case for merging it into an existing article, but I see no reason to delete it. The article is reasonably sourced (not WP:GA or anything, but still...) and appears to be about a legitimate topic. Plasticup T/C 14:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Even if the topic is valid, the article as currently written is WP:SYN at best. The references cited are celebrity gossip about supposed lesbians and denials by the women named. The Clinton "source" is also a case of WP:FRINGE, warming over long discredited rumors. • Gene93k (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have removed several names from the article as unsourced WP:BLP infringements Mayalld (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and/or Delete the subject matter isn't notable on its own and can easily be covered under a number of different already existing sexuality articles. As written the main thrust of the article seems to be "accusatory" (even if the accusations have sources) which causes BLP concerns. An article entitled "Denial of lesbianism" would need to concentrate on the denials which this doesn't at the moment (due to the BLP stuff).Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete To me, this borders on patent nonesense. It's a made up term. The article contains multiple obviously disprovable claims, beyond them, most of the content just makes no sense to me. Why does there need to be an article on this? -Verdatum (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is sad that many individuals mentioned in the article have been deleted. I don't believe there should be such a stigma attached to lesbianism. (I support its promotion and like the openness of Angelina Jolie, et al.) Katherine Moennig and others feel ashamed and deny being lesbians. The article was discussing the matters and not accusing (it isn't a crime in most places) anyone and it used to say "reports." I was going to alter the word "allege" to something else too.--Old Bella (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply per the policy WP:Biographies of Living Persons any unverifiable claims regarding living persons must be removed immediately. If you don't like it, find and cite the nessisary sources and make a real article out of this. -Verdatum (talk) 17:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of reports that people like Jenna Jameson Is NOT A Lesbian is verifiable. It didn't say that, for example, X is a lesbian in all cases unless there was a source. It included reports of denials.--Old Bella (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about people who deny the veracity of a rumour about themselves as individuals, not about people denying that lesbianism exists (which is what it would need to be about for your comparisons here to be relevant at all.) Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge what we can with closeted then delete. Tabercil (talk) 19:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment One who is "in the closet" isn't in denial. The person is not open about their sexual orientation, but don't deny who they are. --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, so Larry Craig isn't closeted? WillOakland (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well some of the various online dictionary definitions of "closeted" come back as "Not open about one's homosexuality." (Wiktionary), "Being so or engaging only in private; secret" (Dictionary.com) or "kept secret from others" (Cambridge Dictionary); so it's probably reasonable for the average person to assume that someone who is closeted about their homosexuality will attempt to keep it a secret and thus publicly deny it. That's why I proposed the merger - for the lay person, public denials of lesbianism typically follow from being closeted. But I stand corrected about the distinction. Tabercil (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - could use some additional neutral sourcing but it is not irredeemably POV nor is it OR. Otto4711 (talk) 19:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research, possibly libelous in some jurisdictions, inherently POV as it assumes that any woman who does (or rumored to have done) certain things short of total intimacy should identify as a lesbian. If it were retitled accurately it would be "Speculations of lesbianism" and deletion would clearly be justified. WillOakland (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would say merge, but I don't really even see anything worthy of merging here. Aleta Sing 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Ouch!! I think this falls right under WP:BLP. The whole point is to spread rumors about Hillary Clinton, Queen Latifah, or anyone else to be added to the list, followed by, thank-you-very-much, a note that they denied the rumor. What bullshit. People who are straight do not want to be labelled as gay; and some people who are gay have reasons that they do not want to be identified as gay. Either way, it's nobody's business but their own. Mandsford (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually many aren't bothered either way and some are quite pleased they are being talked about at all. And obvious sexuality issues are newsworthy but we can agree they need to rise to a notable level of inclusion. Banjeboi 22:27, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Basically, this is a list of people who have denied being lesbians. DCEdwards1966 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete the subject matter isn't notable on its own. Beve (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge anything usable and delete. This would seem to go to the lesbian article but this seems to violate BLP as rumors and denials of rumors. I suppose if the denials reached a notable level then maybe. I would like to see a Denials of heterosexuality article - that could be fun! Banjeboi 22:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One user has accused me of adding "defamatory" stuff to this article. That user clearly believes lesbianism is negative and has deleted the list of people reported as lesbians with their denials. Since it is controversial in some circle, then there is a need for an article to discuss the subject matter soberly.--Old Bella (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments Now I find "The bias of compulsory heterosexuality, through which lesbian experience is perceived on a scale ranging from deviant to abhorrent, or simply rendered invisible"[46] to be exactly true.--Old Bella (talk) 23:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh how poignant. Let's discuss the article, not ourselves. Perhaps what we find defamatory is somebody making statements that another person is hiding a "secret". It's not really fair to suggest that Barack Obama is secretly a Muslim, or that Hillary Clinton is secretly a lesbian, or that John McCain is secretly having an extramarital affair. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article's references doesn't discuss the issue in any detail, except provide examples of people that are lesbian. There's no evidence that the concept meets WP:N. It seems that this article is gossip about people denying their sexuality. --Grrrlriot (talk) 00:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while an article about "Lesbian self-denial" could probably be written, this isn't it - it's basically an article about denying that you're lesbian. Heck, I'm not lesbian (there I've denied it), do I get to be in this article? We can have a whole slew of articles about Denial of <fill in anything (cannibalism? hypocracy? being a cult? one's ethnic identity? here>, and none are encyclopedic probably. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not only a train wreck of potential BLP violations (adding any name to this page is problematic), but the term itself is not encyclopedic. Anything that can be saved from this article (unlikely) can be added to Lesbian, Closeted or Gay-for-pay. Horologium (talk) 01:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I hate to !vote to delete an article due to current content, but this one is so bad right now I can't vote to keep. A good summary of academic work might well be interesting here. But as it stands, this article is so far from what it could be, I'll just say "if it gets deleted, don't salt" Hobit (talk) 01:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete junk. I can't really say anything more because to me it's self-evident. JuJube (talk) 09:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing meaningful to say about the topic itself. All there is is a list of people purported to be lesbians who say they aren't. That's not a useful article. --Alynna (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not sure there is any encyclopedic material to be had on the subject that wouldn't fit happily elsewhere. The page might well act as an incitement to editors to include poorly sourced claims about celebrities. --Simon Speed (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lesbianism. This is a perfectly sensible and valid subject, but need not have its own article.--Whipmaster (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to lesbian. This is in no way a meaningful or notable social or cultural phenomenon in its own right. If a woman is a lesbian but publicly denies it, then that's already covered by the article closeted, and if a woman isn't a lesbian but is forced to deny rumours that she is, that's just called setting the record straight (no pun intended). And AIDS denialism isn't a valid "see also" topic, either; that article is about an organized movement denying the existence of HIV, not about individual people denying that they personally have it. Absolutely absurd and unencyclopedic topic for an independent article. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Original research. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:17, 11 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Economics of Nuclear Power[edit]

The Economics of Nuclear Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod; This article does not meet Wikipedia's notabilty criteria and has been tagged as such since February 2008. Reason given was "This page should be merged with Economics of new nuclear power plants", yet there seems to be no content to merge Ratarsed (talk) 12:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete I was about to say this should follow the inclusion criteria for books, but apparently it's just a report and not a book. For Environmental effects of nuclear power I included just a section on Storm and Smith publication, while there is an article for the notable people around it, Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen. No matter how you look at it, his publication (if you can ever say it was "published") is vastly more notable than the Greenpeace report in question here. I think this is a useful analogy, and this report should follow the same route. Summarize it in the Economics of Nuclear Power, and link to the notable biographies, etc. -Theanphibian (talk • contribs) 12:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undue weight and a "content fork" (although there is little content here apart from a summary of the report). Inclusion of this report as a reference in the "main" article would not violate the GFDL as no text would be used that isn't derived directly from facts in the articles. I'm sure that greenpeace has experts on the subject and that the report is thorough and competent, but that doesn't mean it deserves its own article. Protonk (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Economics of new nuclear power plants, to incorporate facts such as the construction of the Olkiluoto nuclear power plant being €700 million over budget. Johnfos (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this content is simply not notable. I concur that overruns in Finland, etc. are relevant to the Economics of new nuclear power plants piece, but the original source data should be used, not the "repackaging" of them in the Greenpeace report. Revr J (talk) 12:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This report is not notable, and its subject is covered by Economics of new nuclear power plants Jll (talk) 09:59, 11 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, consensus is that the article is notable. Davewild (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable fan-made trailer for a film that doesn't exist; fails WP:MOVIE. Notability is asserted... mention is made of the Universal Stuidos Judges Award 2005, but the source was IMDb trivia and I haven't been able to find anything better. Only one cast member has enough individual notability to justify her own page, and it would be very hard to argue that this represented a significant moment in her career. Similarly, it would be hard to argue that DC pulling fan films of its creations from conventions represented a major landmark in cinematic history; DC are notoriously big on protecting their copyright and I doubt this one film pushed them over the edge. No non-trivial, mainstream coverage, just Internet fan sites. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the film is clearly notable enough for inclusion, and I've edited the article to add more links and references. The 2004 Comic-Con incident actually was a notable event as far as fanfilms/studio relations were concerned, and I've added a reference for that as well. Also, the Entertainment Weekly link is clearly mainstream coverage. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Obviously further references are a help, but whilst the Entertainment Weekly link may represent mainstream coverage (indeed the only link to mainstream coverage in the article) it is still effectively trivial in the absence of any critical appraisal as per WP:MOVIE (I'm unconvinced just giving it A- without justification constitutes critical appraisal). comics2film.com doesn't constitute a reliable source as far as Wikipedia guidelines are concerned, unless you can provide some evidence to the contrary. As it stands, you have asserted that the fanfilms/studio relations issue is notable without justifying it. Strangely, you also asserted that the breakdown in relations with DC was directly related to the World's Finest fanfilm during that article's AfD. They clearly cannot both be true. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Both Sandy Collora's World's Finest and Grayson were meant to be shown at Comic-Con in 2004, and were part of the reason DC reacted as it did - also because Collora's earlier film Beatman: Dead End clearly trumped any recent (at that time) legitimate DC/Warner Batman offerings, and these projects were getting a LOT of notice. Comics2Film may not be reliable to you, but as far as comics and the film industry are concerned, it is a reliable source, frequently cited as a source by major news outlets. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What I regard as a reliable source is not important. What is important is what Wikipedia guidelines state is a reliable source. You say they were getting "a LOT of notice"; capslock doesn't constitute verifiability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't see where Wikipedia guidelines state that Comics2Film is not a reliable source. Their authors *are* generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand, so that's not an issue. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 22:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure the guideline you're looking for is WP:V, specifically WP:SPS, regarding Comics2Film. You state the authors are regarded as authoratative. I see no evidence for this. Just another fan site. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the film is notable enough for inclusion. And since Blackmetalbaz seems determined to dismiss a reference as "just another fan site", let me say that a few minutes with Google show that Fox News, Gawker Media's io9.com, the SciFi Channel's SciFi Wire, Eflux Media, Comic Book Resources (an industry news site where the C2F site began), The Calgary Sun, The Seattle Times and USA Today[47] [48] [49] seem to have no problem recognizing Comics2Film as a reputable source. I also found paid news links to sites like Variety and the LA Times. An according to this release by another site, Comics2Film is the "premiere site for the relationship of comics to film". Hardly a self-published fan site, as I hope you can see from the evidence I've shown. I also see no problem with the other sources currently in use, as they're all reputable in their fields. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, fair enough, it seems that a lot of mainstream news outlets use Comics2film for quotes and the like, if not as a reliable source for factual information. But now there's another problem... the Comic-Con section on the page was a potential claim of notability (if DC stepped in and stopped fan films being showed specifically because of Grayson). However, Grayson isn't even mentioned in the link provided. Notability for the film has still not been established. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 11:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this article should be kept. I was looking for information regarding Fiorella and his next movies. My view is that he is a no longer considered just a fan acting as a director for his movie but a real director with a read idea for a film that made an impact enough to warrant an article on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.23.181.218 (talk) 16:50, 9 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, consensus is that the article is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 17:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adeism[edit]

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

Non-notable neologism, dicdef at best. Fails WP:V.  Ravenswing  09:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiery Red Leather[edit]

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

No references, no claims of notability. Prod was contested as "a legitimate new direction in cocktail creation..." kinda doubtful considering the drink is a week old. Possibly WP:NFT. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 08:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete WP:NFT is the watchword here (if that's pronounceable as a single word). I'm guessing some competitive bartender is pushing his/her new concoction. I'll take a PBR, please. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This might be more appropriate for Speedy via WP:CSD#G3; try a Google search for "fiery red leather" -wikipedia whiskey and there are literally zero hits related to any drink recipes. Judging from others' reactions that it doesn't sound like a likely drink makes me suspect that this is simply garbage. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 17:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 09:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete per WP:NFT, or I'll start regaling you with some of the foul concoctions I've come up with in my time. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "word of mouth" is not sufficient for notability. Marasmusine (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete with a twistper nom. Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFT. Besides, I was never much of a whiskey man myself. Plasticup T/C 16:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Wikipedia is not the new cocktail lab. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unless someone can come up with a cocktail book listing this information or a newspaper article of some sort otherwise it seems to be a made up drink, all that said, I agree with the conclusion of WP:NFT. Plus they are calling it a Margarita? If anything it is a whiskey cocktail, one that sounds mighty gross and a waste of good whiskey, I'll take mine neat with a glass of water thanks.--Chef Tanner (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You trtea

  • Save, You all seem to treat the creation and deletion of articles with extreme levity .. and ignorance of how drinks are created. I created this drink as part of the festivities of the event mentioned in the article. It is a legitimate drink in that it exists and continued references to it occur within certain circles of the NECC event. A search for it will bring up a reference under Alex's Cocktails http://www.cocktailmaking.co.uk/displaycocktail.php/4501-Fiery-Red-Leather (NOT created by me) and also http://blog.larkin.net.au/2008/07/07/wikipedia-verifies-via-google-search-too/ - please note there is no 'Al Upton's Bar and Grill' .. that is flippancy only equaled by what seems to be an all powerful consensus here. You guys are losing credibility fast. I used to belong to the Adelaide Single Malt Whisky Streah at the Earl of Aberdeen. I have some good knowledge of whisky and would only recommend a 'less superior' whisky blend in a cocktail. I repeat that drink creation must have an origin. Whether you like or dislike what is being created and suggested does not merit criteria for deletion. I will take a copy of the discussion here. It will prove very interesting at presentations I give re global collaboration. I appreciate any feedback how the article can be improved (I apologise for it's obvious clumsiness) and lose its threat of deletion.More comment at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fiery_Red_Leather Alupton (talk) 13:42, 9 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. PhilKnight (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maggots (Corpse Bride)[edit]

Maggots (Corpse Bride) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - This is a minor, unimportant character from Tim Burton's the Corpse Bride who is not important enough to warrant his own article. Does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards, Scapler (talk) 08:12, 7 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 rearrange. I'm stepping outside my normal authority as closer here to impose the normal Wikipedia solution to this kind of issue. The disambiguation page will be moved to Tony Thorpe (disambiguation), and the main article will be moved to Tony Thorpe. There is not a consensus to delete the disambig page here, but it seems there is agreement that one particular use is the main one. Mangojuicetalk 17:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Thorpe[edit]

Tony Thorpe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)Disambiguation page which points only to one article. This page should be deleted and Tony Thorpe (footballer) moved to this namespace. Of the others, the first one named is not notable outside of his work in The Moody Boys, who already have an article, and the other seems completely non-notable, being a member of a MySpace/CDBaby band.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:39, 7 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, consensus is that this is a notable topic. Davewild (talk) 17:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Free Area of the Republic of China[edit]

Free Area of the Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article centers around a phrase that is not notable in English. The phrase is a Chinese-exclusive phrase used to promote a political agenda. The phrase was translated literally. The content is not cited. The content of the article is covered by numerous other articles, most notably List of territorial disputes, Taiwan independence, and Political status of Taiwan. Interwikis all point to articles on "Taiwan region". Voidvector (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm not aware that notability is restricted by language. The English Wikipedia can well cite Chinese sources. --Ptcamn (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the article also claims Taiwan Area as a synonym. 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep (with augmentations, if needed). Somebody who reads about Taiwan always wonders: the R.O.C. government there claims (at least theoretically) jurisdiction over the entire China - which would imply, to an uninitiated reader, that they ought to consider everybody born and living in any of China's 20+ provinces as a R.O.C. citizen. So what is the legal framework they would use to, say, keep a million people from moving from Fujian or Sichuan Province to Taiwan Province tomorrow, or from deciding to vote in R.O.C. parliamentary elections? Apparently this "Free Area" thing is one of the concepts that allows them to reconcile the reality with the theory. This is certainly "notable". Vmenkov (talk) 05:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a historically important subject. It is also important to Taiwanese legal and political theory. Any scholar studying 20th century Chinese history would need to be familiar with this term. Wikipedia should not be restricted to only topics that occur in English speaking countries. lk (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Important explication of a notable topic in Taiwanese history and politics. Badagnani (talk) 14:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional keep - a quick search of scholarly and academic sources indicates the phrase is in use in English, but as has been pointed out, language is not a restriction on notability in any case. The topic of territorial claims of the ROC vs effective control is deserving of its own article independent of those mentioned in the nomination. Skomorokh 18:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable legal entity, well-sourced. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:53, 11 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, consensus is that he is notable and for more than one event. Davewild (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Park Mexican[edit]

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

This screams, amongst other things, WP:BLP1E at me and I feel it should be deleted. It seems to me that this person received a short burst of attention due to a child molestation conviction, but as a musician is not actually notable and otherwise fails WP:MUSIC. The apparent lack of non-trivial coverage about this person (aside from the single molestation event) speaks volumes. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have got to be kidding me.. I don't see how he's only notable for one event, the guy has put out 9 albums. He was/is an extremely popular underground artist, google returns just under 1 million hits on a search for his name. I'm from the other side of the country and have been playing his albums for years. I don't mean to be a troll but how bored must you be to actually ask for a random article to be deleted for no reason other than you aren't familiar with the artist.. I don't see what harm this perfectly valid article providing useful information is causing you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ineedausernamearghh (talk • contribs) 07:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) — Ineedausernamearghh (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete 456 G-hits on "South Park Mexican" +"houston", suggesting at the very least local notability, but many of them are either lyrics sites, sites which use his name as an example of Houston's hip-hop scene, news of the legal troubles, or a few guestbooks and petitons asking for his release from prison, not about the music itself. I think in this case, the criminal case takes more precedent than his musical career, along with his troubles, and there are BLP issues with the tone of the article. If his music in the hits outranked the criminal activity more, I think this could be rescued and it should at least be attempted familiar with someone familiar with Houston hip-hop, and I would encourage some kind of rescue attempt. As it is though, I have to go by what we can find out about his music, and I'm just not seeing it.


  • It would be very hurtful and upsetting if this were deleted for some reason, myspace deleted his official page, itunes only had two of his albums up and theyve already taken one down, and now this. this really hurts us as his fans. carlos is a good person who was falsely accused of a crime. if things keep goin the way they are now, the legacy of SPM wont ever be passed down. and future generations will never have the great oppurtunity to listen to such heart felt songs of truth. all i got to say is please dont delete this, do it for him, and for his family, but more importantly do it for his fans.

FREE SPM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.119.233.119 (talk) 03:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for INAUNA's assertions above, we usually take in mind specific G-hits in decisions narrowed down by Boolean terms, and though the display shows 1 million hits, that's because it also takes in mind anything with south, park, and mexican in it, not the terms narrowed down. Nate • (chatter) 09:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "South Park Mexican" + "Houston" is far too narrow a search term. "South Park Mexican" (with the quotes) pulls in 400,000+ hits, a not insubstantial number. PC78 (talk) 12:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we don't count the 'about' number, which is just every instance of all three words. I check all the results that pop up the search, and this result ended up with 439 uniques in the end. That's even fewer than my search above. Nate • (chatter) 22:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your search pulls up slightly fewer hits ATM, but that's just splitting hairs. "South Park Mexican" is a perfectly valid search term, which is every instance of that exact term, not just all three words. PC78 (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 54 news articles under his real name (most seem to be about him) more under his stage name. He has attracted significant coverage for his music and more for his criminal history and conviction. Very brief mention in Journal of Texas Music History Vol 1, Issue 1 (2001). 39 google book mentions. notable for more than one event, meets WP:BIO with lots of reliable sources - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 7 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, consensus is that this a valid topic and notable. Davewild (talk) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Great Inventions of ancient China[edit]

Four Great Inventions of ancient China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article centers around a phrase that is not notable in English. The phrase is a Chinese-exclusive phrase used to promote nationalism and cultural pride. The phrase was translated literally. The content of the article is covered in detail by numerous other articles, most notably List of Chinese inventions. Voidvector (talk) 06:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Voidvector (talk) 07:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rewrite Passes WP:NEO, but needs rewrite of the subsections to explain why they're considered part of the Four Great Inventions. Article rename may be in order. There are a lot of Chinese phrases like this that have notability in Chinese, but I'd bet there's notability in English for this one. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 10:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the phrase is being used "to promote nationalism and cultural pride", that's an indication of notability. Plus, these are clearly notable inventions of the Chinese. Edward321 (talk) 14:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I suspect this can be merged somewhere, but I don't know where is best. The content detailing the chinese contribution of the individual inventions is completely superfluous. For this article to properly exist, it should discuss the phrase, and discuss the history of how those four inventions came to be worthy of the specific grouping. If it can be attributed to a single source, it might redirect to that author. -Verdatum (talk) 16:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article claims that the term is used by Joseph Needham, a prominent sinologist, whom is BRITISH. I don't see this as promoting British national pride. The nom's reasoning seems invalid. 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply It is not a term coined by him, he simply pointed out the four inventions. As you can see the quotation included doesn't even contain the word "four". In fact, the article doesn't even say how the term was coined, goes on to describe the four inventions, content of which is covered thoroughly elsewhere. --Voidvector (talk) 11:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Science and Civilisation in Ancient China, the encyclopedic compendium that Needham & Co. are compiling. 70.51.9.151 (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - This article is on what "Chinese Tradition" and the late Joseph Needham, the greatest Western scholar on Chinese technology, identified as the greatest inventions. Accordingly the choice of four (or three or five) is the Point of View of a great scholar, not the POV of some WP editor; this is utterly different. We also have a list of Chinese inventions, whose contents fluctuate periodically, and articles on individual subjects. A weakness of WP (with the ability of any one to edit is that articles on general subjects tend to expand ad infinitum as each editor throws in their contribution. This should certainly not be deleted, rather it should be a GA candidate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Agree with Peterkingiron. This one is obvious. The topic is notable, and has been frequently discussed in both scholarly and popular literature for a long time. The page itself is well written and properly cited. More should be written about the context and origin of the term, but that is not a reason to delete. --lk (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply most of the citations are on individual inventions, which are covered thoroughly elsewhere. This article does not even mention the significance of this phrase, the etymology of it, and usage of it in the Chinese culture. It is akin to to having an article on the United States and only talk about each individual 50 states. An out-of-focus article like this will never get GA. --Voidvector (talk) 06:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete:The article tries to lay square claim to four inventions which does not do justice to the fact that each invention has a complex history. The compasses we use today and which made then the age of discovery possible are of Europe origin (dry compass, liquid-filled magnet and gyrocompass). The Gunpowder as a propellant appeared as early in Europe where anyway the real potential (key word "Gunpowder revolution") was exploited first. Printing started off only with Gutenbergs printing revolution. Only paper can today be still regarded as a Chinese invention, and even here mechanical production of paper by water mills started in medieval Europe (1280s in Bologna). To put it in a nutshell, Needhams research is half a century old. Moreover, Needhams sinocentric POV (scholarly biases have rarely to do with their nationality), and more generally of the Needham Research Institute, has been also noted by several independent scholars, such as Robert Finlay. MANY of Needhams hypotheses have been proven wrong in the meantime, including the view that the ancient Chinese knew the spherical earth (they regarded the earth in fact as flat), that the Chinese were the first to build segmental arch bridges (there are a dozen Roman bridges of that type still standing) or that the Han Chinese invented the central rudder (already known 2000 BC by the Egyptians as proven by numerous wooden tomb models and wall paintins. Museums in the Rhineland are full with ancient Romano-Celts central rudders as well) or the fore-and-aft-rig (predated by Roman fore-aft-rigs by several hundred years. See Lionel Casson), and so forth. Needham also believed that the Chinese invented the "first plastics" and "biological control". This article is not only full of errors and misrepresentations, it is one big error. Why is the English philosopher Francis Bacon misused here as principal witness of so-called Chinese inventions, when in fact he had purely European developments in mind, that is printing revolution (printing),the explorations of the age of discovery (compass) and gunpowder revolution (gunpowder)? When we keep that article how long will it take before other ethnocentrists will create their own articles with their own exclusive worldviews? I am for strong delete, because the four items are already discussed with much more competence by contributors in the respective articles. "Four Great Inventions of ancient China" agitates only readers as it now does for over a year (note that this is the second or third time a deletion has been proposed). Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That appears to be your POV: The fact that Joseph Needham defined the term, provides a robust definitve definition. If you can provide scholarly sources contesting (or criticising) Needham's view on the number or identity of the inventions, I do not see what that should nnot be added to the article as an additional secion at the end (assuming it survives this AFD process). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Military. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the first articles where I became involved in trying to bring to NPOV. The concept is a notable one, well documented. the individual details of the inventions will obviously be a summary, and care has to be taken that they reflect the consensus as given on the main articles on the individual topics. That the compasses or printing in use today may have an independent origin does not denigrate in any way the importance of the Chinese inventions. DGG (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Very important subject, properly sourced, utilizing the eminent Joseph Needham as a source. Badagnani (talk) 14:50, 11 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 (non-admin closure), multiple keeps, only one delete Leonard(Bloom) 18:00, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four Great Ancient Civilizations[edit]

Four Great Ancient Civilizations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is on a Chinese-exclusive phrase used to promote nationalism and cultural pride. The phrase itself is not notable in English, the phrase is translated literally. The content of the article is composed of definition and etymology which belongs on wiktionary. The content is covered more thoroughly by the article cradle of civilization. Voidvector (talk) 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article may be Chinese-exclusive or promote nationalism and cultural pride, but i do not think this is good reason for deletion. The subject may be obscure but may be of interest to some. I do not think that if a subject is covered in another article that this is good cause for deletion, the opposite can be true. As to the terms relating more to wiktionary, I felt the article had a subject mater that goes beyond the simple definition of words.Czar Brodie (talk) 14:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I can't be a good judge of possible sourcing but (to respond to the comment above) if an article is basically a standing NPOV violation, that is sufficient grounds from deletion (apart from just having a POV section or POV wording). However, if we find some secondary sourcing talking about the concept (rather than arguing from it), we may rewrite this article as "In history, the Four Great Ancient Civilizations is a conception forwarded by Chinese historians to describe..." and the write the article on the concept from a dispassionate viewpoint. However, the humanities are not my strong point (for research digging), so I can't say either way. Protonk (talk) 16:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Hmm. Actually READING the article suggests that it is already written in the current fashion. I would suggest that more independent sourcing be added to promote the claim in the article (right now we have a high school history text, a article from a buddhist journal and an article from a chinese company). where are the historiographers when you need them? Protonk (talk) 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but improve. The article need to properly cite the origins of and use of the term. However, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and is large enough to encompass topics that originate from non-english speaking cultures. Suggesting otherwise is like suggesting that the article on Nessun dorma (which by the way, needs work), should be restricted to the Italian language Wikipedia. --lk (talk) 05:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand this position (and I know the policy about non-english sources) but I think we ought to be cautious about including too many articles based largely on non-english sources. given that our "is wikipedia the right place" page directs monolingual non-english speakers to non-english wikis we are relying on the translation by multilingual editors to ensure that sourcing verifies the text (not to mention is reliable, etc). I'm not disagreeing with you on your !vote, just putting things out there. Protonk (talk) 06:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I agree that the content has been already suitably housed in Cradle of civilization. But what I was trying to say is that e.g. besides the "factual" article about President of the United States, Wikipedia happens to have a separate small article about the (history, etymology, and use of) phrase "Leader of the Free World", because the phrase itself - and the world view associated with its users - is notable enough. Thus, if "四大文明古国" is a common "classification" or "concept" used in e.g. public education or journalism in China (and I have no idea if it is), than there may be nothing wrong about a separate small article about this concept, from Liang Qichao's essay (supposedly, important enough for forming the nation's world view?) to its current use and effect on public mind (if any). In principle I have no objections of its merging either into Cradle of civilization or into some suitable article on Chinese historical/political/philosophical theories (some counterpart of the American exceptionalism or Third Rome or Historical materialism articles, perhaps), and setting an appropriate redirect. In practice, however, if I am looking at the topic X and thinking "X can be merged into A... or into B ... or into C", I often find it easier to keep X as a separate article, and refer to it from A, B, and C via the \{\{main\}\} tag. Vmenkov (talk) 07:09, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Basically an interesting topic, but one blog, one poem and one, say, romance page as sources? Please. What is needed here more than elsewhere is serious scholarship which unfortunately utterly lacks. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a China-specific subject and, as such, I don't see why this article is China-centered. In grade 6 in New York I learned this very same theory of the four earliest river civilizations (Nile River, Tigris/Euphrates Rivers, Yellow River, and Indus River), and, thus, if this article is to be kept, it should not be China-centered. Badagnani (talk) 14:55, 11 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. — MaggotSyn 13:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pulverised fuel firing[edit]

Pulverised fuel firing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced mini stub on non notable topic Myheartinchile (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An easily verifiable practice[51][52][53]. As a stub, this should be improved, and probably should be, rather than delete. -- Ratarsed (talk) 12:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nominator is kidding ? Keep as a fundamentally encyclopedic topic. Suggest reading through the google books hits - Peripitus (Talk) 12:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep strong establishment of notability if you ask me. Coal mining is a huge relm of study. I have no doubt lots of secondary reliable sources exist; finding them just requires (shudder) real research. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: 5 minutes of work and I can confidently remove the {{Unreferenced|date=June 2007}} and {{context}} templates. The article is now sourced and its notability well established. Plasticup T/C 16:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an encyclopedic stub with room to expand. Vickser (talk) 13:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete per WP:SNOW. Sorry, kids, there is not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to be kept, which means waiting five days to reach an inevitable conclusion will only waste a lot of time for a lot of people. I am a big fan of xkcd, myself, but I'm also cognizant of the fact Wikipedia is trying to be a serious encyclopedia, and attempts like this to turn this wiki's content into a playground are damaging to that goal. I'm sure that many of you mean well, and I wish you nothing but the best, but having this article at this time is not in Wikipedia's interests as an encyclopedia.

I may reconsider this decision and allow the AfD to proceed if reliable, third party-published sources discuss the phrase in a manner that is both encyclopedic and not isolated to Wikipedia. Such sources, if any, can be presented at my talk page. Otherwise, useful content is already present at Wikipedia in culture. – Luna Santin (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In Popular Culture[edit]

In Popular Culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I really don't know if this article should be kept or not, but I did want to make sure that there were as many eyes on it as possible to make a decision. It was created as a result of a webcomic making a joke about Wikipedia having an article with this name. I do find it interesting that has no one had thought this article was a good idea before the webcomic made a joke about its existence, but a lot of worthy subjects don't yet have articles so that's neither here nor there. At any rate, if the article is deleted, I'd like to recommend the name be salted as a lot of people came to create this article as soon as the webcomic was published. Thanks. Rnb (talk) 06:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, XKCD is the only secondary source (I'll retract my vote of others are presented). BJTalk 06:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no notability outside Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. Feezo (Talk) 06:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sarcastic Keep, Why should wikipedia have any credibility at all? The only notability that this article would have would be its own existence.(Lenerd (talk) 06:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete, Self-reference is a dangerous tool Dr. Hofstadter, I don't want the Blogosphere to implode. Jesset77 (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Oh come on, it's off an xkcd comic, it has to continue existing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vermoskitten (talk • contribs) 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and make the article not so wikipedia-centric, and possibly even remove the controversal xkcd reference. I think it is a valid entry, notable outside Wikipedia EdwardHades (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since the article serves a valid encyclopedic entry, no matter what reason is behind the creation. Jo9100 (talk) 06:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no substantial coverage in secondary sources (xkcd doesn't count). We should avoid blatant self-references such as this without good reason to do otherwise. Hut 8.5 06:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No different from the Colbert-inspired joke pages, and doesn't add useful information. Tlesher (talk) 06:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism with zero notability outside (and no particular notability within) the Wikipedia editing community. Cannot possibly be attributed to reliable secondary sources. Cosmo0 (talk) 06:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though this article really brought to light exactly what goes on in the underpinnings of wikipedia, namely all the pompous, elitist classholes with a Dwight Shrute-like power fantasy given too much free reign over a simple website. 69.81.191.6 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Even though the article comes from a webcomic doesn't mean it needs to be deleted. As EdwardHades said, the article just needs a little bit of work, which I'm sure somebody will do eventually. However, the article should be made less wikipedia centric. In other words, if the article could be about 'In Popular Culture' sections in general and not just on wikipedia, then keep it. Louis C. (talk) 07:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral (Don't judge too quickly). I would simply like to point out that this is not in any way the kind of self-reference which Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid tells us to avoid. The article is about a phenomenon on Wikipedia, but it does not self-reference itself as a Wikipedia article. In other words, the article could read exactly the same in some mirror or other encyclopedia and it would make just as much sense. Now, notability, that's another issue. One could argue that the article has no notability outside Wikipedia and/or that one could not find sufficient sources. On the other hand, many people use Wikipedia and one may be looking through articles and wonder what the "In Popular Culture" section is for, and this article might be a good place to explain it. In that case, we might allow Wikipedia itself to be the source. I remain neutral, but options i might propose instead of deleting it include moving it to Wikipedia project space or merging it into the Popular culture article. ~ FerralMoonrender (T • C) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Needs to stay
  • Keep. Is already referenced several places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.140.50 (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unreferenceable, unencyclopaedic, non-notable. Because we are all internet users, there is a systemic bias granting things on the internet with more importance than they actually have. Just because a webcomic makes a small reference to this, it doesn't mean an entire encyclopaedia article should be created as a result. Hammer Raccoon (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is a valid reference a legitimate phenomena. It just needs to be expanded.--71.3.208.147 (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep COMPLETELY apart from the xkcd references, one has to admit that the phrase "In Popular Culture" has gained widespred notoriety on wikipedia, message boards, and various other internet meme carriers. Far more than phrases like "lol," which can easily be listed on a page, "In Popular Culture" is a phrase which an uninitiated wikipedia browser may wish to know more about. Zelmerszoetrop (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Now that we have the page references itself I think it should stand as a turning point in history. We have known for years that wikipedia is more that an encyclopedia. It has been creating events since its inception and now that it has created apart of itself it would be best to not anger it and just hope that the article on the 3 laws is well written. (Lenerd (talk) 08:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butta Creamé[edit]

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

Subject doesn't hold significance to be an encyclopedic entry. Poorly written too. Hitrohit2001 (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The article attempts to assert notability by mentioning the 106 & Park thing, but I can't find any evidence of that. Beyond that, I can't find anything about the group that satisfies WP:MUSIC. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 06:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 07:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails to demonstrate notability under WP:MUSIC guidelines. JBsupreme (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Already deleted before, and cites no sources.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 08:30, 7 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 to an article to be determined through the editorial process.

Our first approximation, the headcount, indicates that there are on the order of 25 people who want the article deleted; this includes circa 5 "speedy delete"s and circa 5 "delete or merge"s. About ten people want the article to be merged somewhere (Early life and career of Barack Obama and Barack Obama, Sr. have been proposed as a target, among others). Finally, circa 15 people want the article to be kept. (These figures include rounding and probably counting errors; a few oddball opinions were also discounted.)

This is (so I'm told) not a vote, so I must consider the strength of the arguments. To determine that strength, I'm reviewing them in the light of our applicable policies, guidelines and precedents. Essentially, the "keep" camp is of the opinion that the subject meets WP:BIO on account of his coverage by the media, while the others say that this coverage occurred only because of (and viewed through the lens of) his brother's fame, and that notability is not inherited. Neither of these arguments is evidently more persuasive than the other, and both are present to some degree in our rules and current practice. In the rules, we have WP:BIO but also WP:BLP1E; in precedent, we have deleted numerous articles about children of pop stars et al, but also kept others who have found some recognition in their own right. Malik Abongo Obama is clearly on the border between the two outcomes, and I won't pretend that I can objectively determine who's right in his case.

So we're back to the headcount. It tells me that a) there is no consensus to delete this content outright, but also that b) there is consensus that Malik Abongo Obama does not currently deserve an article of his own. The only outcome consistent with these observations is that the article is to be merged into another article. It's up to the community of editors to decide on the target; in the meantime, I'm editorially redirecting the article to Barack Obama. Feel free to change the redirect target at will. The amount of material that is to be merged will have to depend on the scope of the eventual target article, so that it will have an appropriate weight within the article. Should Malik Abongo Obama later become distinctly more notable, his biography can be spun off into a separate article again, once there's consensus for that.

A note on procedure: The "speedy delete" opinions are discounted insofar as they don't also express an opinion on the merits of the article, because the article is now substantially different from its previously deleted version, and because the volume of the discussion here clearly requires a review de novo. Just please don't immediately open a third AfD. Thanks for bearing with me.  Sandstein  21:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Malik Abongo Obama[edit]

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

The person known by various news organizations (eg----

  1. An August 15 Daily Nation (Nairobi) feature (re info about family members derived from interviews)
  2. The Associated Press (reporting bylined from Nyangoma-Kogelo, Kenya), and
  3. Media Matters for America (precipitated by an interview of the subject by Israel's Army Radio)----as Malik Obama, is, according to t
  4. ABC News, the older half-brother of Barack Obama, whom, as Barack notes in
  5. Dreams from My Father, is also known to other members of the extended Obama family as "Roy" or "Abongo," as he has also been termed by
  6. the Chicago Sun-Times.
UPDATES 7. A June 10 Daily Nation news blip labels "Malik Abong'o Obama" the Kenyan Obama fam's spokesman.
8. NYT ←no mention of Malik Obama under any of his names in this opinion piece

  • "In Obama's book Dreams of My Father, interestingly enough, he writes about meeting Malik as an adult: 'I checked into the cheapest room I could find and waited. At nine, I heard a knock. When I opened the door, I found a big man standing there with his hands in his pockets, an even-toothed grin breaking across his ebony face. "Hey, brother," he said. "How’s life?" In the pictures I had of Roy, he was slender[...].'"----JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS SENIOR CORRESPONDENT (...with the underlining of stuff of course mine :^)

 — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC) amended   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I know others will advocate for this article's deletion, since the WP bio only dealing with the sources for Abongo Obama had only been deleted yesterday evening.

Arbitrary break 1[edit]

  • KEEP. Barack's half-brother Malik merits inclusion (as I would support the inclusion of a bio of the half-brother of Bill Clinton, Roger Clinton, Jr., who has likewise been mentioned in multiple news sources). — Justmeherenow (   ) 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*******Thanks for pointing this out S. Dean. I do not believe a merge should just happen without discussion. If I am incorrect I recommend that an admin take action on this.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC) *Sigh. You inappropriately removed my comment (which you had no right to do, without my permission) AND yours (which you had every righ to do). I restored mine (which was my right and responsibility) and did not restore yours (which I had no right to do). To others: Is there nothing we can do about this situation? S. Dean Jameson 05:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • A merge would be awkward. The Malik article is about Malik Obama, and the Sarah article is about Sarah Obama. What kind of a topic is "Malik and Sarah Obama"? That's not an encyclopedic subject. "Family of Barak Obama" is too broad (it would have to include all the family members) and misses the point - the content is not about the fact that Obama has a family, but is about the specific people involved. "List of extended Barak Obama family members?" "List of distant but not too distant relatives of...." "List of family members who don't have their own articles?" - all of these are clunky and not encyclopedic subjects. To treat the content at all, I think we have to acknowledge that there is sourced, verifiable, notable encyclopedic material here, and the goal is to put it where it makes the most sense. Wikidemo (talk) 16:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Strong Delete. This article was deleted 24 minutes ago (under slightly different title). It's possible the bio figure may become more notable in the future, and merit an article. But I don't thing there's been such a change in the last hour. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama. I've changed to "strong", which isn't really much different I know. After giving it a shot at improvement, I don't see any claim of notability outside of Barack Obama's book. There are a number of sources, but they all consist of "Barack said these things about Malik Abongo in his book"; even if a thousand sources think Dreams From My Father is worth mentioning, that doesn't add any extra notability to Malik Abongo himself. It just enforces the conclusion that we should keep the article on the book (which no one has argued against anyway). LotLE×talk 20:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've modified my vote to just "delete". Although I think it is a clear G4 speedy candidate, the closing admin of the prior AfD has stated that although he agrees on G4 eligibility, WP:BITE lets us considers this a "WP:DRV by other means". See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Recreation_of_article_that_just_finished_AFD_Malik_Abongo_Obama. I'm happy to WP:AGF on this, so merely support non-speedy deletion.LotLE×talk 07:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's a speedy candidate. If we assume "Malik Abongo Obama" is the same person as "Abongo Obama" then this is not an exact recreation. The recreated article, if someone adds the sources, potentially overcomes the notability objection on which the earlier article was deleted. We ought to consider the full range of sources when judging notability, something that was not done in the earlier debateWikidemo (talk) 06:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a pretty borderline case. There are a couple of sources where he features prominently, but I wouldn't consider Barack Obama's memoir to be evidence of notability. An important thing to remember is that Malik is not notable because his brother is; notability is not inherited. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 06:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not the correct usage of notability is not inherited. It's not about sources not mattering when you have a famous relative, it's about whether you have sources of your own. This article passes that by having multiple non trivial reliable sources. Not inherited would be if Malik were relying entirely on Barack without sources of his own. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect for the same reasons expressed by LotLE; this article was just deleted after a thorough discussion because the overwhelming sense of the AfD was that the subject is not notable at this time according to Wikipedia standards. Notability is not inherited and the references listed do not attest to any independent notability. Tvoz/talk 06:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Clarification As I said below, this can easily be handled as a redirect to Barack Obama Sr.#Children - so I am clarifying this to read "Delete and redirect". Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as newly sourced it falls well within the WP:BIO standard of notability. Substantial coverage in a number of major reliable sources (feature-style articles about the individual in top U.S. newspapers), over a period of at least four years so it's no mere campaign issue or flash in the pan. Wikidemo (talk) 06:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as G4. It was already marked as an A4 (presumably meant G4) and someone removed the tag. However it still qualifies as the article was already deleted under a slighly different name not a couple of hours ago after a 5-day AFD -Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abongo Obama. If one disagree's with an AFD one should go to WP:DRV rather than recreating the article. Nfitz (talk) 06:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is a bit of a mess now, isn't it? I can only apologise that RL prevented from doing the follow-up conversations that would have prevented this... Regardless:

  • This article is a candidate for speedy deletion, it is identical in substance to the earlier article.
  • There are additional sources external links added to the bottom of the article, but at this stage they are just acting as window dressing and there is no evidence that anything was added to the article from them. It's not a good idea (editorially speaking) to just dump some links in to attempt to stave off deletion.
  • That being said, this same request could have gone through "channels" at deletion review by being re-created in user space. A cogent argument there would have been "additional sources provided late in deletion debate."

The only difference would be that this article is visible (and may be improved) during the time an additional examination takes place. So, my opinion as the closing administrator is that this debate should be allowed to have it's "time in court" despite that not being strictly by the rules. My opinion as a random editor is that this article does not merit inclusion on its own, but that a section within Obama Family or some such would serve. - brenneman 06:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete (A4)-- Jesus, this thing is like a weed! We just deleted it like an hour ago. I agree with brenneman, let's merge with Obama Family and get it over with already. L'Aquatique[review] 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This article and AfD is kind of out of process, but it's notabie and is only going to get more and more notable. The previous AfD had a bunch of deletes before it was conclusively shown to be notable, but it was too late. Probably should take this to WP:DR:deletion review or we can be reasonable and just keep it this time. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, it doesn't appear to be a Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion candidate since all those articles were linked to under references. I'll quote in case any one is wondering "Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The reason for deletion was notability, and it was addressed. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he gets "more and more notable" as you predict he is "going to"- although you don't say how it is that you can see into the future - someone can write an article that reflects his notability and it will be considered on its merits. This one does not. Tvoz/talk 07:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, this is blabant readding of deleted content in contradiction with an afd finished just few hours ago. I'd suggest closing this afd and turning the link into a redirect. --Soman (talk) 07:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please move past calls for speedy deletion? It's clearly not a candidate and any speedy deletion would be contested or simply re-created. The question here is notability. Based on the sources in the article as it now stands, is this person notable. He satisfies WP:BIO so I think it's up to anyone who claims he is not notable to argue why despite satisfying the notability guideline he is nevertheless non-notable. Wikidemo (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arrr, I'm put in the unfortunate position here of arguing against what I've said I want done: It really is a candidate for speedy deletion.
  • The content of the article is almost identical, it's just that a couple of external links were added to the bottom. No admin would be expected to perform that extensive a job that he'd follow every link in an article to ensure that the conditions that the article were deleted under still apply. That's why we have deletion review.
  • If the "new" article had incorporated new material from these links (and used them as refs) then the above would not be true.
brenneman 07:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
checkYDone. I didn't create this mess and didn't want to have to rewrite the article, but given the circumstances the only real issue is notability. Everything else is a procedural knot that is best untangled as simply as possible to get to the real content question. Wikidemo (talk) 08:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge, or userfy (I won't be picky) as passing basic notability. Someone add more content so it no longer fits the criteria for speedy, as aaron hints at. — MaggotSyn 07:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unremarkable individual. Media attention has been purely because he is somebody's brother. Other than him being somebody's brother, there isn't anything noteworthy to report about this person. WP:V and WP:BIO aren't a suicide pact: Just because some media have reported a few trivia about him doesn't mean we have to regurgitate those. And I see no reason why an encyclopedia would want to. -- Wouldn't mind a speedy either; the addition of a few new sources has not really changed the situation so radically in comparison with the older AfD that the previous result just be discarded like that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:42, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Meets WP:NOTE and WP:BIO with a bit of summarizing the external links into normal references. And again, you can call WP:CRYSTAL if you want, but info related to B. Obama is on the rise. I don't think he's going away any time in the next several months. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not discussing Barack Obama's notability. We're talking about whether or not his half-brother has any independent notability, and the external links don't demonstrate any, nor are they reflected in the article. For example, at least one of them merely mentions his name - that is handled elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Tvoz/talk 07:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think notability is established by the references. There are press sources that focus primarily on him. Everyking (talk) 07:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per everyking Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BIO. Definitely not a speedy candidate. A merge to Obama family might not be a bad idea (although I would call the article Family of Barack Obama, for clarity ("Obama family" sounds like a TV show). Neıl 龱 10:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, looking at the article, it seems to meet all criterion for WP:BIO and certainly is not a WP:CSD A7 candidate. --Dragon695 (talk) 10:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter that there are articles that primarily feature Malik - they are still only because he is the brother of Barack. For example (from 2004): "Until Barack's bid for Congress, little happened here to disturb the chickens scratching in the dust or the dogs sleeping in front of tin-roofed homes." That hardly seems notable to me; in fact, it defines the very essence of non-notability. This article does nothing but say that Barack Obama has an older brother.  Frank  |  talk  11:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion", and I think that's something that applies here. As Frank said, the article does little more than point out that Obama has a brother. If anything, I'd redirect this page to Obama's article. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly has significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The WP:NOTINHERITED arguments used above are wrong. It's essentially like saying Laura Bush is only notable because she's the wife of a president, so we shouldn't have an article on her because notability is not inherited. That notability is not inherited is not a reason to delete an article about a person with significant coverage in reliable sources, because even if that person is notable because of who they are related to, that doesn't mean they inherited their notability. In other words, WP:NOTINHERITED applies only if we were trying to say siblings of presidential candidates are inherently notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 12:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC) Changing to Merge/Redirect to Barack Obama, Sr. per reasoning below.--Michael WhiteT·C 12:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, being the spouse of someone famous imparts notability more quickly, surely, and easily than being a sibling, so the analogy is imperfect at best. In the spousal case, the notable person presumably chose the spouse, whereas a sibling is not chosen. Second, Laura has had 10+ years in the national spotlight as W's wife, and by now her own independent notability has been established. Whether or not she would have gained it without her husband being president is beside the point. But Malik Obama has not gained any whiff of notability yet for any reason other than his notable brother.  Frank  |  talk  13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being the spouse of someone famous does not impart notability, significant coverage in reliable sources does. Malik Obama did not inherit his notability from his brother (inherit meaning gain inherent notability due to his relationship), he gained his notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. --Michael WhiteT·C 14:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We agree on the first point; my comment was that a spouse would gain notability more quickly, surely, and easily than a sibling would. We disagree on the second; Malik Obama not only did not inherit notability...he hasn't gained any at all.  Frank  |  talk  14:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so would you agree that WP:NOTINHERITED is not a valid deletion rationale in this case, because no one (well, except Czar Brodie below) is claiming that Malik Obama is inherently notable simply for being Barack Obama's brother. That is completely different than being notable because he is Barack Obama's brother, and for no other reason. On that I disagree with you. Just because he is only notable for being Barack Obama's brother does not mean he is insufficiently notable.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting and thought-provoking question. I suspect it becomes a matter of semantics which we may not iron out sufficiently here. I am saying that he simply isn't notable. My default position is that nobody is notable until it is proven that s/he is. I have referenced WP:NOTINHERITED as a defense against those who say he is notable, but my interpretation is that NOTINHERITED simply exists as a way to say that it isn't enough to establish notability. When you say he is "only notable for being Barack Obama's brother", you are making a logical leap I have not made; I'm not saying he's "only notable" for any reason...I'm saying he simply isn't notable at all.  Frank  |  talk  15:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suppose it is largely semantics, and of course the notability guideline is descriptive, not prescriptive. If I was having a deletionist day, I might agree with you and say that he hasn't done anything notable, it's recentism, and the coverage in RS is not significant enough. However, I honestly do think that he has been the subject of enough media coverage to make him notable, even if it's only because he's Barack Obama's brother.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think this article is notable. The family of U.S. presidents, presidential candidates and prominent senators are (for good and bad reasons) of interest to the general public [i.e. the ref. press reports]. I think this rule applies regardless of whether the family members are qualified as "interesting" or not.Czar Brodie (talk) 12:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

  • Speedy Strong delete - G4, per the AfD that finished yesterday on this identical topic. --T-rex
    • Seeing as this refuses to be speedied as it should be, let me remind everyone that notability is not inherited and Malik's only claim to fame is that his half brother might become president. Yes a moderate number of sources have mentioned Malik's name, but none have said anything significant besides that he is Barak's half brother (The reason being of course that there is nothing else to say). Adding more sources only helps if the additional sources say something different. --T-rex 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Since this bio's very recent deletion (A) its notability problem has been addressed via expansion of its sources (had only two while it now has more than eight) and (B) article's length has doubled.   Justmeherenow (  ) 14:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The notability problem has not been addressed. Having eight sources stating that he is Obama's brother is no better than two saying the same thing --T-rex 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it's been addressed (so clearly not speedy). Whether you believe it's addressed adequately is another matter. People obviously thought that the two previous sources were not, in sum, reliable independent secondary sources containing substantial coverage of the subject of the article (or whatever notability criteria they were contemplating). Adding additional sources and content is a way of addressing that objection. Of the new reliable sources added to the article two used to support a considerable amount of new content are clearly substantial mentions - one is an Associated Press feature article specifically devoted to profiling Malik Obama. Others, not (yet) used to verify article content, are devoted to Malik Obama's role in his brother's presidential election bid.Wikidemo (talk) 14:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...which is zero.  Frank  |  talk  14:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, clearly far more than zero. Whether it's zero or not is decided by looking at the reliable sources and what they choose to cover. Malik set off a storm of reportage, and anti-Obama propaganda, when he was quoted out of context by the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Post article was mis-reported in blogs. Tens of thousands of google hits and dozens of news articles. What he actually did say is also quite interesting, and got coverage in Israel's other leading paper. He was interviewed, and made statements of interest worldwide, on his relationship with his brother and what he thought of his brother's prospective presidency. The gist was that he said Obama would be good for Israel, and that (despite being a Muslim) he approved because he had nothing against the Jewish people...or something like that. Then everyone evaluated those comments through their own agendas and perceptions. That's far more notability on this one incident than most bio articles have overall. It's only small in proportion to the overall presidential election, which is a huge issue with dozens of articles devoted to it. The reason that's not (yet) in the article has nothing to do with notability - it's that the issue is problematic and has delicate POV, weight, and BLP concerns. Wikidemo (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources are covering the coverage, not the person...and the person still isn't notable other than being the brother of someone who is notable.  Frank  |  talk  14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, you have a point there regarding the coverage of his comments. However, surely [54], [55], and to some extent [56] amount to significant coverage of the man himself. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources.--Michael WhiteT·C 15:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure...the first one mentions Barack 11 times. The article is more about Barack than anyone else. The second is only four paragraphs, and is about Malik...as presented in Barack's book. The third is more coverage of the coverage. (I hope it doesn't appear I have a political opinion one way or the other here - I'm simply saying that Malik isn't notable by himself.)  Frank  |  talk  15:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That kind of notability is just fine. Interaction with notable people can make one notable, e.g. Sirhan Sirhan. He's never mentioned apart from Bobby Kennedy. An article about how the brother of Senator Obama is leading a much different life in Africa, and what he and his fellow Africans think of their famous kin, and what it has to say about world events, culture, etc., is indeed substantial coverage of the brother. Beyond that it is interesting. It is worth knowing. It is educational, enlightening. People ought to know that if they want to understand the subject. That's basically what notability is all about. Cultural connections - that was a large part of the famous Mzoli's debate. Wikidemo (talk) 15:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as gossip, personally. Nothing in the coverage I've seen (and of course I can't claim to know what all the coverage says) enlightens a reader as to what Barack thinks and feels. Nothing implies that Malik has any special knowledge of Barack - far from it. Rather, the coverage says that he is relatively distant (figuratively as well as the obvious physical distance).  Frank  |  talk  15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chicago Tribune, USA Today, Associated Press, Jerusalem Post, Haaretz are not in the business of printing gossip in the news section. The two brothers spent time together as children and reconnected again as adults. They were best men at each others' weddings. But the point of the Malik article is not to shed light on Barak, it's to shed light on Malik and thereby on the state of the world. One Brother becomes a US senator; the other despite having many opportunities returns to the ancestral village to run a small shop. That enlightens the reader about culture, politics, society, immigration, etc., which is probably why it got coverage. The "everyman philosopher" or ordinary citizen thrust into great events may well be notable. Again, that's a decision measured by the sources, and there are certainly sources interested in profiling Malik Obama's life. Wikidemo (talk) 16:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about the others, but the Associated Press has no problem printing gossip in the news section. Regardless none of those diffent papers have said anything about Malik that is remotly notable outside of his half-brother --T-rex 20:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Wikidemo: you have seriously misread the article : Barack had absolutely no relationship with Malik/Roy/Abongo until adulthood - they most definitely did not spend any time together as children. They first met when Barack was 24 years old; Barack only barely knew his father who left when he was two years old and came back once to visit when Barack was 10; Barack never saw his father again and did not spend time with any of his Obama half-siblings. They are half-brothers, but there is no independent notability demonstrated for Malik/Abongo/Roy. Your description sounds like there were these two brothers who were raised together and took separate paths - it was nothing of the kind. There's nothing in the article that can't be/isn't already covered in Barack Obama Sr. and/or Barack Obama. And the sources that talk about the Jerusalem Post misquote are actually about Barack and about the Jerusalem Post and about Brit Hume - not about Malik. That minor flap can easily be accommodated in the presidential campaign article if it is viewed to be notable enough to even merit that - it doesn't confer notability on Malik. And the Nairobi Nation source only mentions Malik's name three times: once listing him as one of the half-siblings, once saying his wife had not met Barack, and the third time to say that Malik was not there when the reporter was there. I don't see how that reference should be in this article at all. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of how much time Barack spent with his biological father, or at what age he was when he met Roy (aka Abongo), it was in fact Barack’s drive to understand these people who were missing from his life for so long that he himself found notable enough to write a book about it. The book itself is notable since it’s a bestseller and helped him buy his house, which also appears to be notable. Fears of the article being used as a coatrack as Tvoz as mentioned are not grounds for deletion. Notability, as subjective as that is, needs to be the focus. Barack seems to think Abongo is notable, based on his book, and he also doesn't seem to be trying to hide that or protect his brother's privacy. (This is a slight re-write of my initial comment).--Utahredrock (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being mentioned in a notable book doesn't confer notability on a person. That is still the core of this discussion.  Frank  |  talk  14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lack of notability, or merge with the poorly-titled Obama family. Being the brother of a notable person does not confer notability. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: there is no article Obama family, Scj, it was deleted a while ago - it is now, properly, a redirect to Barack, assuming no one has gone in and undone that consensus. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to one of the Obama/Obama family artcles. Person not notable per se, notability not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 14:32, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge per Ukexpat mauler90 (talk) 14:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (again)-Merge and redirect to Barack Obama, Sr., per the reasoning of Brenneman, Risker, and Newross. Add that, rather than keep, I recommend deleting and simply adding any pertinent information about this man into the Barack, Sr. article. The note at the bottom that there's no consensus to delete is just not true. The merges and deletes (both basically saying, "this subject doesn't need a stand-alone article") outnumber the keeps by a vast majority. I still don't find reliable sources that focus on Malik Abongo Obama apart from his very famous brother, and--as has been pointed out before--notability is not conferred by familial relations. I'm not certain why this wasn't simply G4-ed, but one way or the other, it needs to go for now. If he becomes notable in his own right (like Roger Clinton or Billy Carter, for example) then and only then should the article be recreated. S. Dean Jameson 14:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roger Clinton, Jr. likewise would not be notable completely independently of Bill. Roger is a very minor character actor in a scant handful of productions and is otherwise notable for being pardoned for cocaine possession or whatever by Bill in the Clinton administration's infamous final few hours. (Hmm, kinda reminds me of Dreams from My Father's psuedonymous "Ray" a.k.a. Keith. But blood----in the case of Bill re Roger----is thicker than water, as they say.)   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just not correct. The New York Times alone has ninety-six articles listed for Roger - and that is just one newspaper. There was a good deal of press coverage throughout the 1990s for Roger, just as Billy Carter got in the 1970s - The Times lists 629 articles about Billy - as a result, they both have more than enough notability to justify their articles. Malik/Roy/Abongo has nothing remotely close. Tvoz/talk 23:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since when must there be source that focus on a person apart from their notable relative for them to be considered notable, as long as the coverage does constitute significant coverage, even if the coverage is related to their notable relative? "Notable is his own right" is meaningless - notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources, not strictly what a person has done.--Michael WhiteT·C 14:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the "Obama family" article. There is nothing in the article that talks about his actions outside of Barack's life/campaign. He should be notable for somthing that he has done himself. Blackngold29 16:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Check old version for substantial similarities to new version and if it is similar speedy delete otherwise continue with this version's AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into something related if it is not a speedy-delete candidate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 16:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but this is a moot discussion as the Abongo Obama article has already been deleted through the AfD process (and this is a recreation of the same material) this article is a candidate for speedy deletion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep And cheers to Justmeherenow for having the guts to keep this effort going. I oppose, however, merging with Sarah Obama--Utahredrock (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I urge all wikipedians to read about inclusionists at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
NOTE: The above user, Utahredrock, has been inappropriately canvassing for votes on Talk:John McCain. See this disccusion. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Please don't tell half the picture. I was also encouraging input on the Obama page--and I went there over a day prior to going to McCain's. There seems to be some dispute whether I was actually canvassing in an inappropriate way or not. With Tvoz's heroic mentoring I think I probably crossed a line, yet I was unaware that there was even a policy about this when I launched my mini-crusade to save this article. My goal was and is broader input on this discussion and yes, I am a proud inclusionist too.--Utahredrock (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While you have backed off from the earlier, blatant attempts to canvass users that support your opinion[57][58], the fact that you phrase the request in a way that clearly indicates your preferencence for the outcome of this discussion makes it inappropriate canvassing by violating the "Campaigning" portion of that rule. These debates are decided on the merits, not on who has more "voters" on their side. Wikipedia is not a democracy. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I am not, nor have I ever been, Utahredrock's mentor - I have merely pointed out to him, repeatedly, when he violated policy. I did, however, recommend that he obtain mentoring through WP:MENTOR, and still think he needs to pursue that, to learn how to conduct himself in actions like this one. Tvoz/talk 23:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that felt personal.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Delete Like in the book, this subject is a sentence in someone else's life and that should be reflected here. I know Barack Obama's page is ridiculously large, but that is seriously where this stuff belongs. EBY3221 (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The difference between this person and, say, Jeb Bush, a family member of George W. Bush, is that Jeb Bush is actually notable on his own while Mr. Obama is known only for his relation to Barack Obama. Happyme22 (talk) 19:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep However it happened, this person has become notable. 216.153.214.89 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Barack_Obama,_Sr.#Children. Shem(talk) 22:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop being so binary, you mob What's the problem we're here trying to solve? Someone has content that they are willing to add, are willing to find sources for, etc. That's a good thing and should be encouraged. We also have some standards about what constitutes an article, which is also a good thing. Rather than locking into delete/keep mentality, why don't we try to solve the actual problem. Merging into Obama family has been mooted, but there appears to be some slight precedent against articles of that nature. However, consensus can change, and a well written article at User:Utahredrock/Obama family would have a good chance at deletion review, and I'd be willing to be spammed to take part in any discussion there. - brenneman 00:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, and to avoid the additional hoop of me asking for the deleted content, can the closing admin consider this such a request if it comes to that? - brenneman 00:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait a minute - you WERE the closing Admin of the first AFD. You agreed that consensus was delete. But you then broke all the rules by letting the article be recreated, bypassing the speedy and DRV. And now your fighting for a Keep? Surely you should be remaining neutral on the subject. There is the appearance here that your failure to follow the proper protocol is some kind of bias. Nfitz (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm trying to do is follow the spirit of the rules as closely as I'm following the letter
  1. There existed rough consensus when I closed the first debate to delete the article. If there is any argument that I closed incorrectly, I have not been presented with it but am happy to discuss.
  2. I intended to inform the most passionate participants about deletion review, and offer to assist them with any issues regarding the culturally accepted ways things are done. Since we don't really have rules, it is all just our version of politeness, really.
  3. I didn't do that, but the protaganist here was also very polite, creating this deletion nomination himself I believe? That's an attitude I'm happy to applaud: Someone who is willing to contribute, but also understands that debate is how we move forward collectively.
  4. I do not believe that the article as it stands conforms to our standards with respect to inclusion of humans.
  5. I do believe that arguments could be made for its inclusion as part of another article. I'd like to hear those arguments before I make a decision on them.
  6. The objections to that article (e.g. Obama family) are in my opinion weak, and I'm happy to assist anyone in facilitating more discussion on that.
There is no reason for me to be "neutral" on a subject, and to be frank while adminship is no big deal we are picked for judgment, aren't we? I'm only required to not use the tools to support my position, stating my opinion is fine. I hope that this makes my rational clear, and apologise for taking up so much time with it.
brenneman 01:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep. There may be a process problem here, but topic meets WP:N and WP:V without a doubt. Plenty of sources from which to write an article. And those sources are very solid. Not really any good reason to delete. Hobit (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. notability and verifiability have been clearly established through Justmeherenow's meticulous research. I understand what "notability is not inherited", but this is one of those hybrid cases where it's not the person's familial relations, or the mainstream press articles about them, but the combination of these factors which conveys a significance that is more than the sum of its parts. Again, I point to Roger Clinton, Jr. and Gustav Schwarzenegger as comparable examples (it's unlikely that either of these two would have come to anyone's attention were it not for their relation to extremely prominent political figures; at the same time, it's not the familial relation alone, but other factors which caused them to get the notice and attention that they did. If Malik were not involved in political activities of his own, or managed to avoid talking to the press, then you could make a case for his permanent obscurity, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. Yellow Rain (talk) 03:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, we need to merge this to something - really, there is useful information here that provides some worthwhile context, but it doesn't really work in either the Barack Obama biography or the article about the current campaign or the article about the book which is its main reference source. I guess I lean toward an Family of Barack Obama article; in truth, the diversity of his family raises their level of notability closer to a "keep" level. I feel uncomfortable userfying biographical articles because they're out of the general view of the community (not that I am suggesting anyone would misbehave, it's just that content development usually works better with collaboration in situations like this).
With respect to the close of the first AfD, I think brenneman did the right thing - correctly interpreted consensus and closed in accordance with it, despite what his own opinion was. Forcing the article to DRV, where the main focus is whether or not the deletion was in accordance with process, seems like needless wonkery, so I'm fine seeing it here. I hope, despite what some have seen from time to time, nobody would have expected a DRV discussion to focus mainly on content and whether or not it meets our policy-based standards; this is the place to talk about that. Risker (talk) 03:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD that was closed approx. 24 hours ago was not the first. This article has been deleted before. The following page has a link to one of the discussions.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_February_24

I point this out as an inclusionist. It will likely keep being recreated until it's successfully added.--Utahredrock (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3[edit]

Good spot. That article seems as good a place to house the current content as any, if the decision is against Malik Obama having an article of his own. The most vital stuff could be condensed to a couple paragraphs. Perhaps a few of the other children and in-laws on the father's side will merit a paragraph and that could be done without swamping the father's article. If the notability of any of these people expands in the future they may need their own article again after all though. Wikidemo (talk) 04:55, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is not notable in any real respect. Simply being related to someone who has a profile is not enough. A brief reference in Obama's main article should be quite adequate. We do not need a mini "Obama clan" project on Wikipedia. John Smith's (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect, more or less per Fut. Perf., John Smith and others. Or more simply: This is an unremarkable person (unless you regard the reversion of the US Presidency to a monarchy as particularly well advanced). If he later becomes remarkable he can get an article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Barack Obama, Sr.#Children He's only notable for being someone's brother, and it doesn't appear he and Barack have spent much time together. I suspect the main reason for the creation of the article lies in the External links, focusing on Roy's conversion to being a Muslim, and therefore some convoluted connection with U.S. foreign policy regarding Israel and how Barack <ooh! ooh!>may be influenced by his Muslim brother</ooh! ooh!>. Nice try, but enough already. Flatterworld (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why he was in the news lately, but it's not safe to assume bad motivations on the part of editors. Any other person with this amount of sourcing would not be up for deletion. The pro-Obama people seem to want to delete, and those who criticize Obama want to keep for the most part. An odd twist that being for Obama means denigrating his brother. I suspect that's a matter of perceptual lenses, nothing deliberate.Wikidemo (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This amount of sourcing"? Have you actually read the sources? Flatterworld is right, and your characterization of editors as "pro-Obama" or "those who criticize Obama" is neither parallel construction nor accurate. Lots of people who support Obama criticize him as well, and you might allow that at least some editors here are neither pro nor anti Obama, but are trying to avoid POV pieces and are evaluating the article and the subject on its merits. Tvoz/talk 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should think I read the sources - I wrote half the article text at this point. The Associated Press article was particularly helpful. I've dealt with quite a few bio articles and most are started and kept with less sourcing than this. One of the favorites, which I wrote, is Noel Toy, the "Chinese Sally Rand" (and no pointy AfD-ing Noel Toy, please). You can't tell me Malik Obama is less notable than a girl with a brief burlesque career in the 1940s . It's absolutely not a POV piece. It's accurate and plainly obvious that the Obama+ people from the Barak Obama tend to urge deletion, and the few Obama- people tend to urge keeping. The "criticize" reference was very specific - shorthand for people who are urging us to include more criticism by opponents of Obama in the Obama-related articles. I truly don't think anyone is setting out to do this deliberately, but the effect is that people line up and take sides that more or less match their biases in article editing. That doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with our formal notability standard - which the article plainly meets.Wikidemo (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm telling you that Malik Obama is less notable than a girl with a brief burlesque career in the 1940s. This Obama runs a small electronics shop; nothing wrong with that, but it's not notable. My opposition has nothing to do with my view of Obama's more famous brother and everything to do with my understanding that (i) people aren't notable for who they're related to, perhaps outside the inner circle of royalty; and (ii) the proto-monarchy in the US (whereby such nobodies as Billy Carter and various Bushes become tabloid fodder) only kicks in when a relative becomes quasi-monarch. This Obama sounds a pleasant fellow and if I heard he was hereabouts and at a loose end I'd be delighted to take him out for dinner (something I'm not sure I can say about, say, any Bush), but this has nothing to do with his notability. -- Hoary (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE SOURCING: Everybody here please note that the first four sources (listed up top of the page) are not drawn from Dreams at all, instead they derive either from African-based bylines or at least from direct interview of Malik.   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at them. They all say that, yes, Malik exists. I don't think anyone claimed he is a fictional invention. None of them, however, claim any actual WP:NOTABILITY for Malik; they all simply say he's so-and-so old, lives in this town, and is related to someone famous. The thin facts are well enough cited, they just don't add up to notability. Similarly, the guy who owns the nice restaurant down the block appeared in the papers a few times: maybe a restaurant review, a few words on where he moved from, how old he is, and why he started this restaurant, perhaps in a notice about the musical act that performed there, etc. Those add up to verifiable details, but they don't make my local restaurateur notable (yes, he, like Malik, is a "nice guy" and "interesting", but that's still not notability). LotLE×talk 22:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! By Dreams I didn't mean "dreams" but, rather, B's memoir (Dreams from My Father). Sorry.   Justmeherenow (  ) 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You mean like Mzoli's (an article whose inclusion Wikidemo defends here)? <wink>   Justmeherenow (  ) 23:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mzoli's is not covered by BLP policy and was not created in the midst of a heated political competition that could use that stub to make subtle and false innuendo about another person, with potential BLP and coatrack problems. It was a stub - I've created a few of them too. Not relevant here. Tvoz/talk 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP's mission is to provide an accurate encyclopedia, one that's (yes, absolutely!) carefully parsed for its balance and neutrality while not censoring information. (Read: "When there are sufficient underlying secondary sources to do so, WP is enjoined to write articles that are above reproach as to their fairness and accuracy as based on them. Period. Nowhere is it indicated that WP is supposed to fret about how folks utilize information and opinions that are, by definition, accurate and balanced.")   Justmeherenow (  ) 00:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has suggested a BLP concern at all, much less BLP being the basis for proposed deltion. Could use that stub to make subtle and false innuendo about another person - so the motivation for deletion is POV? The article is not a coatrack or POV. Is there a single thing in the article that is biased? Is the fact that a man has a rural African brother who converted to Islam (and who is a college-trained accountant, world traveller, and political consultant) supposed to be a negative thing? If so that's pretty sad. Since when is it a negative thing to be African or Muslim? The analogy with Mzoli's is that the notability comes from its being at a cultural crossroads, bridging black township butcher shop with modern world culture, tourism, and international celebrity. On the one hand there's nothing at all special about a bustling neighborhood restaurant in Africa. On the other hand, that restaurant's interaction with the modern world has gotten it some significant attention. Sometimes the cultural context of a thing is what makes it notable. The nubmer of sources is comparable too, BTW. Mzoli's was also re-created after deletion, and subject to one of the strongest WP:POINTy deletion attempts I've seen.Wikidemo (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - right - there has been discussion about BLP/coatrack issues regarding this article in the previous AfD that ended moments before this one started, and in talk page discussions, not here - I forgot it wasn't here when I made my Mzoli's response. Tvoz/talk 07:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree 100% with John Smith's comments, above: "This person is not notable in any real respect. Simply being related to someone who has a profile is not enough. A brief reference in Obama's main article should be quite adequate. We do not need a mini 'Obama clan' project on Wikipedia." --Art Smart (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's really at stake here, by Utahredrock

The main argument to delete is the alleged non-notability of Abongo/Roy/Malik? Obama. The guy’s life is forever changed because of his remarkably talented brother who has a good chance at becoming the president of the United States. We edit Wikipedia, I hope, less as voters and more as arbiters of facts.

What got me interested in the family of Barack Obama was the viral email that was going around claiming he is not a Christian and he is a _________ extremist. While I could see through the lie immediately, I had friends who just as immediately bought in to it. When I tried to find information on the supposed accomplices to Barack’s supposed religious views, it was hard to find a thing on the Internet.

As editors of Wikipedia we have responsibility and power. We have a responsibility to do our best to get the facts out. We have power because in this age of Google and Wikipedia circa 2008, tens of millions of people look to us, as imperfect as we are, as a source for information. In the case of Obama the numbers could be higher. Do all of those people read Wikipedia? Not necessarily, but the power of this online encyclopedia to disperse information is enormous.

If this article is deleted again, for at least the third time, life will go on.

What will be lost is a place that could serve as a small beacon of truth in a world filled with those who will twist the truth.

Not notable? Who are we kidding?

Barack wrote extensively about his brother in his bestselling book. That fact alone, given Barack’s international prominence makes Abongo/Roy notable. It’s a burden that Roy didn’t ask for and I wish him the best.

I ask my fellow Wikipedians to offer a simple place where people can easily get well sourced facts on this man and not be left wondering if the latest viral email they received is true or not.--Utahredrock (talk) 04:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. This article should be deleted (for the third time) (it should have been speedied - I have no understanding why that wasn't done). While the quality of the article has improved, there is nothing in the article to support his notability other than he is is the half-brother of a US politician. The references seem to confirm this, but do nothing to say that he is notable in his own right. User:Utahredrock has made it quite clear above that the constant recreation of this article has more to do with an upcoming election than creating an enyclopedia. Nfitz (talk) 05:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's all about creating a quality and comprehensive encyclopedia. Nothing more.--Utahredrock (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Were there additional deletions of this? One user directed me to the logs, but I couldn't even find the earlier of these two listed. I don't know the answer to this, but it seems possible, if not likely, that there may have been other previous deletions as well. If a more experienced editor could definitively answer this it would help regarding quality and completeness of the discussion this time around.--Utahredrock (talk) 13:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC) Note: User Nfitz moved this question from the top of the page, where he had listed some of the previous deletions, to the bottom. A comprehensive list is relevant and important.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a speedy of Malik Obama in March. Just click on logs in the top of last week's nomination. But no discussion that is relevent to this discussion. Nfitz (talk) 13:53, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that should be added at the top with the others?--Utahredrock (talk) 13:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is highly relevant. If an article has been created and deleted multiple times that fact alone helps prove that it’s notable. The multiple names of this guy makes this a problematic issue.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason why this man is incredibly notable

While I personally could care less what somebody’s religion is or isn’t, it’s an unfortunate fact that many people do care and a person’s religion is often included in encyclopedic entries (something I’ve argued against before).

Those on this page may have not noticed, but there is a struggle in this world between Muslim extremists and others. Few people who do pay attention would deny this.

It is a historic and notable fact that the brother of a major candidate for the president of the U.S. is Muslim. To my knowledge it is a historic first, and firsts are usually notable to writers of encyclopedias.

Again, it is just not credible to say this man is not notable. I mean no offense by that, but it is not.--Utahredrock (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The previous speedy appears to be because it was some kind of attack page. I don't see that's related to the current debate. Also there isn't anything in a speedy to see ... no discussion. I guess there were two speedies, as the DRV was for a speedy, but all the discussion is in the DRV. "... has been created and deleted multiple times that fact alone helps prove that it’s notable". Surely if the page keeps being deleted it demonstrates he's not notable. I'm not sure why you are bringing religion into this. One can't be notable for just having a religion, keeping a butterfly collection, reading Tolkien, etc. Nfitz (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two examples of individuals who are notable in their own right and quite apart from their religion. All members of Congress are inherently notable, and Cassius Clay would have qualified as notable even before his conversion to Islam, as an Olympic boxing winner - had the Internet even existed then. These examples do nothing to establish notability for Abongo.  Frank  |  talk  02:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You’re perceptive. The point was in response to the comment on religion. Sometimes a person’s religion itself is notable, and even makes them more notable--as is the case with each of these two examples. The Congressman is especially notable because he is the first Muslim elected to the U.S. Congress. Abongo is notable because he is the first Muslim sibling of a major American presidential candidate.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS I just realized your refer to Ali as Cassius Clay. Sure he was notable whether or not he changed religions and took on a different name, however, because he did that it is at least arguable that he increased his notability with that action. Most people, by the way, accept his name change and refer to him as Ali.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course notability is not inherited, I am not disputing that. I also did not mean to infer Abongo/Roy is an extremist, there is no evidence to support that either. His religion, his sibling, his prominence in Barack’s book, all of these things go beyond inheritance to underscore notability. (You don’t inherit from a sibling, but it is a relationship that Barack himself highlights, as well as his relationship with his sister Auma—though she seems to be staying out of recent press mentions). Please note too, I did not create any version of this article, but I will defend it to the best of my ability.--Utahredrock (talk) 15:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was neither responding to your comments or accusing you of anything. I was expressing my opinion based on the facts. However, now that you bring it up, I do believe that being written about in a non-fiction book, no matter how extensively or by who, does not automatically confer notability. Also, we JUST had this discussion on AfD last week. Finally, it typically considered poor ettiquite to keep posting the same general arguments multiple times in AfD discussions.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 16:31, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

::*I was under the delusion that I was saying new things . . . . sorry for the perceived breach.--Utahredrock (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, significant coverage by multiple reliable sources is the presumptive test of notability, so the burden shifts and the question becomes why isn't he notable? Most people haven't really addressed that and are arguing incorrectly that notability isn't established, being the brother of a notable person doesn't make him notable, deleted articles shouldn't be recreated, etc. The old discussion doesn't control thigns here - this is a different article. I don't see his being Muslim as having anything to do with his notability; it's unfortunte that became a (very minor, and unseemly) issue in the campaign and think for POV and BLP reasons we should have a very high bar before finding that someone being the unwitting party to a guilt-by-association political smear makes him notable. I deliberately avoided putting that material in the article - his notability comes from his interaction with his brother, the cultural context, and people's finding meaning in exploring the cultural connections there. Those who write news articles about that obviously find it worth noting. Wikidemo (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But that's just the problem, Wikidemo - there is no significant coverage by multiple reliable sources of him - it's about his brother. Tvoz/talk 18:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anyone name another person who has had three major articles written about them (as the primary topic) in major places (ABC, AP, Sun-Times) and would be considered not notable? And that is just some of the coverage. Hobit (talk) 17:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "no special treatment" default would be to leave this article alone because it meets WP:N. The WP:BIO guideline is crystal clear that substantial mention multiple reliable sources establishes notability. The "not inherited" thing isn't supposed to be a sword that defeats otherwise notable article subjects. Quite the opposite. It says that we as Wikipedians are not supposed to infer notability from a thing being a sub-class of another. One person being a relative another is not sufficient grounds for notability . It's not the case that it precludes notability. Wikidemo (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I see no difference between Malik Abongo Obama and Brooklyn Beckham. Both are closely related to notable people. Both have plenty of media coverage (more so in the case of Brooklyn Beckham). Both have multiple reliable sources establishing their existence, feature articles, etc. (more so in the case of Brooklyn Beckham). Simply put, what grounds exist for notablity for Malik Abongo Obama that doesn't exist for Brooklyn Beckham? This is an honest question, I'm not American, have no involvement in their elections, and little interest in the outcome. Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not finding any RS that has a whole article on Brooklyn Beckham. Nor do I think there would be anything of interest to say about a 9-year-old who hasn't done anything interesting. In this case he's given interviews and be the primary topic of serious news reporting. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's lots of articles about Brooklyn Beckham [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] ... and a lot more. And he's not notable. How is this any differnt to Malik Obama? Nfitz (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources mean that the subject of this article is independently notable. However, given the current state of the article, a merge elsewhere might present the material better. Skomorokh 21:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you wouldn't mind explaining how this subject is "independently notable", I'd really appreciate it. I see no notability outside of his famous brother, and that's just not enough. S. Dean Jameson 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Abongo is the primary subject of at least two of the cited references. That means the subject passes WP:NOTE, though it looks like it has more problems with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Skomorokh 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not profiled outside of his relationship to Sen. Obama. And please refrain from claiming those who argue for deletion or merging are guilty of IDONTLIKEIT. Nearly all arguments presented here (by both sides) have argued well for their position. S. Dean Jameson 00:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't say he was profiled outside of his relationship with Obama, I said he was the primary subject of at least two of the cited references, which beyond all reasonable doubt satisfies WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. That is the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. The arguments presented from the deletionist perspective not argued well, but are variations of "this person is related to a notable person and notability is not inherited from relationships, so [insert magical leap from logic here] this person must not be notable". Spurious, ignorant of the reliably-sourced coverage staring them in the face, and not to be given any credence whatsoever. Sincerely, Skomorokh 00:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say hold the insults and stick to the facts. You misrepresent the arguments of those arguing for deletion, and call all of us "deletionists", which is not appreciated either. (In fact, I'm arguing for merging, not simply outright deletion.) No source mentions him outside of the relationship with Barack. He holds no notability on his own, period. At some point, perhaps his profile will rise, and he will merit a separate article. At this time he does not. S. Dean Jameson 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your last sentence is out of line - I for one have read all of the sources more than once and have concluded that they are not primarily about Malik/Roy/Abongo except perhaps the AP piece, but it too says little or nothing about him independent of Barack; the Sun-Times is merely a short blurb expanding on their family tree article; the Nairobi Nation piece only barely mentions Malik in passing - listing his name and saying his wife never met Barack and noting that he wasn't even there to talk to the reporter writing the article - this source confirms that he exists, and that's about it; the others are about a very minor campaign flap involving the Jerusalem Post and Brit Hume which doesn't belong as a source to this article at all as it has nothing to do with a theoretical biography of a notable person. No independent notability has been demonstrated, even if you insult people who disagree with you. As for arguing "from a deletionist perspective" - your characterization assumes facts not in evidence, as the lawyers say. Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4[edit]

  • Delete The guy is clearly not notable by himself, and has only featured in the media due to him being related to Barack Obama. Wikipedia:Bio#Invalid criteria, and the precedents set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Giggs and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Romeo Beckham amongst others, are good places to start the argument against keeping it. пﮟოьεԻ 57 22:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails WP:N. Sole claim to notability lies in being the half-brother of a Senator. May be mentioned in Early life and career of Barack Obama, but on his own is a nonentity, even if he has gained passing press mention because of his famous relative. Biruitorul Talk 00:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ahh, I missed that article. I support a merge to Early life and career of Barack Obama. - brenneman 00:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Since a rampant merge mania throughout the project would equate to separating out from the whole of Wikipedia a concisely alphabetic Wikimicropedia of essential, short pieces from out of a Wikimacropedia of information arranged by subject, the philosophical question of whether this is the direction WP should go or not should be addressed somewhere. Not right here, though.   Justmeherenow (  ) 01:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the closing admin If current trends continue there will be no consensus to delete. You can still give your opinion on the claim of notability. If you agree that this person is not Wiki-notable, is perfectly okay to close with This person is not independently notable, but enough editors disagree that WP:CIVIL, WP:IAR, and the desire to prevent a riot demand the article stay until there is a consensus to delete. Assuming there is no consensus, this will be one of those cases where the "will of the people" or rather the "default keep when there is no consensus" trumps whether this person actually is or is not notable. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 01:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure how you reached that conclusion, David - this is the second AfD whose trend looks to me toward delete or merge again. I'm clarifying my comment on this which always was that there should not be a separate article, because of lack of notability, but as I said he is or can be amply covered in Barack Obama Sr.#Children. For this purpose, delete, merge, and redirect are not all that far apart - no one is saying his name should be expunged from the encyclopedia, just that he doesn't warrant a separate article on notability grounds. Tvoz/talk 02:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Barack Obama is not just a senator. He is the [almost official] nominee of the Democratic party for president. He is a historic figure regardless of the outcome in November. To refer to Abongo as "the half-brother of a Senator" is not an accurate depiction of the lives of either of these two men.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, Merge, Merge. Gods, I barely see the debate here. Independent notability is dreadfully lacking. -Rushyo (talk) 01:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep He has enough coverage to pass WP:N, and the coverage is bound to get stronger. I've read he is (or at least, a while back, was) the only Obama sibling still in Kenya. A U.S. presidential candidate and possible future U.S. president having a brother who isn't a U.S. citizen, living abroad in his native land seems to be unique, and he is a strong, living, family link back to Kenya, likely Barack's strongest family tie there. At times, according to the Kenyan press, he's acted as a spokesman for the Obama relatives there. He's likely to be of continuing interest, and the article could give some insight into Obama's complex family past. It isn't worth trying to strictly enforce the idea that his notability needs to be independent, a rule meant for more run-of-the-mill relatives -- this is a commonsense exception. Michelle Obama's notability isn't independent either. Noroton (talk) 03:45, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with you, inasmuch as he may well be notable at some point in the future. However, he is not notable now, which is why this article should be cut down and merged with the Barack, Sr. article. (BTW, comparing him to Michelle Obama is just a bit hyperbolic, I think. She has had extraordinary amounts of coverage. Malik/Roy/Obongo has... well... not. S. Dean Jameson 03:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't need extraordinary amounts of coverage to be notable. You need to pass WP:N: significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. As Michelle Obama proves, commonsense exceptions are made to the independent notability standard. And there's also a Barack Obama, Sr. article, which passed AFD twice. Here's what that "notability is not inherited" dictum actually says: That person A has a relationship with well-known person B is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A). Significant coverage means WP:N. The WP article's sources include a full news article about him and a good amount of information on him from a number of other sources. And it isn't as if there's no prospect of him getting more and more coverage. Last month the Daily Nation of Nairobi reported, Through a spokesman, Mr Malik Abong'o Obama, the family said some people have been camping at their home [...]. A 2006 AP article states, Barack Obama Sr. died in car crash in 1982, leaving three wives, six sons and a daughter. All his children, except his son Malik, live in Britain or the United States. (I got these sources through newsbank.com, which is subscription-only. This website reprints the first article. I can't find a free version of the other one on the Web.) There is a need for a Wikipedia article when rumors about Obama's past are rife; having this article makes it easier for Wikipedia to describe Obama's complex family. It's for the good of the encyclopedia that we make an exception in a quirky circumstance. Sorry if this is confusing: I'm saying that you can believe, as I do, that this passes Wikipedia notability standards, or, if you think it doesn't, this is a good commonsense, limited exception. And we have the Barack Obama Sr. precedent, showing that there's a standard practice developing for this kind of circumstance where information about extraordinary family members can tell you more about the more famous individual. I don't think this is likely to fit into a mere section. Noroton (talk) 04:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC) (((added new second sentence and new ending -- Noroton (talk) 04:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC))))[reply]
    I read the article, and read it again, and read it again. I can't see how this fellow is an "extraordinary family member". He doesn't seem even slightly extraordinary. What am I missing? -- Hoary (talk) 11:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're not missing anything. There's nothing extraordinary about him, save the fact that he's Obama's half-brother. S. Dean Jameson 19:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're both missing the fact that the subject is in a position far more important than the kind of relative that had been contemplated in "notability is not inherited", and even that allows for an article. His importance to the rest of us is much more like Michelle Obama and Barack Obama, Sr. or Prince Henry of Wales (to head off the inevitable objection: I'm not saying he's as notable as any of them, I'm saying his notability is, like theirs, not based on his accomplishments). It is extraordinary that a possible future president of the United States, someone the public is still getting to know, has a native Kenyan brother. It's unique, it's why he's already gotten WP:N coverage, and it's worth encyclopedic treatment in an article for the reasons I've already given. Noroton (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If Barack Obama becomes Prez, then Michelle Obama, poor woman, becomes First Missus, the de facto queen of the US. Obviously she's already a confidante of her husband's and she's probably an advisor too but must pretend not to be. Her husband wouldn't even exist without his pop. Prince Henry of Wales strikes me as having no importance whatsoever but I believe that he's financed by British taxpayers so I suppose that they want to know what they're getting for their money. Meanwhile, M A Obama looks likely to be invited to some events and might be an occasional guest at the White House: a bit different. -- Hoary (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being notable for being someone's relative doesn't equal encyclopedic notability. --AniMate 05:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete or merge. This article is really amusing. What exactly makes Malik Abongo Obama notable? 5 out of 8 citations (63% of the article) are from Barack Obama's political autobiography where acknowledging all of your relatives (real and imagined) seems to be the publishing flavor of the month. The MSNBC article is the only reliable source about him found in the article meeting our notability requirements, and that (again) is published solely because of Barack Obama's presidential candidacy. There is nothing in that article of any substance. Instead, we're told fluff like he lives in Kenya (so what?) In it we learn other really notable things, too, like "Malik and his brother Barack were best men at each other's weddings" (and...?), that he has "interaction with Barack Obama" *gasp!*, and (the funniest of all), some miscommunication about whether Malik may or may not think that his half-brother Barack is (or was) a Muslim *gasp!* (Incidentally, that last source -- Political Punch -- is a blog). I ran a LexisNexis search for major mentions that might meet our notability requirements (i.e., articles from reliable sources about him). 2 articles surfaced. Both were from obscure newspapers based on the same subject. The titles say it all: "OBAMA'S BROTHER: Obama will be good for Jews 'DESPITE MUSLIM BACKGROUND" and "Malik Obama: As president, my brother would be good for Jews". Notable? C'mon...J Readings (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the guidelines re citing self-published blogs say that to determine that some blog happens to be by an individual identifiable an ABC News' senior national correspondent (ie Tapper) is more than just OK, it's gold. (That is, if Tapper gives info worth including.)   Justmeherenow (  ) 20:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but what you just cited was a "historical archive" -- it's neither a policy nor a guideline nor even a bottom-of-the-barrel essay. As far as the Community is concerned, it's irrelevant for this (or any other) AfD until consensus is reached to establish its status. Regards, J Readings (talk) 20:56, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, J, sorry to throw some guideline at ya that's NOT even one! Anyway my point is that Tapper's blog is not self-published but an authoritative guy whose online jottings are published by a pretigious news organization.

"Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."----WIKIPEDIA: VERRIFIABILITY ("SELF-PUBLISHED SOURCES")

  Justmeherenow (  ) 22:23, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per CSD G4. This article was deleted by AfD just a few days ago, it was apparently recreated under a different name 28 mins later. I have no opinion on whether the article should exist or not, although my own searching on Factiva and GALE turned up few independent sources confirming notability (see J Readings's comments above mine as a product of a similar search). Orderinchaos 19:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The absurdity of this astounds me. Haven’t all of us heard of the conflict in the Middle East regarding Arabs and Jews? Aren’t we aware of the actions of 9/11? Are we not aware that some believe Muslim extremists are one of the greatest threats of our times? Thomas Friedman even wrote on this topic recently in the NY Times. He didn’t mention Abongo, but he did mention Obama’s obvious ties to Africa.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I am now seeing a WP:POV-pushing reason for wanting this article to remain that has nothing whatsoever to do with Wikipedia's policies. I am trying hard to assume good faith, but it is becoming increasingly difficult to avoid drawing similarities between your statements in the entry above to the old "when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife" interrogation method. This page is about whether or not an article on Obama's half-brother belongs in Wikipedia. It isn't about any of those topics, and you are not helping things by bringing them up. This is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox.  Frank  |  talk  20:04, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You're asserting that one of the top writers (Friedman) in America mentioning Obama's father's family is not relevant to this discussion? Yes I have a point of view--simply that Abongo is notable. I think that's perfectly appropriate.--Utahredrock (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm asserting that all the political issues you've raised have nothing whatsoever to do with the point of this page, which is still whether or not an article on Obama's half-brother belongs in Wikipedia. Malik is not an advisor to Barack. He is not a political expert. He is not being touted as a potential member of any [potential] Barack Obama cabinet. His only reason for having an article is that his brother is famous, and that simply fails WP:N on its face. And, I would add - any presumption of notability because of the fact that he is the first of something (anything) appears to be WP:OR without reliable sources to back it up. Comments like "as far as I can tell" are good indicators of this.  Frank  |  talk  20:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability can indeed arise out of context. It seems that those arguing for deletion, are not aware of or are ignoring or ??? the context that indeed makes Abongo/Roy/Malik? notable. Also, it's a discussion page. Even if you don't find these things relevant, I do.--Utahredrock (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The existence of a sibling who is the first Muslim sibling ever (as far as I can tell) of a major U.S. presidential candidate is blindingly notable. He is not, however, an extremist.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note I believe the arguments saying he is not notable are made in good faith, but there seems to be a failure to acknowledge this elephant in the room that so many appear to not see or are not willing to admit that they see.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/opinion/11friedman.html?_r=1&oref=slogin (hope this link works) It's Friedman's recent piece called "Obama on the Nile." NY Times June 11th. Obama's father's family is referenced--which of course includes Abongo.--Utahredrock (talk) 19:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • PLEASE NOTE There is absolutely no mention of Roy/Abongo/Malik Obama in this Friedman article. Enough is enough - Utahredrock, stop posting political comments and irrelevant links here - they are totally out of line and disruptive. You've been very clear in your position on this, and you're not helping it by repeating yourself and ignoring what people say to you. This is about Malik Obama, and his notability or lack of same, and whether he should have an article on his own. A piece that mentions that Obama's family and nothing about this individual is irrelevant. The word "brother" doesn't even appear, let alone this brother. Stop it already. Tvoz/talk 22:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amen. UtahRedRock seems to think that if he makes enough arguments to keep, it will somehow change the current count of 26-13-5-1 in favor of deleting this thing, a clear consensus with 32 of 45 people believing that this man is not notable enough for his own article.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 00:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how you reach that conclusion from the count, but that's an inaccurate summary. First, six of the "deletes" were speedy delete for procedural reasons with no substantive arguments given - those can be discarded off the bat. Also, the objections were sourcing and notability - the article is expanded considerably and a number of sources added since nomination. The early "votes" didn't consider this. A few seem to be arguing entirely on POV grounds - claiming that the article shouldn't be allowed because people might coatrack on it. Next, it's not a vote. Many to most of the delete opinions are some variation on "notability is not inherited", which doesn't apply here - that's an essay to begin with, and it's a misreading of the essay. If you got to the people who are actually discussing notability, which is what the nomination is all about, a majority of people who reach that question on the merits are saying it's notable.Wikidemo (talk) 00:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've said that he's not notable. (I note that at least one person above has said that he's "incredibly notable", a statement that I might agree with.) One reason adduced above for his notability is that he's (gasp) Kenyan. (Next, perhaps somebody will point out that he's not "caucasian".) Such notability! -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm all in favor of deleting the article; but my own desired outcome (and the veracity of those figures) aside, I'm mystified by the notion that 71% (=31/45) is a "clear consensus". Or do you use "consensus" to mean "majority"? -- Hoary (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that also considereing the last afd a week ago, that 71% here would be consensus to delete. Remember too, that it's not a straight counting of the numbers, and that some articles have even been deleted with far less percentage wise --T-rex 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The last AfD has little bearing here. The 71% figure is more than a bit misleading, as I said. Of the people who actually address the issue of notability half or less are urging deletion. And that argument cuts both ways. If we're not counting the numbers, why argue that 71% is consensus? Wikidemo (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing about the numbers, but pointing out that if I were the closing admin to look at this right now, I personally would delete the article. My hope is that they won't take your odd opprach of discounting any reasoning that disagrees with you. --T-rex 03:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please keep an eye on civility there? I'm not discounting those who actually discuss notability - just pointing out that a number of the "speedy" votes are utterly wrong on deletion process, and don't reach notability, so they're impertinent. Closing administrators can and do dismiss arguments as invalid on their face. Moreover, the oft-repeated "notability is not inherited" comment is a weak argument however many people make it. If I were a closing admin I would probably notice that more people are voting delete than keep, but that a substantial number of people have thoughtful reasons to keep it, and the article seems to meet the notability guideline, so the burden is on those advocating for deletion to explain why the article is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an eye on civility? What is wrong with my civility? I just want to point out that there is nothing wrong with arguing that notabilty is not inhereited (as his realtionship with Barack is the only legit reason to keep). Also this really should have been deleted per G4, The article was recreated a whole hour after the last AfD closed as delete. Those arguing for speedy deletion probalby have the most sound argument here. And if you want to question my civility again, please go fuck yourself --T-rex 03:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How could G4 possibly apply? There are two criteria that must both be met (article substantially the same, does not address reason for deletion) and neither are remotely met. The matter has been discussed thoroughly at WP:CSD in a variety of contexts, and the language is quite deliberate. CSD is deliberately not attempting to discourage re-creation of articles that had been deleted on notability grounds. This is such a basic point about CSD it isn't worth discussing. No closing admin would give weight to the fact that the article, in different form, had been deleted for lack of sourcing.Wikidemo (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article is substantially the same as the one that had been deleted an hour prior. Furthermore from what I read on one of the notice boards (I forget which one), it was more along the lines that this was going to be treated more like a deletion review rather than a typical AfD. --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not very good wikilawyering. The actual test is "substantially identical." The new article is more than twice as long, with eleven reliable sources (eight citation sources, three additional unlinked ones) where the original had one. It's implausible to call this[64] "substantially identical". This is an AfD, not a DRv - that's the point. AfD goes to substance, should an article be on Wikipedia. DRv goes to process, was the process followed properly. If it were a DRv, the process was correct and the closure reasonably legitimate - so deletion of the article in that particular form was not inappropriate. Now there is a new article in a different form that addresses the question of notability, so the old review does not apply. Wikidemo (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the definition of consensus A 4-2-1 ratio of delete/keep/merge doesn't necessarily mean consensus. Even a 100-1 !vote is not consensus if the 1 is prepared to take it to deletion review. The closing admin will know there was consensus if there is no request to review. There are a number of strong keeps and the closing admin will have to read those comments carefully before closing as "delete." The difficulty with this AfD is 1) we don't know if the speedy-delete proponents also favor deletion based on merits, and we don't know if the 7 or so who simply said "merge" want the article history preserved or not. Right now I count 27-15-7 delete/keep/merge. This could be as much as 34-15 for deletion or it could be as little as 21(+6 procedural)-22 delete/keep-history. 27 to 22 with several "strong keeps" is good enough to argue "no consensus." The closing admin is going to have to read all the comments on this one and be prepared to defend his decision one way or the other. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 15:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Friedman states "Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father’s family was of Muslim heritage." Fair enough, that does not specifically mention Abongo. But Abongo is part of his father's family and is himself Muslim. Agreed Tvoz . . . enough is enough. Keep or delete, if Obama stays prominent, this article will appear in WP eventually.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • An article saying nothing about him does not indicate that he is notable. The fact that this source is even being brought up to try and create some notability should be telling in and of itself --T-rex 02:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, User:T-rex, being bested at debating tricks doesn't prove any lack of notability, either. Sure, User:Utahredrock and me ain't lawyers [to be candid, as are some of the best commenters in Wikipedia forums such as these] but let me try my hand at that piece of evidence he'd produced. [Pauses to glance Utahredrock's document.] Such commentatary as Friedman's [hands bailiff paper marked exhibit A] will establish Barack Obama's Kenyan family as notable----sure, if not individually, then collectively----[now mumbles] and for the reasons to which, um, our expert witness [ahem] User:Wikidemo has already testified); [speaks clearly again] yet I'll also show that Mr. Obong'o has been described within local Kenyan news coverage as the family there's spokesman. [Hand bailiff exhibit B]....   Justmeherenow (  ) 04:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Yet another thing, if the above user is right, 45 people have commented on this page (I didn't do a count) then hmmmmm is there something more going on here? Why would 45 people be interested in a non-notable person? It's just a question.--Utahredrock (talk) 01:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many people commenting on an AfD does not prove that the subject of the article is notable. That's one of the most egregious displays of a lack of understanding of this process I've seen in my short time participating at AfD. S. Dean Jameson 01:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am doing my best to learn the processes here. I still think it's an interesting point. 45 editors weighing in . . .--Utahredrock (talk) 02:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been trying to help you understand how things go, but it's like we're talking right past you for some reason. You're not hearing us. Whether 45 or 4 editors comment at an AfD doesn't affect the notability at all. Even the "keeps" here will tell you that. S. Dean Jameson 02:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to discourage anyone, but Utahredrock has made his/her relatively minor points a few times - we get it already, and repeating it does tend to be a distraction. Yes, some of those calling for deletion doth protest too much. But that's tangential in that it doesn't bear on the weight of their arguments. Likewise, MO's being a muslim convert (as well as a reformed drinker, etc) does add some interesting context to the article even though it's barely in the article. But that in itself isn't an argument for notability. The underlying question in a notability-related AfD nomination is whether the subject of the article meets the technical standards (non-trivial mention in multiple reliable sources) or the underlying notability standard (worth reading about; enhances Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage and people's encyclopedic understanding of the world) Wikidemo (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5[edit]

Comment. Notability is not inherited, true, and if we were talking about Albert Einstein's brother this would be a valid point, but lets face it, this is the world of politics and several points must be raised: A) the American political scene is slowly developing dynasties, from the Kennedy's to the Bushs; B) the political parties use and exploit their candidates (or the opposing candidates) families as strengths weaknesses, I'll explain: if Malik was an international arms dealer he would be thrown into the lime light so hard it would be impossible to say he was not notable, this even if before he was totally unknown; the same would be true is he was a monk helping the poor a sickly in some region. C) if his circumstances were somehow related to the political scene the press coverage would be immense: for instance if he had recently lost his job working in the US auto industry or was a US GI in Iraq. He is none of these, and my examples are extreme, but there is little doubt from the growing press coverage that he is entering notoriety. Even if he was 100% average (married, two children, house, car, job etc) and had no past scandal etc, but the press still seized upon him with headlines such as "Obama's Brother: Malik, Your Average Guy", he would have notoriety, become the worlds most famous average guy. D) Everything relating to US presidents and to a lesser degree, candidates, is seized upon and becomes famous, please see this example: Socks (cat); is this inherited notoriety, yes, but it is nevertheless notoriety and is the exception that confirms the rule. E) How can we measure this notoriety? I think from the press coverage, and the references show these to exist. Malik Abongo Obama is becoming famous in Africa, the Arab world, The US, and slowly the rest of the world. Yours, Czar Brodie (talk) 11:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, Czar B, the "pet" said by (a cartoon in) the Guardian to be (and I quote) the World's Most Powerful Cat? S/he's believed by me to be, in actual fact, the devious mastermind behind Wikipedia's ruling cabal.   Justmeherenow (  ) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike the other political dynasties, Malik will not be running for any american office (because he is not american) --T-rex 14:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So what, most of the members of the referred dynasties do not run for office, but many still have notoriety that is clearly inherited. Nor do I think that Barney will be running for US President any time soon. Oh, and of course Malik may become a U.S. citizen, so the future tense must be used with some caution. Yours Czar Brodie (talk) 15:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
correction: in my above edit I insinuated that Barney will not be running for US President. My apologies, this was said in haste. There is in fact a precedent: Bill the Cat ran for president in the 1984 elections and again in 1988 as candidate for the National Radical Meadow Party. My understanding is that he may have been barred from the 1984 elections by a stupid technicality: he was dead at the time. Apologies, Czar Brodie (talk) 18:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's just not true. No matter how many times (and how many ways) people say it, no one has notability "that is clearly inherited." Malik may well become notable. He may become notable very soon. He just isn't notable right now. S. Dean Jameson 15:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This "inherited" slogan is causing more confusion than clarity - obviously and undeniably a vast number of people are notable for reasons that arose out of being someone's family member. You are right that the question isn't who the family member is, but are they notable as things stand. In Malik Obama's case and in all the others, the answer is that people took note of them because of circumstances relating to their family. It makes no sense to say that we will discount any circumstances that came from family relations, when evaluating notability. In that case then obviously, Billy Carter, Socks the Cat, Michelle Obama, and the entire British royalty, are not notable. So that is a dead end. It does make sense (though I do not agree) to argue that looking at the sources, the person has truly not been noted in the way or to the level that we would respect as being worth writing about here. You could also say (but I do not agree) that the relationship between a person and his relatives is simply something we do not cover here as being worth note. But if so, what is your test for notability, if not: (a) many people in the world think it is worth noting, and/or (b) significant / nontrivial mentions in multiple reliable sources? Wikidemo (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Putting aside the Billy Carter and Socks (the cat) articles -- which also might be AfDs in the near future (you never know), it's ironic that Wikidemo brings up the Michelle Obama article. To be honest, I would say that's a fairly well-written article about a potential First Lady of the United States that makes good use of a wide array of reliable sources that offer significant coverage. The Malik Obama article, in contrast, simply is not. The reason for the big difference is made obvious in the lead section of the currently contested article: Malik Obama[1] (also known as Abongo (Roy) Obama, born c. March, 1958[2]) is the half-brother of presumptive Democratic party U.S. presidential nominee Barack Obama. He is one of four children of Obama's father, Barack Obama, Sr. with his first wife, Kezia. That's all it says. Does the body text offer us any salient facts to demonstrate his notability? No, and therein lies the rub for me. The sources themselves don't allow us, as editors, to create an intelligible article about Malik Obama because the very small handful of journalists apparently mentioning him -- forget about Barack Obama's autobiography (which is arguably *not* independent of the subject) -- were unable to find much of anything notable about the subject on which to write. Instead, we're told he's a Kenyan (and?....); that he shared some personal issues with Barack Obama (and?...); that he's (*gasp!*) visited the United States (and?!...). What else? I'm still not convinced, in all good faith, why Malik Obama should have his own article. There is (1) no significant coverage of him in order to write an intelligible article and (2) there is no presumption that any further reliable sources will surface to meet notability. Why would there be? The same handful of journalists covering trivial aspects of him now never covered Malik Obama before, suggesting the little coverage that exists is nothing more than a flash in the pan. J Readings (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not ironic - just pointing out the logical flaw in the argument. Are your saying that your standard for notability is "makes good use of a wide array of reliable sources that offer significant coverage" - and that articles devoted entirely to him by Associated Press, Chicago Sun Times, and the leading newspapers of Israel and Kenya is "no significant coverage"? That's a legitimate opinion but it represents a significant departure from the notability standard. If I may toot my own horn the Malik Obama article is solidly written and sticks to the sources - it is a bio article, not a Nobel Peace Prize application. We do not require people to be of earth-shaking importance, only that they be worth noting, as demonstrated by sources. The salient facts in the article are several fold. First, he has become a representative and spokesman for the African side of Obama's extended family - issuing statements, arranging contacts. For that his statements get worldwide attention and he has taken some heat. A lot of heat actually - I've deliberately avoided on POV and BLP grounds getting into his being an icon for the anti-Obama rumor mongers. Second, his interaction with his brother and the American political process highlight a cultural phenomenon that affects the whole family starting at least with their grandfather, and much of Kenya - the "lost" (per term used in source) people who exist in two worlds, moving out of the village and becoming part of Kenya's urban culture and sometimes world events, yet still keeping ties to their ancestral home. That's why I drew a comparison to Mzoli's, a dining establishment and nightclub in Africa that is apparently unremarkable if popular for the food they serve, the music they play, and their gross income, but has drawn attention for being a bridge between worlds and for getting caught up in national politics. Speaking of Michelle, Malik was best man to the wedding of the possible President and First Lady - and the possible president was best man to his wedding. Everybody's life is potentially remarkable, in the right context, if they are tied up in world events. It's not really for us to judge - it's for the world outside of Wikipedia to judge whose remarkable lives they wish to take note of. AP, Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, Chicago Sun times, Daily Mail, ABC News, East African, Daily Nation, Media Matters, and Israel Insider all saw fit to take note. We shouldn't blind our eyes to that simply because we think the life of an African accountant and political consultant does not matter. If we stick only to the people who have achieved personal greatness through objective personal accomplishments we miss a very rich part of humanity, and lose encyclopedic coverage of what the world is actually all about.Wikidemo (talk) 21:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also would like to pause to answer some people who denigrate Barak Obama's autobiography as a reliable source, or as support of notability. A great number of prominent politicians and others have told of their lives through autobiography, from Benjamin Franklin through Malcolm X. Sorry if other aspects of the analogy are inapt, but a number of Malcolm X's family members are known mainly through the Autobiography of Malcolm X, which he co-wrote with Alex Haley. Thus we have stub articles for Abdul Aziz Omar, Ilyasah Shabazz, Malcolm Shabazz, Qubilah Shabazz, etc. From The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin we have a source for Sarah Franklin Bache and Benjamin Franklin Bache. Being known through the writings of others in a famous book? We know Socrates mostly through the very-unreliable source, Plato, who created a mostly fictional version. We know Black Elk almost entirely through Black Elk Speaks. That's the essence of tertiary sourcing isn't it? Wikidemo (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Denigrate? Please, there's no need for hyperbole. I'm sure it's a lovely political autobiography as far as these things go. But you're still missing the point. The Obama autobiography mentioning family members does not support our notability requirements at all because there's no reason to believe it's an independent, third-party source that is not affiliated with the subject. After all, there is a direct affiliation there. Consequently, the Obama autobiography is really irrelevant for establishing any objective notability for this AfD. J Readings (talk) 21:36, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah Franklin Bache too? By that reasoning autobiographies are never reliable sources because by definition every person treated has a relationship with the author. Unless it's fictionalized - fictional characters are creations of the author (e.g. Dean Moriarty, Carlo Marx, Don Juan Matus, etc). Wikidemo (talk) 22:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oy! First somebody discounts the Guardian's witness as to the vast influence of that sleek-and-furry white-mittened demigod of a pet Socks the cat, now somebody discounts the scholarship conducted by UCLA proving that there was a permanent entrance into the extra-earthly dimension of reality without death by the renown sorceror don Juan Matus.   Justmeherenow (  ) 11:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are enough reliable sources, with enough coverage, for us to write a half-way decent article on him, and people have done so. That's the basic criterion for notability, and the reason for the basic criterion - to guide us towards writing decent, informative useful articles. Does having a notable relative detract from notability?! Suppose all these sources had no mention of his famous bro, and nobody knew he was related to a presidential candidate. Suppose some eagle-eyed editor amassed all of them, and wrote an article based on them, and alas, it came up at AfD. Then I know that I, and I daresay many others would vote keep. We might scratch our heads as to why major papers and news outlets were giving us information about this guy in Kenya, but then say: "Who are we to judge?" Is it really consistent with the general practice and philosophy of wikipedia to put our individual notions, here, of notability, above those of reliable sources? (Cf WP:NOR). No.John Z (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, that doesn't prove Notability, it proves Verifiability. And there are literally millions of people who have been written about in multiple newspaper articles who aren't encyclopedically notable. Notable enough for the tuesday paper and notable enough for an encyclopedia aren't the same thing--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 13:09, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I think I know the name of the guy that Obama walked past last week. He got a mention in a newspaper - let's have an article on him, his dog and the guy who cuts his hair. Geez, the Obama fanclub is running Wikipedia now. Perhaps we should rename it Obamapedia while we're at it. John Smith's (talk) 18:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please remain civil. Calling those who disagree with you (of whom I am not one) members of "the Obama fanclub" and saying that perhaps we should rename the project "Obamapedia" is not helpful, and does not further the discussion in any way. S. Dean Jameson 18:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am civil. I am concerned how Wikipedia is being turned into a series of fanclubs for popular people. You may disagree but that is my view. John Smith's (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6[edit]

  • Keep I think there is significant coverage of him in reliable sources to establish his notability per WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. From the link you posted, a relationship to a famous person is not enough. There must have been "significant coverage" of the subject of the article which, in this case at least, there has yet to be. Every mention of him is in relation to Sen. Obama and/or an extremely insignificant "in passing"-type mention. This specifically fails the very test you posted as proof it should be kept. S. Dean Jameson 19:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, simply put, I think the coverage in the references of the article is significant and not just passing mentions. Davewild (talk) 19:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please re-read the sources. There's nothing "significant" about his mentions in those sources. And what notability exactly, does this man possess, apart from being a half-brother of a famous man? S. Dean Jameson 19:16, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Significance to me comes from the amount of coverage he has received, I would characterise passing mentions as a couple of lines or so. This article gives significant coverage for me and combined with the lesser coverage in the other sources establishes his notability. Notability comes from the coverage not from any actions or lack of actions. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability arises not from passing mentions in a few news stories for a relative of a famous person, but from both quantity and quality of the source material available to reliably source notable achievements of a person about whom one wishes to write an article. S. Dean Jameson 19:29, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with that, if the sources feel he is notable enough to provide enough coverage for us to write a reasonable length article on, then I think the subject is notable for wikipedia, regardless of his achievements, and from reading WP:N and WP:BIO I can't see where this is contradicted. We are obviously not going to persuade each other I fear. Davewild (talk) 19:37, 12 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 Gojira (band), consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines but that a redirect is appropriate. Davewild (talk) 17:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Andreu[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles insufficient material to justify merge Michellecrisp (talk) 05:21, 7 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 Gojira (band). --jonny-mt 03:35, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Michel Labadie[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles insufficient material to justify merge Michellecrisp (talk) 05:14, 7 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 Gojira (band). The history will remain visible if anyone would like to merge content over after the redirect. --jonny-mt 03:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Duplantier[edit]

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

fails Wikipedia:BAND#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles Michellecrisp (talk) 05:05, 7 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. - Philippe 19:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Presidents of the United States[edit]

Timeline of Presidents of the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not even an article, just a huge, unwieldy table consisting entirely of information that can be found elsewhere in much better form. CrazyLegsKC 04:39, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepIt might not look that great but it serves its purpose and it is something that I can see people using everyday. CelesJalee (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unweildy, yes... but I actually found it interesting and useful.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your head asplode...I mean KEEP This list is awesome. The table could do to be narrower, so FF's side scroll bar doesn't come up, but I don't know enough to fiddle. Doesn't violate a policy or guideline I know of. Protonk (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely needs some tinkering, but it's not a bad idea for a list. Let someone try to fix it, rather than delete it entirely. I'm sure there are situations in which one will want to know which presidents were alive at a given point in time. Zagalejo^^^ 06:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs major reworking to make it usable on most computers, but the information is useful and unwieldy for some future editor or user to reconstruct from the beginning. [Trivial example of possible usefulness: which ex-Presidents were alive during a President's term, and which future Presidents?] Some thought needs to go into how to make it work better (for example, as I said on the article's talk page, flipping it would allow names of any length while keeping narrower columns/rows of equal size). Mend it, don't end it. Shakescene (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But only on the understanding that it requires an enormous amount of work to make it visually comprehensible and understandable, and that there is an expectation that this is going to done: The width is much too large; the colours of the different bars are nowhere explained (which goes against comprehensibility). Some of the ideas found in experts who are concerned with the effective visual display of information need to be taken on board with this. (look for work by Edward Tufte and others in his field.) It may help if the timeline was placed on its side (i.e., rotated through 90 degrees), because then the bars would not have to be so thick to allow the written labels to be placed within them.  DDStretch  (talk) 08:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C- 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • I am sorry, but all the colours are not explained in the legend, once one can locate and guess what the legend is supposed to be, that is. First of all, there is no clear indication of just what is the legend. A key or legend should be clearly labelled as such, and the format of thsi timeline precludes this. Second, not all the colours are explained in what I take to be the legend, because the colour of the bar prior to a person becoming a president and the colour of the bar after their term(s) in office is not given. Indeed, if I have made some mistakes in my interpretation of this, it is sufficient reason to justify my conclusion that there are serious presentational issues with this timeline chart. It really is a sub-standard attempt at a clear and self-explanatory chart, even if others think its purpose is good. If my students had turned in work like this, it would have required serious advice being given to them, and I would certainly have used this example in one of the academic papers I gave over the years concerning adequate displays of information in the form of graphs and charts. Take it from me, it is of a poor quality.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I was just about to post "Dude, it isn't like this has to be Edward Tufte" and you've got it right there. I agree with you that the list could better be turned on its side. I'll see if I can make that happen. Protonk (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that too much attention to the finer design issues might be counter-productive, but there are certain things that are needed to produce an adequate chart, and such things are given in many books and instructional material about the design and presentation of information in graphs and charts. Furthermore, if an attempt is going to be made to get this up to GA or FA status in the future, one needs to be able to improve on what is there. In this respect, the issues I raised above are definitely in need of attention to produce an adequate fit-for-purpose chart: The orientation of the chart and the clarity and adequate indication of the key to all the colours used, as pointed out above, are necessary. Unless they are attended to, or at least a commitment is made to attend to them, it is arguable whether this article in its present state is worth keeping.  DDStretch  (talk) 06:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, the fact that an article can be improved is not grounds for deleting it. Second, I actually make my living communicating visually, and some things aren't easy to communicate visually in a given medium. In this case there are trade-offs between orientation, font size, the limitations of most screens, color choice (ideally, people who have difficulty differentiating colors should be able to make sense of it, and it should be ok printed in black and white), etc. It's far from ideal that you have to rely on horizontal and vertical scroll bars to find your way around, but there is a color legend at an obvious place. I'll look into ways of improving it (of course). --Leifern (talk) 10:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you look, I was not advocating deletion. I was merely saying that the chart needed to be improved. Furthermore, you have not addressed the issue of the colour legend being incomplete which I raised previously. You are correct in mentioning trade-offs, but I think the legend is not in an obvious place and is not signalled by use of the label "Legend" or "Key", but is squashed up at the right hand side of the chart itself. This really is not ideal. Just accept what you stated that "some things aren't easy to communicate visually in a given medium", and hence, that sometimes views of others, not all of whom are ignorant of the communication issues you mention, can assist in getting things improved.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as awesome.-- aBSuRDiST -T ☺ C- 08:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Would be much, much easier, smaller, and more versatile as an image. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 11:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is customary to notify the principal editor (if one exists) or creator of an article when nominating it for deletion. I have nominatednotified the creator (and asked him if he can move this into a horizontal table, as it is beyond my ken). Protonk (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated the editor? For deletion? I know the table breaks browsers, but that seems a little extreme! Or did you mean notified? ;-) Plasticup T/C 17:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. ....Uhhh....yeah! Scorch the earth, baby! :) Protonk (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful encloypedic information. Needs a lot of work but that's no reason to delete. Dpmuk (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: That table is one of the greatest things I have seen. When I get home tonight I am going to crank up my resolution and enjoy it properly. Also, encyclopedic etc. Plasticup T/C 17:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rotate 90 degrees to make it legible--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 17:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and TOH to Protonk for notifying me. I created it and don't regret it still think it's useful and interesting. It took a bit of effort, and so I did check to see if the information was summarized elsewhere on Wikipedia. I will look into rotating it, but need to find the original file first. FWIW, I did debate whether it was better horizontal or vertical when I created it. --Leifern (talk) 22:43, 7 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. - Philippe 19:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monique rychtr[edit]

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

A prod tag was removed without any further changes. This biography certainly asserts notability but perhaps for reasons that don't meet WP:N -- your clients and acquaintainces don't of themselves lend notability -- and there are no reliable sources to back up the assertions. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - an attempt to piggyback notability. resources are far less then impressive --T-rex 04:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. No Google News hits at all; I would expect some if this person were truly notable. No independent reliable sources have been provided. We previously deleted a different article about this subject at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monique Rychtr, although the article is different enough now that I wouldn't recommend a speedy deletion for re-creation of deleted material. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Name checks != notability. Personal web sites and Myspace are not reliable sources. DarkAudit (talk) 01:51, 8 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. - Philippe 19:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AhleHadeeth Movement what and why[edit]

AhleHadeeth Movement what and why (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article attempts to define a religious movement, but is barely intelligible. Falls into several reasons for deletion: (1) Definitely fails WP:NOT (specifically, WP:SOAP) for religious propaganda, (2) borders on falling into the second category of WP:PN, and (3) may fail WP:N because I could not find any reliable sources. Samuel Tan 04:14, 7 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. - Philippe 19:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation[edit]

Attempt at a Critique of All Revelation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable book Myheartinchile (talk) 04:09, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - published book by a notable author --T-rex 04:50, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable book, with interesting history - by extremely notable author, Fichte. This is the book that made him famous. Along with the other traditional big four of German Idealism (Kant, Schelling and Hegel), he is of such stature that any major work deserves an article. Of course there is a lot written about it: 23 google book hits on the English title, and 241 on the original German "Versuch einer Critik aller Offenbarung". Works of even the less famous German Idealists have their own articles here. Haven't even bothered to check google and google scholar.John Z (talk) 05:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure how this could be considered a non-notable book. Being mistaken for a work by Kant would make it notable straight away, and the actual author is rather notable himself. Reyk YO! 05:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an important piece of academic literature. Lastingsmilledge (talk) 03:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:37, 7 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) 15:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deirdre Hanna[edit]

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

lacks notability Mayumashu (talk) 03:45, 7 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. - Philippe 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity Fair caricatures[edit]

Vanity Fair caricatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is a list of cartoons from Vanity Fair (1868-1914). I totally fail to see its point or usefulness. I would understand if Commons had a gallery of the cartoons (some of them must be in public domain due to age), but having a list that only says "caricature of x politician appeared on y date"... Wikipedia is not a place to dump indiscriminate lists of caricatures. Renata (talk) 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. However, as Renata suggests, Wikipedia might benefit from having those caricatures which are in the public domain scanned and put on Commons. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have used this list several times and found it very helpful. These caricatures were very well-known at the time and are of considerable historical significance. They give a real insight into British Victorian and Edwardian society. Obviously, it would be helpful to add more of the actual images, so why don't you do so? I wish people would focus on adding useful information to Wikipedia, rather than removing the hard work of others. Edwardx (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (and perhaps Move to List of Vanity Fair caricatures) I have also referred to this list several times and as Edwardx says, they're quite well-known. Craigy (talk) 10:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have your cake and eat it too. Those cartoons in the public domain should be uploaded to commons, but there are sources: Scholar, ZOMG website, books. The cartoons represent (largely) elite opinion on many issues. They are important for getting a perspective on how prevalent racism and classicism was in those days. I'm *fairly* certain that VF cartoons have been cited in The Mismeasure of Man as well. Very notable and very useful. Protonk (talk) 16:41, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Time Magazine covers are also iconic, well-known, even today. Yet we do not have the list of people who appeared on the covers and I would still fail to see the point or usefulness. I am not saying that caricatures are not important. I am saying that their list is not really useful. There is no way that I can see from the list how "prevalent racism and classicism was in those days". Renata (talk) 18:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not asserting that the article (as it stands) asserts those claims. I'm just showing that the cartoons themselves have been subjects of historical study and comment in reliable, secondary publications. Protonk (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How can a complete and reliable list of all the caricatures not be a useful resource, especially when no such list is available elsewhere in the public domain? Today, these caricatures are collected by many people and this is now an great encyclopaedic resouce enabling people to date prints and to find out more information about the subjects of the pictures. Indeed, if you follow the links for various subjects a scan of the caricature is sometimes available on the individual pages. Overall, I fail to see how this list is any less helpful than, say, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duo_and_trio_cocktails Richard.shakeshaft (talk) 19:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Edwardx and Richard Shakeshaft. George Burgess (talk) 20:36, 7 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. Candidacy does not ensure notability.. - Philippe 19:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edie Bukewihge[edit]

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

Non-notable person. Seems like promotional vanity. Was deleted a few weeks ago as an expired prod. Username screams COI here. -WarthogDemon 03:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • What he said. Delete Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 03:49, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article itself says she's non-notable: "Virtually considered a little-unknown, she campaigned with little support..." and lost the nomination. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mere candidacy for public office does not confer notability on the candidate. I didn't see any other assertion of notability in the article. Townlake (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and the article itself, I guess. Maxamegalon2000 05:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is not a single source in this article I am suprised that its not being speidly deleated! CelesJalee (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Thank you all for your input, and impeccable notes of interest. I, Edie Bukewihge am impressed to see the participation here. I have had the pleasure of being in Wikipedia at the hands of others for over six years now, and somehow was deleted. Thank you for the responses, I am new at posting on Wikipedia for the moment, in order for anyone that is searching to find and scrutinize whatever is available on my person. When I looked to see what was new, I realized I had been deleted and I was not as concern of the deletion, but questioned why. I am learning about the terms 'newbie mistakes and prod' - but no matter, most candidates win or lose, seem to enjoy the benefits of those searching to know a bit about them pro or con, and will make certain monetary contributions to Wikipedia for their brilliant participation of the art. I appreciate your input, and wish you well on your ventures as well. Looking forward to our interactions. Sincerely, Edie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.231.221 (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete my head hurts. JuJube (talk) 09:28, 8 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. - Philippe 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T's Network[edit]

AfDs for this article:
T's Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Adding additional program articles related to this network;

Life in Bucktown (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Life in Bucktown episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clyde Brown (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Possible hoax, non notable or even non existent TV network Mfield (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Speedy Delete Definite hoax as Ally McBeal does not currently air on American television, and I doubt a Christian network like Daystar would air Homeboys in Outer Space. I have also added related articles to this nomination. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, looking increasingly like a hoax. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. I find no evidence that T's Network exists, and that immediately places doubt on the other articles. I strongly recommend all contributions made by the creator of these articles be checked as it appears he/she has also made edits to previously existing articles, and these apparent hoaxes make all of the user's contributions suspect. 23skidoo (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's nary a stitch of evidence to support that this exists. The article fails to list any website, which broadcasters carry it, and the Daystar website has nothing. Yngvarr (c) 17:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and warn the author - though he seems to have given up. JohnCD (talk) 21:20, 7 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 14:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akitsa[edit]

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

Fails WP:N and WP:BAND entirely. Reads like an advertisement and a fansite. No notable label, no touring, and no citatons. Delete Undeath (talk) 03:29, 7 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. - Philippe 19:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scosch[edit]

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

No sources, only one important contributor; probably a hoax, a misspelling of skosh. —Bkell (talk) 03:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article, obviously needs sources to validate this "interesting information" that may be a hoax. I would suggest we give it a little time to see if the author can provide some independent sources to support the information in the article. LakeBoater (talk) 03:14, 7 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 and redirect to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts. PhilKnight (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ember McLain[edit]

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

Delete as a non-notable fictional creature per WP:FICTION. Can be merged to List of Danny Phantom villains and ghosts as well. Tavix (talk) 02:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Skulker (Danny Phantom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nicolai Technus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Freakshow (Danny Phantom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)


~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 03:06, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the additional nominations. I also added afd templates to Skulker, Licolai, and Freakshow as well. Tavix (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. Forgot to do that part. ~ Wakanda's Black Panther!♠/♦ 02:12, 8 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. Default to keep. Recent improvements have presented greater evidence of notability, but not conclusively, as noted by Irridescent and Erik Paul. It would be good if further citations could be added over the next couple of months to avoid the need for another AfD. Dweller (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noyes Records[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Was deleted before as an uncontested prod. Was created and prodded today and creator removed prod. -WarthogDemon 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The significance of this inclusion has increased since the last deletion. The "uncontested prod" was only so because notifications were disabled (a newbie mistake). The article cites external sources showing that it exists outside of the creator's mind, which is a significant factor in inclusion in Wikipedia. - Megadan76 (talk) 01:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteI agree with Warthog.--Xp54321 (Hello! • Contribs) 01:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:CORP states that "A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject." Which the subject in question has. Further more I believe that deleting the article simple causes this cycle to repeat. If the article is deleted, it has to be rewritten each time, instead of the article being improved. - Megadan76 (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we should userfy the article as I think we are going to need to see more content and more than just one single reference to eatablish notability. I suggest userfying the article and allowing the author to improve it there, at which point once he/she feels it is improved he/she can submit it to deletion review. LakeBoater (talk) 03:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Additional content is now being added by multiple editors, userfying may be inappropriate now. - Megadan76 (talk) 15:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The "links to no other articles" tag should rightfully be removed as the article has multiple links to other wikipedia articles. -Megadan76 (talk) 15:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 16:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. None of the references seem to actually be about the label itself, as opposed to the artists on it. The award doesn't seem quite important enough to serve as evidence of notability, as Halifax has so few labels that "best record label" doesn't have the significance it would have in Montreal or Toronto. Willing to be persuaded, though. I can't see any point at all in userifying it unless there's a siginficant expansion on the way. – iridescent 01:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability. HiDrNick! 01:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the references seem to actually be about the label itself" From the first source, about the label itself: "What started out as a small town idea, has grown into a success with international recognition. Noyes Records (www.noyesrecords.com ) has sold c-d’s in places as far reaching as Germany and has had reviews in prominent magazines from the United States. Chad recently signed a deal to have records distributed to record stores all over Canada, and they are constantly referred to as one of the prominent up and coming record labels on the East coast"

I see no harm in keeping the article (before it was deleted, the wikipedia article was cited in at least one review of the label/bands involved).

Furthermore given the increasing status of the label it's likely that bands featured on the label will begin recieving wiki entries of their own, necessitating the revival of this article. Expansion of the article will progress as expansion of the label does, it doesn't happen overnight.

Multiple sources from established publications certainly provides evidence of notability.

The article is all ready more extensive than many other label articles. c.f. Rock_Action_Records, Artists_Against_Success, Just_Music, etc. The inclusion of these articles and not this one is questionable. Thank you for all your attention to the improvement of this article. - Megadan76 (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More links showing notable artists added and the article has been streamlined. There is now no reason to include the 'deadend' tag, it should be removed. - Megadan76 (talk) 14:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I just added four new references (two from CBC Radio 3's web site and a pair of Canadian publications). Notability can be confirmed - let's not be too eager to delete this one. Ecoleetage (talk) 23:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Certainly not going to argue (I was only a weak delete above) but it seems those are again sources about the bands, not the label, and I don't think notability's inherited backwards from the band to the label (plenty of notable bands have had releases on non-notable labels). This is not to say the label is necessarily non-notable, just that I don't think there's necessarily enough to demonstrate it. – iridescent 23:31, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment to Comment Ah, but the point remains that the label is cited as the source of the music. The bands are not self-releasing, and Noyes Records is clearly identified. In the indie music world, bands and labels often share a mutual state of recognition. That is why I cited these sources. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 23:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – not because notability is inherited, but because the label has had non-trivial mentions in several media articles. (I would be arguing delete on the basis of "notability is not inherited" if the media mentions were always about a single band.) Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 13:30, 12 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. Since the information has been merged, I boldly redirected the page. - Philippe 19:21, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rome Masters 2006 Final[edit]

Rome Masters 2006 Final (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An unecessary blow-by-blow report on a single tennis match, which contains no references, and the results can be found at the tournamants page - Allied45 (talk) 01:47, 7 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. It appears notability has been demonstrated. - Philippe 19:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Vision Records[edit]

Equal Vision Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This one has been around for a while, and it's still just an unreferenced list of artists and former artists. ukexpat (talk) 01:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I know perfectly well that Afd is not clean up, but this article has been in this parlous state for quite a long time. If it has done all these good things as you reference, then they should be in the article with your references.  – ukexpat (talk) 13:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will attempt to add these references in (I just don't know how to word them yet). Or someone else will. I feel really weird about adding things to AfDs after I vote. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the fact that they haven't been for a long time is still not reason to delete a perfectly notable and verifiable article. tomasz. 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, highly notable hardcore/metal record label. References will be plentiful and substantial; if they're not satisfactorily in there by the time i return from work i will do it myself. tomasz. 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would be happy to withdraw the Afd if that's the case. – ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedily Deleted (non-admin closure) by PeterSymonds per CSD G11 as blatant advertising. WilliamH (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Il-lojic[edit]

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

non-notable individual. google, amazon NMChico24 (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The Awakening is about this guy's album. It was a redirect to a dab; I'm reverting it to that, so check the history if you want to see it. AnturiaethwrTalk 02:36, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as an advertisement. So tagged. Undeath (talk) 03:32, 7 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. Neologism.. - Philippe 19:18, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recruitment 2.0[edit]

Recruitment 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

neologism at best, uncited (and possible uncitable), unnecessary article. NMChico24 (talk) 01:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1.0 More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO; only "source" in article is a blog. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO; and per not being verified with a reliable source.--SRX--LatinoHeat 02:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - mixing RSS and job openings is notable? --T-rex 04:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep - This article has been through speedy and PRODs over the last couple of weeks, and just about survived. I've added back in some references that a bot rather unhelpfully pulled out. They're both from what I would call reliable third party sources, though others may disagree... --Ged UK (talk) 07:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The references that the bot removed make this look very much like spam. 2.0? Give me a break. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:33, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey guys, Recruitment 2.0 is a new term, please just type in "Recruitment 2.0" into Google and see how many references you get, there are too many to cut and paste here —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.191.182 (talk) 06:25, 8 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. - Philippe 19:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Farmer[edit]

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

Despite being on Beat the Geeks for a few seconds, he doesn't seem notable for anything else, and there don't seem to be any reliable sources about him. See related discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:21, 7 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, performed by Tanthalas39. Non-Admin Housekeeping Closure. CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Danish Hasan[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Syed Danish Hasan. Subject is not notable. Has had several trivial mentions such as this but nothing significant. I can't tell if this is just a repost, if so then speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4. ~ Eóin (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) ~ Eóin (talk) 01:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. Almost qualifies for Speedy Delete but there's an assertion of notability...kind of. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Mentioned once in the Hindustan Times article about placing, but that's about it - no information to check on the facts presented in the article. If he won a mathematics competition, that probably isn't going to be enough. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:14, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-per nom.SRX--LatinoHeat 02:27, 7 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 E & S records, keep The Early Years (Sara Evans album). —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 20:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E & S Records[edit]

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

No notability out side of releasing a rare album by Sara Evans. Also listing said album because it fails WP:MUSIC criteria for albums:

The Early Years (Sara Evans album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters, who are tired of Evans' glossy pop sound and wish she'd go back to neo-trad • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 29 g-hits for "E & S Records" and 17 for "E&S Records", none of them reliable secondary sources that cover the subject substantially. -Samuel Tan 01:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snow in July is a wonderful thing. AKA delete. However a WMF error ("Our servers are currently experiencing a technical problem. This is probably temporary and should be fixed soon. Please try again in a few minutes") will not let me actually perform the deletion so any admin should feel free to do so. . TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 3 game updates & install sizes[edit]

PlayStation 3 game updates & install sizes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

List of how much hard drive space PlayStation 3 games take up. This is information that really isn't important to anyone aside from people who play these games. Even if we did include this information, it's better suited to have that information the articles of each game instead of having just a list of numbers. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:09, 7 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_July_7&oldid=1081073833"