Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 1

< May 31	June 2 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Insufficient coverage in reliable sources to have an article at this time.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Kindly[edit]

Previously deleted, mostly promotional article about an ad-driven search engine. Only external ref is a couple of words in a Wall St Journal piece reprinted in one of the subject's own blogs. Deiz talk 23:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as plain advertising. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete I've tried to make this article as balanced as possible by including criticism of the website and a section on controversies. People are welcome to add more! In terms of references, I have now linked it directly to the Wall Street Journal website (I couldn't find it before) and have added other references to external websites, replaced those that lead to the Search Kindly blog. Elban91 (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2 problems - the link to the WSJ is a subscription only page, with no mention of SK in the short blurb available without registration, plus there are no further reliable references which would establish notability per WP:CORP or WP:WEB. It's obviously a well written article, but there is still no evidence the subject is notable. Deiz talk 11:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WEB is pretty clear on this. We need multiple, independent, non-trivial, reliable sources. WSJ doesn't look non-trivial to me (or we'd see it named in the free blurb). Everything else has a blog-feel, or is associated with the subject. -- Mark Chovain 04:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - Article seems like a possibility. Needs major rewriting though. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 13:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB and WP:CORP trump "seems like a possibility". Deiz talk 16:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Kkkkkkkkkeep as Claudius might have said. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I, Claudius (film)[edit]

Unreleased film, very little verifiable info outside IMDb. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's some information here. I see no reason for outright deletion. Worst-case scenario, we can merge this somewhere. Zagalejo^^^ 02:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Approve merge with The Epic That Never Was per Girolamo Savonarola's suggestion below - The info that is there is notable. Although unreleased the attempt was important to the careers of many involved, notably Merle Oberon and her page is one of several that link to this page. Most importantly, the documentary The Epic That Never Was contains virtually all of the footage from this film as well as interviews with Robert Graves, Alexander Korda, Flora Robson, Emlyn Williams and Merle Oberon. This documentary has been on both the VHS and DVD release of the 1970's BBC television serial of I, Claudius and, along with the biographies of those involved, there is much verifiable info outside of IMDb. As previously mentioned the fact that Ms Oberon's accident shut down production makes this a notable unfinished film. As expressed in the documentary Laughton's finding inspiration from the abdication speech of Edward VIII is another notable item. In closing this is not the only unfinished or lost film that has a page at Wikipedia and if there is an objection to the stub nature of this page I can direct readers to several that are far stubbier. MarnetteD | Talk 05:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The film was never made and the only "notability" claimed is coming from the a single documentary made about the film. There seems to be no actual significant coverage from unrelated primary sources. The stub seems to say all that can be said about it. At best, mention of it should be made in the novel article, as a planned but failed adaptation, and, of course, in Merle Oberon. Its being uncompleted by her accidental death does not make it notable for its own article. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentPerhaps a little research may help your misconceptions Collectonian. Some of the film was "made", it was not completed. The footage filmed can still be seen. Wikipedia has many pages for films that have been lost and can never be seen. Should they be deleted since there "notability" cannot be verified. Ms Oberon did not die, she was only injured by the auto accident that she was in. This was the major reason, but not the only one, that production was shut down. There are biographies of several of those involved in the making of the film along with newspaper and magazine articles from the time which offer a myriad of unrelated primary sources. It is also a misnomer to call the documentary a primary source. The footage from the original film is a primary source. The various interviews, conducted more than 25 years later are not. MarnetteD | Talk 06:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) Sorry, you said accident stopped it, I presumed she must have died that it couldn't go on. The article gives the same impression. If there wasn't even that, then really, what notability is being argued. Films stop mid production all the time, that doesn't mean they are notable just because of an accident nor do biographies of the principal players (they are notable, their notability does not confer to a failed project). A single documentary does not equal "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" nor does it inherently make the unfinished film notable. For the added part, if there are articles for uncompleted film that fail WP:N and WP:V, then yes they should either be prodded or brought to AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am sorry if you have been unclear on this. The claim is that only IMDb and The Epic That Never Was have any info on this film. There are also biographies of the principles involved along with newspaper and magazine articles (both those made at the time of filming and retrospective ones) that provide "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" that can be used to add to this page. Along with Oberon this project was important in the careers of Korda, von Sternberg, Laughton and Grave's. It's extraordinary to think that a project that was important/notable enough for the BBC to track down the original footage and the people involved for interviews almost thirty years after the project was abandoned isn't notable enough for Wikipedia. Perhaps if any editors would take the time to view and read what is available about this film on something other than the internet then a fuller judgement could be made. Along these same lines if even one reader encountering this article on Wikipedia is sent from the internet to these other multiple sources to learn more about this unfinished film then the articles existance is justified. Of course, it is also amazing that these decisions are made by so few editors but that is the way it goes. Thanks for your input even though we disagree MarnetteD | Talk 07:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - From the previews I can see at Google Books, I'd bet that there is a substantial amount of information available on this project. However, it would probably require a library trip to gather all of it. Zagalejo^^^ 06:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to The Epic That Never Was. Problem solved, no? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea except TETNW redirects to I,C film. MarnetteD | Talk 07:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's easily enough fixed; plus, there is a realistic chance of expanding TETNW - as a completed film - along our normal style guidelines to a respectable quality level. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. There's probably more information on the film itself than the documentary about the film. Zagalejo^^^ 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I just added three external links to the article; the notability of this subject is not in question. No offense to the nominator, but I am genuinely surprised to see this article here -- this is one of the most famous unfinished films in the history of cinema. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keepor oppose deletion as the example of films that were aborted has been established as well, the notability of this project should not be in question, judging by the connections to Robert Graves, Alexander Korda, Flora Robson, Emlyn Williams and Merle Oberon. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Don't forget Josef von Sternberg, the director! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Based on how many notable people were attached to the ill-fated project, including director Josef von Sternberg. Lots of notable, never-released/completed films have articles here too. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The IMDB link has an 87% rating on this 1937 film. I think Wikipedia can accomodate an article on this film--which seems well sourced too. Artene50 (talk) 10:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incomplete does not mean non-notable. Given the people involved in this one, it warrants an article. DGG (talk) 19:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Strong Keep Obviously notable. Besides sourcing available in books on the actors, writer and director, this unreleased film was the subject of a documentary. Dekkappai (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with I, Claudius or Alexander Korda. I saw the documentry which is a bonus feature on the DVD of the BBC television dramatisation: it features about 5 minutes of actual film footage, which was all that was filmed, because there was no script or finance for the project. The film is of trivial interest since, as the nominator states, there is very little verifiable info. This film definately fails WP:MOVIE, but may provide useful content for a more notable topic.--Gavin Collins (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to improvements made during this discussion. Well done! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think a proposed/unfinished film is notable here on Wikipedia. --EclipseSSD (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. That's very odd. Do you perhaps mean that it's not notable? Or that it's not appropriate here on Wikipedia? Or not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia? Whichever, can you please give some reasoning for this view? -- Hoary (talk) 07:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have to share Ecoleetage's surprise at this AfD. This is probably the most notable unmade film ever not made. There seems to be a basic and serious misunderstanding of notability at work here. The film is covered in many, many sources, including at least one documentary on it. The fact that only a few minutes of the film were shown in a documentary dedicated to it has absolutely nothing to do with its notability. Many totally lost films are notable. This AfD is the equivalent of nominating the Unfinished Symphony because Schubert never got around to writing those last two movements, or the Colossus of Rhodes because who has ever seen it? Changing my "Keep" to "Strong" Dekkappai (talk) 16:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK-- I checked two books on von Sternberg and added 17 pages written in the director's autobiography on the film, and a 13-page chapter in The Cinema of Josef von Sternberg on the film. Is the absurdity of this AfD obvious yet? Also, I strongly oppose merging into the article on the documentary. If anything, the documentary should be merged here. But they should have separate articles since they are separate works. Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This may be prehistory for some, but even prehistory is notable. Too many reasons (the people inovlved, the subject of the proposed film, etc.) why this article should be kept, in anticipation of further expansion. Anyway, the film project will probably be revived by Hollywood some time in the near future and deletionists will be kicking themselves... Pinkville (talk) 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, regarding little verifiable info outside IMDb: even when sources are on printed pages (and not to be found on the Internet) they are still useable in Wikipedia, if I'm not mistaken. ;~) Pinkville (talk) 19:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Widely noted in reliable film sources, this should never have been brought to AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, dammit, even though younger readers may be disappointed that the (non-)film (i) wasn't in the Star Wars or other "franchise", (ii) doesn't seem to have had notable computer graphics, (iii) hasn't yet been turned into a game, and (iv) doesn't have thundering, mind-numbing music by John Williams. (All four, and particularly the fourth, would be pluses for me; but that's just me.) Look, "von" Sternberg was a notable director, even if more notable for cigarette smoke, sultry looks and (presumably unintended) ridiculousness than for the sterling virtues of, say, Straub-Huillet. And if a moderately sane book on him devotes a full chapter to this (non-)film, the (non-)film is notable. (Meanwhile, I'm asking myself why anyone still takes IMDB seriously.) -- Hoary (talk) 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as non-notable. --jonny-m t 04:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Axö[edit]

According to IMBD (not even a reliabe source), which is the only reference provided by the article, there's no evidence that this actress meets the WP:ENTERTAINER notability standard. brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Internet Movie Batadase. I wasn't aware a batadase existed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thas't rihgt, you'er laerning nwe stufu eveyr dya. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable. A Google search turned up no links other than that one non-reliable source. Doesn't need an article, especially in the English Wikipedia. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources exist; the parts seemed only to be bit roles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - As the editor who made the article as part of Wikiproject missing articles, rather than a deletionist who hands around VfD :-), I would like to point out that that project exists to make Wikipedia coverage as comprehensive as possible and to counter systematic bias in Wikipedia coverage. Would a Wikipedia project ask me to make non-notable pages going against Wikipedia policy? Francium12 (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you are ever converted from adding content to Wikipedia rather than deleting it you may wish to join us at Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles Francium12 (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to withdraw the deletion nomination if you would point out why this person meets Wikipedia's notability citeria. But Wikipedia is not a database for the millions of people that had moderate success in their field. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 14:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Castle, New Rochelle[edit]

Article was a section that was copied from a now-deleted article (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York). Subject matter is essentially bogus; no reliably sourced evidence exists that "Castle" is a name for this zip code, and zip codes are not a basic unit for US census data. Although earlier PROD template was removed with a note saying "notable per ghits, secondary and third party sources are abundant", the article still does not cite those "abundant sources". (Furthermore, ghits don't confer notability, not to mention that I can't find many ghits.) Orlady (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for identical reasons:

Weak Keep Wikipedia has ample articles for neighborhoods within other cities. The United States Census Bureau tracks data for many ZIP codes under its ZIP Code Tabulation Area, which closely corresponds to the associated ZIP code, making it a "basic unit for US census data", which should match the data at this link. I would need to see more details on the naming of the area to fully consider the title of the article. Alansohn (talk) 05:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Especially with regard to "South Side", the local papers at hometown.com use the term frequently. MrPrada (talk) 13:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wholeheartedly agree that it is valid to have articles about neighborhoods, but I have not yet seen evidence that either "Castle" or "South Side" are actual neighborhood names in New Rochelle, much less that the zip codes correspond to neighborhoods with these names. In 10 weekly editions of the New Rochelle Sound Report newspaper (cited by MrPrada), the only reference to "South Side" is as part of the name of a local Boy's Club (in an article in this edition). Lots of communities have institutions with names like "South Side Boy's Club," so the existence of an institution with that name does not provide reliably sourced evidence that the article about the South Side neighborhood is anything more than original research. --Orlady (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I noticed that the article is "South Side", and the term typically used for the neighborhood is "South End". I do think we should contact the article's creator and findout where the terms came from. MrPrada (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's creator was a sockpuppet of User:Jvolkblum. --Orlady (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles creator was actually User:Brewcrewer. The user appears to have created the article based on information from another article which was was tagged for deletion. The term comes from census related data.--219.53.248.54 (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC) — 219.53.248.54 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Yes, I was the creator, and I guess Orlady got confused. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I created the article in the hopes of resolving Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York by copy and pasting New Rochelle (Zip-Code Areas), New York into three seperate articles. I didn't bother checking the original article's verifability. The lack of sources and Orlady's extensive research in this matter clearly indicate that these article creations were a mistake. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, nom effectively withdrew. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allan R. Odden[edit]

Single book does not this person notable —G716 <^T·_C> 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep significant third party sources have shown this book to be notable, and it is not his only book, he has written others, he is notable enough.--Serviam (talk) 22:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my opinion to Keep - I missed that articel passed previous AfD - but needs substantial cleanup—G716 <^T·_C> 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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-m t 04:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence S. (Terry) Millar[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references of any sort, no coverage anywhere, so not notable, good nom.--Serviam (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any notability. Soxred 93 23:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MathSciNet shows 20 publications by him, the last published in 1999. Neither MathSciNet nor the WebOfScience show substantial citability of any of these publications. The top hit in WOS is 22, followed by single digits. It could be that his educational activities are notable but I have not seen evidence of this. Nsk92 (talk) 16:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professor of Mathematics and Associate Dean of the Graduate School at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is notable, and implies there is material there if we found it. One doesnt get there with a mediocre record. But it looks like his specialty in mathematics education, which accounts for a low citation rate. NSK, his educational activities include team leader of the Nation Institute for Science Education Graduate Science, Mathematics, Engineering, and Technology Education Team -- I think that shows sufficient. .DGG (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. DGG's argument show that he is an average professor who has been promoted into administration. This is not one of the criteria established in WP:PROF. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deletion (G12). Though there was no copyright notice on the exact page the content was copied from, there are copyright notices throughout the website. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian A. Bottge[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 21:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All academics are notable in their own way, but not (necessarily) the kind of notability Wikipedia requires. - Vianello (talk) 21:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability guidelines.--Serviam (talk) 22:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF based on the information available. GoogleScholar[1] gives only 4 papers with citation hits in double digits, with the top one at 32. I looked up his CV and there is not much there to indicate notability. It might be that he designed some educational software or some multimedia technology that is widely used around the U.S. (which would satisfy WP:PROF) but I did not see evidence of that. Nsk92 (talk) 09:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Nsk92. Note also that the entire article is a verbatim copy of this page I see no copyright notice, so it's not necessarily a copy vio, but... Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, tagged as G12 (copyvio). --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Games that Run on Integrated Graphics[edit]

Unreferenced personal essay. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete unmaintainable listcruft. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unreferenced, unmaintainable, unnecessary. ~ mazca ^talk 22:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Self ref, WP:OR, and unreferenced. Soxred 93 23:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agreed with Soxred93. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per WP:OR, No references. macy^talk 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The system I am starting this list with is Deleted JuJube (talk) 04:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research. WillOakland (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Wolf 359[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and is just a brief repetition of plot elements from a two part episode from Star Trek the Next Generation, and is totally duplicative. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article asserts notability by citing reliable sources. It provides a focus for this notable battle which had an impact in multiple works across the Star Trek canon and so does not duplicate any single one of them. The article title is also a useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Arguably, individual episodes are less important to our content on Star Trek, but they're not being nominated for deletion. Thus is much more important and more notable than any one episode. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, while I was expecting a fancrufty article, on reading it it seems to do a particularly good job of bringing together information from various reliable sources to provide an article that doesn't duplicate any of the individual episodes' articles. Certainly this is a notable part as far as Star Trek canon goes - seems OK to me. ~ mazca ^talk 22:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article does have reliable sources and thus demonstrates notability. As above it is a key plot element in the Star Trek future history deserving of its own article. (I added an AFD template; the article had none.) --Dhartung | Talk 23:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant storyline event in the Star Trek franchise, which affected numerous films and TV series. Reputable sources cited. 23skidoo (talk) 23:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Correction, there are no reliable sources demonstrated, and simply because its Star Trek doesn't make it inherently notable. It requires several reliable sources at least to establish notability, and this has done none. Also, episode article are definitely more notable than reference-less plot articles, but even they have to establish notability. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 03:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources cited/used in the proper manner. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Lucille Wright[edit]

Article about a living person convicted of murder; currently only sourced to one news story. Other than the salacious and dramatic nature of the crime, I can't figure out why this individual is considered notable (any more so than any other violent criminal) -- unlike, say, the vaguely similar Lorena Bobbitt case, this crime does not seem to have entered mainstream coverage or the popular imagination. Apparently the trial caused some comment when the prosecuters reenacted the crime, but I can't find too much about that -- Lexis-Nexis has only three items, two of which are records from the court and one a quick AP story. Searching on her full name, there are only 67 google hits, many of which are Wikipedia mirrors; a search of the database "America's Newspapers" (library subscription only, covers the national press) comes up with only 16 stories, most from local (Texas) papers. While clearly this incident happened, the article seems unencyclopedic and poorly sourced, and as it stands a violation of the BLP policy. Though I'm generally inclusionist, this seems like an area in which to particularly take care with what articles we include. NB: if the decision is to keep, I'll stub and source it as best I'm able, but the results seem likely to be unsatisfactory. phoebe / (talk) 19:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable—G716 <^T·_C> 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poorly referenced, and a case with little notoriety. Since it's a living person's biography, we have to be tough about this. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability for this ordinary homicide case. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, minimally referenced, non-notable, living person. --Rosiestep (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a non-notable person. If anyone wishes to work on a userfied version, please let me know and I will supply the text. --jonny-m t 04:56, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yara Lorenzo[edit]

Non-notable person who gets nowhere near meeting WP:BIO. — Lincolnite (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - autobiography by non-notable—G716 <^T·_C> 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-As creator of the stub, I would like to defend this entry. This stub meets the basic requirements of notability and the organizations mentioned are well-known in South Florida community. The links are not working, but those could easily be edited with some help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an autobiography by a non-notable person. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 00:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary source was added on Lorenzo. Article from a National magazine. Links just need to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.171.153 (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC) Worked on the article's neutrality and added two more sources of national recognition.[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, The Ford and White House Project sources do not IMHO meet WP:BIO#BASIC CRITERIA, depth of coverage is not substantial and there are not multiple independent sources that prove notability. I could not locate any other sources.--Captain-tucker (talk) 10:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Latina Style Magazine is another independent source, in which Lorenzo was featured. There is also another article by Diario Las Americas, which is based in South Florida and read throughout Latin America. (http://www.diariolasamericas.com/news.php?nid=40341). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 13:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, From what I can gather from a google translate of the diariolasamericas article it is just a passing note that Yara Lorenzo will meet with a congresswoman. This unfortunately does nothing to establish notability, and the latinastyle.com link does not appear to be a valid link, latinastyle.com does not appear to have a web server or even a valid DNS records [2]. --Captain-tucker (talk) 14:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is surprising about Latina Style's server being down. It has been a prominent magazine for years. In any event that does not take away from the fact that Lorenzo was featured in an article, published in their magazine (the hit appears when her name is googled). In regards to the Diario piece, it does not only say that Lorenzo will meet with the Congresswoman--it says that Lorenzo will meet with the Congresswoman because she and others will be leading the Bicet Awareness Campaign, a community initiative to raise awareness for jailed Cuban dissident, Oscar Elias Bicet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update, I did located a version of the latinastyle.com via the Internet Archive [3], and again this is a minor mention consisting of "Yara Lorenzo, a legislative correspondent in the Office of Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, recalls an internship with the Congressional Hispanic Caucus during her freshman year in college as an important stepping stone." Again nothing that provides a level of WP:N.--Captain-tucker (talk) 14:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, In fairness to Lorenzo, I am trying to pull up page two and three of the article, where there is further discussion on her work on the hill and a picture of her and His Holiness The Dali Lama. The comment you mention above is the introductory comment in the article, but there is more. With respect to the WP:N requirements, from my understanding, if a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable and significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. True, the Latina style is not exclusive but certainly it is more than trivial: it is discussing her as one of very few Hispanic women working on Capitol Hill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.108.131 (talk) 15:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was PEANUT BUTTER JELLY TI - er - I mean keep. Potential to redirect/merge this elsewhere may be further discussed on the talk page. Shereth 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dancing Banana[edit]

Nothing but an unsourced list of apperances for this popular but unlikely-to-be-sourced meme. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, non-encyclopedia content—G716 <^T·_C> 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unsourced Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep per arguments below, since my vote here I've kinda noticed more and more how oft-mentioned the Peanut Butter Jelly Time meme is, and it seems to be worth an article. This article really needs some reliable sources though. ~ mazca ^talk 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are sources available which should be incorporated into the article (including this new one). --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of those is really substantial; one's a forum post, one was apparently from a college newspaper. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in this book though there's no preview available. Certainly at minimum enough for merger with List of internet memes (it honestly isn't that important or discussable other than listing appearances). --Dhartung | Talk 23:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that the article is primarily about (and in fact receives a redirect regarding) the Peanut Butter Jelly Time Internet meme which is notable and iconic enough to have been referenced on major television programs such as Family Guy. 23skidoo (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the most important page on Wikipedia ever. inb4 -this user has 3 edits, yeah nobody cares how many edits i have you couple of weird online bureaucrats. you guys take yourself to seriously. no child should go without knowing the reason Peter Griffin dressed up like a giant banana and started dancing or something like that. See, I have no idea what he did, because when I was young I didn't get the chance to learn the truth about the connection between family guy and the dancing banana gif. I hope this convinces you to keep the article.Joehoe665 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This guy appears in that new Weezer video! He at least deserves a mention here. Zagalejo^^^ 02:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of Internet phenomena. --John (talk) 18:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Internet phenomena. --Plasma Twa 2 03:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Dhartung and the fact that Wikipedia's article has been cited by major news papers, see for example [4]. Woseph (talk) 20:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This page is linked to by other pages and is an important enough internet meme to stand out on its own, owing to its chained replication through multiple sources, for instance: the Dancing Banana lead to the Dancing Banana in Family Guy, and the Dancing Banana in the Warcraft Dance, eventually leading to Sophat Peou imitating the song nationally on American Idol. This meme has obviously had a noteworthy and insidious influence on culture and is not a phenomenon relegated strictly to the internet. This particular meme's methods of propagation, and level of influence could form important pieces of evidence in a paper or discussion on the overall subject of memetics. It is as encyclopedic as many other major icons and I see the attempted deletion of this article as a sign of recent overzealous attempts to redact pertinent information on Wikipedia due to personal biases on what should be included in Wikipedia. Not to make a Straw Man argument, and I apologize if I'm wrong, but it is my suspicion that an underlying cause for nominating this article for deletion is an elitist distaste for pop-culture without the consideration that almost all culture was once 'pop-culture.' Outright deleting articles like this undermines Wikipedia's credibility as a collaborative project; eliminating articles of interest to the readers of a reader-edited encyclopedia makes those readers afraid to edit. Alright, I'll get off my stump now.(Elustran (talk) 21:13, 3 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Save the Banana! Notable as a pop culture cult favourite, as detailed in the article. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:CSD#G11. --jonny-m t 02:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pbx software[edit]

Reads like an ad. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing to suggest any real-world impact or importance. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged CSD11—G716 <^T·_C> 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep (nomination withdrawn). Wizardman 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Riley[edit]

Notability in question since May 2007. Wizardman 20:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, know nothing about fluid dynamics but a quick glance at hits on [Goolge Scolar] would lead me to believe that this article passes WP:PROF, specific publications that I could quickly find [5],[6],[7],[8],[9],[10]. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Notability in question" is not a reason for deletion, no matter how long the tag has been there. An emeritus professor at a UK university is exceedingly likely to be notable. Some publications should be added. DGG (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really need to remember to look at Google Scholar before AfD'ing. Could've just done that and established notability with little effort. Nom withdrawn. Wizardman 21:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Nandesuka (talk) 01:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luchador callejero extremo ultra violento[edit]

Contested prod (although the prod rationale no longer applies). Mexican promoter of extreme fighting, no asserted notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poor translation almost unreadable; no evidence of encyclopedic value—G716 <^T·_C> 21:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's translation isn't complete. It doesn't even seem very notable. It has no or very few articles linking to this page and links to nowhere. I even think its title wasn't translated correctly as all the words don't even look like English except for ultra. DA PIE EATER (talk) 00:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, no attempt was made to translate the title. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in this 1 day old article. Artene50 (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Platinum Collection (Fine Young Cannibals album)[edit]

This page lists only a track listing. It clearly does not define any verifiability or notability and it is borderline speedy deletion. Razor flame 19:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally I would trout someone for listing a major-label album by a notable band for deletion, but in this case it seems to be a non-notable compilation. I could find no third-party reviews or sales info for this album, nor anything else that verifies any info beyond the track listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A best-of compilation that doesn't seem to have any info available about it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, like TPH, plenty of sources to verify that it exists, nada to show any form of notability apart from a record company trying to squeeze the last dollar from the soul of an artist that used to be on their label. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted by WP:CSD#G12 as a blatant copyright violation; of course, without prejudice to the creation of a non-infringing article that otherwise meets inclusion guidelines. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fasil Bizuneh[edit]

Non-notable, possible copyvio - see Runners World link —G716 <^T·_C> 19:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Achievements seem pretty notable (lots of high placements and wins in athletic events). Having a documentary focused on someone doesn't necessarily PROVE notability (could be a vanity project), but it helps the odds. The copyvio possibility is a bit more concerning, however, and the page is still awfully messy. - Vianello (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G12 Seems substantial enough to delete as a copyvio. Personally, I don't think that the high placements/wins make him notable, especially given the lack of reliable sources to verify the info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robijn Bruinsma[edit]

Non-notable, possible COI as autobiography —G716 <^T·_C> 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems, to me, to pass WP:ACADEMIC. I guess it could be COI, but I see no special evidence. Maybe I'm missing something. Tim Ross (talk) 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Two papers with 100+ citations in Google scholar, but he's listed in a middle position in both of them. The strongest claim to notability seems to be the APS fellowship — how selective are they? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say full professor of physics at a strong physical science school like UCLA is a pretty strong claim to notability too. --C S (talk) 05:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of Ghits, many papers in Google Scholar, several of them cited many times (even disregarding the two papers noted by David Eppstein above). Several important honors ("Distinguished Lecturer, College de France" is very selective and nothing to spit at), Full Professor at a major US University AND Department Chair at a major European University, 44 papers in Web of Science, cited a total of more than 1400 times, h index of 19 (and only a few citations away from 20), etc. How is this not notable? Don't see any evidence of COI. Article could use some more detail and the list of pubications is excessively long (looks more like a complete list than "selected"...) --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Crusio. Selected publications section ought to go IMHO, preferably in favor of expansion of the short description of his research into a section describing the impact of his work on the field. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crusio. Even if one takes out the two 100+ citation papers mentioned by David Eppstein, the citation record for the remaining papers still looks impressive. I do agree that the selected publications section should be either significantly trimmed or deleted altogether. Nsk92 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Baccanello[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 19:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and has no importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Current quality of article is not grounds for deletion. Murtoa (talk) 03:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATHLETE. He has played at the highest level professionally, including the Australian Open.--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 21:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Professional tennis player, competed in the main draw of a GS tournament. RS can surely be found. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep played in Wimbledon among others on the WTP tour. Plenty of sources here. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes notability requirement for athletes. Quality of article is not a reason for deletion. Edward321 (talk) 04:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has played in major tennis tournaments, meets WP:ATHLETE quite comfortably. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, default to keep. Sandstein 17:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annotated bibliography of fly fishing[edit]

Appears to be a random list of books about fly fishing. Arbitary list, appears to serve little purpose. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has quality. DeadmanUndertaker 19:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, what? J Milburn (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not an online card catalogue. Arkyan 20:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
move somewhere. This is a great article for ... somewhere else. Wikibooks, maybe? -- phoebe / (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Phoebe -- I have no idea where to move it, but it is a worthwhile article for its subject. It just doesn' belong on Wikipedia. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Ecoleetage: Are you of the opinion that NO Bibliographies should be included as articles in WP?--Mike Cline (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This deletion proposal has provided no rationale that I can see other than someones opinion that the bibliography is arbitrary and random--the meaning of which I don't quite understand. What about it is random and arbitrary? The original deletion proposal (Jan 2008) and the rationale to keep this article is located at: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Annotated_Bibliography_of_Fly_Fishing. My input at that time to keep is repeated below. Since that deletion proposal the article has been expanded with significant citing of sources. In addition, the number of bibliographies in the Category:Bibliographies by subject has increased to 62. If bibliographies are not to be included in WP, then guidelines to that effect should be developed.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: On the surface I find Bibliographies in Wikipedia very useful. There are currently 57 bibliographies listed under Category: Bibliographies by subject. I suspect there are more that are not categorized. All these bibliographies have one thing in common—they are a list of well cited references related to a particular subject. With the WP emphasis on citing sources, these bibliographies are important. Although their formats differ, their content is essentially the same. If this particular article is Non-Wikipedic then they all are which I believe is not the case. I would be hard pressed to provide a rationale to delete: Bibliography of the Western Apache (or any other bibliography) on grounds other than Bibliographies are not encyclopedic—a premise that I disagree with. The other rationale for Keeping this and other bibliographies is that most of them have been embraced and referenced in their respective Project pages. Members of a project find bibliographies very useful in working on new and existing articles as well as expanding their overall knowledge about the Project subject. To delete this or any other bibliography would be a disservice to knowledge on the related subject.--Mike Cline (talk) 21:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. I am exasperated to see this article renominated yet again, and so soon after it successfully withstood a previous AfD nomination. I see no rationale whatsoever for nominating it again. The "reasons" stated for deleting the article are that it is

a random list
an arbitary list
appears to serve little purpose.

It is most certainly not a "random" or "arbitrary" list, as the most casual perusal will make apparent. It is a comprehensive and carefully selected and ordered list of the most relevant literature of fly fishing, organised both historically and by topic. Any serious student of fly fishing would find this article a mine of exquisitely organised and relevant information.

Mike Cline said above that there are already 62 bibliographies. In fact there are 83, including subcategories. This article is, in my view, one of the finer bibliographies in Wikipedia.

Specifically which of the reasons for deletion are being invoked here? If an appropriate reason can not be given, then this AfD is out of order, is timewasting, and should be withdrawn. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just examined the 61 other bibliographies under Category:Bibliographies by subject, and can now confidently assert that Annotated bibliography of fly fishing is the pick of the lot. The nearest contender is the also comprehensive and well organised Charles Sanders Peirce bibliography. If this nomination is to succeed, then all the other bibliographies need to go as well. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're discussing this article. That other crap exists is irrelevant. Are we going to see every 'argument to avoid'? J Milburn (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Milburn, there is a difference between one and many. If you read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about using article x as an example. That is one article. I was talking about a category which contains 61 other articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There are many articles on Wikipedia that shouldn't be here- it's possible that most/all of them should go, I haven't looked into it. The point of that section of the essay is that you can't hide behind the existence of other articles to justify the existence of another. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I am not sure whether to laugh or whether to cry. "Carefully selected" is the same as 'arbitrary'- you are choosing what to include through your own criteria. Are you going to pretend that you intend to add every fiction/non fiction book about fly fishing? No? Then what are your inclusion criteria? It has also been argued that the page is useful. I'll not patronise you all linking to a certain essay, but I do wonder why people continue to use the same ridiculous arguments, and it saddens me that people still accept them. If it's so useful to project members, put it in the Wikipedia space. A lot of WikiProjects maintain a list of potential references. This page is not an article- the only non-articles we should have in our article space are dab pages, redirects, and lists. Lists have some kind of inclusion criteria or end-game- this just plain doesn't. Would the people here support the existence of a 'list of books about fly fishing'? Of course not. Why is this any different? If these books are being used as references, they should be added to the respective articles' reference lists, not thrown together in this hodge-podge. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing administrator: Please note the blatant canvassing by the article creator here. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utter nonsense. This is not "blatant canvassing" - it was drawing my attention to the nonsense going on here. Mike and I work together on the fishing project. Our concern is with producing and protecting good fishing articles. --Geronimo20 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, so you wouldn't mind if I went to some of my Wikifriends and said 'Could you please weigh in and help me get this article deleted? There are some people who want it kept.' J Milburn (talk) 10:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear Milburn, once again there really is a difference between one and many. If you were to read the guideline you cited, you will find it talks about canvassing multiple wikipedians. And it has a scale, starting with the entirely acceptable friendly notice to a limited number of people. You have to go a long way up that scale before the canvassing becomes unacceptable. I see on your user page that you are an admin, so it would be good to read the guidelines that guide you. Please feel free to invite as many of your Wikifriend deletionists as you want. But they probably already watch these pages. What would be useful would be some clear and sensible reasons why an article of this calibre should be excluded from Wikipedia. --Geronimo20 (talk) 22:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact, once again you miss the spirit of the advice/policy and instead focus on the letter. There's a fine line between a friendly notification (perhaps at a WikiProject page or the talk page of a user who has also contributed to the article) and running to someone and telling them to join a discussion mirroring your opinion in an attempt to add weight to your argument. Also, I am not going to contact any Wikifriends, call in any favours or try and advertise this page to rampant deletionists, as I know better than that. If you truly want a reason for this deletion, I will present it again- this is an indiscriminate list- there are many, many books about fly fishing, and Wikipedia is not a directory- attempting to create a list of them all is not an encyclopedia article. Writing about these books in their own articles, maybe even creating a centralised list of books we have articles on- that would be encyclopedic. Citing any books used as sources in the relevant articles- that would be encyclopedic. Having this slightly odd, very arbitrary list is not encyclopedic. If you want a policy, then I point you towards what Wikipedia is not and our style guidelines for lists. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments is the article's last AFD nomination. Nominator provides no explanation regarding what has changed since the last nomination. In the absence of such an explanation this debate is simply going over old ground. Debate (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as orginal research and per the precedents set by the near routine deletion of 'annotated bibliography' articles like this. What reliable third party source(s) says that these books are particularly notable and supports the annotations? This material is, I image, quite useful to people with an interest in the topic, but it isn't encylopedic and should be moved onto a more suitable website than this one - Wikipedia is not a web host or a blog. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick--I would challenge your statement What reliable 3rd Party Sources says these books are particularily notable The great majority of the books in this bibliography are cited and celebrated multiple times in the the the works listed under the heading--Fly fishing history, bibliographies and literature reviews. You personally maynot know who Hills, Radcliff, Goodspeed, Starkman, McDonald, Gingrich, Waterman, Schullery, and Herd are but these noted angling authors whose work on the history of fly fishing is widely known and respected. Additionally, one only needs review the extensive inventories of the angling literature collections of noted anglers and sportsman in the 19th and 20th century to know that most if not all of these titles resided in the great collections of angling literature. If the above are not reliable 3rd Party sources, what are?--Mike Cline (talk) 14:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should ignorance of the subject matter invalidate an editor or admin's desire to delete an article? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Andy - No intent to Invalidate anyone's desire. I was merely commenting on the rationale being used which I believe was incorrect.--Mike Cline (talk) 19:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nick - After doing some searching I could not find anything in WP to support your statement: per the precedents set by the near routine deletion of 'annotated bibliography' articles like this.. There is nothing in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes to support the statement. Should I look somewhere else, or is this your personal opinion? Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find one argument used in the last AfD pretty persuasive—–that this should be regarded as a summary style spinoff of the further reading section of the various articles on fly fishing. As an aside, I'm rather surprised that the one book on the subject that is widely known to non-anglers is not on the list. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Observation It should be noted that indeed an effort is underway to turn the Fly fishing article into a Summary article: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishing/Proposals --Mike Cline (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for reminding me of the J. R. Hartley book. I actually have that in my library and was living in England when the first J. R. Hartley commercials were being shown on TV. I've added the book to the Fly fishing humor section.--Mike Cline (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If wikipedia has bibliographies, then this is the sort of bibliography it should have. This is not "an online card catalogue", it's a carefully annotated list to make it more than that. That makes it valuable (not necessarily encyclopedic).

Wikipedia has a category for bibliographies. That's not WP:OSE, that's an indication of established consenus that bibliographic lists of good quality that extend a mere card catalogue are encyclopedic. If we delete this article, let's destroy the whole category too. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Articles like this have been deleted at AfD before; I can find you some examples if you like. That nullifies the argument that others haven't been deleted, and yes, maybe all of them should be deleted. ~~You claim that it is valuable, but not encyclopedic~~. So, you support non-encyclopedic content in the mainspace of our encyclopedia? If it's valuable but not encyclopedic, it should be moved to the Wikipedia space, or another project. If there's a WikiBook about fishing, I'm sure they would appreciate it. J Milburn (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that your counter-argument contains two obvious logical fallacies. WP:AGF requires me to assume that this wasn't sophistry on your part, so perhaps I have merely used too subtle an expression of my point.

Firstly the undoubted fact that articles from that category have been deleted is irrelevant here. No-one is claiming that poor bibliographic lists aren't worthy of deletion. Your own recommendation to preserve this article elsewhere is itself a confirmation of the general agreement that it is a good article of its type. The point is that the category exists, and the consensus is that such a category should exist (i.e. not WP:OSE).

Secondly I did not express that, "it is valuable, but not encyclopedic." I merely used one point to demonstrate its value, another to demonstrate its acceptance as being encyclopedic. Although each point may only demonstrate one attribute at a time, these are not exclusive (that's what "not necessarily" means here). Andy Dingley (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your first point- I'm not sure why you believe the existence of a category suggests that there is a consensus to have articles of that type. I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted. I'm making the point that, just as arguing 'similar articles have been deleted' is irrelevant, arguing 'similar articles exist' is meaningless. Anyway, anyone can make a category, just as anyone can make an article. Regarding your second point- I apologise, I misread your original comment. J Milburn (talk) 21:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I've seen categories of albums by bands that have been speedy deleted." The point is that this category, has not. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I phrased it wrong. I meant categories of albums by a band whose article was deleted per A7. I'm just saying that a category existing doesn't mean that all, or even any, of the articles in it should be kept. I realise it's not the same, I'm just trying to point out that it isn't that clear cut. Apologies, I was a little confrontational before. J Milburn (talk) 22:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 refers to subject importance, not bibliography. If your point here was to be relevant, you'd have to assert that fly fishing itself was not important. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point I am making is simpler than that- the existence of a category does not mean that there is any consensus that articles within it should exist, as demonstrated by my example. J Milburn (talk) 12:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete reasons are thin on rationale. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Atwater[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 19:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - on first examination seems to pass WP:PROF, as "The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" as seems widely cited, including here Extended_Duration_Orbiter#cite_note-osu-10 - (incidentally article doesn't have notification on it at moment so deletion nomination is a bit broken) -Hunting dog (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

have added template to page -Hunting dog (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, based on the Wright Brothers Medal. This ought to be a solid keep, but after looking up his record in the WebOfScience, the citation results are not impressive with top hits at 20, 19, 11, 11, 11. It seems somewhat low for an active experimental subject like physical chemistry. Still, based on the Wright Brothers Medal I think he deserves a keep. Incidentally, I verified that he did receive this award and the info checked out[11]. Nsk92 (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nsk92, Wright Brothers Medal tips it for me. Pete.Hurd (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, seems to meet WP:MUSIC. Some very poorly reasoned delete rationales. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Campos[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. This should have been speedied a long time ago. In fact, I almost wonder if it still could be. - Vianello (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can't be speedied because there are claims of notabilty ("one of the top Christian singers in all of Latin America.").--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BAND criterion 4 with international touring [12], criterion 8 with nomination for the Premios la Gente (Latin Music and Sports Awards) [13] and criterion 1 with significant coverage in multiple independent sources. [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient signs of notability. There's also a world of Latino Christian music which is kind of interesting to learn about and not much dealt with here. This person seems an important part of that.--T. Anthony (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no disrespect intended. Nandesuka (talk) 01:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jolanta Bledaite[edit]

May not meet WP:N or WP:BIO1E. Murdered woman, but being murdered alone simply isn't notable, even if media coverage makes it appear notable briefly.--No More Tears, Baby (talk) 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC) No More Tears, Baby (talk) 18:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Possible copyvio.—G716 <^T·_C> 19:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable even if there were crime reports on BBC. Renata (talk) 20:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as they are only notable for one event - their death AngelOfSadness talk 21:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was thinking just this morning how this case has now disappeared entirely from the news. Major coverage at the time of the discovery of the body parts, but the murder investigation seems pretty open-and-shut and not particularly significant in itself. Ms Bledaite is not a notable person either. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - sufficient reliable sources provided to establish notability. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Klein (art activist)[edit]

Notability not established —G716 <^T·_C> 18:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete have tried looking for ref's but only seems to have local news mentions, so think fails notability - Hunting dog (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Over 10k ghits for '"Paul Klein" art Chicago', ok lots off his blog, but he seems a notable figure there. Article was created in Feb 7 by a three-edit username, so no help to be expected from there. Johnbod (talk) 10:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I came back to look at this actually with a view to maybe withdrawing delete, I agree there's lots of cross blog talk about him, but I can't actually source some of the existing claims, though info might be out there somewhere. Re being "a contributor to the New York Times", NYT is pretty well archived but couldn't get hits on this Paul Klein on their site, [20] google search brings up something he wrote for the Chicago Life supplement of the Sunday New York Times (which seems to be a regional advertising supplement). Think article might shrink rather than grow unless someone else is more successful in finding reliable sources for the info. -Hunting dog (talk) 05:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of reliable sources found by Google News [21]. I've put some of them in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems unnecessary advertising, blog ad infinitum. Modernist (talk) 15:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised by Phil Bridger, I feel this satisfies WP:BIO at this time. RFerreira (talk) 16:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Paul Klein is a critical faculty in Chicago's art community whose efforts extend beyond curation or self-interest. Well-worth inclusion here. Agreed that a cursory web search yields insufficient background, but sure that sufficient press exists, confident that Wikipedia page is good basis for ongoing compilation, opportunity to review Klein's legacy and impact. Please keep and allow recognition in searches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rgfunderburk (talk • contribs) 19:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 delete rationales are very poor. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Ebersole[edit]

Non-notable —G716 <^T·_C> 18:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and has no importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.The article states that Ebersole has served on the Editorial board of the philosophy journal, Philosophical Investigations (Blackwell Publishers, Oxford). See also Google Scholar results.--Eastmain (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Being member of the Ed Board of one single journal is in itself not very notable, unless it is the board of a major journal (and in that case one is likely to be on several boards anyway). I am not familiar enough with this field to judge what is the case here. --Crusio (talk) 19:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Chairman of the Dept of Philosophy at U. Oregon. I agree about the editorial board--although this is a major journal, it's just the 13 member "Advisory editorial board" , which does not really count for much. The publications need to be looked at, though. Full name is Frank B. Ebersole. I see even in GS about 12 strong papers in major journal--but they're from the 1950's, so he low citations (30 total) in a field like this dont mean much, & so other indexes need to be used to check on citations. In worldcat I see 2 major books: Ebersole, F. B. (1979). Meaning and saying: essays in the philosophy of language. Washington: University Press of America. and Ebersole, F. B. (1979). Language and perception: essays in the philosophy of language. Washington: University Press of America, each in over a hundred libraries. But the article does have a PR tone about it. DGG (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to meet WP:ACADEMIC. The article is of low quality but that is not enough to delete. The subject is at least potentially notable. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Catlett[edit]

Apparent autobiography with no notability proven —G716 <^T·_C> 18:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and no importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Loads of reliable sources found by Google News and Google Books show notability. I've put some references in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Director of TerraGrid is notable, and the other sources found by Phil fill out the article appropriately. DGG (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Shereth 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Topalian[edit]

Unsourced autobiography, notability not established. Wizardman 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is of low quality, and no importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After spending some time searching for sources, it seems none of the content in the article can be verified. AngelOfSadness talk 21:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsourced, no evidence of notability —G716 <^T·_C> 21:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:07, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm a bit suspicious about some of the article content. Does anyone get a lifetime achievement award at the age of 25? Phil Bridger (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G10 --B (talk) 18:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Munda[edit]

I don't know exactly what this is. It may be a hoax. And if it is a real person, it isn't notable. It also needs wikify-ing. StewieGriffin! • Talk 18:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax under G3. Penis severed in 19 pieces by a boat propeller, glow-sticks in a 19-foot pool...all of it is little more than ridiculous. FusionMix 18:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no importance and no quality. DeadmanUndertaker 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as a POV fork and a coat-rack article. To the extent material can be reliably sourced and can be written in an NPOV fashion it should appear in Tesco. Future articles such as Allegations concerning when Tesco stopped beating its wife should be speedily deleted as well. Nandesuka (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Litigation involving Tesco[edit]

The article is a violation of the neutral point of view by suggesting any and all cases against Tesco are notable, and the cases listed are on the whole not notable with regard to the corporation as a whole, they involve single incidents, or trivial outcomes. The article creation follows on from an aborted attempt to include the list at Tesco, and considering the existence of Criticism of Tesco, is wholly redundant. MickMacNee (talk) 18:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the section Tesco#Tesco_litigation, which predated this article's creation, and duplicates the notable content. MickMacNee (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality rating, and is of low importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are quality ratings reasons to delete? Garion96 (talk) 19:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems too libellous to be tolerated in its current unsourced state. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article is valuable and interesting. If there is any problem with neutrality then it's the wrong tag up here. Of course it's not libelous and everything is sourced: that's what the case references are there for. It's highly important because it's a list of cases. Every case is a precedent. Wik idea 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Anything important enough to cover should be covered in pre-existing articles. (added) Furthermore, Wikipedia is not meant to be a complete database of every legal action any company has been involved in. The vast majority of the cases listed in this article are unremarkable in all ways, with no lasting interest. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete POV fork. Jtrainor (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed it's a POV fork and also a legal landmine. I agree with the nom that not all cases against Tesco are notable. I recommend picking the one or two most notable ones (i.e. ones with national or international scope), making sure the sources are airtight, and then adding them to the main article on the company. 23skidoo (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The notable cases will have their own articles or be covered in the criticism article. I don't think we need a list of every time someone hurts their arm and sues. Maxa megalon 2000 05:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominators deletion arguments are faulty:

NPOV - according to the guidelines of neutral point of view for Wikipedia All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. The way the cases are presented does not indicate a breach of the neutrality guidelines of Wikipedia as they are a simple summary of the case that can be found in most legal journals or records. While there were entries that had weasel words and poor structure, a quick edit negated those. The nominators claim that the article is a NPOV fork is thus groundless.
Notability - While some of the cases are trivial in nature and do not warrant inclusion, there are several cases that appear to be precedent setting in there nature. A search of the web reveals notability fairly easily. The trivial cases should be edited out and the pertinent ones expanded on. The article very easily meets the four standards of notability.
The nominators linking of these two policies, WP:NPOV and WP:Note, as a valid justification for deletion is erroneous. If a subject is meets the four standards of notability, it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. It is then the authors duty to insure that the information is then presented in such a way that it does not violate the standards of neutrality, as well as demonstrate what makes the article notable. To claim that the subject an article violates the standards NPOV because is not notable is, for lack of a better term, ludicrous.
Legal cases are not criticism. They are, by their very nature, disputes between two parties that needs to be resolved in a structured legal forum. Criticism is a party or parties stating an opinion that may or may not be legal in nature. There is no redundancy as they are not same thing, and folding this article into the Criticisms article would not be appropriate as such.

This is the wrong forum for this discussion. The article should be tagged for cleanup and citations, and the primary author should be given time to properly copy edit the article and structure it in summary style. The claims of legal land mine and lack of rating and quality scale by 23skidoo and DeadmanUndertaker are not valid policy based arguments justifying the deletion of this article. The claim of WP:Not by Matthew Brown is a valid point, but it can be addressed by surgical edits to the article removing the trivial cases, as stated earlier. Regarding the calls to incorporate this information into the main article, based upon the size of the main article, ≈80 kb, it is justifiable that information such as this be split off from the main article. In order to keep the main article at a more manageable size, around 50 kb per Wikipedia standards, this article should also not folded back into it.

Because of the wording of the comments made by the nominator about the disputed nature of this information, it also appears that the nominator may also be slightly biased against the primary author or the contributions made by the author. This is only an observation on my part, but it should be taken into consideration because it could be coloring the nominators view and preventing him from making a qualified judgment in regards to this article. The two users are in the middle of an ongoing edit war over a content dispute at the main Tesco article. This AfD is the result of it. Nothing personal with the two contributors, but I must suggest this AfD be put down until such time that the two can come to an agreement or a third party can truly moderate a compromise. I personally agree with WikIdea per my comments above. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 17:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have mistakenly separated points 1 and 2, when they are in fact linked. It is the listing of minor cases as a separate article that is a violation of NPOV, it has nothing to do with how they are worded. The creator, despite invitation at the main article, and now yourself, keep asserting that some are notable, without indicating which ones. Please list them, and why - note the section Tesco#Tesco litigation that already exists. Other sections in Tesco clearly need separating out before this one does if size is the only justification for this fork. Point 3. is just semantics, and is not a justification not to delete this title, plenty of people would have no problem in classing legal action against Tesco as criticism, not that it needs to go into that article anyway. Afd is certainly an appropriate venue when the article's creation is an attempt to circumvent discussion of the material at the main article. I will point out again that the user was advised to highlight the notable cases not included at Tesco for discussion. His response was this 100% cut and paste re-creation of the already rejected material. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point out the policy in the MoS that states grouping similar information together is a violation of NPOV so that I may review it and make an educated comment? Also, please explain why the section Tesco#Litigation still exists in an article that has grown above the 80 kb limit. Why has that article not been split into its own article per the size guidelines using the method set forth in thesummary style guidelines? Why should that section remain in the body while others are more worthy of a split?

As to notability, cases mentioned in the first section of the article are several that strike me as conforming to the standards of note; a Google search of at least two of those generated several thousand hits relating to the cases, so I am sure that you could all work on citing them properly. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 00:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(indent) Grouping together insignificant case information would be a violation of the principle of undue weight portion of the NPOV policy, specifically, the minority viewpoint being pushed here is that any and all legal cases involving Tesco/A.N. Corporation are worthy of note. Secondly, I ask again for you to list the cases that are notable, if they do not include the cases already referenced in Tesco#Tesco litigation. As already said at length, the cases with purported notability should be highlighted and justified on the talk page to be considered for inclusion, a process that was recommended and ignored by the re-creation of the entire rejected section as a separate article here. The size issue is irrelevant as to whether this article is deleted, its deletion from the main article has already been endorsed, and there are obviously other sections of Tesco that should be forked first before the remaining litigation section. MickMacNee (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rejected by who? You? Hahaha. Wik idea 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact the creator asserts above that every one of the cases is a precedent as it stands now. That is just clearly wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all your eminent legal expertise, it should be then easy to explain why these cases (I challenge you to name any single one) are not precedent. But I expect you can't. Wik idea 20:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Completely at random, the top one in the list. What is the legal precedent set down in that case? MickMacNee (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very surprised if any of these cases set any legal precedent, let alone all of them. The Health and Safety cases especially are trivial. Man slips on crisps? Child walks into door? Piece of wire found in food? Er, no. Black Kite 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have taken a content dispute to an AfD discussion. This is neither the place nor the time. If that is the case then you, as the nominator, are clearly suspect in your motives. You two should refrain from commenting as you are clearly biased. Please comment only on the merits of the discussion. Jeremy ( Blah blah...)

Delete The trivial and run-of-the-mill cases can be stripped out per WP:NOT#IINFO, and if anything else is really encyclopedic enough to be mentioned in the main article, then it can be. Black Kite 21:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the main article is already at 80 kb in length and the addition of a complex legal section could push it over 100 kb. The article is in desperate need of an bold editor who can do what needs to be done to bring the thing under control. --Jeremy ( Blah blah...) 04:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put comments and replies on talk page. Sorry Black Kite, but even though you're an administrator, it doesn't look like you're any better a judge than some of the other users. You wouldn't believe how complicated slipping on crisps etc and wire found in food can be. Wik idea 22:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another thing Black Kite, looking at your interests - trains - it would be just as easy to say the same thing as all those above have about them. How would you respond if I said "all those trains from the British Rail corporate liveries should be scrapped, because really it's all irrelevant toss. You've seen one train you've seen them all!" I think you'd reply that I was being rather ignorant about the subtle differences between train models. Well that's precisely what's going on here with these legal cases. Wik idea 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if there is some incredibly important precedent being set in one of these cases, then it would be useful to actually explain that in the article, wouldn't it? Otherwise there is nothing to distinguish it from being another person-falls-over-sues-store case. You can't just list a whole shedload of cases, claim that they set a precedent, but not explain why. Also I'd sort out your civility problems while you're there, too, because an attitude of "I'm right and you're wrong because I know more about this subject" isn't particularly appealing, and it's Wikipedia policy that is being discussed here, not the finer intricacies of Health and Safety Law. Black Kite 09:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get sour. It's okay to be wrong sometimes. Just so long as you admit your mistakes, and then correct them. I don't apologise for knowing more about this subject than you, because clearly I do. That's why I write about it. But the difference between you and me is that I don't purport to pass judgment on subjects of which I have no knowledge. I try to learn first, often from online encyclopedias. So are you going to change your mind, and get rid of your misconceived advocacy of deleting this interesting article for lawyers? I expect you won't, because now your pride is at stake. But prove me wrong, and show me you're better than the one who nominated this article in the first place! Wik idea 11:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's where the problem lies here. I'm perfectly knowledgeable enough to pass judgement, because it's the relevance of the article in terms of Wikipedia policy that is the only issue here, and that's something I am certainly familiar with. Having said that, I'm always perfectly prepared to change my mind; if you can produce relevant information that shows why these particular cases are notable, I'll certainly consider it. Black Kite 12:33, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I have already posted responses on the talk page. I could do the same for every single case. You're absolute, this is about policy: (1) notability (2) neutrality. If it's neutrality, then it needs a neutrality tag and people to say what's not neutral, rather than the other way around. If it's notability, then I think I've already shown why I'm correct, and this page is notable. Wik idea 13:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you're still going to need to explain why each case - not just one or two - is any more notable than the many other similar cases. And this needs to be in the article, not on a talkpage. (I note that one case does appear to have some element of precedence, but that one has its own article). Black Kite 14:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'll do that for this law article, if you do it for your train article. Wik idea 18:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A far better use of your time would be to go back and read WP:NOTE, WP:NOT#DIR, WP:INTERESTING and WP:NPOV, since you clearly don't understand the concepts that we are dealing with here. Oh, and WP:CIVIL. I won't comment further. Black Kite 18:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good.Wik idea 09:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not every case cited is notable because those settled or decided at first instance are only persuasive precedents and would not pass WP:N on their own, and there really is nothing to be gained by mentioning them at all, as any large company gets involved in litigation at that level. Of the others, if they set out novel interpretations of the law (as the Nattrass case did), they should be able to stand on their own as articles within WikiProject:Law or within a legal topic. There is nothing here of the notability, say, of the McLibel case, and the only linking fact is that Tesco was a party in all these cases. One might think that this was a somewhat indiscriminate collection of cases with no obvious point in mind. Outside the context of writing a law-based article, to make these cases notable enough to merit inclusion would require multiple, reliable, secondary sources, and I don't see any. --Rodhull andemu 20:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So it's plain that this is not at all a deletion debate for the article. If anything it's about what should be included. And Mickmacknee, who nominated it in the first place was just pursuing a sour grapes agenda. What a waste of time. Wik idea 23:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only up to a point. I think WP:NPOV is a bit of a red herring here; articles on Microsoft and McDonald's deal with major litigation which has been reported outside the hallowed halls of justice (where I have long since ceased to tread), and reporting facts can never be POV unless it is done indiscriminately to make some point. I'm not saying that is the case here, because I can appreciate both points of view in what is essentially a content dispute between two editors. That is why I made a comment rather than a vote for delete/keep. Both sides of the case have merits. However, the issue is what is appropriate for Wikipedia. Certainly, WP:NOT includes "indiscriminate lists of information", which the minor pieces of personal injury and Employment Tribunal litigation would appear to me to be as they are of little value legally or otherwise. As already pointed out in my original comments, if a legal decision involving Tesco is sufficiently important as far as legal precedent goes, arguably it deserves its own article, and may be referred to from the main article, or a subsection thereof, but certainly not lumped in for a purpose which as far as I can see, has not yet been made clear. --Rodhull andemu 00:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See the prior discussion and the main article's litigation section. MickMacNee (talk) 00:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already have, since I don't believe in going naked into the debating-chamber; and the third opinion, which I tend towards agreeing with. If only it had ended there. --Rodhull andemu 00:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Violates NPOV and is not encyclopaedic. Where are pages regarding Asda, Sainsbury's etc.? Welshleprechaun (talk) 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure). A reasonably clear view from participants that this is a well sourced stub that satisfies the notability criterion. WilliamH (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Baby (After the Club)[edit]

Fails WP:Music. Non-notable unreleased single with no sources DiverseMentality (Talk) (Contribs) 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User has been copying and pasting this comment onto several other AFDs dated 1 June. 193.60.133.205 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added sources; also, the song was released as a single. It charted on the Hot R&B/Hip-Hop Songs, a "significant" music chart (in line with WP:MUSIC). 193.60.133.205 (talk) 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 193.60.133.205. Europe22 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Decent stub with multiple reliable sources, asserts notability beyond just "charting song by notable artist". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zoey Beckner[edit]

Non-notable vanity page for very minor athlete Restepc (talk) 17:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~ah hell what's going on here....Restepc (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same rationale as already outlined on the very article's talk page. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sickening vanity. JuJube (talk) 04:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has been tagged since Aug 2007. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Curnock[edit]

Candidate in a congressional election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy 96 17:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — lacks of notability, not referenced. macy^talk 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Running for congress" seems to be Mr. Curnock's sole claim to notability. If he wins, that should do the trick. Not yet. Tim Ross (talk) 21:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Utterly fails WP:POLITICIAN. Qworty (talk) 04:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added citations to some news stories about him. He's the Republican candidate to be Bush's Congressman. The races in this district get some extra attention simply because of the anomaly of Bush being represented by a Democrat, in addition to the heavy Republican registration edge. JamesMLane t c 07:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Mentioned, fails to meet any of the standards for WP:POLITICIAN. It also fails to meet any sub-requisites of WP:POLITICIAN including WP:NOTE. Removed in accordance with Wikipedia Policy. ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 14:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G3 as an obvious hoax. Author Liambarnes1234 (talk · contribs) blocked as well for self-promotion and sockpuppetry. Blueboy 96 17:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Barnes[edit]

Unverifiable. No G-hits on Liam Barnes w/Simon Cowell. Which show? Certainly not Britain's Got Talent. — ERcheck (talk) 17:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Earlier version created by same editor (possibly "autobiographical") in March (which was speedy deleted) did not say that Barnes won any contest in 2007, and in fact, noted that he was "active" from 2008 to present. — ERcheck (talk) 17:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete: As per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close per the fact that it's a procedural nomination to discuss a policy implementation that is already occuring in a centralised discussion elsewhere.. naerii - talk 18:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amurn[edit]

Please, please limit discussion to notability of towns like Amurn and other suitable AFD concerns. All other discussion should be posted here instead.

Procedural nomination. Several editors at the linked discussion believe towns like Amurn are nonnotable; several believe they are notable. I want to applaud the hard work of fine editors like Fritzpoll, Blofeld of SPECTRE, or Editorofthewiki in making this article possible, as well as the two million articles expected to be structurally similar to it; I have nothing against any of them, nor against the hundreds or thousands of fine Afghanis who live in Amurn, as my comment below shows. I am creating this page solely for the purpose of centralized community discussion on whether towns like Amurn are inherently notable, and I do not expect to participate further.

Please focus your discussion on the two million towns like Amurn, and not Amurn itself, as discussion about Amurn itself will only tend to skew the AFD without providing an answer to the larger and more important question. Please choose among Keep, Merge and redirect, and Delete, as I don't believe other options will be fruitful. JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge and redirect as nonnotable; the slight usable content would move to Darvaz, its historical district. Simple argument. The community has generally held for years that any town article is theoretically notable; this judgment, however, has been based on the fact that some human took a minimum level of interest in the town and a minimum level of effort to create its article (and, when challenged, to defend it). Thanks to Fritzpoll, we now have a technological change in the balance of power and approximately two million articles can be created with a much lower level of average effort. Therefore the prior consensus does not demonstrate notability for towns which no human has taken the minimum level of interest in the specific town itself, or the minimum level of effort in creating the article. (The other challenges related to the bulk issue, i.e., having two million one-line articles, with good formatting but without much more hard information than name and location, are to be discussed at the link above. This page relates to the individual independent notability issue.) I believe that some other threshold should replace the effort threshold for these two million towns, preferable demonstration of some minimum population (the figure itself is unimportant because it can start high, say 50,000, and be adjusted lower by increments until the community finds the appropriate level, say 1,000). JJB 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Wrong forum - I appreciate the sentiment, but there is a proposed notability guideline that could better cover this issue. The community is also discussing this in a centralised fashion elsewhere. For a general proposal, see Wikipedia:Notability (Places and transportation), I think Fritzpoll (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum per Fritz. Wrad (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close There appears to be centralised discussion. EJF (talk) 18:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close What about WP:POINT? Also, Amurn - and other cities and villages - are inherently notable per WP:N. Plrk (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Langton's Speech[edit]

As far as I can tell this is an article about how someone's friend talks - completely unverifiable. Guest9999 (talk) 16:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G1 Nonsense/vandalism. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vandalism, WP:OR. Doug Weller (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in due time. The formatting of the article at least has a veneer of academic authenticity to it. If there's any actual substance to that, the author needs to source it. However, considering Google turns up nadda on it, I rather doubt we'll see that happen. - Vianello (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Magnetawan (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources and lack of interest. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 close) RMHED (talk) 19:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Allen Smith[edit]

Notability is not shown. DimaG (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Who's Who in Hell and Celebrities in Hell received substantial coverage well beyond WP:BK. CNN Free Inquiry The Humanist --Dhartung | Talk 17:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is of low quality, and has no importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since you're leaving this identical comment on several AFDs, would you care to be more specific in this instance? --Dhartung | Talk 23:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are reliable sources for this author, [22], [23], here are some taken from the EBSCO database via my library so there are no direct links to them:
- Title:Celebrities in Hell [book].Source:Humanist; Sep/Oct2002, Vol. 62 Issue 5, p46, 1/2p
- title:Celebrities in Hell (Book). Source:Library Journal; 4/1/2002, Vol. 127 Issue 6, p96, 1/6p
- Title A Mentor Shares a Secret That Really Wasn't. Source:New York Times; 5/19/2002, Vol. 151 Issue 52123, p4, 0p, 1bw --Captain-tucker (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete as vandalism by East718, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Animal rights/alternate version[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Animal rights/alternate version

Looks like a clever hoax, vanispamcruftisement Ziggy Saw dust 16:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete possibly speedy delete G12 at least parts of it are unattributed copies of sections from Animal rights in violation of the GFDL lisence under which the content was released. Guest9999 (talk) 16:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Animal rights#1789: Bentham and Animal rights#1754: Rousseau to Animal rights/alternate version#1789: Bentham and Animal rights/alternate version#1754: Rousseau. Guest9999 (talk) 16:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - What?! We don't do "alternate versions". Sorry. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Alternate version", clever vandalism/test page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Renee Richards(UK)[edit]

fails WP:PORNBIO ninety:one 16:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surely famous enough in her field of work?--No More Tears, Baby (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nom. Fails WP:PORNBIO - no major awards, unique contributions, or notable mainstream media feature appearances that I could find. Tim Ross (talk) 20:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, notability is lacking. (Though that photo is, admittedly, quite nice). Ecoleetage (talk) 21:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She's been nominated for a major award in the field - an AVN award ^[1] Jamesmchallem 13:03, 3 June 2008 (GMT)

CommentThe movie[24] she was in was nominated, not Renee. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She's also one of the main (top 3) girls regularly featured at TelevisionX (UK's flagship version of Playboy TV) ^[2] Jamesmchallem 12:59, 4 June 2008 (GMT)
- You already voted, but can you find a WP:reliable source independent of Television X that says all this? • Gene93k (talk) 12:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - just being 'one of the top three girls' doesn't meet PORNBIO though? ninety:one 19:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh...no, I don't believe it does. Tim Ross (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. The subject does not quite meet WP:PORN BIO at this time, but perhaps later. RFerreira (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

References[edit]

^ Sore Throat
^ British Porn stars, UK Porn stars - Television X - The Fantasy Channel

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nandesuka (talk) 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knights Templar and popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing unfinished nom for User:NickPenguin. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, Twinkle lost my nomination message. Oh well, I'll just type it out again. Procedural nomination. Article was deleted in a "tainted" Afd several months ago, involving banned users and sockpuppets. As a result of the deletion review, the article was userfied, cleaned up, merged back into mainspace, and this AfD was created to try for a clean vote. Personally I am in favour of keep, but I am involved in a popular culture related wikiproject, so take my !vote with a grain of salt. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 16:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A really major subject in popular culture. Many works people know about. Specific sources should be added, and perhaps some of the ones that might be dubious discussed, but that's editorial matters. DGG (talk) 16:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this article should be improved, it doesn't seem as if anyone formulated a solid rationale for its deletion. --Loremaster (talk) 16:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above. and or in popular culture? -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a standard naming convention for "in popular culture" type articles yet, although the majority do follow the "in popular culture" pattern. Some articles use "Cultural depictions of X", but that seems to be used on things with a broader cultural influence, like Cultural depictions of frogs and Cultural depictions of Jesus. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major topic, referenced frequently in popular culture. Plus the article survived deletion review and was cleaned up and improved. 23skidoo (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable, best in a separate article rather than in the main Knights Templar article Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has quality, and is of high importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Omne Datum Optimum. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per Colonel Warden. --Firefly322 (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article could use editing and better referencing, but the notability of the content does not appear to be a problem. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Templars come up a lot in fiction, so this is useful for people researching either Templars or elements for story creation.MKULTRA333 (talk) 06:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the opening prose saves it. References that haven't been discussed in print should be mercilessly removed IMO. WillOakland (talk) 08:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep and my arguments last time are just augmented by the various improvements since. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just think the article has the wrong approach here. Rather than simply listing everything that the Knights Templar have ever been mentioned in or vaguely referred to, the article could do well to provide, in some more prose, an analysis of the Knights Templar in popular culture, using examples of appearances where necessary. If the list is kept, it should be maintained so that the appearances are notable, and referenced to remove original research and: for instance, the StarCraft comparison to the Knights Templar is wholly unnecessary as there's nothing to directly link the development of the Templar caste in the game to the Knights Templar, other than the fact that the developer liked the name. Each entry should have the role of the Knights Templar elaborated on briefly to help show the notability of the Knights Templar within the work - entries like "National Treasure, 2004" and "The Da Vinci Code, bestselling 2003 novel by Dan Brown. This was also adapted into a film version in 2006" tell you nothing useful about the Templar in popular culture, whereas "The Revenge of the Shadow King, by Derek Benz and J.S. Lewis, relates an alternate history of the Knights Templar, aligning them with an age-old order whose primary role is to defend the world from the powers of darkness. In this book, the Templars still exist and operate today from the shadows of an underground organization." does. Keep it, but improve by ensuring verifability, adding further (sourced) analysis in prose and keeping examples to ones where the appearance of the Templar are notable. -- Sabre (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional spoiled brats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Could possibly go on and on and on and on, is also sort of subjective as who can possibly be a "spoiled brat" or not. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Two previous discussions ended in delete, but this is a new article unrelated to the previous versions, I think. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 16:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research, no concrete definition of the term. Bart Simpson got his name as an anagram of "brat", does that mean he is one? And what about the rancid bratwurst in Jon Arbuckle's fridge? Do those count as spoiled brats too? (I couldn't resist.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hardly any value to this list as-is, but it could probably be sourced. Albeit that brat is probably more easily sourced than spoiled .... --Dhartung | Talk 17:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Neither length nor subjectivity are reasons to delete a list. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "Colonel Warden thinks the nomination is bogus" is not a valid speedy keep rationale. JuJube (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 18:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject has been deleted twice before, and although this article may be a little bit more realistic than previous versions in what's considered a "spoiled brat", it breaks several rules-- it's unsourced, original research, indiscriminate list, and no context. I'm glad that Colonel W has weighed in to keep this from being a speedy, and it's possible that this could be improved; if someone tries to make it more of an article, we can reconsider on whether to delete. I won't hold my breath till I turn blue, however, on an improvement. Mandsford (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete listcruft. JuJube (talk) 04:20, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has lots of WP:OR Subject is not that notable. Artene50 (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This article may be different than the previous version, but it's still unsourced original research. Edward321 (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not even as good as the previous deleted versions. DGG (talk) 03:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The decision of who is or isn't a spoiled brat must be made by the author(s), which we don't allow. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 03:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. Discriminate, organized list concerning a notable and recognizable topic that is encyclopedic to editors, easily verfiable, has editors willing to work on the article, and is not original research as it contains no original thesis. Some publications do use the phrase "spoiled brat" even in their titles. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mainly as OR, but also sourceless listcruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that prevailed in the previous AfDs (and those articles were better constructed, at least, than this one). Deor (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and suggest protecting the deleted page to prevent recreation. Even if the content isn't exactly the same, exactly same same issues affect this article as the one deleted following the community consensus established during an AfD discussion less than two months ago. Guest9999 (talk) 19:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: For the purposes of this discussion, let's have an admin restore the edit history of the previously deleted versions so we can see if we can in fact uses all three versions to create a better article as there is clearly no consensus over months to keep this article deleted. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that two AfDs with "delete" results (plus this one, which is trending that way) show that there clearly is a consensus—a consensus that an article on this topic should not exist. Deor (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there really was a clear consensus, the editors would not in good faith keep creating and editing the article, nor would ten or so editors across the three discussions also argue to keep and a for a variety of reasons. A tremendous number of the deletes are repetitive WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:UNENCYC, WP:JNN, etc. "votes." And just because others argued to delete previously, consensus does change on occasion. Why not restore the edit history of the various versions and perhaps notify the various article creators as well as participants of the previous AfDs so we can get a better sense of why those creating and working on the article believe it passes our policies and guidelines? Obviously some members of our community believe it worthwhile and so, let's try to get a better understaning of their position and a broader consensus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Blueboy 96 17:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer to paradise[edit]

Non-notable (0 ghits) or perhaps hoax band. Possible speedy as WP:BOLLOCKS. Camillus 15:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 as non-notable or bollocks, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transfer it somewhere else. There's no place for it here as per Camillus. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meeting the requirements of WP:N or WP:MUSIC. I too could find no reliable sources. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 16:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paper hats[edit]

This article basicly teaches which wikipedia cannot accept. Hellboy2hell (talk) 15:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a howto. WillOakland (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete How-to by clear n00b. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per the above. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 16:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as either a how-to page, or a test page. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:37, June 1, 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete (note that there does not appear to have been a first nomination Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

N4 Garage Open Racing Series[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/N4 Garage Open Racing Series (2nd nomination)

This article is not suitable for an encyclopedia. it is about a small online multiplayer league (the racing-game equivalent of a clan or guild) for the particular game, and isn't notable.

Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. It's an article about a small group of people participating in a home-made tournament for a video game. It doesn't get any less notable than that. -- Atama ^chat 05:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can see this article completely fails WP:Note. Natcong (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThis is notable because it is ti my knoeledge the only N4 Series still in existance and also one of the few places where N4 support is availibe. N4GORS has about 50 drivers T18 (talk) 22:44, 3 June 2008 (UTC)T18[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited, furthermore, 50 users is hardly large enough to warrant even a mention in the N4 article. "It is the only _____" does not equate to notability, see WP:N. ZappyGun (talk to me)What I've done for Wikipedia 16:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Maybe we could merge this with the N4 page?T18 (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It is already mentioned on that page in the Online section. You can attempt to expand that section to have more information about your organization, but be careful not to put too information to give the subject undue weight within the article, and try not to be too spammy about it. I'm just giving those cautions because your edits are likely to be reverted if people see the information as just an attempt to promote N4GORS and not an attempt to expand on the N4 article itself. -- Atama ^chat 23:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Foley[edit]

Contested prod (by IP, no explanation). Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate when/if he becomes notable. Giant Snowman 18:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is of low quality, and importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and User:GiantSnowman, although article quality is OK as a stub. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 19:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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#G4. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember Us?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

per 10LBHAMMERSLAW - unreleased album with no sources Sceptre ^(talk) 14:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G4 Repost of deleted content. Already tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Deleted speedily into the dustbin of copy and paste editing, G12. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marvels of Indian Painting: Rise and Demise of Company School[edit]

I'm sorry, but not every book is notable. There is no attempt to say anything that distinguishes this from any others, and it has been tagged for notability since October. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:31, 24 May 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) 14:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a copyvio of https://www.vedamsbooks.com/no50323.htm Pburka (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jodie Hudson[edit]

A disputed speedy where notability was asserted. To me, this seems to be a classic example of WP:BIO1E; even if this event is notable, and I don't for a moment suggest that it is, I can't accept that the young person involved is even remotely notable. However, the article's creator makes enough of a case that I have brought it to the community for a decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 14:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- If every person became notable for having a party, then every person would have an article. Tarret ^talk 14:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If there was a speedy applicable I'd argue that as well. I note that one of the better precedents mentioned in the article, Corey Delaney, had his article deleted (again) via afd in the last week and this article should be deleted as well for the same reasons. Debate (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think this is sufficient for a Wikipedia article. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At the most it's news. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 08:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Winiberg[edit]

Vanity article mostly written by the subject, JoshWiniberg (talk · contribs). The only reference it gives is his official biography... amazingly this article has lasted 2 years. There is no media coverage apparently... this needs to be deleted unless sources are found and it's shown he meets WP:BIO. Rividian (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was in the middle of Prodding and got an EC for the prod notice and came here. Asserts significance, so I declined the speedy. However, I did not see significant media coverage establishing meeting Wikipedia:Notability (music). Still looking. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I skipped PROD because it had already been PROD'd in the past. --Rividian (talk) 13:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did not see that had been dePRODDED. Went looking for a reason to keep. Although there is a BBC review, it is in a local coverage section. In short, it says he is locally interesting young performer in Essex.] It is not sufficient to meet notability. Allmusic shows the Sunrise album released under his label. Don't believe that playing at the Ravello Festival is sufficient. I don't see that he's "received non-trivial coverage." Dloh cierekim 14:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Though there is not print media archive about him, There is coverage online. Mostly, myspace and similar stuff. There are mentions for his work on some games. Hopefully, someone will find something I missed, and I can change to keep. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the past I have removed a few things from the article, including: a link to buy an album by the artist, POV comments that made the article sound like a soapbox, and various external links. Until recently I didn't even think of removing it. Given the multiple links that have been added the artist gives the impression that he is using Wikipedia simply to promote himself. On those grounds I don't think the article should remain. JamminBen (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. The article is promotional in tone, and if someone other than the subject were to write the article I'd probably be less hard on it, but it's obviously a pump-up piece. JuJube (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Not enough notability. Perhaps this person should create a myspace account instead. Artene50 (talk) 10:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Showera[edit]

Is this article noteworthy? Is it true? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In a word, No - Hoax. Unreferenced, no hits on academic databases, googling "Showera shona -showers -shower" returns 5 hits, none relevant. Debate (talk) 14:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unfortunately. The creator claims to be Zimbabwean; none of his edits I looked at appeared overtly bad faith and most seem to have been made with the intention of improving articles, not introducing hoaxes. However: no refs, no ghits, no notability assertion. I suspect the superstition around the phenomenon does exist in his part of the world, but either this is not the way it's commonly referred to, or it's very localised indeed. Either way, it's not verifiable, and it's creating equally unverifiable mirrors. [25] --Ka renjc 15:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per user:Debate while assuming good faith. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no references, couldn't find anything online Magnetawan (talk) 19:40, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Without references. NCurse _work 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unverifiable. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to Jason McCoy. --jonny-m t 05:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greatest Times of All[edit]

Absolutely no info on this album online. 8 hits on Google, no All Music Guide listing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - I have never heard of the singer Jason McCoy but he looks notable enough to warrant a bio. But then it is odd that his first album does not carry enough notability. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the album was released on a small indie label, and it wasn't reviewed, and it didn't produce any singles. Notable artist doesn't translate to notable album 100% of the time. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The album produced three singles, and two of them charted on the Canadian country singles chart in 1989. Eric444 (talk) 10:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll vote keep if you can provide a source for those charting achievements. Wolfer68 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although the artist's notability seems to have begun in 1995 with being signed to a major label, being a debut album by a Canadian country star that does contain a song that charted makes it worth keeping. Wolfer68 (talk) 23:11, 4 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, Malinaccier (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three sources are fansites (one, being on Geocities, is especially verboten), and the third is an issue of RPM. Even if it did produce chart singles, the album is not the subject of any reliable third-party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:58, 8 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, Greeves ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per above. No indication of notability. Redirect at worst. Renata (talk) 15:06, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then redirect; no convincing evidence of meeting WP:MUSIC and no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Smile a While (talk) 02:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Bongwarrior (talk) 01:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Smashing Pumpkin's upcoming new single[edit]

Not-yet-released single, fails WP:CRYSTAL, no independent sources. Was prodded, prod removed by anon. Huon (talk) 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Are there any guidelines of possibly speedily deleting upcoming albums/singles that don't have a title? Lugnuts (talk) 12:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this info could be included in The Smashing Pumpkins Magnetawan (talk) 12:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopefully this will be a speedy category someday. WillOakland (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, still not happened could be included in the 2008 events to happen area,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008#Predicted_and_scheduled_events —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5dsddddd (talk • contribs) 17:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 19:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TPH's law. If the single isn't yet named, it's not notable.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:CRYSTAL. Malinaccier (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Knight[edit]

Article for a soap character that will appear in a month! Prod declined, I left some days but no new information came. Only speculations about character's family name. I think the editor who created can add it in its sandbox and wait until character appears and until article is notable enough. Right now fails notability. Magioladitis (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Magioladitis (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG delete: This article is completely RIDICULOUS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.38.245 (talk) 02:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as fails WP:CRYSTAL.--Gavin Collins (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Straight-up crystal ballin', yo. -- Mikeblas (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 01:14, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faryl Smith[edit]

Someone who appeared on and didn't win Britain's Got Talent. Buc (talk) 11:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame because this is quite a nicely written start-up article, but the subject currently is not notable. She didn't even make the top three of the competition. So right now, ~~delete~~, but since there is a high probability that she will be signed, probably to Sony BMG by Simon Cowell, and release a high-selling album, is there some place this article can be left in state for future use? BigBlueFish (talk) 11:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- IAR and keep. I maintain my position that this is effectively a crystal ball article and really shouldn't exist right now. However, the way that the media is talking strongly suggests that a notable contract will be signed pretty sharpish, possibly even before this process completes. Simon Cowell has said she'll earn £20m before she's 20. It would be a waste of time and effort to fuss over whether to delete it right now. BigBlueFish (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article falls under WP:MUSIC Criteria for musicians and ensembles Rule no. 10:
Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. Starczamora (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. You conveniently ommitted the qualifying aside which immediately follows that particular criterion: "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article." This is exactly the case with Faryl Smith (for the time being). BigBlueFish (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is a stub. We wikipedians remove almost every article created here! I myself marked about 5 to 10 articles for speedy deletion today!! I say, leave it. We have articles that are one sentence long which are stubs.(See link below) so leave it!!5dsddddd (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_Rage

Keep 5dsddddd (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Under the condition it is expanded. It has already been reported that Simon Cowell is most likely to give here a record contract. Many other finalists have a article on them also. Thenthornthing (talk) 17:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep on the basis that she is getting a record contract.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 18:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep based on large exposure not only on the show but in printed media. LHMike (talk) 21:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment yes a lot of the other finalists do have articles on here and probably shouldn't. I wouldn't be against them being deleted, in fact I'd be for it. If Faryl or one of the other performers really become sustainably famous then that's notable, a one-off competition like this, that's not notable, so overall I'm in favour of a delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Temporarily Keep. If we get word of a recording contract within the next few months. After that, delete. Joe dawg 9 (talk) 03:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the page, Some other contestants got a page on wikipedia, e.g. Visage, the quick change act, they didn't get as far as Faryl Smith. Keep the page, she could be a great success. anonymous (talk) 16:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.69.174 (talk) [reply]
- Comment: where is a page on Visage?... -- Cowplopmorris^Talk_Contribs 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've heard of her. Something more may become of her after the series. Give it a bit more time. Re-evaluate in a year or two. For the moment, she has her 15 minutes of fame and is notable just for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.34.245 (talk) 12:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The strongest argument - that the substantive content of this article is duplicated at Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict - has not been disproven. 10:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict (2nd nomination)

I am renominating this list for deletion because in my view the list is a POV fork that is inherently incapable of ever achieving a NPOV. (The list is essentially a collection of newspaper reports about alleged PKK attacks on civilians, despite the title, and as a list is not capable of ever being anything more than that.) There are a number of reasons for this, but most specifically this is because with 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list. There is therefore no chance whatsoever that this list will ever be able to avoid claims of an over-emphasis on one side or the other.

At the previous deletion debate comparisons were made between lists on the IRA and ETA, however such comparisons are flawed because the Turkish-PKK conflict is occurring on a significantly larger scale with significantly higher casualty figures, and involving regular, sometimes indiscriminate military-scale activity by both sides. The IRA and ETA conflicts are also significantly better documented by independent commentators.

A fundamental lack of reliable sources on which to base content means that it is also practically impossible for this list to achieve a reasonably encyclopaedic standard of quality at any point in the foreseeable future. For a start, the vast bulk of likely source material is the Turkish language press. The Turkish press, however, cannot be considered reliable when it comes to reporting on the conflict because of a clear conflict of clear conflict of interest, not to mention significant legal restrictions on what they can and can’t report. Consequently, and inevitably, Kurdish casualties of the conflict will be under-reported and Turkish casualties over-reported. (See further discussion on the list's talk page.) Almost all the sources in the list simply report at face value Turkish military announcements, while independent verification of these claims is virtually impossible. In addition, strict restrictions on Kurdish language reporting almost guarantee that we’ll only ever get one side of the conflict. Further discussion of these issues can be found on the list's talk page. Note also, that the list has been tagged for POV since March (in addition to other tags removed and reinstated over the past two years) and it hasn’t been touched except by an IP and the SpellingBot.

The previous deletion debate for this list revolved primarily around POV concerns, and at the conclusion at the time was to rename the list, from "Civilian casualties caused by PKK" to "Casualties of the Turkish-Kurdish conflict". In the two years since that nomination the list remains almost entirely the POV fork it was at the time of its original afd nomination.

I considered the list as a merger candidate, but all substantive information from this list is already covered more than adequately in the main article Turkish-PKK conflict, not to mention a significantly better account of the same information in Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict.

nb. This argument should not be taken to mean that all information on the conflict is problematic, only the specific category of material that this particular list is intended to compile. The only possible way to document casualties without POV issues is to report raw numbers from independent third parties, such as Amnesty International, in article format rather than the arbitrary specifics of this list. Debate (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unfortunately I've stuffed up the listing so it doesn't link directly to the main article, Casualties of the Turkey-PKK conflict. If anyone with a bit more experience than me is able to fix the link I'd appreciate it. Debate (talk) 09:46, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried to repair it. Is it working now? -- saberwyn 11:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks mate, you're a genius. :) Debate (talk) 11:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything of value and redirect so as to preserve the page history. This is an unnecessarily detailed, largely unsourced, and hard-to-maintain page that appears to be a POV fork (e.g. the unsourced comment "PKK has targeted primary school teachers..."). But there is a great deal of info. here that is in principle sourceable and I'd prefer not to see that deleted. If delete is the result, please copy the page contents to Talk:Turkey-PKK conflict for reference. JJL (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 00:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable and sourced subject. We can not keep everything in a more general article Turkish-PKK conflict. This is not content fork. Such sub-articles simply make main article more readable.Biophys (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly the subject is notable. The primary question here is whether it is possible for the article to ever become compliant with WP:NPOV#Undue weight since it certainly is not compliant now. I would strongly suggest it cannot ever achieve an NPOV for two main reasons: 1) if complete, the list could potentially be more than 37,000 entries long which is plainly impractical, and 2) there is insufficient reliable coverage of the Kurdish side of the conflict. If the article is incapable of ever complying with Wikipedia policy then it should be deleted. There is also a secondary but related question concerning the nature of the references, which are necessarily both unreliable and arbitrary. This would not normally be an afd issue except in this case it goes to the question of whether it is possible for them to ever be anything else. Note also that the substantive material in the list is already adequately summarized in both Turkey-PKK conflict and, particularly, Effects of the Turkish-PKK conflict. No doubt some of this could have been clearer in the original nomination. Debate (talk) 05:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone comes up during this AfD with rules of inclusion that achieve a consensus. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator admits the subject is "clearly notable", the issue here for him/her is one of POV. The article appears well sourced. While this Marxist-Leninist group is a designated terrorist organisation, the term "terrorist" is rather emotive, and thus some may express POV concerns. This can easily be solved by replacing "PKK terrorist" with "PKK militant" in the body of the article. Martintg (talk) 05:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With respect, this doesn't address any of the inherent problems with the list, particularly WP:NPOV#Undue weight and unreliable sources, as above. Debate (talk) 06:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Split Essential encyclopedic material, and "clearly notable". Good faith but misplaced nomination, I hope it will result in improvements in the article. I am planning to undertake such an 'improvement drive' 'soon'. I even signed in to do that. I hope the closing (non)admin can wait for about two days. The article is certainly not POV fork. The POV tag is valid only b/c of "terrorist", and it's one man's doing, and it can be undone by one man, me you or the nominator (it even has grammatical and spelling mistakes). I suggest the nominator to read the Wikipedia policies, especially the Undue weight one, that the nom tries to put forward as 'the' argument. The Turkish mainstream media is reliable and Wikipedia-reliable, and unlike suggested, about 20% of source attributions are to Turkish sources, media or not. With those external links (we should format them), there are more than 90, about 70 of them being third parties, 5 of them 'PKK'ish (HPG). PKK is a terrorist organization and it is accepted as such by most of the 'relevant' countries. Even Roj TV will deny being a mouthpiece of PKK, as in our world, it is illegal to be terrorists' media. So, we may not have a "Wikipedia-reliable" PKK source. So we may not have an Undue weight issue. Wikipedia reflects what is out there. We apply WP:IAR and through WP:Consensus, we accept HPGOnline on relevant articles (HPG is PKK's military wing led by the Syrian Bahoz Erdal, who will soon gain complete control of PKK). Let's not associate the whole 1.3 billion Muslims with a couple ten thousands al Quaeda terrorists, or do similar things.
There seems to be some misconception. Unlike the nom seems to think, there are as a number really few (even one is too many) attacks by Turkish security forces (even if we include paramilitary and village guards, which occasionally side with PKK) resulting in civilian deaths. We cannot make up attacks. If the nom has read my earlier posts (as an anon), s/he will remember my discussion about foreign media in PKK camps (Debate, I think you owe me an apology for your latest comments). What the article is lacking is the fatalities from many clashes between Turkish security forces and PKK. The article was fairly complete in the past with a template that was but deleted for aesthetic reasons.
My suggestion is to split this into two; civilian and noncivilian fatality attacks. Move the civilian ones to Turkey-PKK conflict/Attacks with civilian fatalities (it can be renamed), and for now, keep the non-civilian ones on the talk page, as suggested above, and later make it also a real subarticle. We should keep the ones that happened in the last few months on the main page, Turkey-PKK conflict, and only them, and 'archive' old ones to the subarticles. When PKK wishes to attack civilians, it is now done under TAK's name. Currently on Wikipedia, we separate TAK from PKK. So they should not be listed there. Most civilian deaths by 'Turkish security forces' seem to have been caused by the village guards, and deep state. They can be moved to those articles, but I think they should stay. We have several wikiprojects that can improve this article, WPTR,WPKurds, and possibly also WPTerrorism. If you wish to, you are certainly welcome to join them. We can discuss more on the talkpages of the projects (I'm a member of the first two). I still do not want to 'come back' to Wikipedia. I guess I can stay for a few days, and then leave again. The article will stay on my google reader for a while. Deniz^T_C 12:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deniz mostly goes over content arguments largely unrelated to AFD. Patronizing tone aside, Deniz makes a number of assertions as if they are incontrovertible facts when they are clearly are not, the most significant of which is that his sources are reliable when this is not a position supported by Reporters Without Borders, the Committee to Protect Journalists, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the United States Department of State (For references see the article's talk page). Best of intentions aside, the fact remains that neither Deniz nor anyone else is ever going to adequately account for 37,000+ deaths in this 'list' of random incidents no matter how many ways one splits it. Debate (talk) 13:33, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article documents some incidents during the war contradicting the title "casualties" i.e. statistics of death including chart, diagram etc. This is a list of some news events, not encyclopedic article. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to closing admin. Maybe this can be relisted for further comment? I suspect that the more complex argument here doesn't invite the standard "delete NN/keep N" voting-style response common to the more obvious afds, so contributions have been a been a bit light-on despite Deniz and my lengthy contributions. It would be good, however, to get some feedback on the actual grounds of the nomination. :) Debate (talk) 13:07, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and Relata refero. "[With] 37,000+ deaths attributed to the Turkish-PKK conflict to date any list of individual incidents causing casualties will inevitably be either highly selective, or alternatively, far too huge for an encyclopaedic list". --Folantin (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Debate 木 11:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With the exception of Potatoswatter, the "keep" opinions do not discuss the applicable inclusion policies and guidelines, or make any other non-weak argument. Sandstein 17:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thien Minh Ly[edit]

Although this article was just created, I am bringing thhis straight to afd because it was just recently delted through a PROD. I'll repeat the original prodder's concerns - this article is problematic due to WP:MEMORIAL and Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In what sense do you mean "problematic"? Although the article should be entitled Murder of Thien Minh Ly per WP:N/CA. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic in the sense that the article violates WP:NOT#MEMORIAL and problematic in the sense that the crime doesn't meet the proposed notability guideline of criminal acts. This proposal is pretty much an outgrowth of the regular notability standards, and require "significant coverage in sources with national or global scope." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:32, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google turns up endless sources. This crime has been used as a case study in academia and a documentary subject in popular culture. I think the lack of national news coverage online is due to 1996 being slightly early for most news archives. MEMORIAL discourages people with WP:COI, who know of the subject besides through secondary sources, which absolutely does not apply here. [26], [27], [28], just to pick and choose. Potatoswatter (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In the original article, I failed to mention (and receive confirmation) that Ly's case was the first hate crime to have a conviction in California, which is a mistake that has been amended in this version. Personally, I think that's notable enough - if not, please tell me. Miyuster (talk) 16:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the article ought to be renamed Murder of ..., as above. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 17:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTMEMORIAL and not notable other than being a murder victim. The keeps are based on this being the first conviction under California's 'hate crimes' law, but wouldn't that make this a WP:COATRACK article? If this case is notable mention of it belongs in an article in California's 'hate crimes' law and not a bio. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The coverage in reliable sources is essentially trivial, and those sources which do exist largely repeat the same short grab or two. I get two references to Thien Minh Ly on JSTOR, however one is simply a footnote about the video. There also remain problems with the article as it stands, such as the copyvio under "Charges" so obvious that it still refers to the criminal case in the future tense as if the individuals charged haven't even been convicted yet. If "first convicted" of a particular crime is enough to justify an article on here then that makes a potentially insanely long list for California alone, let alone if we continue the precedent across Victoria, Australia; Cape Province, South Africa and Ñeembucú, Paraguay, etc. etc. Debate (talk) 11:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've improved the first paragraph with a better reference, and amended the "first" to first capital sentence for a hate crime in California (rather than "conviction" as was there previously) per the reference. Debate (talk) 11:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Blue publication[edit]

Small political newsletter of extremely local distribution, no sources, no indication that it has any readership. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sounds like a good read. Unfortunately, thoroughly unnotable. Debate (talk) 14:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publication apparently hasn't generated enough coverage to give us the reliable sources necessary to compile an article. JamesMLane t c 02:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Behind idol[edit]

Alleged spin-off from Australian Idol. Crystal ballery at best. Probably an hoax. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Zero credible sources, and those provided do not back up claims (indeed, one appears to directly contradict the article). Debate (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the references or external links mention anything about a "Behind idol" and there appear to be no reliable sources available. Kal ^(talk) 07:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Magnetawan (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wishful thinking. And for failing WP:V. Kevin (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unverifiable, possibly a hoax, and crystal ball material anyway. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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:N and WP:V. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BME Pain Olympics Final Round[edit]

This does not meet notability. This isn't exactly Two Girls One Cup. The article is poorly written, with only two paragraphs. There is nothing about this thing that warrants an article about it. Plasma Twa 2 06:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. Huon (talk) 12:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability and it's already mentioned on BME (website). That article claims that this video is, in fact, a fake, according to a notice at the end if viewed from the BME site. I can't validate this and I don't really want to. -- Mithent (talk) 14:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 09:10, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ScratchBall Billiards[edit]

Billiards game stated in article have been invented by three brothers while bored at work. The game's website, where it is being sold, confirms this as well. A Google search for the game with and without a space between scratch and ball ([29], [30]), returns a total of 7 hits, all to the website, the Wikipedia article, and Wikipedia mirrors. I just checked my two massive billiards encyclopedia just the be able to say I did and bupkis. I really didn't need to though. "I've never heard of it" is generally a poor deletion argument but nevertheless, I am a billiard expert, am the majority contributor of Wikipedia's substantive billiard-related content, and I've never heard of it. In sum, this is a non-notable, recently invented, unverifiable game that was made up one day.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Variation that was made up one day. I'm trusting the nom's expertise here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 11:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable, not mentioned by its own "references". Huon (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the three re-directs as well. Since the only real references/ties here are to the website that's trying to sell this, the article is probably promotional. Qworty (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note from the author First, we would like to apologize to all who want to delete this article. We had no idea that it would elicit a negative response. We spent many hours compiling the article to ensure that it was professionally done and fit the wikipedia guidelines. Regarding the accusations: 1. No, it is not promotional. If it were promotional we would have put our website on the page and would not be giving away the information for free. We felt that we were doing a public service. 2. The article is strictly informative material, and not promoting a newly invented object, like a toy or a ginzu knife (which also does not have any references) or personal aggrandizing. The information is useful to anyone with a pool table. 3. Under not notable, wikipedia guide says that if an article currently does not cite a reliable secondary source that does not necessarily mean that its topic is not notable. True, it is a newer game, which explains the lack of secondary sources, but we did thoroughly test it on the local level and found that virtually everyone who plays the game enough to get a feel for it has made it one of their top pocket pool games. By the response from our area, we felt that this was worthy of wikipedia. From the remarks above, that may have been premature thinking. Since deleting the article also denies the public of pertinent useful information, we will leave it up to you to delete or save the article. We do have one request. Play the game several times to get the feel for it before you judge the game. Love it or hate it at least you will know what you are deleting.ScratchBall (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if an article currently does not cite a reliable secondary source, the subject may still be notable. If there are no reliable secondary sources (and you as the game's inventor seem not to know any), it definitely isn't. Also, have a look at WP:COI. Huon (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I happen to love "scratching games." Citations for them go back to at least 1902. There's reverse 8-ball and reverse 9-ball, backwards pool, billiard pool, carom pool, contra pool, cue ball pool, Irish pool, kiss pool, loop (very cute name; that's pool spelled backwards), reverse billiards and, in Britain, the losing game of pyramid. English Billiards, though not strictly a scratching game, also gives points for scratching balls by caroming them off others. In such games the scratch is sometimes called a "losing hazard" or an "in-off". The thing you should understand is that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, a tertiary source by definition, so it can only contain information about things already known to the world in reliable sources. This does not mean the game you and your brothers invented is not great or interesting; just that it can't have an article here because of what this place is—an encyclopedia, with all that that entails.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - P.S. There are other sites that are not encyclopedias where your material might fit fine. Some of those other sites are wikis that use the same software we do here so you can use the text you already wrote with no or little change. Please see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Apple TV. However, since the content is already present in Apple TV#Modifications and hacks, I'm just going to redirect the page, leaving the history visible. --jonny-m t 05:10, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Pastrana[edit]

This 25 year-old web developer doesn't meet the WP:BIO notability standard. His claim to fame, "enabl[ing] the Apple TV to output color through composite video" isn't backed up by reliable sources, so discussion whether that causes him to meet the notabiliby standard doesn't begin. Ghits seem to refer to a boxer with the same name. brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Apple TV. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 11:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Other than the TUAW publication with regards to the hack (the "claim to fame"), there have been a couple other places and publications which have discussed it, proof that the hack did make a difference for a subset population:

http://www.appletvhacks.net/2007/10/12/get-color-output-from-apple-tvs-composite-video-output/

http://asuse3.blogspot.com/2008/03/pon-punto-tu-appletv-parte-3.html

http://www.macitynet.it/macity/aA30610/faq_apple_collegabile_tv_non_il_vostro_vecchio.shtml

http://canalapple.com/wordpress/?p=828

http://www.92apple.com/2007/10/08/found-footage-apple-tv-composite-hack-in-full-color/

( a couple more can be found via a quick google search )

However, more interestingly enough, what this hack did was prove that the appletv video card was capable of generating non-hdtv video and quickly after this someone followed with a software method of composite video output, detailed here: http://wiki.awkwardtv.org/wiki/Composite

If anything, this "story" should be included into the article for AppleTV. I agree that there should be a disambiguation page to differentiate from the Boxer (already in existence in spanish: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauricio_Pastrana, perhaps any bilingual wiki'er can help here?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.150.172.234 (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— 207.150.172.234 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

WP:BIO requires the establishment of notaility through reliable sources. In addition, being mentioned doesn't suffice for notability, there must be coverage of him. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:57, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

/////////////////////////////////////////////////

Keep Just to follow up on this, wouldnt the TUAW constitute as a reliable source? in their environ, TUAW has "credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand".

TUAW is an AOL publication BTW.

Further, this page was originally inspired by this entry http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_Hotz&oldid=153453816, which was not marked afd. -srgeek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srgeek (talk • contribs) 14:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Srgeek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Redirect or merge to Apple TV. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Apple TV., you´re right. makes more sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.238.20.94 (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. May be recreated as an article about the "two chariots" meaning, if that concept turns out to be notable. Sandstein 17:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zygarchy[edit]

Found "Gender equality" redirected here. It's a made-up word, although one like it does mean "a pair of chariots" in certain ancient contexts.

http://books.google.com/books?id=IQI8AAAAMAAJ&q=Zygarchy&dq=Zygarchy&pgis=1

NOR: Google: 3,960,000 = Gender equality; 7,850 = Gender egalitarianism; 358 for "zygarchy" (all hits Wikipedia-based) Yamara ✉ 06:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only references to this term and meaning are on Wikipedia or mirrors. The sole reference in the article is apparently there to source the two parts of the word, but there is no indication that the word itself is in a reliable source. There's no point to merging the DICDEF part of this, either, as gender equality is already better than this article has ever been. --Dhartung | Talk 07:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable sources, fails WP:NEO. Huon (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Verify before Wiktionarying it - This is an interesting AfD. In fact, it is true that "Zeugos" means pair/couple but saying that "Zygarchy" is derived from the Greek word "Zeugos" cannot be verified unless someone has the Oxford Greek-English Lexicon. It is interesting because "Zygarchy" also refers to a unit of two chariots used during warfare by the Greeks (and probably the Romans as well). WPMILHIST editors can help with more details. The source for that is The Ars Tactica of Arrian: Tradition and Originality by Philip A. Stadter. Whatever is the case, an wiktionary entry would be appropriate. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term could go to Wiktionary, but only with the "two chariots" meaning. The other is a protologism without any actual usage let alone sources. --Dhartung | Talk 17:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My findings have been the same—it's questionable whether this is an acknowledged definition of this word. And even if it were, this article looks like a dictionary entry to me, and it would belong elsewhere (with the "two chariots" definition, awaiting a reliable source on the "two-gender rule" definition). --AnnaFrance (talk) 18:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Saleem[edit]

Non-notable author, as are all of the authors associated with Featherproof books, which is also nominated. Corvus cornix_talk 05:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The nominator is absolutely correct. Featherproof books fails WP:CORP, while all of the associated authors we've seen so far fail WP:BIO and WP:BK. These authors are Zach Dodson, Jonathan Messinger, Brian Costello, Todd Dills and Susannah Felts. Three different editors have nominated all of these associated articles for deletion. Somebody--probably associated with the Featherproof micro-press itself--has been going around spamming Wikipedia with articles about every non-notable person ever associated with Featherproof. While the associated AfDs have not been bundled, all of these articles should be deleted. WP:RS indicate that Featherproof consists of a couple of people who have come together to publish themselves and their friends. That is not what WP:N and WP:BK are all about. And now somebody has shown up here to pepper the related articles all over Wikipedia. Qworty (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This person fails WP:BIO as of June 2008. She's just not notable at present. Artene50 (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since the magazine or the book Degrees of Separation is not notable itself regardless of the "Featherproof books" issues the nom is referring to which I am not aware of. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 12:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources establishing notability. Gamaliel (talk) 17:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The author and the company both fail notability requirements. Featherproof books seems to be based in someone's basement; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Featherproof books. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Hauwa Hoomkwap[edit]

No evidence from WP:RS that subject meets WP:BIO. There are a few mentions in articles here and there, but nothing really about her, just brief mentions of her activities primarily in the context of other topics. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - She was a representative of the observer delegation of the Holy See during the twenty-third special session of the UN General Assembly on "Women 2000: gender equality, development and peace for the twenty-first century." The session was an outcome of the Fourth World Conference on Women. Now, even if I'd consider her as a diplomat I'd not be sure if she deserves an bio because she wasn't talked about significantly in the media. However, she was quite notable in her field (health and women) in West Africa or at least Nigeria. She was the president of the largest not-for-profit health organization in Nigeria in the past ten years and held the title of "Dame." -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 13:24, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article linked to by Garbage Collection above also says that she was a member of the Plateau State cabinet. That clearly passes the notability criteria for politicians. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep GarbageCollection makes a good case. RMHED (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 an apparent lack of notability. --jonny-m t 05:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reza F. Safa[edit]

Massive conflict of interest with article author. I've read this through a dozen times, and it's still really just an advertisement. While this subject does pop up on a Google search, I still can't see that he meets notability requirements. Most of the references are Safa's own books (and one of the references is a Bible verse). Author (whose username is probably a violation of WP:U) twice removed my cleanup tags with no explanation. Overall, a promotional article for a marginally notable subject with huge COI issues. Tan | 39 05:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have written this article for Pastor Reza F. Safa. He is a very notable man... It is a biography, that is why they are taken from his own book. If you would like, I can re write the article from a more factual point of view describing his life.. Please work with me here before you delete it. Thank you for your time —Preceding unsigned comment added by TBNNejattv (talk • contribs) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I'm afraid we can only work with you to the extent that Mr Safa is notable. I just don't see how he meets WP:BIO. And I've twice added speedy deletion tags that have been removed by TBNNejattv. — Lincolnite (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TBNNejattv, if the subject of the article is notable it should be possible to get independent references for the article. So that would mean not relying solely on websites he's associated with, or books his written. If better refs can't supplied i too think it ought to be deleted. TBNNejattv, read this page over: WP:BIO.--Celtus (talk) 10:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TBNNejattv, please read WP:COI and WP:NPOV carefully before editing any further. I edited the article and removed all instances of points of views and unverifiable sources. If you can fix that and bring some third-party published reliable sources soon then I'd be glad to support keeping it. Otherwise, it would be deleted. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TBNNejattv (talk) 20:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Okay, thank you very much for your help. I greatly appreciate you all taking time to work with me on this article. I am new to Wikipedia and i think i am starting to understand your perspective on deleting this article. I think it is because I do not have enough sources (references) from third party websites or books and because I wrote it differently than presenting facts. I am going to try and edit it some more, even add a new subject to help with WP:COI.[reply]

Please give me some time to edit and work on this page. Again thank you very much TBN Nejat TV

Comment - the article does have significant problems, as noted above, but may well be fixable by the main author. I'm happy to wait a few days to see how it changes. Tim Ross (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - TBNNejattv (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC) Okay guys, I have updated the article. Please tell me what you think and if i need to further correct it. I have added a bunch of third party websites to the list of references. Also I told more about TBN Nejat TV - the television network Reza Safa started.[reply]

Thanks guys! cant wait to hear back from you - TBN Nejat TV

Comment If I understand the article correctly, this person runs a television network in Iran, a branch of TBN. Most of the sources that would meet the reliable source guidelines are from TBN or its affiliates. If this person is a noteworthy television broadcaster in Iran, can we confirm this from sources that are not directly from TBN? The conflict of interest makes it hard to tell if this is a notable person, of if the sources are simply the promotion of one of their own programs. It seems likely that an American-style Christian televangelism network in Iran would definitely be newsworthy; are there Iranian newspapers discussing it, either in English or in Farsi? If we can't find sources of his notability published anywhere other than by his own employers, it would seem to argue against his notability; if he is truly doing such noteworthy missionary work on behalf of Christianity in Iran, this seems like something that Iranian sources would be talking about. - FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you notice reference number 16, it is from a magazine article written about him in English. I'm sure there are articles about him written in Farsi, BUT, under the circumstances, I do not understand Farsi well enough to understand what they are saying. Sorry for that inconvenience —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.143.53.31 (talk) 01:26, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - According to the AFD headers, there has been a previous AFD on this, whose result was Keep. Contrary to what FisherQueen concluded, I read the article that the subject is broadcasting by satellite into Iran. I am aware from other sources that Christian broadcasting to Iran does take place, though I know nothing of the subject of this article. My guess is that in Tulsa he is a very run-of-the-mill kind of pastor, who would be NN if all he did was pastor a church there. However broadcasting the Christian gospel to Iran is potentially notable. As a person of Iranian extraction, I presume the programming is in Farsi. I hear stories of the gospel being well-received there, but it is a very sensitive subject on which only limited (and general) information can be published, as we do not want more people martyred for becoming Christians, something that was happending periodically a few years ago. Note that TBNNejattv is the main author and evidently closely connected with the broadcasts. That gives rise to a conflect of interest, but does not necessarily mean that the content is wrong of affect the notability of the subject. That is soenting that needs to be judged objectively. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Ѕandahl 02:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darwin Sayonara[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable book. The article does not demonstrate that the book meets any of the notability criteria at WP:BK and a Google search doesn't provide any reliable sources. Nick Dowling (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 05:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete This book exists here but it doesn't appear very notable. All the hits are from booksellers. Artene50 (talk) 09:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Artene. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 13:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found enough links [31] [32] [33] to verify it's existence, but nothing with enough critical commentary to expand it even remotely. Kevin (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, exists, but would not appear to meet any of the WP:BK notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:57, 2 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - oggle wouldnt have anything anyway - nla has one entry - the book itself- however boolarong is a self publish unit who dont have him on their site anymore - ~~anyone with enough clout could add the all the links mentioed above - and some articles could be saved by them - even if it is low on eligibility~~ Satu Suro 08:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I did spot those links via a Google search before nominating the article (see the search in the nomination) but brief mentions on book sellers websites and the NT library don't come close to meeting the notability criteria at WP:BK, which are pretty restrictive. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for clarifying that - and the issue of WP:BK - I shall be somewhat more circumspect on this issue now that the criteria have been pointed out Satu Suro 02:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --jonny-m t 05:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True Remembrance[edit]

Delete ~~not notable per WP:BOOK or WP:WEB. Seems more like a WP:ADVERT. Moreover, the article doesn't actually state what this thing actually is confusing "novel" with "game."~~ Non-notable game. Seems more like an advertisement. At the very least it fails WP:CORP as being released by a non-notable company. Ave Caesar (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)/s[reply]

Comment I am afraid you are the one confusing visual novel with something else since you failed to even read the article linked in the first sentence. Neither WP:BOOK nor WP:WEB applies since it is a game. No comment on keeping or deleting. _dk (talk) 06:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm afraid I have to disagree. First of all, the current claim, WP:CORP, is totally unrelated; the article is about a game, not a company, and it isn't even made by a company; it was made by a single person (with some help from other people, but it isn't a company). WP:WEB states "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content". True Remembrance was only distributed through the internet, so I think WP:WEB applies here. So there are three ways in which the article can be notable:

We need enough sources; or
We need to prove that True Remembrance has won awards; or
True Remembrance has been distributed through a respected and independant medium

Number 3 isn't the case here, AFAIK, so we'll have to go with either number 1 or number 2. VDZ (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Normally, if the game was released by a sanctioned company (or at least a notable dōjin group), I would say keep, but since the game is from what appears to be a non-notable group (and I fail to see the apparent notability of the game therein) I'm neutral, but believe that the reasons Ave Caesar gave for the proposed deletion of the article are wrong and should not be taken into account in this AfD per Deadkid's comment above.--十八 10:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - What, no response since the day it was nominated? (Not even on the VN taskforce talk page :\) Anyways, this Japanese article seems pretty reliable, and it has lots of info. There's also this news post and this news post, but I'm not sure of that's reliable and non-trivial enough. Most info on the game is in Japanese, though, and for someone who doesn't speak Japanese, it's difficult to find the right sources. Can someone who does speak Japanese please help? VDZ (talk) 05:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral ~~Delete One or two Japanese publicity releases don't make for meaningful independent coverage or significance. I see no evidence of notability here.~~ Don't know why I can't see notability in this. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Found another source, with an interview. Also, according to WP:WEB, a couple of Japanese publicity released do make something notable: The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. VDZ (talk) 05:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Here's a website that's probably both respected and independent of the creators that distributes the work. As a side note, there's also quite a few pages of results of Google search, too. And a ~~wood~~ (I don't care but there's a pile) pile of reviews (or what I consider to be more like reviews), something I can't even find for True Tears. -- クラウド６６８ 06:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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-administrative closure) -- RyRy5 (talk) 20:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concordian international school[edit]

Strong promotional tone, no third-party reliable sources, no assertion of notability; sole author has a COI. KurtRaschke (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives and Adverbs taken out

Sources added

Buttermickey (talk) 12:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- ~ Eóin (talk) 04:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability added with the additional link of the school sponsor Varnnee Chearavanont Ross' relationship with the Chearavanont family who are considered the richest family in China, with an amassed wealth of 5.5 Billion dollars. 124.120.116.213 (talk) 14:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this includes a high school and the lead paragraph contains some clear statements of notability. We should be increasing coverage of education in countries like Thailand, not deleting the few pages we have. Certainly more cleaning is needed, but that is an editorial matter, and I have found additional sources that I will add soon to ensure compliance with WP:N. As a BTW I see that the nominator speedy tagged this page within 5 minutes of creation. In my view this is a wrong approach that is designed to drive away new editors. When an article can plainly be developed, a better way forward is to add tags to guide the creator to the improvements required. TerriersFan (talk) 17:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article appears notable -- probably changed since the AfD started. CRGreathouse (t | c) 15:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improved a lot since nomination and has high school aged students so notable imo. RMHED (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrotheology[edit]

Non-notable neologism, looks to be promotion for Zeitgeist (film); any useful content could apparently be on astrology. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep instead of referring it to wiktionary - Probably because the article would be a stub forever if there would be no mention to the film? There are a couple of books about the subject and a dozen of mentions in others but I am not sure if they discuss it in depth, beyond its definition. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 14:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sourced. The term is not common, but that problem could be solved by moving the article to astrology and religion. There's a more serious issue: disregarding the one popular documentary it cites, the article doesn't provide any evidence that there exists a field of study treating the relations between astrology and religion across multiple astrological or religious traditions. Without that, the article could only duplicate parts of articles about specific traditions (Babylonian astrology, etc.). EALacey (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything to support a connection between horoscope predictions and astrotheology, so maybe the astrology-stub was a bad pick on my part. Maybe you can suggest a better stub related topic to avoid the confusion? — Dzonatas 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The philosophy-stub template, as is now included, is perhaps more appropriate. I should have written "astronomy and religion" above rather than "astrology and religion", but I think my point stands: there does not seem to be significant cross-cultural study of "astronomy and religion". I suggest that separate articles on topics like Christian attitudes to astronomy would be a better way of handling this material. EALacey (talk) 20:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move this discussion to relative talk page: Koavf (talk · contribs)'s reason for AfD is not a reason for deletion. As stated in WP:DP, "Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page." This is a discussion that needs to start on the article's relative discussion page. I think Garbage Collection (talk · contribs) put it concisely that it "would be a stub forever if there would be no mention to the film," and that's similar to what I thought when I added the mention of of the film -- strictly for reference to continue to expand the article, which there are many references (170) available from the film's website. I used the term myself even to describe to people about native american beliefs and paganism (which astrology alone doesn't cover). Part of the reason is stated as neologism, but that would mean that should shouldn't be on AfD but should be merged with another article. There is, however, no other article that I found that mixes astrology, astronomy, and religion in what astrotheology covers. I made a contribution to Wikipedia to help expand this article. I hate to see AfDs be used to prevent contributions. — Dzonatas 21:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what Wiktionary is for. The "sources" cited in the article are impressive-looking, but they are (1) a dictionary definition (2) a definition from the first Google books entry from a search of the term and (3) a quote from the movie Zeitgeist. When it was started two weeks ago, this article was a stub, and it's clearly not going anywhere. Mandsford (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What is the rush to delete this? (see WP:CHANCE) If the question was if it was going anywhere or no, that could have been concluded with a simple WP:PROD. AfD is not the place to dispute content of an article. — Dzonatas 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Koavf (talk · contribs) needs to justify why he thought it was was neologism when the term obviously existed in 1913 (see refs). I assume the user didn't try to verify it before putting the AfD tag on the article. It was neither a (1) recently created word nor (2) synthesized. — Dzonatas 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do notice that none of the people above that voted delete have attempted to expand the stub (see WP:INSPECTOR), as their names are not listed in the logs in any edit on the article or discussion page. — Dzonatas 00:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I put up some sources for review in case anybody feels they have time and effort to mark this article for deletion will probably find the same time and effort to research one of the sources and try to improve the article first. — Dzonatas 01:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTE. Only substantive source to date is Astrotheology and Shamanism, which gives no indication that it is scholarly in content and is published by Book Tree, which is self-decribed as a publisher of "controversial and educational products to help awaken the public to new ideas and information that would otherwise not be available" -- and clearly on the WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC) The webpage of the book's authors, GnosticMedia, likewise seems very WP:FRINGE. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 10:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: on closer examination, 'astrotheology' would appear to be an obscure and archaic term for natural theology that is based upon astronomy. I cannot however in good conscience recommend this article's merger into that article, as the current material is too garbled to either demonstrate this point or to be useful. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 08:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC) I have ungarbled some of the cited material to new content, but also copied this content across to natural theology, so my recommendation is still to delete (with possible later replacement with a redirect). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 11:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC) The Modern Predicament: A Study In The Philosophy Of Religion, H. J. Paton, 2004, p20 confirms that Astrotheology is Natural Theology that is based upon astronomy. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - highly non-notable term; article appears to have been created to help cross-promote the movie. Anything useful there could go under astrology; indeed, the term apparently was coined originally to avoid the opprobrium attached to "astrology"; and recently revived for the same reason. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding anything to support a connection between horoscope predictions and astrotheology, so maybe the astrology-stub was a bad pick on my part. Maybe you can suggest a better stub related topic to avoid the confusion? — Dzonatas 17:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I first started to edit this article with what little it had. I added Zeitgeist because it was clear that the movie mentioned astrotheology (it spelled it out right on screen and covered the topic of the word age compared to the word end, see astrological age). I also noticed it had the notability tag on it. Obviously, it needs sources to establish notability. After the first and only discussion on the talk page, someone slaps this AfD on the article. There was no other discussion brought up on the talk page. Nobody questioned anything beyond the mention of the Zeitgeist-astrotheology addition. I then find sources. First source that comes up is Merriam-Webster that dates the word back to at least 1913. I also find more than several mentions of the name (like google hits). It does appear notable to wikipedia standards beyond neologism and to use as a NPOV article. I add the ref. I also found the Maxwell's Astrotheology movie/documentary and noted that for general ref (I haven't directly cited it, but its general discussion is being considered). I watched several short documentaries found (not hard to find them), and one mentioned the book Astrotheology & Shamanism. I discovered it was on google books, which made it easy to cite directly to the page for anybody to verify. This is on AfD, so I add refs from this book to resolve the complaint (which could have been discussed on the talk page). Immediately, I see a "delete" comment above that shoots down such addition I just made (so the delete-vote wasn't made about the article state but at the contribution after AfD notice). I list several other sources that other wikipedians could use to verify or find reliable sources besides the one I started on. I have yet to see anybody try. About astrology-stub, it is the one I picked from the list of available and I noted in my comments that it does actually cover more than that. I don't know what is the best way to note a stub that crosses several stub-topics. I think the people who voted "delete" above need to clarify their comments and back them up with sources for the claims they made against the topic. Many of them shouldn't be voting delete based on their explanation that actually justifies an expand or merge. I don't think the purpose of wikipedia it to foster a place for people to mainly write delete comments rather than try to contribute or discuss issues on the article's talk page. — Dzonatas 16:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply You can "userfy" this if you believe that you can make it more of an article. What you would do is copy the article to a space that you would entitle "User:Dzonatas/Astrotheology" or whatever. I think it's fair to say that none of us who are voting to delete believe that astrotheology is anything more than pseudo-scientific nonsense, and none of us have any obligation or wish to give bestow some type of legitimacy to it. Gripe all you want to about how the system works, but all of us have had favorite articles deleted by the consensus process at one time or another. Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The placement of an article in user space to edit is against the collaboration theme of wikipedia. This whole AfD should be based on the notability of the article -- nothing else. The discussion here, however, doesn't merely focus on notability. In fact, since notability was cited for the AfD, this process requires thought to what will establish notable. Per guidelines, it is not enough to simply claim a article is not notable and delete it. The AfD was made also about neologism, and I believe that has been resolved that it is not neologism. — Dzonatas 17:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I removed notability tag due to obvious verifiability (see discussion in talk page) and at least 3 secondary sources used to simply create the stub. I believe the article can be expanded much more since there is obviously more sources on the subject. The issue of of notability was resolved (even through the harsh attitudes seen towards my dyslexic entries). — Dzonatas 12:06, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: And I have replaced it -- the only substantive and reliable sources we have for the topic, Adaptations & Planetary Motions, place it as an obscure and archaic term for a subset of natural theology, that more properly belongs in a serious writeup (shorn of the unreliably-sourced new-age elements) in that article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Consider that Hrafn has made more than 3 reverts in one day on the article and left only thew view of natural theology in the article, it appears he has a personal bias to how he edits this article. Hrafn even deleted sources that even support other views, selectively narrowed the citations from the book Adapation that only talks about natural theology (despite the rough paradigm shifts, polytheist, monotheist, atheist, and scientific quotes that could be added), and tags every sentences in a paragraph even when a single ref covers the paragraph. All that doesn't make it easy to expand a stub. *shrugs* I wouldn't be surprised if people continue to put 'delete' on this AfD for this kind of activity. Nevertheless, slapping an AfD on a stub (that just start a few weeks ago) that already has a notability tag on it makes this AfD questionable, especially when being distracted here.— Dzonatas 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that Dzonatas learn to count before he makes accusations. I have made only two reverts on this article. In editing it I have given WP:DUE weight to WP:RSs that state that Astrotheology is a subfield of natural theology, and eliminated WP:UNDUE weight to unreliable/questionable sources that give a contradictory, neologistic, new-age meaning to the word. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These edits by Harfn can be seen as reverts without obvious reasons to justify this many reverts. Note that a day before, much of this content didn't even exist, so just deleting it or replacing it entirely (which is deleting the added content) can be seen as a revert. These were all done within a day:

reverted viewpoint from quotation
reverted ref from book, replaced viewpoint on definition with his own WP:OR
reverted removal of notability tag even though it is clear that notability can be established
reverted section title back to his previous edit
reverted recently added quotation, replaced with his own selective quotes
Also note, how he first reverted the link and called it 'a junk link' but hid it within another change

Further, it remains unsubstantiated to claim that Astrotheology & Shamanism is WP:FRINGE, but that claim is a biased personal opinion of other wikipedians against astrotheology, like they are trying to state that astrotheology is WP:FRINGE and that makes the book WP:FRINGE. That claim highly contradicts the book Adaptation (published by the Academic Press) that also sources astrotheology in history. That claim would seem to support that Adaptation is also WP:FRINGE. That just makes this a bit WP:ODD. — Dzonatas 18:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas: your cited difs demonstrate a clear lack of understanding of the difference between normal editing and reverting, so I'll ignore your further accusations on this topic. Astrotheology & Shamanism is published by a publisher clearly specialising in WP:FRINGE material, whose authors (one of whom has come onto wikipedia to pump the book) have demonstrated no scholarly credentials in a relevant field. I have not challenged the reliability of Adaptation, the book uses Astrotheology only in the context of, and as part of, Natural theology -- a meaning bearing no close relationship to Astrotheology & Shamanism's far more expansive, New-Age revisionist, use of the term. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly illogical to discredit as book as WP:FRINGE because the publisher specializes in controversial subjects. I'm not stupid to see that publisher seems to have questionable books if presented as scientific fact. In review of Derham's Astro-Theology, some of the subjects, like Copernicus, are also echoed in Irvin's book. Derham doesn't present it as a paradigm shift as Irvin did since the term paradigm shift came after the 1900s and Derham was way ahead of that. — Dzonatas 04:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas I suggest you ask the RS/N if the book is to be considered a reliable source for factual statements about science, theology or history more generally. Since others disagree with you why not seek neutral opinions. I'll agree not to comment there if you ask the question simply and without gross misrepresentation.PelleSmith (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Same previous vote to Keep) and Speedily Close: close as WP:POINT -- The article has been through several editions, found notability and no vote to merge, and has made the original commenter's votes null. Keeping this AfD open is a witchhunt for merits while the article continuously is hit with POV edits, which has reverted many attempts to expand the article. This issue really belongs in the NPOV forum. — Dzonatas 11:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge relevant sourced content about the archaic subset of natural theology into that entry.PelleSmith (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Newton's achievement as stated by the book Adaptation has lead to the distinction of astrotheology and physicotheology. Hrafn and PelleSmith want to merge based on a Fallacy of the undistributed middle (clearly explained on articles talk page). They have been unable to cite sources that specifically claim that "astrotheology is natural theology." Even Derham's work (author of Astro-Theology and Physico-theology) doesn't even mention "natural theology" in his books. Derham published his books in 1713-1715. Paley's Natural Theology was published in 1802. — Dzonatas 13:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite false. Please do come to the talk page. The sources unambiguously show that astrotheology was part of natural theology and as such it was eclipsed by physicotheology. The Fallacy of the undistributed middle is a red herring here since the issue is one of reliable sources.PelleSmith (talk) 13:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked many time for clearly cite the source which supports your claim. I have not seen a quotation from you to support it. I have only seen your personal opinion. — Dzonatas 13:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False again. I have already quoted extensively on the talk page from Adaptation, one of the two reliable sources we have so far. Here are some relevant quotes, I've added some here to make it even more clear. We start with the first reference to astrotheology - see for yourselves (from pages 18-21): 1) "Newton's acheivement made necessary the first distinction between the theological reasoning based on astronomy and that based on biology. The distinction was between 'astrotheology' and 'physicotheology'." 2) "Two important scientists, the naturalist John Ray and the physicist chemist Robert Boyle, set the tone for post Newtonian natural theology. They and their followers began to marginalize astrotheology. Natural theology texts began to mention astronomy only in passing. Increased emphasis was put on organic design ..." 3) "Commentators on this era of natural theology recognize the shift from astrotheology to physicotheology." 4) "The biologizing of natural theology meshed nicely with the increasing British interest in natural history. No one had the impiety to fully abandon astrotheology. The heavens still 'proclaimed the glory of God' but the ceased to prove his existence" 5) "So astrotheology was scarcely named in time for it to be neglected." 6) "[William Paley's] 1833 Bridgewater Thesis can be seen as the last gasp of astrotheology."7) "The connection formerly asserted by natural theology between the specific discoveries of astronomy and the nature of the Creator had been cut." I don't see how any one reading this book can mistake the meaning here. Dzonatas knows this and that is why he is asking for text that explicitly says "astrotheology was a subset of natural theology." Clearly no such direct and emphatic statement is necessary. The meaning is quite clear. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What the issue amounts to is this. There are two uses of "astrotheology," 1) an academic one relating to an archaic theology which was part of natural theology and 2) a popular one with a meaning that is utilized in various new age capacities. There is no verifiable and reliable way to source a connection between the two since the only attempts to do so come from the popular non-academic literature of new age writers. The reliable sources we do have make it clear that astrotheology had a very short existence. This is something Dzonatas refuses to live with since his popular sources say otherwise. Fortunately Wikipedia is not a forum for various minority groups to use in order to create notability for their various beliefs. Unless someone is willing to make a case for the notability of the new age terminology the situation remains as many have already stated it.PelleSmith (talk) 14:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derham is the only source that defines 'Astro-Theology' and 'Physico-Theology' in his time. Derham makes no mention of 'Natural Theology' (which is published almost 90 years after Derham's book writing). Derham, as a source, is being ignored by other editors in order to support more recently written text that use the terms generally. All the quotes about show distinction. Newton's achievements is cited as to make that distinction clear. The events related to Newton and Derham cannot be ignored in order to achieve npov. — Dzonatas 15:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that historians are as realiable as its gonna get in terms of the history of natural theology and astrotheology. I don't understand why we are to disregard a historical account instead as you suggest extrapolating original research based upon a primary source. Can you please familiarize yourself with the sourcing policies.PelleSmith (talk) 15:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD attempt is *way* past its WP:POINT, my response is on the article's talk page. — Dzonatas 19:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to astrology, perhaps as not much more than a sentence. A passing fad in theological circles, there is a natural theology that predates it, and which continues past it. Astrology would seem to be the closest fit ... although I could be wrong. Pastordavid (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does anyone have access to this book, published by CUP in 2001. It has about 10 pages on the modern interpretations of astro-theology. Not sure if this is relevant, or would help. Merzul (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a real topic. It is a book by Derhem and something from a film. That's not a real topic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I'm merely starting with the resources available to add background to the article, that would be a bad assumption. Another editor moved the sections around to make it look only like its a book. It has been very difficult to expand this article when they continually blank content with their POV that all theology belongs under natural theology, which actually turns out to be an intelligent design debate on teleology. — Dzonatas 17:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you are doing is garbling the article to the extent that very few seem to be able to put it into context, beyond the fact that it isn't saying much that is noteworthy and isn't covered elsewhere. Your characterisation of my comments, just like your characterisation of every other source you have cited, is egregiously erroneous. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:24, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this AfD debate may be influenced outside of the discussion of the astrotheology article and may explain the AfD attempt: evidence "Houston, we have a problem" — Dzonatas 19:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unclear if there is a real topic here, or whether this term has been used in the past with a well-understood shared meaning. Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms we are not supposed to create new terms or allow ourselves to get on the bandwagon of new coinages before they have general use. The article appears to contain original research. I notice that a number of references are included that are here only because of the enthusiastic support of one particular editor. Since these are difficult historical matters, it would be good to have some kind of consensus beyond the views of one editor that these references are germane and prove what he says they prove. EdJohnston (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. Durova^Charge! 04:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Final word This is the last thing I have to say on this topic: this is obviously going to be deleted and there is no argument that can stop that. Dzonatas, I recommend for your own sake that you be less combative and take whatever usable information is on this page and incorporate it into astrology. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN - If the decision here is to delete can we please make sure that whatever is done to the page does not damage our ability to use both the history of Astrotheology and its talk page to present evidence in the arbitration request (and perhaps case) that Durova mentions above. Thanks. Withdraw note since community sanctions have been levied instead against this user.PelleSmith (talk) 15:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dzonatas has been blocked indefinitely for disrutpion. Durova^Charge! 16:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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' Toddst1 (talk) 03:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiball[edit]

non-notable game. slakr^\ talk / 03:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a game I am currently in the process of creating, therefore it is not entirely complete. I will finish the editing in time. It began as a joke, hence "hitting a ball with a blunt object," but we decided to give it an objective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UPCWSantiago (talk • contribs) 03:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:NFT and WP:SNOW. Toddst1 (talk) 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, a game that has just been made up is probably not notable. Also, Wikipedia is not a place for things made up one day. TN‑X-Man 03:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under G11. Clearly non-notable, no mention or trace of being notable, insufficient or reliable sourcing, written in a promotional perspective. Rudget (Help?) 12:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

4IndianWoman.com[edit]

Not notable per WP:WEB; I can't find any third party coverage, and the only links in the article are to the site. Likely a case of advertising; the creator is User:4indianwoman. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 03:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You can't make articles in your own interest, we already know that. So unless someone steps forward and says, "Hey, I would have written that if they didn't get there first," this should go. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable web site. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have added {{Uw-coi}} to user talk page. Richard001 (talk) 04:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure advertising by someone with a COI. Close to G11 speedy material to be honest. ~ mazca ^talk 10:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will give the person the benefit of the doubt and assume good faith. However, I can't find anything that suggests that this website is notable.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Campus Crusade for Christ. I'm very hesitant to delete this, as it is the merge target for two previous merges, but I'm not convinced it yet has stand alone notability. Sourcing is the primary issue here, there are none, and I've done several searches as well as several editors here. I can't find anything other than passing mentions, "press release" type pseudo-articles, and stuff about the Intelligent Design debate of which they are a party to. They are probably notable, but if not verifiable, then not a standalone article. I'll add the merge template to the article, but I'm not doing the merge. The article needs to be trimmed down severely as it is overly detailed with minutia/unsourced assertions. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Life (university ministry)[edit]

No indications of notability apparent Richard001 (talk) 03:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 03:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —GRBerry 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if kept it should be renamed, as it is exceedingly generically named. 70.51.11.115 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To what? I don't mind keeping it if someone can show that it is somehow notable, but I haven't been able to find any reliable sources that mention it. Richard001 (talk) 06:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That is why the article has the disambiguator, "university ministry", I expect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep --I had not heard that Campus Crusade for Christ had reorganised and renamed its university ministry, but CCC is (or at least was) an important Christian Ministry (of American origin) and I have no reason to believe that Student life is not also notable. The article claims that it operates in various univerities. This means that it is much more than a student club, of the kind that is too often deleted. I am in England and cannot vouch for the veracity of the article. Oppose renaming, since the name used appears to be that under which it operates. The disambiguator should be retained, becasue it might refer to other things. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Campus Crusade for Christ seems to have a few news hits in Australia, so Campus Crusade for Christ (Australia) would be notable I would think. If this organization is the same one but renamed, then I would think the notability follows. Kevin (talk) 23:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ. It's the same organization, it just uses a different name in Australia/New Zealand. The CCC article even has a section for "Around the world" which currently just has a long list of links. The content could easily be merged there and encourage expansion of that section to more than just a directory. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the lack of material for writing an article (not a single source mentioning Student Life has been provided) I would support merging it into a section of the (also small) article Campus Crusade for Christ. If it is kept I think it needs to be trimmed down because there is a lot of crufty material of anon/one edit wonder origin in there (much of it from a merge from Student Life Australia. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Peterkingiron. SL is definitely notable as a student organisation in Australia and is notable in more than one location. JRG (talk) 09:32, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please provide sources. Richard001 (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why should I have to find sources to placate people like you that do no research whatsoever? Have a look and find them yourself. I know SL is notable, but I simply don't have time to find sources. JRG (talk) 02:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have had a look for sources. Why should I read comments from people like you that insist something is notable without offering a single source? Richard001 (talk) 05:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard001. Bhaktivinode (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Campus Crusade for Christ, as this is essentially just a local branch of that organisation. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable. Culturalrevival (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 4 hits for the specific search term "Campus Crusade for Christ Australia" [34]. I haven't been able to find anything for the New Zealand branch. I'm not sure how much those four sources focus on the subject - they may just be passing mentions. Richard001 (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subsidiary of a larger organization. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts III (video games)[edit]

Absolute crystalballery. The author claims a picture in Nintendo Power that reads "KH3" can be interpreted as a reliable source saying the game has been announced, and removed the prod calling it "vandalism". JuJube (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Amusing, but author needs to learn the ropes. Entries like this make us look silly; a proper announcement is needed. Richard001 (talk) 03:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The notability guidelines clearly state that any article about an event in the future is not notable. Razor flame 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is not at all easy to make out "KH3", and others have claimed it's going to be a Pokémon game, not KH3. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Game magazines have been known to predict games that never come to be. So I don't think an image with no real text involved is enough to claim this as notable. You might want to search and see if any official word has been said about this though. (Roodhouse1 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by a newbie who didn't understand that a prod should not be deleted and isn't vandalism. Basically it only uses a single picture in a single issue of a magazine which is pretty crystal bally (what is the verb form of crystal ball anyway?) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom --SkyWalker (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. Kariteh (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crystalballery and original synthesis. Perhaps a small illustration is in order: On Blizzard.com front page, there's a job opening for a senior programmer. If you pick out some individual letters in order from that announcement, it's pretty easy to see the ad has a hidden message: "StargrarT three to come". So not only we are getting Starcraft II, but Starcraft III is already in works, and they're covertly hiring a developer to work on it! --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while these may not be the motst reliable sources several sites are stating that the Nintendo Power picture reference was actually for Castlevania: Order of Ecclesia [35] [36] [37]. In short the basic premise for the article is wrong. --76.66.184.171 (talk) 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susannah Felts[edit]

Non-notable writer, as are all of the writers associated with Featherproof books which is itself nominated for deletion. Corvus cornix_talk 02:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The person who created this article has been busily spamming Wikipedia with articles about every non-notable person ever associated with non-notable micro-press Featherproof books. All of these articles should probably have been bundled, but you can just follow the links from the Featherproof article--for as long as it lasts--and vote delete on all of the associated AfDs. I think we have everything covered now, unless the user keeps creating non-notable articles about even more non-notable writers. Qworty (talk) 03:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Dills[edit]

Has published one book from a non-notable micro-press, Featherproof books, which is going down in flames on an AfD at this very moment. His book fails WP:BK and he fails WP:BIO Qworty (talk) 02:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe we should have more restrictions on the number of articles new editors can create? Richard001 (talk) 03:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It may be that an article on Dills is better suited to narrower contexts, such as Bhamwiki. --Dystopos (talk) 04:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gamaliel (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - a couple of the other Featherproof press writers are, I think, worth keeping. However, with Todd Dills I couldn't really find enough to suggest that he's sufficiently notable. The best was probably the Chicago Tribune article, which was a full piece on him and his publication of The2ndHand journal. Other than that, there are a couple of reviews around of his book, but nothing that I was able to turn up in a significant publication, and some mentions of his book tour in The Washington Post, but they were essentially trivial. - Bilby (talk) 06:34, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 spambot. Sandstein 17:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porn bot[edit]

Prod removed without comment. This is a generalised term with many different meanings. For example this, this and this. There is no reliable source ascribing the very precise description in this page and even the cited link doesn't use this term. Fails WP:V. Delete. Smile a While (talk) 02:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into spambot. Not worthy of an article in itself. Richard001 (talk) 03:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless article and it doesn't appear that it will get more notable. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Merge into spambot per Richard001. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to spambot 70.51.11.115 (talk) 06:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to spambot (and merge if necessary), as a "porn bot" is a form of a spambot. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is certainly not anything mergeable since nothing is reliably sourced. However, after a deletion I would have no problem with a redirect. Smile a While (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Spambot. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Completely unsourced, and far too game-guide-y to merge in toto. To the extent that the topic is relevant to Pokémon Red and Blue and can be reliably sourced, editors may choose to add information about this topic to that article. Nandesuka (talk) 01:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glitch City[edit]

Largely original research with no good sources or verifiability. A single glitch from Pokémon Red and Blue. This page was recently redirect. Artichoker (talk) 02:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Unfortunately the pattern has been to redirect all such bug pages to Pokemon Red and Blue AND THEN not include anything on the bugs.

I don't play pokemon, and have little interest in it generally. However these bugs are interesting from a programming and gaming perspective and certainly noteworthy enough to at least warrant a section on these glitches in the main pokemone red/blue article.

Since that isn't happening, I feel it is better to presever the original Glitch City article.

Artichoker claims these bugs are fiction (see the Pokemon Red and Blue discussion page). That, of course, if false. They are well documented, as the links on this page, or any simple google search, will verify.

I have also seen objections based on original research. Apart perhaps from a few comments here and there, this objection doesn't make sense, since these bugs are well known and have been verified by many gamers. Again, simply see the links or do a google search.

That really just leaves the notability argument. As I was researching computer software bugs on wikipedia, I stumbled over the Glitch City article (and Missingno article) and found it fascinating, it certainly struck me as noteworthy, and I'm not a Pokemon fan. And these glitches are noteworthy enough to get much discussion by gamers. Since this is not a science article, obviously I can't point to scientific papers citing it, but that isn't really the spirit of "notability" with a cultural object such as this.

And at least to maintain NPOV, bugs such as Glitch City deserve mention. It is a verifiable fact that these pokemon games had a number of bugs.

However I might change my mind if the pokemon red/blue page included a section on the bugs (as it used to). Although even then, I think the Glitch City entry deserved at least an extra line or two compared to what it had. And I also fear that history will just repeat itself, and the glitches section will get deleted after a short wait.

So I say no to the deletion for the time being.

MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite the above user's diatribe, I see nothing but original research and unverified claims here. There are no reliable third-party sources to verify this game's existence, nor any real notability. It's discussed by gamers, but not by third-party sources; an underground bug, if you will. And the nominator never said the bugs were fiction. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with everything TenPoundHammer has said. -Sukecchi (talk) 03:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TenPoundHammer said "And the nominator never said the bugs were fiction."

Here is the actual quote.

Artichoke "You misunderstood WP:FICTION, the glitch was from a Pokémon game which was fictional, therefore the glitch is part of the fiction."

MKULTRA "No, the bugs are not works of fiction. That would only apply to the normal levels and monsters, not the bugs."

Objections that a bug is an "Underground" bug are senseless. If anything, the fact that Pokemon Red and Blue had bugs that allowed "underground" cheating just makes it more notable.

A bug consistently found in a piece of software and widely reported is not "original research" in the sense wikipedia intends. I've now come across several YouTube videos of Glitch City which may be added as references to the article.

MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sukecchi, can you please sustain your arguments? AFDs are not a voting process. So just saying "as per above" adds nothing to the discussion. Thank you.--201.103.31.245 (talk) 05:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That IP comment above, was me. I was looking at this matter for so long, that my session expired. Sorry if there is any misunderstanding. --Legion fi (talk) 06:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that not acceptable? I agree with TenPoundHammer's statements. "per above" has been acceptable before. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, AFDs are NOT VOTING. We are not voting. We are giving ARGUMENTS and SUGGESTION about the future of the article, either we keep it and why, or either we delete it and why, or either we merge it and why, or any other possible action and why. Just agreeing may be valid, but it is useless in an afd. --Legion fi (talk) 01:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All my arguments are the same as his, therefore I have nothing else to say. Sorry. -Sukecchi (talk) 01:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This has been discussed enough in Pokemon circles to create a good deal of buzz on the web. See [38], [39], [40] (part of a list), [41] (part of a list), and a book result, [42]. And, as you'd expect, countless user-created hits and video results showing us how it works. Not usable for demonstrating notability, but I think there are enough acceptable sources to do so. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Threshhold for inclusion is verifiability, which it has. Anyone could verify this if they wanted; just because nom didn't want to doesn't mean it's not verifiable. Page was formerly a redirect to things which were moved into Glitch City, and was only recently a redirect because nom made it that way. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Missingno. is a notable bug of Pokemon because the cheat, but this Glitch City lacks notability (useless glitch and potential game destroyer). Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 04:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First of all, I must admit this was a very hard decision for me to make. At first I was tempted to vote for a speedy keep, because I was going to agf and let the main contributor of the article source its content. Then I move to the idea of merging, because it seemed as the most simple solution. But after heavy analyzing the article in dispute, and the original article, as well as re-reading the policies involved, I've come to the conclusion that it should indeed be deleted. I was the one that reported MKULTRA333 for violating the 3RR. Then an admin mediated and recommended and afd. That is how I got involved. Soon after, Artichoker referred me to this afd page. Below, I will outline some of the arguments of my decision.

The main argument for the article is that it is relevant to "programming" and "gaming". Those claims are not referenced, and cannot be validated by reliable sources. Also, the content relating to this matter is very technical, going as far as mentioning "values FF" which the vast majority of people may not acknowledge as the hexadecimal representation of the decimal 255.

I admit these is the kind of information I would like to find if I was to search into Pokemon articles, specially if I was looking for glitches in the Red and Blue editions. But the lack of inclusion of this information in the Red and Blue Pokemon article does not mean that it should have its own article. Just because the issue has not yet been addressed or because it doesn't harm anyone to keep it, doesn't mean that it should be kept. This last point is related to WP:N and WP:V just to mention some policies (which I don't mean to do heavily).

Also, the subject may arise discussion from gamers. But lets remember Wikipedia is not a forum. Discussions constitute OR and therefore shall not be included. If this is indeed a "science article" please add "scientific papers" to establish notability, as there are non so far. Or try creating another article about those "science" concerns (like buffer overflow and segmentation fault).

Most of the links on the article are self-published. Self-published sources are only to be used in articles relating about those sources. The more people involved in the fact checking of a source, the more reliable that source is. This is clearly mentioned in WP:RS, trying to comply to WP:NOR and WP:V.

MKULTRA33 has also tried to establish notability by asserting this is a "cultural object". Lets remember that Wikipedia is not about trivia. As knowing the gameplay of a Pokemon game and its more noted glitches may be a "cultural object", the exact aspects of how the glitch behaves and how it is produced are not, which constitutes the majority of the article. Also, trying to establish the notability of an article by Google hits is misleading. Google searches are a good way to look for sources, but they do not constitute a base for notability. In the same form, saying that the bugs are "well know" as a mean to establish verifiability lands in the scope of weasel wording.

I have not seen a single allegation about NPOV violations. And if there are, they are misleaded. An article should be NPOV in nature. Creating an article to explain a POV is like spliting the splines. Said this, this discussion has little or nothing to do with NPOV violations.The neutral point of view of an article, has nothing to do with its notability.

My recomendations to you MKULTRA33 is to be bold. Yes, as you were, but try keeping consensus into account when doing so. Include the changes you think are apropiate for an article. Keep the page in your watchlist. If your edits met consensus, you can freely revert the disrupting edits, just as your edits were reverted.

Well I hope no one got bored. Thanks fore reading. --Legion fi (talk) 06:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's on many, many, many, many, pokemon sites, and, it does work, and everyting n the article is true. Fivexthethird (talk)

Comment: this user has vandalized my user page [43], my talk page [44], and has done other inappropriate things such as strike out a user's comment on this afd [45]. Artichoker (talk) 01:09, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the account of this user has been made today (June 1). - Face 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So what? I made mine yesterday. Are new wiki-users second class citizens? MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. It means that you... ARE SOCKPUPPETING!! (mwhahahaha!) - Face 12:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, if only I had the time. Still, in seriousness, it is somewhat disappointing to have that accusation levelled at me, even under the guise of a joke.MKULTRA333 (talk) 14:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, I was acting weird ;-). But seriously: I don't know if there's policy about this, but votes by newly registered or anonymous users have always been given less weight when they have no original argumentation, or if the argumentation is flawed, which is the case here. Cheers, Face 14:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and/or redirect Basically a detailed gameguide, which wikipedia doesn't cover. Even if this was a notable phenomenon (I haven't checked) worth more than a dict-def, the current article contains nothing mergeable except the lead sentence, and we don't need GFDL for that. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not the current article is as good as it can be isn't the issue. Given a chance it can be improved. Plus, some exposition on how the Glitch City bug is initiated and what happens once it is activated is a valid part of the topic.MKULTRA333 (talk) 09:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you have five days until this AfD ends to improve the article. I'll be glad to change my opinion if I have misjudged the article's potential. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article already has sufficient information to warrant Wikipedia inclusion. It doesn't need to be perfect, it only need accurately cover a notable phenomenon. I have never claimed to be either an expert on Pokemon or pokemon glitches, only that the article, as it stands, has enough objective merit to exist.MKULTRA333 (talk) 10:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is completely unsourced except for its fansite external-links and an obscure amazon book (WP:V/WP:RS/WP:OR). It doesn't include any information why the programmers included the Glitch City in the first place. There is no reception/influence section. Without reliable secondary sources, notability is not established, and I doubt it could be established (prove this wrong). Instead, the article is full of how to access these locations in the game (WP:NOT#GUIDE). Under these conditions, the article doesn't warrant any kind of inclusion on wikipedia. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't include any information why the programmers included the Glitch City in the first place."

Actually it does, in the very first sentence of the article, "Glitch City is a term used by Pokémon gamers to refer to a hidden fictional city caused by a bug that occurs in the Pokémon video game Red, Blue and Yellow versions."

A gamer is not a Gamefreak programmer. Try again. -Sukecchi (talk) 11:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for only being mentioned on "fansites" as you call them, this is incorrect, it is covered on a wide variety of gaming sites, and YouTube videos, and at least the Amazon book you mention. Obscurity is no excuse to delete, a great many of the chemicals, mathematical proceedures, and animal species mentioned in Wikipedia are obscure, and noted by far less people than Glitch City. What you appear to be arguing for is a kind of snobbery whereby popular culture studies are denigrated despite their large audiences, simply because they don't often produce the kind of citing that a chemical or mathematical subject might. On the contrary, media, movie and other popular culture topics are just as valid wikipedia subjects as academic topics. If you don't like that, I believe there is another online encyclopedia, [46], that would be more to your tastes.

Also, found another book that mentions Glitch City [47].MKULTRA333 (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That book is already listed, but the article doesn't use it as a reference at all. Anyway, I have said enough and stand by everything I said. Goodbye. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the book has already been mentioned, then it is mentioned in at least two books, not one as you claimed above. And whether or not that particular book is used as a reference doesn't change the fact that the books are evidence of notability.MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the sources. From the eight external links mentioned in the article, 3 are broken links, 3 are self-published sites (personal sites),1 is a reference to a book in japanese, and the other one is a the only reference of a book that holds. But, can any of the editors of the article honestly tell me that they own the book? Or have access to its content? And if they do, could they please reference the article content in-line? Thank you.--Legion fi (talk) 01:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Has no references at all, and it has too many non-existence images. Worst of all, it contains a lot of original research. Oh and don't bother asking me any questions because I already mentioned everything I needed to add. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is missing some pictures, a result of it having been neglected when it was being redirected elsewhere. That the article needs a little repair is not a reason to delete.MKULTRA333 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a lot more than that (i.e. some references) and it still has not established notability. Artichoker (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read my whole comment before replying, no images was just an example of my reason. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pokémon Red and Blue, although I do wonder where the glitch section of that article went. Anyway, I think we all agree that the article is rubbish in this state. Even for fansite standards, it's rubbish. Especially the "Highlights" section is a jumble of original research, a hotchpotch even more chaotic then Glitch City itself.
The first two sentences go: "The most common Pokémon found in the Glitch City accessed through the Cinnabar coast are Tentacool. A player can also fish for Pokémon in Glitch City."
Then it reads: "Going too far to the left or right will often get the player stuck in an invisible wall."
And then it goes: "In Pokémon Yellow you may also see Pikachu running in random places."
Really, it's laughable. The question then is: can this article be improved? My answer: as for the structure and general tone, it's possible. It should be completely rewritten, but it's possible. As for encyclopedical value however, I do not think it is. If I would write an article about Glitch City, the very first thing I would research is why the bug technically occurs. And that's the problem: no one knows. - Face 12:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete into Pokémon Red and Blue, and recreate the glitches section. --.:Alex :. 18:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that "merging and deleting" is illegal per Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I believe he meant merge the Glitch City article into Pokémon Red and Blue, and then delete the Glitch City article. Artichoker^talk 01:56, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - comment "Merge and delete" is usually used when the editor actually means "merge and redirect" to the receiving article, as the first article is essentially blanked, it is effectively deleted from view but the edit history remains available. It is important to use good edit summaries when doing this to make it easier to trace the history. Jeepday (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Which we cannot do per the GFDL. If we merge something from one article, we have to redirect that article rather than delete it to keep the edit history public. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the R/B article. Someone needs to resurrect the section on glitches, as these games have arguably some of the most famous glitches in modern gaming. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your going to delete it, at least merge it into the R/B article. Also, remake the glitches section! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivexthethird (talk • contribs) 18:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with provision that it isn't nuked. I've seen it happen. The articles on Missingno, shiny Pokemon, 'M, Bad EGG, and others all got merged into a "Pokemon Glitch" article, which only retained some of the information. This was fine, because most of what was removed was OR anyway. But suddenly everything got merged into Pokemon Red and Blue (even the G/S and R/S glitches), and the entire section was deleted. Nothing remains. Ziggy Saw dust 18:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Merge (e.g. not just redirecting it) This should be incorporated into the recreated Glitch section (hint hint). At its present state, it doesn't seem deserving of an independent article. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (change of vote) With a significant rewrite, it can be improved. This is a verifiable and quite notable glitch. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 03:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources provided is independent and reliable. I rate this as pure plot and not needed for broad understanding of pokemon Red and Blue, so merging is not appropriate. Since merging is not approprate a redirect is not appropriate either. Taemyr (talk) 21:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree It's a glitch, not plot, the oonly way to get to it is by glitch, hence it's name Glitchcity. Fivexthethird (talk)

I consider it as plot since the content of the article has very little impact outside the universe of the pokemon games. The red link Blue hell in the introductio is the specific bug that is beeing talked about, and that should perhaps be an article. One that I suppose could include a brief description of glitch city as a specific example. Taemyr (talk) 14:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentLike I said in my first post, I can see merit in this being put in a glitches section in the main pokemon red/blue article (as a last resort, rather than total deletion). But Artichoker made it clear that he and the other editors of that page were not going to allow the glitches section to return. Another problem with a glitches section on the Red Blue page is that this bug (and others) happen on more machines than just the Red Blue ones.

I think probably a recreated glitches page with Missingno and others would be a more sensible solution.

At the very least these glitches are such a notable part of the pokemon games that, failing their own articles, the glitches section of Red/Blue should be re-implemented (and the Glitch City section expanded by a line or two). That could be easily done, as the history page for Red/Blue already contains the glitch section. But that would require agreement from Artichoker and some honour not to just delete the section once the storm has passed.MKULTRA333 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be kept if he doesn't agree, and if he does, merge it, with restoration of the glitches section! Who's with me? Fivexthethird (talk) 00:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to break consensus and "delete the section once the storm has passed." I don't know where you got that idea. If at the end of this AfD, Glitch City is merged into Pokemon Red and Blue, it will stay. This article's future has nothing to do with whether I agree with it or not, its future will be determined by the consensus of the Wikipedia community, namely this AfD. Artichoker (talk) 01:01, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Artichoker, just wanted to make sure it wouldn't be edited out down the track like in the past merges of Glitch City, Missingno, etc. But at this stage I think it deserves its own article. Only if the deletion carries should it be reinstated as a subsection of the pokemon red/blue page, or possibly part of resurrected Pokemon Bug page (along with Missingno and others).MKULTRA333 (talk) 04:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are entitled to your opinion, however, if the decision is to delete and not merge, you will just have to accept that. Artichoker (talk) 12:52, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Could be improved, sure, but seems useful. I've no idea why anyone thinks it should be deleted. It's a significant memorabilia of a period pop-culture phenomenon. -- Chzz ► 01:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is a good example of a computer glitch in general. The Glitch article links to Glitch City, includes a screen shot of Glitch City, and if people reading about glitches want a specific example to look into, they can go over to the Glitch City article, since it is perhaps one of the most famous game glitches. So from a coherentism pov, the article sits well in wikipedia. This is more or less how I ended up on Glitch City in the first place.MKULTRA333 (talk) 02:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:N. Also, didn't we delete something like this recently? If so, can we WP:G4 this? User:Krator (t c) 11:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect - It is a searchable term and a concept that can be covered in one to two sentences in a larger Pokemon article (Red and Blue seems best). However, there is no demonstration of this being notable, I've attempted to search for sources that are outside sites that have a vested interest in Pokemon games and found nothing usable. --MASEM 11:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a number of tags added, I don't think a couple of them were appropriate, for instance the "Confusing" and "in-universe" templates, though I left the "Copy editing" template. I don't think the article is particularly confusing, and it certainly isn't described in universe, since it describes the actual methods of causing the bug and what the bug looks like. It doesn't treat this as if it were an alternate reality, but rather just describes the moves and graphics.

Since whether this article is deleted or not will be decided in a few days, I don't see much point in trying to prejudice things by hanging the equivalent of "Condemned Building" signs on it. If it survives, then sure, go crazy with templates.MKULTRA333 (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... so what do I find, but Artichoker automatically reverting my edits of the templates, along with a "polite" auto-response to my use page saying I need to give valid reasons. Never mind that I gave reasons in the edit description, in the Glitch City discussion page, and here.MKULTRA333 (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my replies at [48] and [49]. Also, this is not the correct place to post this. Simply on Talk:Glitch City will do fine. Artichoker (talk) 15:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Jeremy McCracken pulled out some sources that DO establish notability, so this is a topic that should be in wikipedia. But there doesn't appear to be much to say about this topic that doesn't violate WP:GAMETRIVIA and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would recommend drastically trimming this article, summarizing it, and merging it into a relevant pokemon game article. Randomran (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Side comment Forum posts or "popularity" don't establish notability. Notability can only be established by reliable sources that are independent of the subject. See WP:GNG. Jeremy McCracken established notability only because he managed to refer to a published book that mentions the glitch. Randomran (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge provided editors make an effort to merge and keep the content. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 00:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pokémon Red and Blue. There are a few non-forum or fansite sources for the topic, which establishes that it is worth mention in the article. However, it cannot reasonably stand as an article on its own without being overrun with rampant OR. And while we're at it, we should probably restore the stuff about MissingNo. in that article that was removed. Abwayax (c :: t) 01:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Though I'd prefer the topic have its own article, I think there is a trend in the above for a merge, with the proviso that it not simple be edited out at a later date. It is also preferrable that the merge revert some of the other deleted glitch data from the Red/Blue article.

The last version of the Red/Blue page to mention the glitches is here [50]. I think that section, while adequate on most counts, fails to say enough about Glitch City, so I've made a new version of the Glitches section over on my sandbox. See my suggested merge section here [51]

To this point my discussions with another editor on this subject have been less than productive. All I get are threats of warnings and accusations of vandalism, plus reverts, at every turn. I really would like to put that in the past. We obviously disagree, but I want the articles to be interesting and valuable just as much as anyone else. Notability for an article subsection is not the issue that it is for the article itself. As the page on notability itself explains, "Non-notable elements should preferably be concisely covered within articles on the main work or on notable elements." I also think the "in-universe" and "fiction" tags are being applied too liberally. Given that this is the discussion of effects found in a computer game, short descriptions of how the player gets there and what they see are unavoidable.

So if possible, and if a Merge is decided as the best option, avoiding a war of attrition over the content of the merge would be great.MKULTRA333 (talk) 03:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at diff. Artichoker^talk 15:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Pertinent content to appropriate article(s). By comparison look at the inclusion of The Minus World in Super Mario Bros. article. An article on the Minus world alone would not stand, and neither should this one. A google search for "Glitch City" (in qoutations) yields 25,000+ hits. [52] I think that is sufficient enough to at least confirm there is a prevailing term for this glitch. There are some youtube videos, which indicate this is an actual glitch, and not a hoax.[53] AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would just like to point out that, as already said on this AfD, you cannot establish notability with Google hits. Google searches can be good for finding sources, but they do not constitute a base for notability. Artichoker^talk 13:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware. But did you read what I said? My comment was the number of Ghits "at least confirm there is a prevailing term for this glitch." I agree this article cannot stand on its own - which is why I suggested merging pertinent information into another notable article. There are enough verifiable sources to indicate this glitch exists, and that there is a prevailing term for it. AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete as copyvio of http://www.utmc.gov.uk/udg/index.htm (per Google cache). Sandstein 17:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTMC Development Group[edit]

non-notable working group of UK Department for Transport ninety:one 15:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:58, 12 May 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) 12:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Seems to be an important quasi-governmental agency. I found a few academic sources, but they seem to require registration and/or payment. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(not a government agency) ninety:one 19:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Singu larity 02:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firm keep. Genuine quango that does real work. Like many government spin-offs (e.g. UKTI) it has poor internet coverage and website, but is significant in its field. Aardvarkvarkvark (talk) 04:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The continued allowance of an article to occupy an entry on Wikipedia demands the presentation of neutral, third-party reliable sources to support notability; to cut straight to the core of this debate, no such sources have been provided.

Anthøny 18:29, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uemura Masakatsu[edit]

I honestly don't understand this article at all. It is a stub composed of with pretty bad grammar, and has no references to merit notability. A Google search provided me little information about this person as well. Tavix (talk) 02:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a really bad translation. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I happen to have some books about this period in Japan. I'll see if I can dig anything up. I could be wrong, but I think this guy is one of the npc generals in Samurai Warriors 2. I'll doublecheck that as well.(Roodhouse1 (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 11:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created by somebody later calling himself ExiledAmbition. -- Hoary (talk) 11:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Maybe a mistake, The article says Masakatsu's son was Uemura Iemasa but the ja article says Iemasa's father was Ietsugu. There's a 政勝/Masakatsu in the Uemura clan but no 正勝/Masakatsu. Oda Mari (talk) 14:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry it wasn't a mistake. I found Japaneses pages and the article is right except about his son. There's no mention about Masakatsu's child/children on the pages I saw. And every page on Iemasa says his father was Ietsugu. I think Masakatsu and Iemasa are not related. Oda Mari (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nice job on catching that. I can't read Japanese so I'll trust you on that.Tavix (talk) 16:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm trying to find reliable sources on this character, but it's difficult to find many English sources. There are at least three English books that mention the name, one of which appears to be a work of fictional retelling. [54] I'm not going to declare this person as non-notable just because I don't know him. If Oda Mari knows the subject well enough and cannot find any reliable sources in Japan to establish notability, then it can be deleted. SashaNein (talk) 16:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Compare the birth year of Uemura Masakatsu (植村正勝) and Uemura Iemasa (植村家政) on this page And this one too. Their age difference is 6. How could they be a father and a son? Oda Mari (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Susana A. Herrera Quezada[edit]

AfDs for this article:

In spite of the last changes made to this article after it was nominated and discussed for the first time, it keeps being just an auto-promoting entry of a not notable architect. maxat (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Architect is well known and has accomplished work on many buildings as outlined in her article. --Faith (talk) 12:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faith: How do you now that she's a well known architect? I know the Chilean architectural context (being Chilean and architect) and I can say that this article is nothing more than a CV. I can't see how can it be that you don't realize that... it's so obvious. If Wikipedia accepts this kind of articles, then I should post my own resume here. This is an encyclopedia, not a Head Hunter's webpage!!!! maxat (talk) 15:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would suggest you look at WP:NOTE, which outlines the criteria for notability. Being written up in multiple independent reliable sources, all the magazine articles, is enough for notablity. The article being poorly written is not an indicator for deletion, but for clean-up. --Faith (talk) 23:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:NOTE clearly states that sources should be reliable and independent. these are not. Gorgonzola (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment': Indeed they are independent: Casa, etc., el Sur, Vivienda y Decoración by El Mercurio, and Architecture Week are not tied to Herrera. Neither are the other magazine write-ups. --Faith (talk) 10:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: They sure are independent (i.e. not belonging to ms Herrera), but they are not architecture magazines, or publications belonging to the architectural discipline. They're weekend supplements of newspapers, and any mention there doesn't imply any notability at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxat (talk • contribs) 17:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please note how subject fails to fulfill any of the criteria for notability as creative professional or academic. Gorgonzola (talk) 19:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creative professionals, including architects, can be a person who has "created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". She meets that criterion. --Faith (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ehem, no, she doesn't. The sources cited do not assert that her works (most of them under construction) are notable in their own right, nor significant or well-know, and they have been the subject of nothing more than the supplements of some newspapers noted for not being authoritative in the matter. Thousends of architects and other professionals are mentioned in thousends of half-page notes on said magazines, or blog posts, and that does not mean that their work is notable, well-known or significant. If she had received some prize, or some mention in a specialized (academic) magazine she could meet the criteria, for now, this is vanity, and plain spam of her firm. Gorgonzola (talk) 02:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Subject is completely non-notable, and the article is an evident vanity page, made up mainly with her own CV. Sources cited are nothing more than 1.- anecdotic reviews of her office's architectural work in non especialized sources and newspaper's decoration magazines, 2.- written by herseef or as publicity for her firm, 3.- reference in "who's who" archives form professional lists. Her "distinticve" work are buildings under construction, and bar remodelations (come on!). I could go on... only 53 google hits (for comparison i myslef get 179), etc. delete it. Gorgonzola (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Gorgonzola. ~ Antiselfpromotion (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Resume. Gamaliel (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete and redirected to Tennis ball --JForget 23:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tennisball[edit]

Wikipedia is not for things you made up at college. I can't find anything other than the linked article by the college newspaper. Fails WP:NOT WP:NOTE WP:RS LegoTech·(t)·(c) 01:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete made up one day. JJL (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and then redirect to Tennis ball. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection redirect to Tennis ball. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this original research about a game made up one day, and redirect the title to Tennis ball as a very plausible typo. ~ mazca ^talk 10:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Needs another source - web search would appear to verify its existence, but only on a very small scale. A possible keep if someone can find this source and adjust the overly-specific and unsourced article. forestPIG 12:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to tennis ball, per WP:MADEUP and the fact that tennisball and tennis ball would be easily confused with each other. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, made up game. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Graney class submarine. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severodvinsk (Graney) class submarine[edit]

duplicate of Graney class submarine mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed after speedy deletion as hoax. Bduke (talk) 01:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wuinness[edit]

From the content and the lack of sources I suspect the article is a hoax but even if it isn't the reliable sources on which a verifiable article could be based do not seem to exist. Guest9999 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G3 Seems blatant enough to me to be tagged as a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The recently added reference to a review in Speculum back in 1956 is not available to the average reader as it requires an account with JSTOR. Unfortunately for User:Brandnewcolony, I have access and, of course, the review contains nothing that refers to this complete load of bollocks. I am going to speedy delete it and close this discussion. --Bduke (talk) 01:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close and redirect to Lada class submarine. Redirects are cheap, use them. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petersburg (Lada) class submarine[edit]

already exists as Lada class submarine mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PaintballChat[edit]

Delete This was prodded by another user for "Article does not establish third party notability. Article lists no notable information for network. Possible COI. Article believed inappropriate for wikipedia "and was removed by an anon IP (who has not made any edits besides this so far) with no explanation. I considered reverting this edit, but I wasn't sure if this goes against policy, so I'm nominating it for deletion on AFD instead. CyberGhostface (talk) 00:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reverting would have gone against WP:PROD; AfD is the right venue. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - assuming WP:WEB applies to IRC networks this seems to gratuitously fail it. Seems to be no evidence of notability through coverage in reliable sources. ~ mazca ^talk 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, you were correct not to revert - WP:PROD exists for non-controversial deletions, if anyone objects then it's evidently controversial and AfD is the right place. ~ mazca ^talk 10:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per mazca. -- GarbageCollection - ^!Collect 15:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any coverage in reliable news sources, such as Google news. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all reasons above.Virek (talk) 03:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What is considered a reliable source? Reliable news sources for the paintball community have published press releases for the network, I fail to see how these are not "reliable sources"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snake6 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources in the sense that we use the term on Wikipedia. EdJohnston (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as blatant advertising. Salted against re-creation. -- The Anome (talk) 14:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ShockerVideo[edit]

Article about an apparently-defunct website, insufficient evidence of notability given, fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. the only reference given that was independent of the website does not mention its name anywhere in the article text. Posting this article, and creating a link to it from the amateur pornography article was the sole contribution of the user in question. The Anome (talk) 00:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any third party mentions of this. Looks like an old case of advertising- aside from the SPA creator, it was put on Digg.com, with exactly one digg. You guessed it; same user name as the article creator here. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 04:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the Digg entry clinches it as blatant advertising, and thus speediable. I'll early-close this myself... -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There should be very few articles about web sites; this does not rate. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A non-notable article that is written like WP:SPAM to promote a product. Even the large banner leads you directly to its web site on pornography. Artene50 (talk) 08:13, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 14:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infosnacking[edit]

This is basically a dictionary definition for a word. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Tavix (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete belongs in a dictionary as far as I can tell... nearly all published mentions of the term just cover its addition to Webster's (and note that only 5 of those results are unique stories). --Rividian (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bag it. I'd normally consider Word of the Year to be a big step on the way to notability, but this one just seems like an unfulfilling quickie mart flavor of the week that sounded tasty but had no staying power. --Dhartung | Talk 00:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage in a couple reliable sources aside, as even the editors of the dictionary admit, it's not notable or widely-used. I don't believe a word with a minor award (note that this is Webster's Collegiate dictionary Word of the Year) that didn't even get it into the dictionary is worthy of inclusion.--Michael White^T·C 01:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other recommendations above. I'm not even convinced that this word would even warrant coverage in Wiktionary. It certainly has not caught on in the media in the two years since it was declared "word of the year", and that award was mostly because it amused the awardgivers and not because anybody was actually using it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point... use of this term seems to have died after Winter 2005/06, the last use I see is in February 2006 then nothing. Even on Usenet the last use is January 2006. This seems to be a fad word that didn't catch on at all. --Rividian (talk) 17:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NAD. It's a non-notable dictionary definition. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Sore Throat

[2] British Porn stars, UK Porn stars - Television X - The Fantasy Channel

[1]

[2]