Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

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 Speedy delete a1, a3, no content. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

100 Great Black Belarusians[edit]

Not sure about this. Withinpublicview (talk) 12:54, 24 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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Life:2006[edit]

Unnotable. StaticGull Talk 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This should have been speedied per with a db-band template. Doing so now.--Finalnight (talk) 17:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined, I thought Dublin Life was a band not album. Anyway, this should still be deleted for non-notability.--Finalnight (talk) 17:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability in article. Zero ghits, zero gnews hits, no professional reviews found on allmusic or metacritic. Fails WP:V, let alone WP:N.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 29 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. This article should have been speedied when it was first nominated, but has grown enough that the afd reasoning no longer even applies, feel free to resubmit again if you feel differently. (non-admin closure)Finalnight (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven Days Confederate order of battle[edit]

There isn't any context to this article. StaticGull Talk 17:00, 24 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. This article should have been speedied when it was first nominated, but has grown enough that the afd reasoning no longer even applies, feel free to resubmit again if you feel differently. (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 17:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time (Frankie J album)[edit]

Looks like nonsense, or in any case unnotable content. StaticGull Talk 16:32, 24 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 in light of recent announcements. No need to let this run. - hahnch e n 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man 9[edit]

Per Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Kimera Kat (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL, actually. --Shadow Hog (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it may have been a bit early to create the article seeing as no further information (other than it exists, and several unverified claims) has stemmed forth; however, I'd petition that we keep the namespace available, seeing as the game IS confirmed to exist (with a valid source cited, at that), and information on the game WILL be coming sooner or later (my bet is E3 2008). It may now violate WP:CRYSTAL (not criterion 1, since the event is as good as confirmed, but perhaps criterion 2, seeing as only the game's existence and that it is multiplatform - generic information - is known) but I'm wagering it won't, very soon. --Shadow Hog (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. It's been revealed in a scan. I'll look for it for a few minutes, but I have to leave soon. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep pending this source; Abstain otherwise. --Shadow Hog (talk) 17:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Note: I think this is the source in question; scans from the next issue of Nintendo Power. Bigger scans would be better, but I doubt this is a hoax. --Shadow Hog (talk) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Keep. Confirmed game. Toastypk (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Keep. Christian Svensson, Capcom's Sr. Director of Strategic Planning, confirmed on the Capcom forums that the article, hence the game, is real, and that there are still more details unrevealed. 216.80.38.172 (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The game has now been confirmed via this. Sources within the linked article. -- TRTX ^{T / C} 19:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close debate. At the time of the debate starting, it was consisted of things such as "This has not been confirmed or announced by Capcom but we know it's in production because there's an unreliable obscure source that claims it!" Now, it's much better and confirmed by Capcom. Kimera Kat (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno if I'd call the ratings board of a country an "obscure" source; although "unreliable" might be right. ;P --Shadow Hog (talk) 21:51, 26 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process[edit]

Content forking. All information in Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process + more can be found at United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008‎. If all info+more can be found at the second article, there is no reason to keep this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigvinu (talk • contribs)

Note: I am removing United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008 from deletion for purposes of using it as historical reference.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - it appears we do have precendent for articles like this (John Kerry presidential campaign VP selection process) --T-rex 05:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, most news reports on this are conjecture, and what little is known needs to be somewhere else, ideally in the short Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 article which was created to be free of any information about the primary campaign. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both the nominated article and United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008‎ write a new article or section at Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 which is well referenced and doesn't include every name ever mentioned in connection with the post (i.e. serious contenders only). If need be wait until there is more definitive information to avoid just speculating or quoting other spurious speculations. Ideally a VP section process article should speak of the process and not just be a list of names.Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008‎. This article will provide an historical record of the broad field of possible candidates that will have been considered. Think of the value that similar lists could provide if they were available for the last 200 years. We will never be able to accurately create such lists historically. But we do now have the opportunity to have these lists for each party going forward. Keeping them costs little and will provide a great benefit to scholars of the future. Of course reputable sourcing is paramount and names should not be deleted as they are eliminated; otherwise the "final version" will have only one name, negating the historical value of the article.--Appraiser (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the problem with United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008‎ is the potential candidates because in all honesty it is an incomplete listing and if it was complete would be WAY too long. Have a look at the requirements to be vice president. Every single person anywhere that meets those requirements is a "potential candidate" (not to mention that being a potential candidate means that you aren't actually a candidate only that you may someday eventually be one. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Yes the "potential" candidate list is huge, but those mentioned in credible media sources represent a reasonable number, and this list is pretty comprehensive from that standpoint. Whenever I see someone mentioned in the news, I check these lists (United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008‎ also) and usually the names are already here. BTW, I find it telling that the Republican list has not also been WP:Proded. Is there a political agendum at work here?--Appraiser (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article actually is showing political speculation of the media at this time in history. United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008 however should be deleted or incorporated because it was started when there wasn't a clear nominee so that was based on Clinton and Obama. Gang14 (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable and useful. More information can be incorporated as the process progresses, and the article will become more definitive as time goes on. Article is useful to keep large quantity of information from cluttering other articles. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is, if anything is, a historic moment. Bearian (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Barack Obama presidential campaign, VP selection process to United States Democratic vice presidential candidates, 2008. These articles seem to be redundant.--Appraiser (talk) 01:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus although given Wikipedia's noted strength on IT articles, it's likely here to stay and helpfully so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precision Manuals Development Group[edit]

This article fails to establish notability (WP:CORP) as it is not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources that are be reliable, and independent of the subject (flightsim software reviews are not independent of the subject). The subject is not covered in articles or books. Products of the company have been covered in commercial reviews only. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - forum posts and some mentions, but no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hold on. "Independent" means that there are no inappropriate ties between the reviewer and the company/game. A flight sim magazine doing a review of a flight sim game is perfectly independent unless the magazine is owned by the same company that made the game. I believe the nom is referring to the list of reviews/awards on the company page.[1] Please have a look at these to decide if they are

reliable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the trade-related mentions are absolutely relevant. I don't see how their having commercial reviews only has anything to do with notability. Would it help if I as a user wrote a non-commercial review? Tim (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not saying that articles on the company's products be deleted, I was suggesting that the company itself is not notable as no reviews have been done on the company. The reviews are done on the products, not the company itself. Until a reference appears anywhere dealing with the company itself, I feel that this article should not be included on wikipedia. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The majority of the article contains original research or information that is contained nowhere in any of the reviews. The entire History section is a good example of this, including a statement that the company recently updated their website. If I were to edit the article such that it fitted with information available in the reviews, it would simply be a stub saying that the company exists. However the company simply having (or not having) a product does not make it notable or not notable, that notability should be established in an independent article/book/source on the company itself.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Abstain Though I understand the rationale it's common practice to create software developer articles and either use them as navigational lists or to act as a combined article for their software. A glance at the company's accolade page shows multiple reviews from specialist websites and half a dozen reviews from two separate magazines - all of these combined demonstrate ample notability for an article on the combined products. An interview is often as good a secondary source as you can get for a development house, and in this case there is one in the external links - this can be used to give some info about the company itself, then their development history and reception can be hammered from multiple reviews - which offers notability and neutrality above and beyond a stub just about the company itself. Combined articles like that are better weighed with WP:N rather than WP:CORP, and I believe this one's fine and has capacity for expansion and improvement. Someoneanother 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For better or worse, many of the sites that have these reviews themselves have had questions regarding their notability asked, resulting in the deletion of the Flightsim.com and Avsim.com website articles to name but a few. These sites were clearly deemed non-notable, therefore questions should be asked of the notability of their content as supporting notability of minor products released for Flight Simulator. Reviews on these sites would not appear to meet notability guidelines, therefore I think their value as the only references on an article about their origin company, is not high. Icemotoboy (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Notability and reliability are separate things though. In terms of these specialist sites gaining notability of their own, who would cover them in the significant detail needed for an article of their own, apart from other specialist sites/publications? Why would they want to cover a rival in detail? That's why so many specialists are not notable. To each their own, but I'm of the opinion that specialist sites who are longstanding and attempt to cover their subjects properly should be given at least some weight in terms of reliability. To do otherwise is to ask 'more reliable sources' to cover something that is not within their remit, in an area which is hardly as contentious as the theory of evolution or global warming. Ignoring the websites completely, there are multiple reviews in the two magazines. Someoneanother 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is a valid point, the websites are certainly very useful. My personal opinion of Flightsim.com is that it is a very notable site in its own right. However, I began reviewing the PMDG entry in April 2008 which is when I tagged it, and since then I haven't found a single reference to it outside of a forum post or basic website review. We have been having problems with large number of "addon" articles, and I think that some of the more notable ones should perhaps be merged together into a "flightsim addons" article, or into the Flightsim/MSFS article. The issue I have is not that the PMDG does not exist, and not that it has produced good addons, but that this is not a notable subject for wikipedia to contain. Wikipedia should indeed record the phenomenon of addon development in the Flightsim community, but I do not think it is appropriate to record development groups without any coverage outside of its own community. It only takes a cursory read of the article (particulary the history section) to see what it covers, recording what the team are working on, who is on the team, and that they've "recently (sic)" updated their website. None of this is notable, and the majority of it is not verifable either. The reviews only serve to record that the PMDG exists, and that they have released products. How do they assert that the PMDG is notable in its own right, as part of a worldwide encyclopedia? Icemotoboy (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The case for keeping was weak, on further reflection it's too weak to support, particularly since you've spent time trying to rectify the problems. However, I would have liked to spend more time looking at the sources before switching to delete, time I haven't got ATM, hence abstaining. Someone another 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, this is not a clearcut AfD - from my perspective its a weak delete or keep. I suppose, in reflection, wikipedia err's on the side of caution and that will no doubt be taken into account during Admin consideration. However as you noted, this is something I have been investigating since April 08. As per my comment below, I was initially quite convinced this was a straightforward AfD but now I'm not so sure. Hopefully we can get some more commentary from others in this debate and achieve a clear consensus. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In a curious twist of fate, I have found my first reference for PMDG in print, while researching controversy for the Flight simulator article, the article states "Precision Manuals Development Group founder Robert Randazzo, who is also an airline pilot, declined to be interviewed for this story". I still stand by my nomination for deletion, as I keen to see the consensus and requirements for notabilty and verifability for such flight simulation articles. Their inclusion in the article would appear to demonstrate that PMDG was considered significant enough to be approached for comment in that story, above other options. Icemotoboy (talk) 11:58, 25 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 consensus, and per author request (see last post here). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miracle Dogs Too[edit]

This is an unnotable made for television film sequel that does not meet any of the film notability guidelines. It has not received significant coverage anywhere, has not been widely distributed, has not received two full reviews from nationally known critics, has not received any awards, etc. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete this article and my other articles also. From now on, I will be sure not to post articles that aren't notable and I will reword articles. I was not trying to be a trouble maker. Schuym1 (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]

Please don't take this personally. this is not at all meant to be an attack on your or on the contributions you have made to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately we have guidelines as to what may or may not be kept as an article. Sometimes that leads to articles that people have worked on and put a great deal of effort in being deleted. This is not a sign that the work invested in those articles is valueless. It is just a result of a community decision to limit wikipedia to articles which are Notable and make Verifiable claims supported by Reliable Sources. Make sure to keep it on an even keel and there basically are no other rules. :) Protonk (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this count as notable?: Miracle Dog: How Quentin Survived the Gas Chamber to Speak for Animals on Death RowSchuym1 (talk) 05:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]
  - the sourcing should include at least one of the television appearances. the guide to editing has instructions on how to source television shows. The book reference (second ref) should also reference the book more directly (in author-date form), rather than link to a page about the book. but the subject of the article appears to be covered in significant detail in an independent, reliable source. Seems fine to me. Protonk (talk) 05:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Miracle Dogs. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added a csd-g7 to Miracle Dogs (It's not notable, so merging Miracle Dogs Too with Miracle Dog is not a good idea) Deleting Miracle Dogs Too is a better idea. Schuym1 (talk) 05:35, 30 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 and redirect as stated in the discussion. - Diligent Terrier (and friends)20:37, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parallel Sailor Moon[edit]

Extremely unnotable short story included within a Sailor Moon artbook. No significant coverage in any reliable sources. The single book reference is only a reference to idea that women of house should be able to manage the finances. Entire work is a double plot summary of a short 19 page manga omake. It fails WP:FICT, WP:N (verifiability of existance is not enough to say its notable)~~, WP:V~~, and the artbook itself fails WP:BOOK. The anime and manga project generally does not include omake and other shorts like this in discussing series, as its a non-notable aspect of the work, so merging to Sailor Moon would not be appropriate, therefore this should simply be deleted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If its existance is verifiable than it does pass WP:V. That's what WP:V is all about. The notablity issue, however, is real -- it's rare for a short story to be notable on its own, and there does not appear to be any reliable sources supporting that it has been noted. Delete or possibly redirect to ~~Sailor Moon~~ as a plausible search term. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, was having a moment. No idea why I added V when just meant it to be N :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on comments below, changing suggested redirect to List of Sailor Moon chapters as a better target. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - There have been plans for a long time to eventually work up a page about the various side-stories, special acts, omake, etc. from the various Sailor Moon media. Whether this will be its own article or just get worked into the existing articles is up in the air right now, but the idea has always been to get rid of this article as soon as we can. However, I'd like to preserve its edit history. Instead of deleting, can we just point it toward List of Sailor Moon chapters for now, and then somewhere else if another location becomes better? --Masamage ♫ 00:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? It has absolutely nothing to do with the chapters, nor are any of the variu sside-stories, etc particularly notable. Just being Sailor Moon oriented does not mean instant notability. It isn't notable at all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's included in the rereleased manga volumes, as you can see at the list of chapters. I agree that it's not notable enough to support an entire article, but it should redirect to the one other article that mentions its existence. --Masamage ♫ 01:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't even warrant a mention in the chapter list. Its only mentioned now because the chapter list is in serious need of clean up. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think the contents of the short story books should be discussed or mentioned or named whatsoever? --Masamage ♫ 04:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The art books are mentioned in the main article. Their detailed contents d not need to be discussed/mentioned/named. Again, at most a note that in artbook X, some additional short stories were included. A full blown article is excessive, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the actual chapters nor volume of the manga series itself. Merging it there would just be glutting the list with unrelated stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sure, I don't think everything from this article should be merged in, or even close to that. Hecks no. But at least its title should appear somewhere, and in my opinion the short stories are just as deserving of brief (brief!) summaries as the chapters are, especially since some of them turned into movies or TV specials, and it would be weird to cover some and not the others. Mostly, though, what I'm arguing for is the redirect itself, and the preservation of the edit history. I don't really care what specific information gets put exactly where. --Masamage ♫ 04:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Sailor Moon chapters. I think it should have its own section in the article since it doesn't have anything to do with anything else. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't that's an appropriate merge. Its an unnotable little short. It isn't a chapter and wasn't part of the original manga release at all. Being added as an extra in the re-releases, which are normally only mentioned in a single line in the lead, does not make it any more relevant. All we'll end up with is another cruddy mere like as done with the One Piece side stories were shoved into the One Piece chapter list. It has nothing to do with anything and it would be removed before the chapter list could ever go for FL status (not that its anywhere close to that now). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just your opinion, and I've given mine. It's a perfectly legitimate section for that page as it's a chapter of the manga, albeit a 外伝 chapter, and as long as it's mentioned that it was not in the original manga release, but a short released in a different series-related book, I don't see a problem mentioning it. I don't think everything in the current article needs to be included, but I see no legitimate reason to just wipe out the information altogether. Having a short section with information on it is useful and makes the information more complete. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a trimmed version to List of Sailor Moon chapters per Nihonjoe and Masamage - it is a chapter of the Sailor Moon manga. I'd also like to object to the use of WP:FICT in the deletion nomination. As WP:FICT is currently under discussion (and has been for quite some time) I feel it is inappropriate to consider WP:FICT as a reason for deletion. Parallel Sailor Moon has been published twice - in the Materials Collection artbook as an extra, and later collected into the reprint of the entire series. Collectonian, the existence of other stuff, like the One Piece chapter list/side stories page should not be a reason to delete rather than to merge. -Malkinann (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FICT is still a valid reason for deletion, even if people figure that keeping it "in contention" ad infinite is a way to avoid its use. Its still backed by WP:N. There is nothing to merge. It is not a chapter of the original manga releases, so there is nothing to mention. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:FICT is not a valid reason for deletion - it is not backed by consensus, as is evidenced by it being in contention for months. Please remember to assume good faith, Collectonian - part of the problem with WP:FICT is that it has had to be largely rewritten, and gaining consensus for a rewritten guideline is difficult. The plot summary from Parallel Sailor Moon, properly pared, can be merged, and preserving the edit history via a redirect is important, per WP:MERGE to keep the terms of the GFDL. I'm surprised that you place so much importance on what is canon to the original release, when the Sailor Moon chapters page covers both the original release and the re-released edition. -Malkinann (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any useful data to List of Sailor Moon chapters. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(Creator of article from many years ago now, under Kousagi) If there were just a sentence+ mention somewhere (SM main article, whatever) about "other" senshi, this would probably include the Amazon Quartet who turn into asteroid senshi, etc, it doesn't need a whole article but it needs to be redirected and Parallel Sailor Moon is a senshi so it needs to be mentioned somewhere, you can't just not include it anywhere, that's not accurate information. Hazelorb (talk) 03:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, merge it. Since it showed up twice, once in the artbook and once in the reprint, it's worth a mention *somewhere* with a brief explanation. If you look at the timeline of Sailormoon it is a mess anyhow, so what is clearly canon doesn't always fit due to the nature of how manga is created. The Exam battles, the Chibiusa picture diaries, etc are also considered part of the story as well, even if most of them don't fit into the timeline. So move and merge.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per all of the above --T-rex 20:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Theology of the Body[edit]

The contents of this article appear to be original research. While it quotes much Catholic writing (and the quotes are supported by references), the interpretations (what ideas are included with the "Catholic Theology of the Body" or even whether this is a coherent topic separate from JPII's speeches—which are covered in their own article Theology of the Body) are completely unsupported. Lyrl^Talk _C 23:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some cleanup, and some additional references to get rid of the apparent original research. This is a notable topic that has received a lot of coverage from numerous theologians. BradV 00:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with modifications. It has a lot of good information in it and it taught me several things. I see no reason for throwing away good material. History2007 (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This is not WP:OR. This is an adequately written and well-referenced article. While there are some sections that need to be written still, it seems OK to me. I will not comment on its accuracy or completeness, as I am not a Catholic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Catholic theology of the body existed since the Church fathers dealt theologically with the human body. The Wikipedia article in question, while recognizing the contributions of JPII, deals with the perennial theological issues of the origin and destination of the human body, the relation of body and soul, and consequences for human behaviour, marriage, virginity and sexuality. The article is only one week old and growing. While it can be most certainly improved, the topic is worthwhile. Catholic Theology of the Body will become in my view, a small addition to the Wikipedia body of knowledge. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps a couple of examples will help illustrate my concerns:

The article states that "The 1950 dogma of the bodily Assumption of Mary, is the latest dogmatic manifestation of the Catholic Theology of the Body". There is no reference to support the claim that the Assumption of Mary is part of the "Catholic Theology of the Body".
The article says, "Early Church Fathers wrote on the role of the body and its relation to the soul." Undoubtedly true. But there is no source to support that the writings of Ambrose of Milan, Augustine of Hippo, and Thomas Aquinas are considered to be part of the "Catholic Theology of the Body".

And on and on throughout the entire article. The statements in this article are well-referenced, but the claim that they are viewed by the theological community as part of the "Catholic Theology of the Body" is WP:OR. Even the article itself seems to have trouble with this assertion: the phrase "theology of the body" appears only once in the entire article, in the first sentence! Should someone point out to me a book or article discussing this concept of "Catholic Theology of the Body" (as distinct from JPII's lectures) I would happily withdraw my nomination.

Should others view this as an obviously coherent topic (even lacking any sources treating it that way), an alternative to deletion would be a rename to a descriptive title (lowercase letters only); treating the title as a proper noun is probably the largest part of the OR in this article. Lyrl^Talk _C 02:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theology of the Body mentioned here, is an admirable, very powerful commercial product advertised by Christopher West and others[2][3][4][5] It refers mainly to views expressed by Pope John Paul II in a series of 129 lectures. They are sold in book form and CD versions and numerous seminars and meetings. The Wikipedia article called Theology of the Body, (April 7, 2005) attempts to describe these 129 lectures of John Paul II, focusing mainly on contraception and less on theology. Some would like to reserve the title ToB to themselves (and the commercial products), which seems to be in part the concern here. Ambrosius007 (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than the product ToB. Wikipedia Category:Theology of the Body lists 19 pages, of which Catholic Theology of the Body is just one. The issue here is deletion. Therefore, all questions of detail I would be delighted to discuss on the talk page of Catholic Theology of the Body, where they belong, such as the mistaken accusation of original research. Thank You. --Ambrosius007 (talk) 11:14, 28 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. I'm also adding a cleanup tag, this needs some serious TLC for its dry and damaged state. Perhaps they have a product for that... Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

L'Oréal Kids[edit]

A non-notable list of cosmetic products that is not referenced. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an advertisement. Undeath (talk) 03:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I declined the speedy--while I see what you're saying about the marketing terms, they seem to just be part of the product names similar to how some shampoos are specified for "dry or damaged hair" or what have you. --jonny-m t 09:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This list is not notable for inclusion in Wikipedia (although I wouldn't describe it as advertising; rather I'll assume good faith). Axl (talk) 12:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rewrite the company absolutely is notable, but the current version of the page is an advertisement and has no reliable sources. Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 17:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The company is notable like you say but that does not necessarily mean that this product range is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rewrite per above statement. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two above. Notable product line which received rather heavy advertising. Does need a rewrite, of course. 83.203.178.6 (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article should be deleted first and then brought back if it's kept. The main reason is that it is far too much work to clean it up than it is to just start over on it. Undeath (talk) 13:28, 30 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 (but it's only a dicdef). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Akimbo[edit]

Nothing more a dicdef and etymology. No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A nearly 3 year old article with zero reliable sources as TenPound Hammer notes. Artene50 (talk) 06:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just a dictionary definition of an interesting word with some etymology - not an encyclopaedic topic --Peripitus (Talk) 13:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP -Certainly qualifies as a noted human body position and is included in that category. No sources? Source it. If all the other body positions which have their own articles (kneeling, sitting, standing, etc) are really dicdefs then perhaps the nom would list them here and all could be dealt together along with the category itself.
Keep While "just" a dictionary definition, it I agree with the editor above: this is no different than the other stances. Plenty of RS via a google search including dictionaries. Hobit (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki. Seems everyone hates wiktionary. Moving (merging?) this there with a redirect keeps all the info, and puts the definition and entymology in the correct place. Also wikitionary should use primary sources, of which there are many. Otherwise delete as dictionary def.Yobmod (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - noted in cultural studies and semiotics books. Bearian (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-admin closure) Finalnight (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hafez Nazeri[edit]

Notability issues Avi (talk) 05:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless references are added to confirm notability because currently the article doesn't. -- JediLofty ^User_Talk 11:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added one reference to the article. If you want more you can take your pick from these and add some. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:40, 21 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) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Coverage in a large number of reliable sources. Mostlyharmless (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject matter is notable enough. The article needs a lot of improvement. Not deletion. --Bardin (talk) 05:36, 28 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 --JForget 00:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bouncing[edit]

No notable, non verified, original research, possible hoax Myheartinchile (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The entry should redirect to Bounce if consensus is delete.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable term with no reliable sources that verify the subject in question. RedThunder 23:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced, aounds like a hoax. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Not notable at all Bigvinu 00:01, 25 June 2008
Delete Yup, a hoax. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing to prove its notability. Artene50 (talk) 06:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect after deletion to Bounce - current article is a hoax - Peripitus (Talk) 13:24, 25 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Golf Magazine[edit]

Speedied once, prod challenged. No third-party evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Contested prod, a small magazine that does not establish notability. The article is also unsourced. Red Thunder 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything on it at all other than some book reviews it has been quoted for. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not established. Any article can get hits on google but the quality of the hits are key (ie. Oxford, Cambridge, Dallas Morning News, Washington post, etc). There's nothing here. Artene50 (talk) 09:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt, pure spam. Article was posted by the publisher. Not notable, either. He even removed the AfD notice. I think that User:Thomasaniello's days are numbered at Wikipedia. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, about to block creator for username/spam violation. Daniel Case (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the original author has been indef-blocked. The number of days was quite small. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:31, 27 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O porco suiço[edit]

Fails notability for films in all primary criteria; cannot find any mention of it in reliable sources. Try googling the name, -wiki -youtube and see what you get; 11 hits. The page itself is entirely unsourced, which doesn't help its case. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (A7) Just an attempt to advertise a non-notable production. Hús ö nd 23:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The "official site" is a youtube video uploaded by a user named "omgyouregay". Clearly a homemade, non-notable production. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:03, 26 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.--Kubigula (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung JoJo The Prince[edit]

Neither establishs nor asserts notability. Speedy declined, Prod declined. Speedy Delete. Amalthea (talk) 20:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparent vanity article with no reliable sources to assert notability. --JD554 (talk) 20:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Other than this, there are no real hits on Google. Also seems to be a COI, as Yung JoJo Tha Prince Joseph (talk · contribs) created it. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the reasons above. TrulyBlue (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the above. Recreation of an article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yung JoJo Tha Prince (rapper), so probably eligible for G4 speedy deletion.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:37, 24 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, fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian National Top 40[edit]

Like Hot100Brasil and United World Chart (both of which were deleted per WP:AfD), there seems to be a big question about these charts' validity or notability. A Google search doesn't bring up anything official and the articles certainly have no sources to back them up. I attempted at one point to see if anyone had reliable information (such as, who is "APC-stats"?) and nothing has come up. A Google search on APC-stats brings up the webpages that show these two charts, but that's it. Unless I am missing something here, all of this seems unofficial and fanmade. Would suggest deletions unless there is some concrete evidence of how these are compiled and whether they are recognized as national music charts. - eo (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I had talking with the chart manager. They have sources. The bulgarian radio market, bigger radio stations in Bulgaria, most of musical stores in Sofia. BGTopDon listen! Sir! 20:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I would like to know what the nominator means by the word "official". Is there some world-wide authority that decides what counts as an "official" music chart? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a vague term for me to use, but basically I am referring to a chart that is recognized as one that represents music sales and airplay of a particular country. i.e. I would consider Billboard magazine or the UK Singles Chart as "official", yet something like the iTunes Store, a cable television countdown show or someone's personal chart as "unofficial," if that makes any sense. These particular charts don't seem to have any kind of documentation or history on who compiles them, or how. At least none that I can find. If someone does have it, then great. - eo (talk) 22:47, 21 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, Sandstein 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Sources need to be reliable and verifiable and unfortunately talking to the "chart manager" and saying they have sources is neither reliable or verifiable. --JD554 (talk) 20:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and JD554. SKS2K6 (talk) 20:43, 24 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 --JForget 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people of mixed Korean and Russian descent[edit]

List of people of mixed Filipino and Japanese descent‎

List of people with of Japanese and British decent

List of people of mixed Japanese and Russian descent‎

List of people of mixed Japanese and Korean descent‎

List of people of mixed Chinese and Vietnamese descent‎

List of people of mixed Chinese and Russian descent‎

List of people of mixed Chinese and Korean descent‎

List of people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent‎

Stagnant, unnecessary, overly narrow grouping of lists. Bulldog123 (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 06:03, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, what is your deletion rational? Please point us to a policy or guideline. Strandwolf (talk) 07:24, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a policy provides a stand-in for the underlying rationale. Presumably we link to WP:NOTDIR in order to avoid having to repeat the justifications in that policy. His rationale above was that the groupings of lists were overly narrow, untended and superfluous. That seems to be a pretty good rundown of some of the reasoning in WP:NOTDIR. Protonk (talk) 04:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as unencyclopedic cross-classifications per WP:NOTDIR. If you go back a few generations just about everyone has multiple ethnicities. If we had an article called List of people of mixed Polish, English, German, Scottish, Welsh, Manx, Belgian, French, Australian, probably Spanish and almost certainly other descent my children could go in it. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR--Finalnight (talk) 18:48, 24 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, Sandstein 20:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all- clearly covered in WP:NOTDIR. If we had an article for every mixture of ethnicities that exists there would be no room for real content. --Mars2035 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all You can mix any ethnicity and still have nothing defining about it. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete All - As above, and I see no use in those articles at all. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:06, 25 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 Already deleted by User:Tawker --JForget 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Dadson[edit]

Suspected hoax. Can't find a single source that confirms this guy played for any of the clubs listed. Ged UK (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 (author blanked the page in good faith). Someone restored the page later on, but without adding to it. So tagged. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, the author restored the page and resumed his work on it, but hasn't addressed the hoax issues. What is he up to? --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 03:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No idea, so I'll just reiterate my Delete vote Ged UK (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Nothing in Soccerbase or elsewhere which there would have been if he had played all those games. The creator is also adding this guy to several other articles and should be warned at least since he is damaging WP. His user page also needs a look at. Smile a While (talk) 01:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Can't find anything to suggest he was a real player. Mattythewhite (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete checked all appropriate player databases, this player does not exist ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:41, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as a hoax. I've noticed the page's creator has also been adding this 'player' to the articles for the clubs he supposedly played for - they've all been reverted as hoaxes. Bettia (talk) 08:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. Giant Snowman 14:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 20:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - now that the creator has blanked the page I have tagged it as a G7 despite an inexplicable revert of the blanking! Smile a While (talk) 23:10, 25 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 --JForget 00:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S&m[edit]

Non-notable drinking game. Brianga (talk) 19:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D-d-d-d-del...(hips)...delllllleeee...(hips)...whatever. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Author removed speedy template. Also, Wikipedia is not for made up stuff. TN‑X-Man 19:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing notable. Are there notable drinking games? Ged UK (talk) 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, Beer pong is the most commonly referenced one when people use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments for drinking games. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is yet another non-notable drinking game violating WP:NFT. Don't forget to kill the images Image:S&m drinking game score rules.jpg and Image:N620395836 1371802 100.jpg that have no purpose other than this article. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Groovy, somebody made it up. Unfortunately, it needs more notability, and we're not a game guide. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, unless there are some decent citations that ascertain something other than rules.--Chef Tanner (talk) 04:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect S&m -> S&M 70.55.87.161 (talk) 04:53, 25 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Girly-pop[edit]

Original research with no reliable sources to show notability or existence JD554 (talk) 18:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: To Pop music. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources would need to be found for any of the claims that were merged before that would be possible. --JD554 (talk) 18:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- there are a lot of google hits, but none of them are even remotely reliable sources (most are myspace pages and fansites), so I don't really know how it could be written in a verifiable way. I wouldn't merge it with Pop music as that article doesn't go into detail about any particular genre and this info would be out of place there.--Mars2035 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WesleyDodds (talk) 02:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was thinking about nomming this myself. indopug (talk) 04:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've cut it down by removing all the unverified things - rather telling that there's only a few sentences left, and those that I did leave are also unverified. The article looks like something made up one day. Completely unverified, lacking in reliable sources, and fails the notability guideline. Seraphim♥ Whipp 16:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Pop music - I don't think a merge is worth it. As Seraphim says, it lacks any reliable sources, but as Mars2035 says, there are lots of Google hits (supporting a redirect). - tholly ^--Turnip-- 17:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been trying to get the article deleted from the very beginning. Its unverified nonsense.--SilverOrion (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any appropriate sources. Axl (talk) 13:52, 28 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. John254 00:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Spanish words of Nahuatl origin[edit]

This is only a fraction of the Nahuatl words in Spanish, and it seems that will always be the case. To attempt to actually make a nearly-complete list is a job for dictionaries, not Wikipedia. Ptcamn (talk) 18:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:DICT, this would be better for Wikitionary.--Finalnight (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but the intro needs work. Also, I would do away with the proper names, as the list is self-admittedly far from exhaustive and beside the point anyway. This has some potential. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Articles about the roots of any language are encyclopedic. As with Spanish words of Arabic origin, words that came into the language from the pre-Columbian language of Mexico can be an appropriate subject of an article. Some common English words are of Nahuatl origin, including "chocolate" and "potato" and "axolotl".

A prose article about Spanish borrowing of Nahuatl words, explaining in words how and when they were borrowed, how they were adapted into Spanish, their semantic fields, etc., would be appropriate for an encyclopedia. But this is not an encyclopedia article, this is a wordlist.

I appreciate the nominator's link to an online Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary, though I would comment that this doesn't mean that all the words in that dictionary have become part of Spanish vocabulary. I agree that the list should be limited to commonly used words. Mandsford (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary, it's a dictionary of Nahuatl loanwords in Spanish. --Ptcamn (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Nahuatl-Spanish dictionary, but I don't think it's a list of loanwords either. It looks more like a list of mostly obscure terms that have to be explained, at length, in Spanish. Besides, the Spanish conquerors didn't wait for the Aztecs to loan them anything :) Mandsford (talk) 18:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all the language word origin and etymology articles are useful and notable and educational.Myheartinchile (talk) 22:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Etymologies are dictionary articles. Wordlists are encyclopedic. Ford MF (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Discussion of linguistic origins is an encyclopedic theme. That a list is incomplete is no reason to delete it. Dimadick (talk) 12:49, 27 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 all. No strong, policy (or guideline) based case was made to keep any of these. Precedence in similar AFDs is overwhelmingly delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnoldswick Town F.C.[edit]

A non-notable football club, which play below the generally accepted cut off point of Step 6 and have never played at a higher level or in the FA Cup or Vase. For previous consensus on the cut off point, see:

I'm also nominating Burnley United F.C.‎, Coppull United F.C., Euxton Villa F.C., Fleetwood Hesketh F.C.‎, Freckleton F.C.‎, Fulwood Amateurs F.C.‎, Garstang F.C.‎, Haslingden St. Mary's F.C.‎, Poulton Town F.C.‎ and Wyre Villa F.C.‎, all of the same league, for the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Giant Snowman 17:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. --Scottmsg (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, I see no reason why this should be an exception to the established precedent.--Finalnight (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom Ged UK (talk) 19:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. Sorry but I believe that the "generally accepted cut off point" needs re-assessing. There are a number of clubs in that league which more than meet the notability requirements for articles on wikipedia. Per norm is an easy cop out when there are some well written and sourced articles about clubs that in some instances are being seeimgly selected from that league at random as not all clubs have been nominated. ♦Tangerines♦·Talk 19:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Question - which of the articles hereby nominated are "well written and sourced" please? - fchd (talk) 18:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 all nominated articles. If there are more, I recommend tagging them as well. So tagged. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Split into separate AFDs. Some of these deal with well written articles on clubs that are over 100 years old, with lots of references to them in the media. And some deal with a stub of an article about a recent club. It's difficult to have this discussion without discussing each page one by one. Can you please do an AFD for each one. If not prepared to do this, I'm afraid it should be a Keep as at least a couple of these clubs appear to meet notability requirements in their own right. Nfitz (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but I won't split it. All of them fail the generally accepted criteria for notability of English football clubs. The fact that they are more than 100 years old is completely irrelevant. The house I used to live in is 600 years old, but that doesn't make it notable. As for being referenced, only one of them has media references (and only to local papers - the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Ensign F.C. (delete) showed that even a reference in a national magazine is not enough to confer notability on clubs at this level). пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not unconvinced that Garstang isn't notable after having risen from the bottom of Tier 12 to winning a Tier 11 league in 2 years. And then not pursuing promotion to Tier 10 (Step 6) (which ironically is your somehat arbitrary cut-off). However, clearly some of these clubs have more validity to having a page than others, which is why they must be listed separately as per Wiki standards. Nfitz (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not my "arbitary cut off" - it's a consensus which has been around for a long time (see this WP:FOOTY discussion from March 2007). It even used to be part of WP:CORP, but was unilaterally removed.[6] пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You can't use a single discussion in WP:FOOTY as a guideline for wholesale deletion of existing and long-standing articles - particularily when you've the reverse argument to discount WP:FOOTYN when it supports not deleting an article that you want to delete. Nfitz (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are many, many discussions on the topic on WT:FOOTY, but I can't be arsed to go through the archive to find them. I think listing 9 (10 including the one just above) previous discussions with the same result is a pretty clear show of what the consensus is. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - be careful, although the nominator says the cut off point is Step 6, note the AFDs he cites say the cut off point is Step 10. Also note there is no guidance on WP:FOOTY as to what the cut off point is; it seems arbitrary. Neıl 龱 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Step 6 = the 10th level in the overall English football league system (i.e. Premier League, Football League Championship, Football League One, Football League Two, then Step 1, then Step 2, and so on). There is no such thing as "Step 10", it may have been poor choice of wording by people in the previous AfDs...... ChrisTheDude (talk) 06:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah, thank you for clearing that up - how confusing! Something needs to be added to WP:FOOTY's notability page about this Step 6/Level 10 precedent. Neıl 龱 09:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - 3 days after I comment that I think the Garstang page is notable, and given reasons why, no one is yet to comment. I can only conclude that no one disagrees - but I'll repeat in case anyone was confused by my poor choice of using a double negative. Nfitz (talk) 08:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree that Garstang F.C. is notable. They may well have gone from the bottom of one division to the top of the one above in two years, but that doesn't necessarily make them notable enough for an article. – PeeJay 23:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not in itself, but that they are eligble for promotion to tier 10 (making them apparently notable), but don't wish to pursue does make them notable. However, it would be best if the entire AFD were ended and each club listed separately so that they can be discussed on their own merits. Nfitz (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, but that is absolute bull. There are hundreds of clubs at Step 7 which do not want to pursue promotion because their grounds are not up to scratch - many just play in parks. Not wanting promotion does not make them notable in any way. The AfD should not be split because all the clubs are in exactly the same position, i.e. never played at Step 6 or in the FA Cup or vase. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The clubs must be listed separately because the multiple deletion fails the test of "If any of the articles you are considering for bundling could stand on its own merits, then it should be nominated separately." (note the word "could" not "does"). I made this request the same day it went for AFD. Nfitz (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they don't have to be bundled separately. As pointed out repeatedly, the Garstang article cannot stand on its own merits because the subject is identical in notability status to all 10 others. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 07:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. (although I admit I am biased as I was the originator of most of these articles). I don't really see why there should be a low level cut-off point as long as the article is informative and about a reputable organisation. Many of these football clubs do not have their own websites, which makes the wikipedia article even more important as it is the primary on-line source for a person to find out basic information.Higherwiki 14:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, it's a delete all from me. If Wikiepdia is the primary on-line source, that's evidence to me that there's nothing much out there to establish notability. I agree with the general point of Step 7/Level 11 clubs being non-notable by default as well. - fchd (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I must confess that Higherwiki's comments seem to not support his case. (though I still think that this must be multiple AFDs given that notability of at least one club is arguable). Nfitz (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These clubs are at a level where verifiable third party information becomes very sparse indeed, being limited to brief coverage in local press at best. Above, Garstang F.C. is held up as an example of the sources available for this sort of team. Their ground is barely more than a park, even to the extent that a public right of way passes through the middle of the pitch. The sources in their article are limited to the local freesheet, the Garstang Courier, which is the sort of local press where match reports are provided by teams themselves. The club provides a good example of how regular press coverage breaks down at this level. The Preston based Lancashire Evening Post is the major local newspaper in the area (Garstang is a short distance outside Preston). Wesham is another town a similar distance outside Preston, of similar size. Wesham-based Kirkham and Wesham F.C. play in the division above Garstang F.C., North West Counties League Division Two. The LEP has match by match coverage of Kirkham and Wesham, but not Garstang. Adequate sourcing is simply not possible for clubs at that level. Oldelpaso (talk) 15:33, 30 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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charmed Sisters Cloned[edit]

I'm not quite sure, because I don't watch the show, and this article is so badly written as to be almost incoherent, but doesn't this content already exist at Prudence_Halliwell, Piper Halliwell and Phoebe Halliwell and a string of other Charmed pages? Not sure that this article is notable enough beyond the other pages. Ged UK (talk) 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very badly written article with lots of non existent pictures too (deleted due to non free content). Contributed on by only one user. - tholly ^--Turnip-- 18:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Let this be a lesson that using Wikipedia to write an article in fanfiction form is very ill advised. What a mess, and I don't think this has any connection to the actual series at all. Nate • (chatter) 20:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell by the redlinks, this is a copy of some charmed-wiki or something. No notability, no need for it to be here. -Verdatum (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. I don't think this is original fanfict, but it appears to be a list of minor alternate versions of major characters that appeared in single episodes. The concept of grouping them together and labeling as "clones" may tread in OR territory however, and much of the content appears to be a fan's commentary on their appearance and mannerisms. I see nothing to merge, so deletion is appropriate. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Perky and Sexy Prudence"? Surely original research. ;-) Delete. Axl (talk) 14:00, 28 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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 03:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Lowe[edit]

Distinctly unfamous filmmaker. No real sources are shown, all the listed films are red-links, and the only credit listed at IMDB is for one unknown direct-to-video horror film. Prod tag was added, but removed by an anon IP. Article cretor's only edit, other than adding the subject's birthday to 27 November. CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Carol Channing. This filmmaker is nowhere close to notability. However, Carol Channing's cartoonist son has been nominated for the Pulitzer Prize. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - based on a Google News search, his name appears in the Salt Lake Tribune, But reading the excerpts, they all appear to be event announcements like this one. No other coverage that I can discern to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 25 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:OR and WP:NOTGUIDE. (This is one of those obvious ones that doesn't seem to warrant the full period.) Orderinchaos 17:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to sell your house quickly[edit]

PROD removed by author. This cites no sources, and Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, guide or textbook. JohnCD (talk) 16:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This essay is pure WP:OR. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pretty straightforward...Not how-to, no Original Research. -Verdatum (talk) 16:33, 24 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 and redirect to Larne. Please note, I'm not performing the merge, but I will tag it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larne Harbour Police[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of police services, especially ones that do not assert any notability. This is a small group with very limited coverage in one small area with no citations or assertion of notability. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a specialist police force, not a territorial police force, and specialist police forces are notable for their novelty value. This is particularly true in the British Isles, which have very few of them since most policing is carried out by large territorial forces. The phrase "assertion of notability" is an overused one - how is an article supposed to assert notability? In my 4+ years on Wikipedia I have continued to be puzzled by this phrase which many editors (especially the growing army of deletionists) seem to take for granted. Many organisations are notable simply by existing, and this is one of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You assert notability by telling the reader why it is important, why it is not just another group of people with uniforms? Are there any reliable references to backup what you say above? Nothing is notable for the fact that it exists, it becomes notable when there is a citation stating it is notable, or receiving 3rd party coverage. It is not what we think is notable but what we can prove is notable per wikipedias policies. Wikipedia is not about what is true, it is about what is verifiable. If you can cite anything to the affect above, I am sure there would be no problem at all.Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - a google search - the fluff only comes up with 4 pages with nothing I can see that shows they are notable? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh good grief, someone else who thinks that Google searches are the be all and end all of notability. Why do you think we bother writing articles at all if it's all on the internet already? I give up! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have no doubt they are not the end all be/all of notability and have writtein articles myself based on book sources that little information can be found on google. However, NOBODY has provided a source for this? If you have one, please bring it forward? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Larne. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Larne as well. After reviewing this, I like the merge redirect option. It can get coverage as part of the larger topic of Larne. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge/Redirect to Larne, a future article about Larne Harbour, or to a list of such specialty police forces. If the only thing notable about them is their jurisdiction, and they are not the only example of such a police force, then they are no more "notable" than a similar-sized force whose jurisdiction is something more common, such as a city. The only reason not to merge/redirect is if there is no target to merge with or redirect to. If they are the only existing police force authorized under the Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847, then either Keep the article or write Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847 and merge this with the new article. Likewise, if they are the best example of a police force under that act, then leave them up as an exemplar and merge articles about other, similar forces into Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. As a point of comparison, in the United States there are a myriad of specialty police forces, including police forces for universities, K-12 school districts, public hospitals, parks, and other minor government entities. Except for very large ones like the national parks service police, or those that face special issues or have a special history like the Port Authority police involved in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, most have no more notability than your average small-town police department. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC) see below[reply]

Merge to Larne, where it can be discussed in context and expanded with reliable sources until a separate article is justified. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested above. The article as it stands now has just enough context to escape a {{db-a1}}, and adequate context would be provided by the Larne article. I think such a merger would benefit both articles. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above. SGGH ^speak! 19:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replacing merge suggestion above: Merge all mainspace stubby articles listed here (Special:WhatLinksHere/Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847) into the existing redlink Harbours, Docks, and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I checked and of the 6 articles listed, only Port of Dover Police has any real content, and even it doesn't make a specific claim of notability that stands out from the stubs. Other articles include: Belfast Harbour Police · Falmouth Docks Police · Port of Felixstowe Police · Tees and Hartlepool Port Authority Harbour Police and of course Larne Harbour Police which is this AfD. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Ports police along with several other stubs. See discussion at Talk:List of law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom#Ports police. I have expanded that section enough to cover almost all information in this article. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it doesn't matter what the organization is; government/private, specialized/generalist police/civilian, etc, there are only 64 Google hits, no Google newshits, and one Google book hit (trivial). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Ah well, that proves it then. As we all know, the internet is the only source of information! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, but non-internet sources have been not been provided. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, but that's no reason to base notability entirely on Google. It's a very poor way of establishing it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, so we should take your word that they are notable? Lets change the WP:V and/or WP:NOTE policy to add that , in the lack of book sources and Ghits, it is verifiable/notable if User:Necrothesp says so? Nobody is arguing that google is the end all be all for notablility, but in the lack of any other sources it is what we have to take. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 16:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't be ridiculous. My point is merely that doing a Google search and then saying "oh look, there aren't many hits so it obviously isn't notable" is simplistic to the point of ludicrousness, implies that the internet is the only source of knowledge, and is a technique frequently used by deletionists to "prove" their point when they really don't have one. I've seen it far too often. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You disagreement here is clearly not with the article, but with a set of beliefs (deletionsim). You can complain all day about people using the google test, but most cases that is all we have. It is not the responsibility of the people at AFD to go search every book source in existence to find a verifiable source. Again, nobody is going to complain if YOU provide a source. Actually, I would commend you for going to the effort to find one, if it exists. Instead of complaining about people using the google test, do some research yourself and show us it is notable and why the google test is wrong? This AFD has nothing to do with a broad set of beliefs (inclusionists Vs. deletionsists) but with the merits of this article within the scope of wikipedias policies of verigfiability and notability. You have YET to address these concerns in relation to policy. One group has shown why they believe it to be unnotable, and the best you have done so far is complain about it, but actualyl do nothing to fix it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You misunderstand my reasoning and my beliefs. I am not an inclusionist (although I am certainly not a deletionist either). I have opined many times on AfDs that articles should be deleted for reasons of non-notability and prodded and proposed for deletion quite a number myself. However, I do not believe that any police force is non-notable. That is my opinion. It is, like all opinions, subjective. But your opinion is no less subjective. Notability is a policy, but what is and is not notable remains highly subjective. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment:WP:N is a guideline to interpret the content policies WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR. You probably know that already but I want to ensure others don't misinterpret what you said. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure, it looks like it needs some work and some expansion, but what will it hurt to keep it around a little bit to allow that to happen? Niteshift36 (talk) 22:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing to expand and nobody offering to do it. Are you offering to do it? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 02:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that you want this article deleted. You've made it very clear. I'm not opposed to the merge idea. Hell, I'd never even heard of this force until this article, so it has clearly educated at least one person. Your original reasoning included the lack of citations, which I see someone went to the page and took care of, so it no longer applies, I gave my opinion; cast my vote if you will. I have no intention of getting into some long winded debate over it. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The sources provided are not independent of the force, and are trivial too. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is independent a requirement? Would we dismiss the LAPD website on an article about the LAPD? Niteshift36 (talk) 04:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Dismiss? No. Use it as a reliable source. No. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - When did govt. websites become considered unreliable sources? Is the US Census Bureau or FBI website "unrelaible"? Would you really try to convince us that the Senate website isn't a reliable source for Senate information? Why the sliding scale? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not about trustworthiness, it's about notability. Should we have an article on the Flagstaff Arizona Fleet Services Division? Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- You just commented on how you can use it as a reliable source. When I address that, you change to the notability requirement and claim you didn't make an issue of trustworthiness. Is the Flagstaff Fleet services division a rare, specialized fleet services division? Are they unusual compared to other fleet services divisions? Look, I understand that the existence of this article offends some sort of imagined order you have. I'm not going to get into a pissing contest with you because it's clear that the deletionist have this sewn up. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Imagined order? I'm sticking to policy and guideline. This entity has no sources saying anything besides "they exist". Phlegm Rooster (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see. You are one of those guys who thinks YOUR interpretation of "policy and guideline" is the only one. That explains a lot. So does your user page where you brag about how many articles you've "managed" to get deleted. I guess if that qualifies as an accomplishment to you, then you should be proud. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, according to the article, they have 7 officers. The article makes no claim of notability. There are no reliable sources. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT and question for those proposing delete Do you have any objections to redirecting the article to one of the suggested redirect targets? Do you have a preferred redirect target? I ask, because if this article is deleted, it will likely be recreated as a redirect, and a consensus of where to redirect is preferred to someone being BOLD and seeing if someone else changes it. Edit wars are no fun. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 13:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not too thrilled about the idea of a redirect for every adminstrative division of every local government. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Any particular reason? Redirects cost nothing. And it is not an "adminstrative division of every local government". It's a body with a distinct identity (not just the xyz department) and therefore something people might actually search for! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Larne. There's no good reason this article can't be recreated if it ever gets too big, bad and notable to be contained within Larne. As it is, if only for purely organizational purposes, the subject isn't helped by keeping this a distinct entity. Ford MF (talk) 02:31, 30 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal tru orange[edit]

Non-notable product, merge to Fanta Madcoverboy (talk) 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "top five carbonated soft drink brands in its market." --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to International availability of Fanta#Philippines as it is just Fanta in the Philippines. Another article about the same drink also exists at Royal (drink) and might need to be bundled into this AfD. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can remember, here in the Philippines, Royal Tru Orange was already in the market way, way, way before CCBPI introduced Fantahere. In fact, I think Fanta is now infrequently sold in supermarkets here. Might be better to keep the article and have the mention in the Fanta article link to this one. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's sorta like Mirinda. Plus a Philippine Basketball Association team was named after this drink so it's notable. --Howard the Duck 08:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Royal Tru. Royal Tru Orange has been available in the Philippines since 1922, more than 20 years before Fanta even existed (source here). The "Royal Tru" and "Royal Tru Light" brands are even listed in Coca-Cola's official website (source here). It even had a successful campaign in the 1980s involving model, and now lifestyle writer, RJ Ledesma (source here, TV ad here). Aside from orange, Royal Tru is available in dalandan (a type of Philippine citrus) and grape flavors. And just like others said, it's different from Fanta, which only appeared in the early 1990s but quickly shelved because it was so popular it was eating the sales of Coke. Starczamora (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm digressing here, I know. I didn't know that Royal Tru was way, way older than Fanta. And, yes, I remember the RJ Ledesma commercials way back, me and my grade school classmates used to mimic that. Thanks for the heads up ;-) --- Tito Pao (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Starczamora: You can do the "rename" yourself by moving the page. I would do it, but since the context of the article would have to be reformatted to match the article's name, and I know very little about the subject, I am hesitant to do the move myself. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per everyone here. And Royal Tru is more popular here in the Philippines than Fanta (Fanta Orange was even sold here during its heyday). - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 17:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per consensus and attempted withdrawal of nomination by originator. (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 17:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boudella el Hajj[edit]

Delete as non-notable. He's like the natalie holloway of the war on terror; his individual bio is irrelevant to the larger forces at play here. JeanLatore (talk) 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, wp:blp1e. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this man's main claim to fame is that he is one of the numerous Guantanamo detainees, he doesn't have much of a claim to fame. At least not enough to warrant a separate article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have to disagree, his case seems to have created considerable concern in Bosnia and her wife has made a campaign that seems quite notable for him (she's been interviewed by Germany's most weekly, it seems, Dar Spiegel). Also, interest has often resurfaced, judging it by google news. He's certainly more notable than most Quantano innmates; as for the nominator's motivation, calling it weak is quite an understatement.--Aldux (talk) 20:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Many of the Guantanamo Bay detainees have articles - see List of Guantánamo Bay detainees. That's not a comment on this particular article, nor an invocation of WP:OSE, just an observation. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, while convincing arguments have been made in the past in favour of deleting some articles about detainees in the war on terror, el-Hajj seems to be generating both English and non-English media attention justifying notability, and has plenty of federal government documents justifying verifiability. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 05:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject has received considerable coverage in reliable sources. Which is the standard. Mostlyharmless (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I continue to believe the majority of the detainee articles should be merged; the evidence Aldux found indicates that this is one of the ones who merits an individual article. The current article, however, does not evidence that, and I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article. GRBerry 14:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you hope that the article will be improved then why don't you do it rather than demand that someone else does the work? Aldux has already shown you where to find the sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Even the most cursory news search would have turned up significant external coverage in English - not counting the considerable Bosnian and Arabic coverage of this man. This is a question you should be asking the nominator, not me. In any case, I've added significant coverage to external links. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't ask you. I asked GRBerry in response to the statement "I hope that Aldux will actually go improve the article". I agree that the same question could be asked of the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Probably almost all the detainees will eventually have the sources found for individual articles, once the national sources for their countries of origin are investigated. enough has been found already for this particular article. Given what's been shown, I urge the nom. to withdraw the afd. DGG (talk) 04:13, 27 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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor Star Wars bounty hunters[edit]

Tagged as unsourced and therefore unverifiable since October 2006(!). Non-notable either as individual characters or as a collection; most entries do not seem to be from the (notable) films, but from novels and media of uncertain provenance (fan fiction?). Written completely from an in-universe point of view and would need a full rewrite even if deemed verifiable and notable. Sandstein 15:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if it can't be sourced, Wikipedia is not for fanfic material. JIP | Talk 15:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fanficcruft. JohnCD (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any non-plot information in the entire article. WP:NOT#PLOT. Infintessimally slim chance an article could exist...But I have no interest in tracking down notable out-of-universe information. -Verdatum (talk) 16:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin If result is delete, please change the redirect Greedo to Han shot first. Taemyr (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim To bounty hunters featured in the movies. Taemyr (talk) 17:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not address or resolve most policy issues identified in the nomination. Sandstein 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/unmerge I was set to vote delete as I dislike lists of this sort, which by their name, proclaim their lack of merit. But then I studied the content and saw that there was a long article-within-an-article about Greedo. I'm not a big Star Wars buff but do know that Greedo is quite notable. There are 75 hits for him on Google Scholar alone, including the Scientific American. So, while I have no opinion about the other characters, the material on Greedo must be properly preserved. I suppose that there is a Greedo article which has been merged into this so we need to undo this process. The list is not a proper list but is a chimaera of the sort favoured by disruptive editors like TTN. Burst it back into its component articles and then let them be considered on their merits separately. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you can unmerge Greedo now, before the AfD concludes, and we can delete the rest. Sandstein 18:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some special way to preserve the contribution history? If it were only a matter of Greedo then I could move the article back over the redirect. But what about the others? I fancy that this AFD will attract many comments and so shall await developments. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it more closely, the case for notability is weak even for Greedo. These search results look like passing mentions in the context of discussing some aspect of the movies, not the sort of substantial coverage he would need for an article of his own. Sandstein 18:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) — Also, any notable (i.e., real-world) aspects of the Greedo character seem to be covered in the article Han shot first; the Greedo search results appear to relate to that controversy. Sandstein 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contribution history is a bit messy. Greedo was merged into Minor characters in Star Wars from which this article was split. Taemyr (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. RobJ1981 (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is one of the few times where a list is usefull. Would also suggest merging IG-88 into this article --T-rex 18:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In view of the policy issues identified in the nomination, WP:USEFUL is not an adequate reason to keep this article. Sandstein 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:USEFUL before citing it. WP:USEFUL referes to using general usefullness as a reason to keep or delete an article, not at all about the usefullness of one way of formating an article or another. Also badgering every single person who disagrees with you is really bad form --T-rex 05:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor is right! Almost all of these are one-off or background characters in licensed works. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe notability of the individual characters is quite dubious, which is exactly why there is a point to combination articles like this. We have perhaps too great a focus on individual articles, and compromises like this are so much the obvious way to go that I'm really surprised to see objections continuing. As for the actual content, yes, I would certainly trim it considerably. It might encourage people to rim content on articles such as this if that would discourage people from trying to delete them.DGG (talk) 23:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nom makes very good points about notability. Additionally, the entire is article is plot summary with no real-world context, analysis, or cultural impact. Without sources, the article cannot be improved to Wikipedia's policies/guidelines. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:09, 26 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, although an editorial merge is suggested. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:21, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wandsworth Parks Police[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory of all police services or want to be police services, especially if there is no assertion as to why they are notable. This page reads like a directory for the service. I tried to clean it up (by removing a section that contained all of the operational vehicles this service runs) however am not sure this is encylopedic. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first listed references does not even name the service [7] and the other sources are to the services own homepage. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 15:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral It somewhat seems like an encyclopedic article, but I'm not too sure as to where it fits. Dusti^SPEAK!! 18:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sole RS coverage is about the people rather than the department and there's no evidence this police department is notable. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable specialist force, one of only a handful of parks police forces in the UK. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a citation showing this force is notable? Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Funny, I've never seen a serious source that says "This force is notable"! -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's notable if independent, reliable sources write about it directly in detail. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with London Borough of Wandsworth. Not enough information in either article to keep them separate. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trim/Merge/Redirect to London Borough of Wandsworth. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per my nom, we are not a directory of small police like forces. There is nowhere that anything says this is notable. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 19:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to London Borough of Wandsworth, not notable enough for its own article. RMHED (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to either London Borough of Wandsworth or an list of similar police departments operating under the same laws that allows their creation. The only possible reason to keep this article is if either this police department does something truly unique and notable, or if it is the "best of breed" as British park police departments go. I see no evidence in this article indicating either applies. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Police forces are clearly a notable part of any community, and exactly the sort of information one would look for in an encyclopedia. Delete ALL police force entires or none - don't pick and choose! In any case, the WPP is one of a very small number of specialist parks constabularies in the UK, and should certainly be covered by Wikipedia. Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 23:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while just an essay, you might want to have a look at WP:ALLORNOTHING. Got any reliable sources to back up that claim? It's still a weak claim given the history of police/ambulance/fire departments at AFD _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Surely an encyclopedia is supposed to supply information. We should remove advertising and vanity publishing and rumour and opinion - but this is a factual article about a very real part of public life in a London Borough. I first came to this page specifically seeking this information and I was glad to find it here. Why take it away? I hope this is not more of the creeping attitude by certain Americans that "nothing outside America is notable unless we've heard of it". Chris Golds (talk) 19:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Has nothing to do with America, many police departments here are deleted for the exact same reason. An encyclopedia doesn't list everything, they have to be notable. There is considerable disagreement as to whether police/fire/ambulance departments are notable per WP:ORG. Might also want to read assume good faith before throwing accusations of America-centricity around. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The article really needs work and references form independent sources. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Police/fire are, IMO, generally notable. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - needs better sources, although a quick look at Ghits [8] does not reveal many. Bearian (talk) 00:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. (non-administrative closure) — _Maggot^Syn 05:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment[edit]

Does not appear to be a notable experiment or organization, and fails to cite secondary sources. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. GEWEX is a long term ongoing project, with many results already compiled. From a (admittedly quick) Google search, I've discovered that several international conferences specifically dealing with GEWEX have been held -- for example, the fourth conference in 2001, the fifth general conference in 2005 (with a special edition of the Journal of Hydrometeorology dedicated to its proceedings), and a specific Sixth International Study Conference on GEWEX in Asia and GAME in 2004. The World Climate Research Programme, which GEWEX is part of, has several publications and reports on GEWEX as well. NASA has funded and operated several projects under the GEWEX umbrella, such as the Global Aerosol Climatology Project and the GEWEX Radiation Panel.
The article definitely needs work from a NPOV standpoint, and the sourcing and extent of the article can be expanded, but it already cites several secondary sources, enough to demonstrate sufficient significance and notability to retain the article while it is worked on. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 16:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 14 references to extremely reliable sources: nasa, jpl, utoronto.ca, etc, etc. More references in the news exist. Third party reference exist as well. May need editing but how is a global scientific experiment of this magnitude not notable? (not a rhetorical question) Faradayplank (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article concentrates on the wrong aspects of this project, and needs a thorough cleanup. But this is no grounds for deletion: just grounds for withholding promotion of this article on the quality scale. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and gut it's a notable org but the article is a mess and the COI/spam makes it hard to see that clearly. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 19:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be plenty of sources, and even if the COI is there, I don't see it. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 01:50, 25 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cra-man[edit]

Non-notable fictional character. Article admits its own unverifiability: "Cannot be sourced as is work in progress". Was prodded, prod removed by author. Huon (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability demonstrated, and the page strongly implies that it would be difficult (if not impossible) to do so even if one tried. The best one could manage would probably run roughshod over WP:CRYSTAL. - Vianello (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Objection I think this should be kept as it is an amateur comic writers work and should not be discounted just for that reason. Krissyt (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, that is a valid reason to delete. JuJube (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Elaborate? Krissyt (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. That is not the reason it is being nominated for deletion regardless. Please read over the reasons for the nomination and the affirmative comments. The article does not satisfy notability or verifiability. Amateur creations that achieve these things are entirely acceptable. This has failed to do so. - Vianello (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Point taken but can you please tell me or assist me on how i could acheive verifiability when i am only an amateur on here and in the comic world. Krissyt (talk) 15:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Sure. The main outlet is to demonstrate whether or not reliable outside sources have taken note of the subject of the article. If something's been covered by a prominent news agency, for example, it's on the fast track to notability. I know it's not quite the same thing, but the notability criteria for books would be a good thing to look at, as well as the pages on notability and verifiability (linked in my previous post). If you have other questions, please direct them to my talk page. - Vianello (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article: "Cannot be sourced as is work in progress". Huh. Well, at least they're upfront about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no notability established, seems to be the author's own fanfic character. JIP | Talk 15:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources. The article's self-admission to that effect means it is either WP:COI or WP:CRYSTAL, or possibly both. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per JIP and nom, no notability established. — paranomia^{happy harry's high club} 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article lacks notability by not having reliable sources to verify the content and as such, is eligible for deletion. Seraphim♥ Whipp 15:52, 25 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 per consensus (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 7600[edit]

This article remains a stub because insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've just filled in some details and used a couple of the sources referenced in the previous AfD. The reasons given in the last AfD still stand - this was Nokia's first 3G phone, and did attract interest at the time. I'm not keen on letting stubs lay around, and would prefer them to be redirected somewhere - but I had a look, and it seems there are lots of these small articles on Nokia phones. Either we're merging them all, or we're letting them remain grouped as they currently are, by the cat list and a series template. SilkTork *^YES! 15:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would seem this item is a bit more notable than the others nominated for deletion, and there are at least some sources now.--Aldux (talk) 20:13, 24 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. No prejudice against re-creation if notability is established. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Auguri[edit]

Was recreated after speedy deletion, but I do not believe the speedy criterion applies here. Non-notable software. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why Delete?Was so notable of other software? Auguri is one of the few software packages that allows nonlinear analysis and local forecasting methods in phase-space, as well as strange attractor animation in 4-Ds-- That's notable. I see commercial software listed here. That the article needs rewriting may be true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiskkeya (talk • contribs) 17:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete brochure-style list of features in a non-notable software program. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability. If sources were found, it'd still have to be rewritten completely. Huon (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability concerns Edeskonline (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources, no notability. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:46, 24 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 18:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6080[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article remains sub-stub. because insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 14:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to show that this particular model of phone is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Capsule reviews in websites are not adequate sources even if they were cited. I see no point in creating a stub article about every product offered for sale by Nokia, or every model of product ever offered for sale by every major company in the world, if it is a mere listing of features. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:N. Copies of press-releases on a product launch are insufficient to demonstrate notability. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a comprehensive directory of Nokia mobile phones Ohconfucius (talk) 06:51, 25 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, catalogue item which fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 6086[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article remains an ad-like summary of a commercial product. Wikipedia is not a marketing tool, nor is it a cell phone guide or a Nokia catalog. Insufficient substantial third-party references exist to make this a useful article; at least, one that's not itself an advert or a review. The previous AfD resulted in "keep" because many users insisted there was no problem securing references for this product, and that it was notable. After five months, the article remains an uncited stub that reads like an advertisement. Mikeblas (talk) 13:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks reliable and independent sources to show that this particular model of phone is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Capsule reviews in websites are not adequate sources even if they were cited. I see no point in creating a stub article about every product currently offered for sale by Nokia, or every model of product ever offered for sale by every major company in the world, if it is a mere listing of features. Wikipedia is not a catalog. Edison (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Nokia 6000 series. Perhaps the specific model is not notable enough for an article, but I think the series may be. --Itub (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to series. Non-notable alone, but series is ok.Yobmod (talk) 15:29, 30 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was keep. John254 00:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysfunctional Family Circus[edit]

DFC is basically a series of parody strips with using Family Circus's original art and pairing it with a crude/humorous caption. The only real claim of notability is that the original writer Bil Keane asked them to take it down. The only reliable source the article contains is a webzine link about Keane's request. Most of the other sites I found in my research were either blogs or similar sites. I don't see how more notable this is than half a dozen other parodies of a similar nature. CyberGhostface (talk) 13:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. References are not adequate, and the article itself asserts a notability that is subpar for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 14:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Spinnwebe version has received considerable attention from media sources, some of it posthumously. I have added a number of references to demonstrate this (as well as support the text). I know it's a much weaker support, but a Google search on "dysfunctional family circus" also turns up a great deal in the way of results, though not many of them are suitable for article inclusion. - Vianello (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment As I said before, the only real claim of notability is Keane's request to pull it down. From what I've read of the sources, that's all they touch upon. There are numbers of parodies that have had the creators of the parodied work come after them.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response. The question is, did these parodies receive widespread media attention for it? I'm not sure that the narrow topic these sources touch on is enough to demonstrate notability, but they do show that the site is very well-established as a prominent work of parody. Unfortunately, the general "waves" it's made are a bit harder to clearly substantiate, since I can't really just say "Hey, look at Google!" in the article. I would like to draw attention to it having drawn 50k-70k page views per day, however. Ideally, I think it'd be best to have some sources that look at its cultural impact/significance in more depth, but I haven't found anything very journalistically reliable for that at this point. There are lots and lots of pages that are strong testaments to its influence, but I can't do much with that unless I can find a reliable source to affirm that fact. - Vianello (talk) 15:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This would an interesting paragraph within the Family Circus article, as opposed to being a standalone piece. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A few legit news sources are out there on this. // Townlake (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to be adequately sourced. JIP | Talk 16:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I regret to say I've heard of it, it's only worth a footnote in an encyclopedic sense. Don't confuse articles mentioning the phrase "Dysfunctional Family Circus" with articles actually related to the parody comic. -Verdatum (talk) 16:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Current version looks reasonably sourced. The AZ Republic one seems enough by itself. Hobit (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as adequately sourced. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable, and the nomination does not advance any legitimate argument for removal. The claim that "The only real claim of notability is..." is a fabrication. -- Dominus (talk) 20:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is it a fabrication when all of the online references' major focuses are about how the original author went after them?--CyberGhostface (talk) 20:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable parody, adequately sourced. Ford MF (talk) 01:11, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a notable parody, notable enough that Bil Keane himself was more than a little familiar with them. WP:IKNOWIT is not really a notability argument, but I will throw it out here as well. I've known about the DFC for years. Eauhomme (talk) 01:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As the guideline says, WP:IKNOWIT is "not sufficient on its own to be persuasive in deletion discussions", the key terms being "on its own". When conjoined with other arguments, it can add a legitimate reinforcement. Ford MF (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' - There is a Washington Post article in which the comic creator directly addresses both the parody comic and the subsequent take down of the website [9]. Oh and watch for falling snow.AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 02:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep surprising number of big name sources discuss it. [10] - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources writing about the website abound. And looking at the dates on the article search results in Google News, they span a significant number of years indicating sustained coverage over time. -- Whpq (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I'm glad the article was nominated. The site itself is very funny, and I wouldn't have been aware of it otherwise. Mandsford (talk) 02:13, 26 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 all. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toromi[edit]

Delete. Non-notable J-Pop singer. Her only real claims of notability (and I don't even know how notable this is) is appearing in Netrun-mon and later appearing as a "Heavenly Beast" in The Law of Ueki. I haven't found too many reliable sources about her. A lot of the info is unsourced, like "Toromi is known for her mix of "cute and sexy" as described by co-workers and general shoppers judging by both comments on her stolen art on DeviantART and the questionnaires typically left on her stands based in Japan."

I am also nominating these articles for deletion as well for the same reasons.

Question - Why were all of these placed in the "Places and transportation" category? --Oakshade (talk) 14:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. I typed "P" when I should have done "B"...is there a way to fix it?--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just did. --Oakshade (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) --CyberGhostface (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the article, which comes right out and admits "not much is known about the presumably young artist". The Law of Ueki is definitely notable, but voicing a character who appeared in only one episode... not notable at all. In any case, the bulk of the article is about a supposed art-stealing scheme on DeviantART. Absolutely hopeless. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's not that I don't respect Toromi, but alot of the information in the article is totally false. Seriously, anyone who's actually seen Toromi in real life would tell you the same. If any article in such a general site as Wikipedia, some more TRUTHFUL information should be placed. The Toromi user on Wikipedia is totally bogus too. She talks about 'giving Toromi a bad name' when she herself if probably giving people the wrong idea on what Toromi really does. Pitiful really. Lachten (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. — Fg2 (talk) 10:47, 25 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 deleted, as vandalism (hoax). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason B Burnett[edit]

This article screams hoax. My best efforts to turn up anything at all to corroborate it have failed. However, I don't personally feel it's blatant enough to qualify for speedy deletion. Vianello (talk) 13:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if he's on the board of Berkshire Hathaway as stated, he should be in the shareholder AGM notes, but he isn't, nor is he on the board of Microsoft (according to their respective websites). The CEO of Tech Data Corp as of 30/04/08 is Jeff Howells (according to [11]). Looks like a hoax to me too. CultureDrone (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per CultureDrone. Also a search for "Jason Burnett" billionaire reveals no sources about him, and no hits at all at google news for "Jason B Burnett". Google search hits for "Jason B Burnett" seem to be mainly for an attorney. By the way, the claim was about the CFO, not CEO, although that is Jeff Howells, as stated. Silverfish (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - sorry, meant CFO, typed CEO - I blame old age :-) CultureDrone (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Does anyone think this is blatant enough to warrant speedy deletion nomination? Please go ahead and do so if you think it is. I'm really unsure myself. - Vianello (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant hoax. Creator is blocked. JuJube (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant hoax. --Killerofcruft (talk) 15:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CSD A7 Speedy delete as a WP:HOAX. Artene50 (talk) 09:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A hoax, and not a very good one, at that. Article makes numerous easily verifiable claims, all of which fail. I don't know that it qualifies as a speedy. To me, that's more along the lines of creating an article stating that "Joe Blow conquered the Earth in 1993 after forcing United Nations' forces to evacuate the planet to a refuge on the dark side of the moon." But I do smell a snowball. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/update. I've nominated the article for speedy deletion as a hoax, in light of this discussion as well as the fact that it seems we're all just making WP:snow angels. - Vianello (talk) 20:40, 25 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dayaram Ashram[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — Ism schism (talk) 13:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another ordinary ashram with no evidence of notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 05:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability, no sources.Yobmod (talk) 16:00, 30 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, default to keep. I'm not comfortable calling this an outright keep because (despite many assertions) there are no specific citations of, say, links to or pagenumbers in works where this subject is discussed in any detail. Sandstein 22:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subspace (Star Trek)[edit]

No references beyond citation to dictionary-type definition. The rest is uncited and/or original research. No real-world notability. --EEMIV (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep although I have to admit I don't much like the article itself I've found a few places where the concept is discussed in real life (unfortunately, I don't know about Math or Physics to separate out the sources. Basically I did a google search on "subspace" and a google news search on ""subspace" physics". Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There is already a subspace dab. page with links to various real-world/mathematical subspaces. --EEMIV (talk) 13:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - the various terms used for the concept of FTL travel in science fiction are already covered at length in Hyperspace (science fiction) - I'd suggest a merge and redirect to this article. CultureDrone (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment not sure the Merge/Redirect thing works because Subspace in the Star Trek framing applies not just to FTL travel but, also FTL communications, and to a physical space within a space. A question for EEMIV and others is this: Did the real life term influence its use on the show or did the use of the term on the show influence real life? If the latter than that would be the real world impact for keeping this article (even though it does need improvement). Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Based just on the other Wikipedia articles, the fictional notion and the real-life mathematical term seem to be wholly unrelated. If anything, I'm going to guess that the real term influenced the fictional term. But I don't have a source one way or the other. --EEMIV (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Several of these are in-universe references that do not offer a real-world treatment. Seemingly useful sources -- e.g. religion of, physics of, computers of -- just regurgitate plot summaries or just the term. Insufficient to establish notability or to offer real-world treatment that meets threshold for retention. --EEMIV (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. This is a fictional concept and s no real-world aspect is required. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Fictional concepts' coverage should connect to its real-world context by providing information, for example, on the thing's (or character's or plot device's or whatever's) conception, development, critical response, etc. WP:WAF is the guideline you're looking for, to say nothing of the policy calling for verifiable, reliable sources. --EEMIV (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAF does not say this. Its point is that, in writing about such an imaginary device, we should make it clear that it is fictional rather than a genuine invention. This is a matter of style and not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that there are insufficient (if any) reliable third-party sources that offer material to amalgamate into a Wikipedia article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been notable authors who have written about the "physics in star trek" and whether things like subspace and warp drive have any basis in science. Would this be a good enough real world connection?--Mars2035 (talk) 19:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If someone can actually cite a scholarly text's "significant coverage" of the topic, then then (just as bad) Physics and Star Trek would be a place for it. But none of this article's original research and plot summary is worth retaining/merging to such an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article is written poorly and needs references (the ones it has are startrek.com and memory alpha, neither of which are reliable sources) but I think there does need to be an article about a major topic like this, as most of the series would be impossible without subspace. It should be rewritten with better sources and the focus should be shifted to the idea's impact on other science fiction (star trek was one of the first to use the idea of another layer of space in which ftl travel is possible), and the "physics" involved. --Mars2035 (talk) 19:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone can find source to substantiate your claim that Star Trek's use of the term and depiction of "subspace" influenced other media, I'll withdraw the nomination and instead (further) stubify the article. But, frankly, as important as subspace is *in-universe* to Star Trek (i.e. makes it possible for the the Federation and other interstellar groups to exist and move about), it's use from a series development perspective has generally been limited to technobabble, and I doubt its influence outside the franchise is all that great. --EEMIV (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to hyperspace (science fiction). A very important concept in Star Trek. JIP | Talk 16:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete needs a line in a general star trek science article. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per Colonel Warden. There indeed exist reputable independent third party sources that discuss the concept. If someone could propose an umbrella article of star trek concepts or something, I wouldn't be opposed to changing vote to merge, but I'm not familiar with the layout of Star Trek Articles, or their respective sizes. -Verdatum (talk) 16:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is a major topic in Star Trek and sources can be found. --Mars2035 (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per C.W. Hobit (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Physics of Star Trek Excellent book. Written in an out-of-universe point of view. Hefty preview on google books. There is more than enough to source a small article from in that book. Protonk (talk) 04:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Cleanup as has many referrants in popular culture, and like some other StarTrek terms is independantly notable because of its influence in pop-SciFi (ie. Warp Drive, Transporter, Phaser, Shields) 70.55.87.161 (talk) 05:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It is really sad that so many would vote to keep this article when there is not one shred of actual evidence of notability, just a lot of speculation about what might be in books found in google searches. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability comes from the fact that it is a critical plot point in an extremely famous television series. Some of the books in Colonel Warden's link are notable and discuss this topic from an out-of-universe point of view, and those could be used in this article. Despite this article's current lack of sources, it is still a notable topic. Mars2035 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is an occasional plot point in Star Trek, hardly critical to the series narrative or development. Please don't confuse its critical role to the Federation for being critical to one's understanding of the franchise. I flipped through my dusty copy of Physics of Star Trek today and its references to subspace 90% regurgitation of plot point (i.e. identifying one subspace anamoly or another). There is a passing reference to it in a section about 3/4 through on multiple dimensions, but it is brief and speculative. It is insufficient to sustain an article. --EEMIV (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment I must disagree in the stongest possible terms with this line of reasoning; criticizing secondary/tertiary sources for not following Wikipedia guidelines! The fact that independent secondary/tertiary sources exist, and discuss the topic a lot makes it even more notable. And of course it is speculative. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is an iconic concept, in one of the literary works most responsible for the public's view of interstellar travel. --Steve, Sm8900 (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a very bold claim -- can you provide a source to substantiate the claim that it is an *iconic* concept? Seems it's more a convenient tech-y plot device that provides window dressing for the series. Maybe "iconic" to Captain Picard and the rest of that fictional universe, but not in today's real world. --EEMIV (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why don't you also delete Dilithium, Replicators, Khan Noonien Singh, and nearly every episode of every one of the series' that also has an article on Wikipedia. Most of those topics are less important than this. --Mars2035 (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good rationale for keeping an article, but in this case you should consider the size of the franchise see the problem with choosing this particular article.--Mars2035 (talk) 04:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, good grief, I don't even have to do a search to remember the book The Physics of Star Trek by Stephen Hawking. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lawrence M. Krauss, and if you crack it open you'll see it says virtually nothing about the topic. --EEMIV (talk) 13:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as notable fictional concept, discussed in numerous third-party sources. For one (although I don't have a copy handy to quote chapter and verse) I guarantee it's discussed at length in, oh wait, someone beat me to mentioning The Physics of Star Trek (ps - only the foreward is written by Hawking, but still). Ford MF (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although a great many people are !voting "keep" based on The Physics of Star Trek, the preview in google books is less than thrilling. While the concept is mentioned a half dozen times, WP:N says that ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail". I'm not seeing that the subject is discussed directly, and in detail. However, I'm also not convinced that this subject isn't notable, just that The Physics of Star Trek alone isn't enough to show that notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone is relying exclusively on PoST, it's just something that was a big hit and a lot of people are familiar with. As demonstrated in the Google book search above, the topic is covered in varying levels of depth in a great number of secondary sources. Ford MF (talk) 22:45, 30 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 Lineage II#Races. While strict !vote !counting might show no consensus (2 keep, 2 merge, 2 delete), 4 of the 6 opinions mentioned merge/redirect as an option, including 1 of the deletes. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamael[edit]

Not particularly notable, doesn't appear to meet any of WP:N. Ged UK (talk) 12:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lineage II. MuZemike (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this race/character is not notable enough to have an article of its own. Does not meet the WP:GNG of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Randomran (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Immediately Just bring this information to the main article. Also I agree with everyone above me. -71.190.180.67 (talk) 02:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge and redirect without deletion as article is really new and so I suggest Wikipedia:Don't demolish the house while it's still being built and Wikipedia:Give an article a chance. Beyond that it seems notable and verifiable and so I think we can keep in some manner per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article needs a chance to grow. Caliah (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and rd to Lineage II. Eusebeus (talk) 15:40, 26 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.

{subst:afd3|pg=100 Great Black Belarusians}}

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

The result was keep. John254 00:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Adebisi Sosan[edit]

Former speedied (G11) article, does a former primary school teacher, civil servant in local government and appointed (ie not elected) deputy governor of a Nigerian state pass WP:N? Dweller (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, yes? Even if she was not elected (which apparently alot of politicians on Wikipedia aren't if they're appointed by some executive office), that still means that she holds some political office in Nigeria. I don't know how this article can be up for deletion if it is relevant to, and notable enough for, the governance of an entire government subdivision's administration. I can't conceive why this was speedied in the first place, either, which is why I restored it. --Toussaint (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I kind of agree, and kind of disagree, but mostly disagree, because a deputy governor is not "first-level sub-national political office", the governor is. Actually, more fundamentally, WP:POLITICIAN makes the point very well, "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." If the article passed WP:V I wouldn't have nominated it. The article currently contains no references at all. --Dweller (talk) 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She seems to be or have been "the Deputy Governor, who also doubles as the Commissioner for Education" in addition to other things. See http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Sarah+Adebisi+Sosan&btnG=Search&ie=UTF-8&um=1. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Dep. Governor of the state. Does that equate to "first-level sub-national political office"? I'd have thought that was the Governor, not the deputy. --Dweller (talk) 21:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs sourcing, but would we be having this discussion if Sarah was the deputy governor of a state or province of a first world country. Countering systemic bias is important. Lagos State is the Nigerian equivalent of a New South Wales, an Alberta or a Kerala and the deputy leaders of the government for those areas would certainly all be seen as valid topics. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deputy governor of a state with a population of 9 million not notable? Come on guys, use a bit of common sense here. Would anyone dream of nominating an article about an equivalent US politician for deletion? I very much doubt it, so why do we have to waste our time discussing this article? And an admin actually speedied this? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:17, 25 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 Cheviot, New Zealand per consensus (non-admin closure).Finalnight (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stonyhurst (Farm)[edit]

Non-notable farm in New Zealand Madcoverboy (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The farm is marginally notable; it contains heritage buildings and appears to be a tourist attraction. I've added some detail and some refs. If not kept, then Merge and redirect to Cheviot, New Zealand.
Merge/Redirect to Cheviot, New Zealand. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week Keep I hope editors with knowledge of the region can develop it, since I found the topic intrinsically interesting, though insufficiently developed. If there were one or two more third party reference, I'd fully opt to keep the article; see proposed buildings and structures guidelines. Merge and direct to Cheviot, New Zealand is viable if this article does not develop further in its own right. Gosgood (talk) 13:15, 27 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. JIP | Talk 16:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecah horton[edit]

Uncited, poorly-written article on female baseball player Madcoverboy (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Can find no evidence she ever existed. Obvious hoax. Spanneraol (talk) 13:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, borderline speedy. Obvious hoax, although I'm impressed that she was a disco dancer 70+ years before the genre was invented.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Hoax. No team given (critical information) and certainly not the first female in professional baseball--the Indianapolis Clowns are credited with the first woman in professional baseball when they hired Toni Stone. Also, the All-American Girls Professional Baseball League was a leauge of women softball/baseball players.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete clearly nonsense all the way through. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and block user. JuJube (talk) 15:23, 24 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 went, clear copyvio as tagged.. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 12:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kuldip dhindsa[edit]

Possibly notable, but unmanageable resume, no citations Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete not hard to believe this is a spammy vanity article, but harder to believe it is a copyright violation for its poor English for a man of such impeccable credentials (sic). Ohconfucius (talk) 12:39, 24 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the Public Square[edit]

Advertising, no assertion of notability Madcoverboy (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G11 as blatant advertising, and so tagged. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while I have cleaned it up, wikified it, de-spamified it, categorized it, and generally gutted the advertorial nature of the original, it's still an unsourced article about a once-weekly two-hour show in an unrated overnight daypart on one local station with no GoogleNews hits and few useful Google hits. Unless sourcing can be provided, it fails both notability and verifiability, outside its basic existence per the official KZTZ website. - Dravecky (talk) 13:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one passing mention on a webpage from the law school where one of the hosts studied, but nothing else. Smerge could be viable if there were more content on the station's page ... but there isn't. GRBerry 13:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, still filled with unsubstantiated claims, still essentially an ad.--Rtphokie (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of independent reliable WP:RS and WP:N Artene50 (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the basis of the program only being on one station. For Dravecky, remember that just because a show is only heard in the overnight hours, that doesn't automatically qualify it as non-notable.... ever heard of Art Bell and/or George Noory? :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:16, 30 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SlowTV[edit]

Non-notable corporation, likely advertising Madcoverboy (talk) 12:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N.--VS ^talk 08:02, 27 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guitarway to heaven[edit]

Non-notable game Madcoverboy (talk) 12:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Madcoverboy (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No references, no notability, no NPOV, and it reads like a strategy guide. Song list should be transwiki'd to a strategy guide wiki of some sort. MuZemike (talk) 22:52, 24 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAARC University[edit]

Contested prod. Non-notable future school, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Contains lots of instances of "going to be (x)", indicative of the speculative nature of this article. TN‑X-Man 11:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:CRYSTAL. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure speculation Ohconfucius (talk) 12:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Enigma ^message 16:36, 29 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SEPS Self Defense[edit]

Non Notable martial art only thing I can find on a google search is this article. Also contains WP:OR and no references BigDunc^Talk 11:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP as advertising, as it has no reliable sources. Note, the author shares the same name as the subject of the article. Also, only refers to the company website or subsidiaries.--Finalnight (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - may be notable one day, but for now is by far too young and completely unrecognized. Pundit|utter 01:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. JJL (talk) 02:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN advert. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 07:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant advertising and self-promotion. Enigma ^message 03:04, 30 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. Ignoring the procedural votes (wrong procedure is a problem that has little or nothing to do with the current article, only with the nominator) and considering that few articles and AfD's get so much attention, the end result is that we have an article with very, very few independent, reliable sources about it (and yes, I have checked Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources). Since we are a tertiary source, not a secondary one, and WP:NOTE is a quite generally accepted guideline, there is no reason to keep this article on its own merits and plenty of reason to delete it. Fram (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MKR (programming language)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

I can't find any non-trivial references to this software other than those created by the editor of the article. Killerofcruft (talk) 11:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(User:Killerofcruft changed his username during this process, and contributes below as User:Allemandtando--Abd (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep shows clear notability. Al Tally ^talk 12:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how it has notability - I cannot find anything but trival mentions in lists and other such material. What reliable sources have commented on this? in what context. Please be specific in your response - naming the publications. --Killerofcruft (talk) 12:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it exists makes it notable. The sources may be lacking, but give the article a chance. Al Tally ^talk 18:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a strange new meaning of "clearly" I was previously unaware of. I should point out that Wikipedia doesn't make note of my mobile phone, my desk calendar, or the bag of MUJI dried vegetable snacks, and the fact that they exist doesn't mean they're getting articles, either. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(jaw drops) Huh? Al, step away from the bong. Since when have you become such a radical inclusionist? That last statement is so far from actual policies and previous precedents to be unbelievable. It also doesn't square with your history on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article shows a lot of potential. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 13:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense? potential for what? considering there are no reliable sources on the matter. Can you provide reliable sources? What policy based reason can you give? --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple of references to the article I found:

A law resource site
Information on the extension *.MKR
It has over Nine thousand downloads
On a list of downloadable programming languages

I'll do a more thorough search on this later. - Amog | ^{Talk • contribs} 14:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all directory listing - none of which are considered reliable sources for the purposes of establishing notability. If this programming language is notable - where is the real world usage, where are the mentions in the peer reviewed journals, where the mentions in books by notable writers etc? Where is well.. anything of that nature? directory listings are not going to cut it. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first source provided above isn't merely a "directory listing." It is on its face a review of each resource, by what may be a notable expert. I don't have time to track all this down yet, but that source appears to be marginally useful. Here is what it says about MKR:

McCullough Knowledge Explorer and the MKR Language [12]. McCullough Knowledge Explorer (MKE) is an interactive tool for organizing knowledge. It helps the user to record, change and search knowledge, and provides extensive error checking to ensure the internal consistency of the knowledge. Interaction with MKE uses the MKR language. MKR is a very-high-level knowledge representation language with simple English-like statements, questions and commands, plus UNIX-shell-like variables, methods and control structures.

Now, where did that language come from? Google finds seven hits for the exact language. Who copied from whom? It's going to take time to track this stuff down. That is, this may not be useful. And at this point I don't know how we could tell without putting more time into it. I'm working now with the article to try to make clear what sources there are; assistance is appreciated. --Abd (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They all copied from me. (or else I set up the download) I recognize my own writing. Rhmccullough (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa.. if sources are in question, how did this get through the first AFD? I would suspect, having been around for 10 years and being in a version 7, that this language has gotten attention from more than just the author. But our suspicions aren't enough- sources are required. I see sources, but how many of them mention this language? I hope this can be kept, but it's unclear to me whether the sources we have now are enough. Friday (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

currently, the strongest source is some lecture notes. If you look at the rest, they are about elements of the field that the design draws upon not the language itself. --Killerofcruft (talk) 13:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - the sources aren't impressing me. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In dire need of some reliable sources. None so far forthcoming. ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article already survived AfD just four days ago. Consensus doesn't change that quickly. TotientDragooned (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the AFD - it was done on the basis of COI not sourcing. My argument here is not the one presented there - as I was uninvolved. --Killerofcruft (talk) 14:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give this a go for now, but if I look at it in a few months time and it is still no clearer I'll probably be in favor of deletion. The references are obliquely described and seem obscure. Reading between the lines, it seems to me that it boils down to "somebody has mentioned this language in a lecture on the vizualization of computational processes." Moreover the examples as the article stands don't suggest anything revolutionary. There's a bit of formal logic there, perhaps a bit of reflection, and with an imperative rather than declarative flavor. But on the face of it, nothing you couldn't hack up in a few minutes using lisp. That isn't to say that the language may not at some point attract broader attention. However that it apparently hasn't done so in eleven years is strongly suggestive. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tend to agree with Anticipation on this one. Agree that it needs some RS, but I'm not sure that any effort to dig any up has actually been undergone by third parties. If it was still in its present state in 3 months I'd probably vote delete. (If consensus develops around Arthur's userfy below, I'd support that, too.) Orderinchaos 15:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Userfy. There are no sources other than the developers' mailing list. All other sources appear to refer to the field, rather than the specific "language". Suggest that the developer restore than article if it gets some discussion in WP:RS. As for the previous AfD, it found that COI is not a reason to delete. Absence of sources is, and the matter was not brought up then. In favor of deletion, rather than waiting for sourcing, as a number of redirects have been created by the developer, which would probably be worthy of deletion even if the article were kept. WP:COI, although not a reason to delete, is a reason to delete something more quickly than if a neutral party though it relevent in the absence of sourcing. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per result of previous AfD, on principle, because 4 days is much to soon for a second nomination, and the argument that this nomination is on a different "basis" from the first one is simply wiki-lawyering. Any disagreement with the outcome of the first nomination should have been addressed through the deletion review process, not by an immediate re-nomination. This looks like a vendetta to me. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read the other comments. Previous AFD was flawed, as it ignored notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proper procedure to initiate a review of the previous AfD is to go through the deletion review process. This whole re-nomination is a disruptive abuse of process. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I have a vendetta against a) an article I never edited before today and b) an AFD I was never involved in. I'd ask you to withdraw those bad faith remarks or I'll ask for action. --Killerofcruft (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Re-instating my comment, which was removed by Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The. This is not a personal attack and is relevant to this AfD discussion) Killerofcruft's familiarity with Wikipedia procedures and terminology suggests that he is an experienced Wikipedia editor using a recently created alternative account. Although there are some legitimate reasons for using an alternative account, there are also procedures that should be followed to ensure openness and transparency. In view of Killerofcruft's assertions that he was not involved in the previous AfD, I invite him to clarify whether he has previously edited under another account name or names. Gandalf61 (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There really are no reliable sources for this. Almost everything is material self-published by the creator of the article. It fails WP:V, WP:NOTE, and is mostly WP:OR. The author reached hard for sources, even at one point citing a mailing list on which it was mentioned a few times; McCulloch was trying to argue that it had some benefit to the XML/RDF community, and got a few responses. (Although the article doesn't link to its sources, you can, in fact, find most of them on the web.) The language got short entries on long, comprehensive lists of AI tools. I've been looking for more sources; I tried Google and Google Scholar, and the best I could find was a paper by McCulloch (editor who created the article) rejected by a regional AI conference in Florida. It's not even getting blog references. This isn't new work; it's been around for years. As for the lecture notes cited, they're online.[13] The reference to mKE is in a lecture about debugging tools for the Unicon language, and mKE is "the Largest Publically Available Unicon Program (50K lines)", and it's mentioned as something to practice debugging upon. The entire reference is three lines. That's it. --John Nagle (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for now. The editor is new to this, and is acting in good faith, so just nuking it is a bit harsh. Inclined to agree that it's not articlespace material at this point though. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy. No demonstrated notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Gandalf61. There are very good reasons for avoiding repeated nomination in a short period of time: it diverts editors from the task of improving articles. Many editors will avoid working on an article while it's under immediate threat of AfD because the work can disappear in a flash. I also see that the article, on its face, is adequately sourced, but this is not based on that conclusion and I'd really want to research it more deeply. Process alone here suggests Keep (for now), and Killerofcruft edit warred to prevent speedy closure of this AfD on that basis. A nomination in a month wouldn't have this problem. --Abd (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nom., evidently no notability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can shed some light on why mKR is not mentioned. My interactions are mostly with the W3C crowd, where mKR has "competition" from other languages which were known at W3C before mKR was known. In my opinion, mKR has been largely ignored at W3C [some char. glitch here] due to a combination of "Not Invented Here" and "Why should I change?" and "who is this upstart who thinks he is better than us" ... I think you get the idea. Unfortunately, I think I personally contributed to people shunning me & mKR because I was too outspoken. I readily declared that mKR was better than the languages they were using (esp. their sacred RDF and OWL) and they didn't like to hear that. So they first shuttled me off to a new email group so I wouldn't talk about mKR any more. And they just hoped I would go away & they wouldn't have to hear from me again. That hasn't really worked -- in the sense that mKR has been too successful in interfacing with Stanford TAP knowledge base, OpenCyc knowledge base, Amazon, Google. W3C is not accomplishing that with any of their languages. I am still confident that mKR is superior to all of the W3C languages, but that's not enough to overcome the inertia and the NIH attitudes at W3C. Excuse me for being so long-winded. But here we are with the facts of life -- merit by itself does not bring citations from reliable sources. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we are clear here - as inventor of the language and main author of the article - you are saying that as far as you are aware there are no reliable sources for this article? --Killerofcruft (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to clarify- whether this article is kept is not meant to have anything to do with how useful a language this is, or how innovative it is, or anything like that. As a neutral encyclopedia, we refrain from passing judgement on such issues. We go on whether or not it's gotten significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. Exactly how much coverage is "enough" is a bit of a judgement call. The assertion that "it exists, and therefore is notable" is a fringe position, not remotely in line with the goals or established practices of Wikipedia. Friday (talk) 18:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. In effect, the creator's own comments explain why the article does not belong in wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a procedural keep as the spirit of process was violated in renominating four days after the close of first. The 1st AfD had it's chance at the article. If sourcing is so important as a rationale to delete, it should have been included before. Repeated nominations of an article are disruptive, and the existence of an article that may be, or may not be, sufficiently notable is infinitely less destructive to WP that violating process for some supposed immediate gain. Also, it's inappropriate to delete articles that can be improved, per WP:DEL. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can we improve an article for which sources don't exist - that's the bit I don't understand about this theme of "well it can be improved". How can we improve an article if the basic building blocks of a wikipedia article don't exist? --Killerofcruft (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know that they don't exist. There are some sources already, and AfD is not a good place to determine their reliability, this is far better worked out through ordinary editorial process, which gives people time. The author of the article may well not be aware of all the sources. I'm perhaps the world's foremost expert on Delegable proxy and the sources I presented in the AfD for that article were not considered sufficient; however, shortly after the close, an article published in a peer-reviewed journal on the concept came to my attention; but, guess what: I'm COI, so I'm not bringing that article back (It's currently a redirect.) Essentially, none of us know everything, which is one reason this is a community project. And renominating for AfD immediately upon a closing without Delete, and especially when that AfD suggested improving the article, is disruptive to the community. I've seen this "there are no sources" argument many times. Sometimes it is true, but I'll note one problem with the argument: it cannot possibly be based on knowledge, unless the one arguing is omniscient. What could be legitimately argued is that not enough have yet been found. It's a process, and it takes time. I do not know if sufficient RS can be found. It could take me a couple of hours to find out, and even then I could miss stuff. I'll say this, though: the article does no harm sitting there for another month. And if it is deleted now, we won't know if additional source could have been found. It tends to discourage those who might work on it, that the article doesn't exist.--Abd (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From my understanding of the discussion of mKR, it is a keep on the basis of common sense and occasional exception. Wikipedia:Notability says

This page documents an English Wikipedia notability guideline. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page. Rhmccullough (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis should an exception be made? --Allemandtando (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in this case. The procedural arguments don't hold water, and there was no consensus for keeping it, just not enough for deleting it. The original AFD was flawed, and a grand total of TWO said "Keep". It was teetering on deletion anyway. The lack of any proof of notability puts it over the edge. It should go. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to put words into other people's mouths. I can only say that I got the feeling that mKR was considered potentially of interest and of value to Wikipedia users. Rhmccullough (talk) 21:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two keepers talked to me about it afterward. I believe his thinking was that it would eventually be a keep, and he was content to just make sure that it was not deleted at that time. Maybe you want to talk to him? Rhmccullough (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My memory is slowly returning to me. The other keeper was a Wiktionary editor. He voted against mKR for Wiktionary because of stricter rules on citations (the name of mKR has changed several times). But he voted for keep for Wikipedia. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my last bit of speculation, based on what I can remember. I don't think the words common sense or occasional exception were ever used in the discussion. I just had the feeling that's what the keepers were thinking. I think the two deleters were focused on the letter of law, and never considered the possibility of an exception. Rhmccullough (talk) 22:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong delete where are the reliable sources? There are none [14] and none of the people voting keep have been able to mention any. So I'm intrigued as to why there's any desire to keep this article. Is it something created by a wikipedian?:) Please explain. Sticky Parkin 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving for a formal early close now because I think the arguments are veering towards provisional keep (pending improvement) and it has been brought to my notice that this deletion discussion is the second one in just a few days. There are special reasons why the discussions have been separated.

I think it would be a very unusual decision to delete the article on the basis of this discussion (see Wikipedia:Snowball clause); on the other hand I think the article should be deleted if not improved in the next few months.

I do not doubt the good faith of all participants. There are severe problems with this article, but it may be salvageable and so I think it's not appropriate to continue this second nomination immediately. We should wait until enough time has passed for the many editors who have asked this article to be kept to make necessary improvements in sourcing, which have already been identified. If there are no objections, we can close this discussion and formally defer the decision for a few months.

By all means, if there is anyone who thinks that this article is so opposed to fundamental Wikipedia policies that it must be deleted immediately, let him object to this proposal and we'll let the discussion run to its full length. Or we can let those who want to improve this article do what they are sure can be done, and then we can judge the result of their good faith efforts in the light of all Wikipedia policies. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB: see my later comments. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that - just a query - which have already been identified. - what sourcing has been identified. Even the author and inventor doesn't think that sources exist - so what sources are you talking about? --Allemandtando (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I often seem to speak a private language. I mean "improvements (to problems) in sourcing, which (the problems and potential improvements) have already been identified". --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 22:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On that basis - I withdraw the nomination - but I'll be honest, I don't expect to see any sources appear (I looked for hours in both public and private databases) and if the article remains in this state would intend to renominate in eight weeks - which to me seems a reasonable time period to find at least some RS. --Allemandtando (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last AFD was closed foolishly. I don't see a reason to repeat the same mistake. This one is bringing up the actual issues. Friday (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there are no WP:RS (which there aren't) the article can't be saved. We shouldn't wait for sources to appear in the article, if there are none in the rest of the world. They can't be magicked into existence and I question why people desire to keep this- obviously some people must be fans of whatever-it-is. Sticky Parkin 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I am a computer expert, I have no interest in keeping this article alive because of that. My concern, and apparently the concern of several others, is about process. You can't possibly have a collaborative project the massive size of Wikipedia without agreeing on process and then following it, in spirit as well as letter. So no, it's not because I'm a fan, nor do I think others are either. And multiple nominations, especially one following only four days after the first closed is a disruption. That's my concern, and I believe the concern of others here. We have more AfDs per day than anyone can reasonably fully read, never mind thoughtfully research, apply critical thinking skills to, debate, and !vote on. — Becksguy (talk) 00:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this is a case of "fuck process", actually. Process is about ignoring the situation and pointing to precedent. Process plays no part in any Wikipedia policy. Why use it in favor of, or in opposition to, deletion of an article? --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:12, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, process is how we behave in situations, separate from "content." I.e., edit-warring is process. Content is not normally part of 3RR. The admin who tried to close this was faced with an edit-warring user. If he'd have said "fuck process," he'd simply have reverted. If the reversion had continued, he'd have been saying "fuck process" if he switched accounts and pressed the block button. Instead, that admin went, properly, to AN/I, refraining -- for process reasons, from edit warring himself. Here, with this AfD, we see why rapid renom is a bad idea, why process requires discussion with a closer, first, then going to DRV. Not edit warring on starting up another AfD immediately. Absolutely, Rule Number One is "Fuck Process." Well, not exactly! Process is necessary, Rule Number One suggests that there can be higher purposes, that process precedent isn't always the best guide. So what was the reason for ignoring process here? What ongoing damage existed that required immediate action? I see two: edit warring was allowed to continue because people ignored process and instead started, out of process, debating, once again, notability, and secondly, a lot of editor time has been wasted doing this. There are reasons for long-established process. Ignore them, and usually it damages the project. If this article is really so non-notable that there is simply no proper debate, then prove it. Put a speedy tag on it. See where that goes! It's clear: still, the best thing to do is close this AfD before even more time is wasted and editors start tearing each other up. Let it open again in two months, as agreed by the nominator, or less, in fact. A month ought to be enough. I predict it will be much easier then to decide. For one thing, we won't have all the Keep votes that are process-based. They'll be real, if there are any then. --Abd (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Allemandtando's decision to withdraw at this time. Withdrawing the nomination pending the addition of sourcing seems like a reasonable compromise. — Becksguy (talk) 23:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We shouldn't be waiting for sources to appear in the article" is something that I would dearly like to apply to articles about or involving statments about living people (sadly it doesn't appear to be working [15]). I think it can be legitimately relaxed for articles that don't stand to ruin a person's reputation. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Nice to be able to agree with Allemandtando. Absolutely, if the article doesn't improve (or at least be better defended, I haven't reviewed the existing sources in sufficient detail to be certain about this), it's likely that there will be another AfD after a decent pause. The problem here was the precipitous renomination, which is indeed a "process" question. While process isn't everything, there are reasons we avoid rapid renom absent some kind of emergency. Give it some time.--Abd (talk) 01:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's had 10 years or better. If there aren't sources by now, it's extremely foolish to assume they'll magically appear Real Soon Now. Friday (talk) 02:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does Friday know something I don't? Wouldn't be the first time someone does! This article was created on 14 June, and was first AfD'd on 15 June, with this second AfD being filed on 24 June. That's 10 days in which to find RS, not ten years, though I suppose it's easy to confuse the two.--Abd (talk) 03:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The language has been around more than 10 years. The author of the article and the language is in a good position to know what sources exist. He's told us a bit about his work. He's told us where he's presented his work, and he's told us reasons why it hasn't gotten more attention. He's been using the best sources he has. If he hasn't already turned up more significant coverage in these many years, it's doubtful someone else will in the immediate future. Friday (talk) 03:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a reasonable objection. Let's run the full discussion of five days or whatever. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 02:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fear it's already been hopelessly derailed, but, sure, more time can't particularly hurt. Friday (talk) 02:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kill it now, or kill it in a couple of weeks, either way it's the same result. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any actual reliable sources attesting to more than existence -- quite the opposite, really. And a reality check for User:TotientDragooned, User:Gandalf61, User:Abd, and User:Becksguy: Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so !voting "keep" on the basis of a technicality -- not even a real technicality, come to think of it -- instead of the actual merits is just perverse. --Calton | Talk 05:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Response to Calton - Wikipedia is not an anarchy either, and an editor who ignores established procedures (despite obviously being aware of them) needs to explain very clearly how they think are improving the project by doing so. The originator of this AfD has (a) re-nominated an article for a second AfD within an extraordinarily short space of time; (b) completely ignored the established deletion review process; (c) admitted (on my talk page) that they have previously edited Wikipedia under another account name, but not identified that account name. For me, that makes this whole re-nomination invalid and pointy. Gandalf61 (talk) 07:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that's "invalid and pointy" is your opposing vote on that basis. As for his account name, he said somewhere his old account was a real-name account; he is under absolutely no obligation to disclose it; and whether or not he chooses to disclose it has absolutely no effect on the validity of his edits. And as for his "ignoring policy", he said he hadn't actually been aware of the previous AfD when nominating, so no, he did not ignore policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Response to Fut.Perf. - the nominator definitely knew about the previous nomination when he re-nominated - look at the very first version of this page which he created with "2nd nomination" in the title and a link to the previous AfD. I don't think he has ever said he was not aware of the previous AfD when he re-nominated (do you have a diff ?). But he has said several times that he was not involved in the previous AfD, a claim which cannot be easily verified given his lack of openness about his previous account(s). Gandalf61 (talk) 11:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the first nomination at all - I came to the article from AN/I where it was mentioned. As for the fact that it was created with "2nd Nomination" in the title and a link to the first AFD - that's pretty simple. I use twinkle which automates the AFD process - you get a pop-up box, you select the category and provide your reason - all of the page creation is automatic with no user action required. --Allemandtando (talk) 11:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The user withdrew the nomination, but let's not withdraw history; this comment is not really about him, but about a rather rosy interpretation of what happened by FPaS. Killerofcruft did ignore policy. The user edit warred with an administrator on keeping this AfD open; at that point, he was aware of the prior AfD, whether or not he wasn't before. The biggest problem here is that AN/I, instead of looking at the process issue (edit warring) got distracted by the question of notability, I've been seeing this mission creep there for a while. Edit warring isn't acceptable, even if the editor is "right." And the editor wasn't right. Immediate renomination is destructive, look at the time wasted here. Due to the opportunity missed in AN/I, and due to the attention focused on this AfD by the fuss there, this AfD remained open long enough to attract enough !votes that a weight exists for keeping it open. If a month goes by and it hasn't been sourced properly, it's not likely to attract nearly as much fuss as this improper AfD. I have no idea how I'd !vote in a month's time. Now, was the user originally aware of the prior AfD? Possibly not. If he says not, we have to assume not. He says that he saw an AN/I discussion on the article, where the actual newbie author was complaining about his article being hacked up. I've looked at that discussion, and I saw no mention of the just-closed AfD there. On the other hand, this is an experienced user, and, as such, not likely to AfD without a review of the article history, which was very short. At the very least, this AfD was reckless. I see now that Twinkle was used. Yes. Reckless. Check before using Twinkle.--Abd (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason this has resulted in disruption is because you have been making an irrational fuss over it. Al tally was wrong in closing it in the first place (after voting keep, he was no longer an uninvolved admin, and his totally outlandish fringe understanding of notability expressed above which his keep vote was based on places his closure far outside normal policy.) If this AfD had been judged on its merits, as it should, it would now be smoothly heading towards a snowball delete, exactly as it should. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Singular "you" or plural, i.e., referring to the *many* editors who've made the same point, raised the same "irrational fuss?" Al tally did !Vote keep and then close, an error. A technical point. Essentially, his error was voting, because he obviously voted first, then reconsidered and closed, a more correct decision. He was not involved before that. In other words, here FPaS is claiming that process should be ignored, then he stands on it, the letter of the policy, not the purpose of it. If one looks at the actual comments, there are Keep !votes that state policy reasons, and that don't make a content judgment. It's not known how these would vote in a proper AfD; but there are clearly other Keep votes, here and in the original AfD, that are actually notability based Keep, that have nothing to do with the process problems. I'm quite concerned about AfD process, because it's a setup for editor dissension. Instead of the product being something fluid, an article state, which is always subject to change, it has, merge excepted, a black-and-white outcome with a fixed deadline, so editors can get a little desperate. When there is likelihood of contentious debate, and such debate is common with AfDs, process becomes very important. It would seem that FPaS is arguing that edit warring is okay if you are right. Let me think about that, it could be useful. If I end up before ArbComm, FPaS, will you defend me? After all, if I honestly think I'm right.... --Abd (talk) 14:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Response to Fut.Perf.: if you or the nominator or anyone else had concerns about the closing of the original AfD, they should taken those concerns to deletion review. Immediate re-nomination and the subsequent edit warring was clearly disruptive and pointy. If the nominator's main goal was to improve Wikipedia, they would not have acted in this disruptive and attention-seeking manner. And the nominator's argument that "I didn't see the previous nomination because I used Twinkle" is a piece of special pleading that is just as muddle-headed as his view that the "right to vanish" protection somehow still applies to him even after he obviously not vanished. The best way to go forward from this SNAFU is to close this AfD as "no consensus" and re-list in 2 or 3 months - after all is said and done, there is no fire. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't "disruption", this is -- wait for it -- procedure. All it lacks is the purely arbitrary and artificial procedural hoops -- not even actual, proscribed hoops -- you want people to jump through, well, why, exactly? --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Response to Calton: A second AfD within four days, with edit warring and unfounded accusations of personal attacks, and without paying any heed to the deletion review process that exists to handle such situations - yes, I would say that is close to anarchy. As you correctly say, if the nominator really believed he had a good argument for overturning the original AfD, he could have achieved his aims much more simply and directly by withdrawing his reckless re-nomination and initiating a deletion review. And the "hoops" exist to protect the innocent and ensure that everything is done in an open, transparent and consensual way - it is the difference between due process of law and a vigilante mob. But if you dislike Wikipedia's "hoops" so much, you can find plenty of other "hoop-free" places elsewhere on the internet. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has previously exercised his right to vanish due to privacy concerns over his old username. This is perfectly fine, and he should be commended for coming back, I think (even if I don't agree with a few of his deletion nominations :-P). --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an anarchy either, and an editor who ignores established procedures Really? a second AFD is "anarchy"? By that standard, it's a good thing that no one speedy-deleted it, as that no doubt would have brought about the downfall of civilization. Oh, and actual "established procedures" would have had this thing nuked already and this second AFD unnecessary. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perverse keep. Re-nominations within four days are annoying and disruptive, and the only way of discouraging the practice is to let them fail, even if on "perverse" procedural grounds. --Itub (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot the actual goal of AFD. Hint: it's not how many hoops you can make people jump through, it's the end result. So, in fact, your !vote is entirely accurately named. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, User:Nagle recently pointed out to User:Rhmccullough that there was a problem with the sourcing in the article. As this was only a few days ago at the time of writing, I would be in favour of giving a while to see if User:Rhmccullough can remember anywhere else where there may be sources, or for anybody else to find any (the fact that the language apparently used to be called just "KR" might be throwing us off; two-letterisms are a bit harder to get proper search results on). If consensus to keep the article for this purpose is not found, I would say to let somebody keep it in userspace for the same purpose. (While noting that userspace is not an "article graveyard", of course.) --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose the Icon Newsletter article is a bit tenuous since it was written by the creator, although at least the editor thought it was worth inclusion. I also turned up a blog post, although again we'd like something bigger. I've explained our sourcing rules to User:Rhmccullough‎ as I think he didn't quite understand the concern, maybe he can turn up something better. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Perhaps WP:DRV would have been the appropriate venue, rather than a new nomination. However, a new AfD nomination giving a reason not discussed in the previous AfDs is never improper, even if the result had been keep, and it had closed yesterday. (The question of whether the lack of sources was discussed in the previous AfD is open. I saw a reference there, but it seems to have been added after the AfD closed.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing was discussed in the original AfD, before closing. Here's a link to the close:[16] From the AfD:

The information is clearly verifiable, and the article is well cited, so I see no reason to delete. Conrad.Irwin (on wikt) 12:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sources are all debatable, none seem notable. Rehevkor ✉ 00:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
...However, lack of notability is a deletion criteria and I can not find reliable sourcing on this software.... ju66l3r (talk) 01:16, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, other Delete arguments that the topic was not "notable" imply a source problem. When adequate RS exists, it's notable, almost certainly. So the claim that sourcing wasn't brought up in the first AfD is just more confusion, like a lot of what happened here. --Abd (talk) 14:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sourcing problem was ignored, simple as that, your attempts to sow confusion notwithstanding. --Calton | Talk 15:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Attempts to sow confusion? AGF, Calton. I guarantee I'm not attempting to sow confusion. I don't have *anything* invested in this article, I'm now trying to help the original author, and I have no idea if I'll be successful, and others seem to be helping too. That is how Wikipedia works, when it works. Calton just went through this AfD, arguing with many users. What's making this worth that effort. Just wondering! Sourcing was mentioned and argued, clearly, by more than one user. To redefine this as "ignored" is fantasy. Certainly it can be argued that not enough attention was paid to the issue, except that the closer did say that the article should be "cleaned up." That would include source cleanup. But "ignored"? My kids have a language they use called "sheep language," and in it everything means the opposite of the normal meaning. Sheep language? By this standard nearly every AfD could be renom'd immediately, I've often seen something wrong, I've seen RS ignored, for example. Immediate renom is bad process. Bad process leads to editors fighting when we could be working on the project. Absent some kind of emergency, perhaps with a BLP, immediate renom has no excuse, period. DRV is for that; DRV could have reopened the old AfD, for example, I've seen that kind of outcome. Or explicitly permitted a new one, immediately. --Abd (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Every minute the defenders of this article are spending defending it, could be better spent looking for information that the subject is actually notable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great idea. How about you? (I've looked, for some time; as noted above, the language was renamed, it's not necessarily easy to find sources, sometimes. Sometimes they aren't searchable for various reasons. Google doesn't necessarily hand them to us on a silver platter. The search may fail, and the article may then fall. I'm trying to help the author and others organize the sources, so we can see in one place what exists, including marginal sources. If it does come back for AfD, I think the decision will be easier and less contentious. At least I can hope!) --Abd (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (ec) for now; it's been ten days since the article was created, if I understand correctly, by someone who (while of necessity very knowledgeable about the topic) has little understanding of Wikipedia article creation and sourcing. It is horrible to have to change to writing with an "outside" viewpoint, and "encyclopedic" is an extreme of "outside"; the author is very used to writing "inside". He's going to have a hard time finding sources, and constantly be complained about for OR, but give him half a chance. In a couple of months, if it's not turned around, perhaps it should go. htom (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy - As it stands, the article does not have any independent reliable sources to show notability of this subject. Hoping it will eventually have some is speculation. I have no objection to the article being moved to user space until it is improved, but it does not have a place in mainspace right now. The technicality re: the timing of this AfD is besides the point. The reason we normally avoid re-nominating so quick is to prevent railroading when someone doesn't get the results they wanted. I'm willing to WP:AGF on the nom when he states he didn't know of the first AfD, and looking at that AfD it was a mess. If this AfD does not result in deleting or userfying, then I'd support waiting at least a month or two before any new AfD takes place, as this has generated a much more thorough discussion. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sourcing for this sort of material tends to be informal. The renomination in any case is hopelessly abusive. To nom on one ground, lose, and argue immediately for another grounds is not rational--when an article is proposed for deletion, all the factors for deleting it should be stated. Why would someone want to do anything else--one wants to make the strongest deletion case possible. To string them out one at a time is in my view looks more like an attempt to have a second round, in the hope that the random variation in who comes here will have a different result. DGG (talk) 20:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not the fault of the second nominator that the first nominator did an inadequate job. I could just as easily argue that the "no consensus" decision made no sense. The author of the article barely skated by even with only the COI issue being discussed. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I have no fear that you'll be back with an AfD in six weeks, two months, or whenever you think it will be successful. htom (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can demonstrate this language is "notable", then you need not fear or even think about it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the article's sources, which assert notability, ~~and because it exists~~. giggy _(:O) 01:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, which sources? Of all the sources used in the article, only one even mentions the subject, and no, that one does not assert notability for it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sources which do assert notability have been removed. The article is in flux. DGG was correct, "sourcing for this sort of material tends to be informal." We may need to rely upon a number of marginal sources rather than a single clearly reliable source. At this point, I'm not placing or taking any bets that the article will be adequately sourced by the time we are done. All I can say is that it is possible, clearly possible based on what I've seen. There may remain some controversy over notability, and that is what AfD and DRV (and ArbComm, should it come to that, which I doubt) are for. Absolutely, if you only look at today's article, it's not there. But there has been source, previously, in the article that is at least marginal. At this point, such source is actively being removed by deletionist editors, and, so far, each removal has at least some legitimate justification, but not necessarily a conclusive one. So I wouldn't suggest making a final decision based on the state of the article today. Rather, notice, the nominator withdrew the nomination and is active editing the article. Others are active, and there is work going on that takes time to collect usable source. This AfD has done one piece of good, in spite of its impropriety. The author now realizes, I'm sure, the precariousness of the article, and others are also helping to save it. I wouldn't be helping if I didn't think there was a reasonable chance of success, but by no means, so far, is success a certainty.--Abd (talk) 13:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That article cannot be saved - the sources just don't exist - I looked, I had one of my researcher looks. The author of the article and inventor of the language doesn't believe that the sources exist. Regardless of the "procedural" arguments here - this is very very straightforward, we cannot produce an article for a subject that reliable sources do not exist - that's as fundamental as it gets here. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The factual statement made by Allemandtando is true, sort of. We cannot keep an article for which reliable sources do not exist. However, the standard by which sources are judged to be sufficiently reliable is not, in fact, the guidelines, which are merely helpful suggestions indicating what the community is, exceptions aside, likely to judge acceptable or not. Sources which clearly meet the guidelines can be used, exceptions would be rare. However, this particular field is one where there is a great deal that is common knowledge among those involved with the field, which is never mentioned in our ordinary "reliable sources." It's hard even to imagine a newspaper article about mKR, unless some particular application appears and makes a splash. Which, in fact, may have happened already without any knowledge on the part of the language's creator, and that is why his apparent unawareness of sources is not conclusive. However, right now, sources which are commonly deemed acceptable in other articles on programming languages are being excluded with this article, based on rigid applications of WP:RS guidelines, which is actually an abuse of those guidelines. They are by definition not rigid. As one example, material from the official mKR web site is being systematically and ipso facto excluded as "self published," while WP:SELFPUB#Self-published and questionable sources about themselves would seem to, almost explicitly, allow it. I'm not edit warring over this, because I don't edit war, or even approach it unless the matter is crystal clear to me; however, at some point, some reference to the official programming language web site may be coming back into the article, and, I trust, if so, that it will be through community consensus. Which is the actual standard, no matter how much some editors may bite their fingers over it. Abd (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2008

The problem is that the link violates several of the criteria--(1), (4), and (7) in particular, and possibly (3) and (5) as well. With all due respect to rhm, this appears to be about an interesting but ultimately non-notable programming language. Horologium (talk) 15:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to WP:SELFPUB was about material being removed that was from the mKR web site, about the program, with the claim that it was unusable purely because it was self-published. The guideline has seven criteria, and it is entirely possible that there is material on that site which meets all seven criteria. It would seem that the claim of unusability is based on some preconception of how the site would be used as a source. Let's look at the criteria themselves.

1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;

This is an example of use, i.e., a self-published site might be used to establish notability for some other subject, under some situations. This would not apply to proposed usage of the official mKR site, it's an example of a guideline being worded in such a way that someone taking it as a rigid list could misapply it. This criterion might, in fact, allow usage of a different source, the lecture notes of a certain assistant professor known in the field. But that's not what I was discussing.

2. it is not contentious;

Check. (with regard to what would be used.)

3. it is not unduly self-serving;

Check. The mKR site would not be used to support "self-serving" claims; rather to support noncontroversial matters such as the design intention of the language, its history, etc. That there is material on the site which might be "self-serving," i.e., that might say, for example, "mKR is more intuitive than Resource Description Framework" or the like, which could be expected to come from an official site for a program, doesn't make it unusable for other purposes. Key is, "not contentious."

4. it does not involve claims about third parties;

Check. The mKR site would be used with regard to mKR and its design philosophy and history, not for information about other "parties." (Note that criterion 4 seems to contradict criterion 1. That's what we get by using the ordinary WP editorial process on guidelines; at least that's how it appears to me.)

5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;

Check.

6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;

Check.

7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Check. (As I stated, if this was the sole basis for the article, it would not suffice. (This criterion refers to notability, really, not to what sources can be used for the article. Another bit of bad writing for the guideline.)

--Abd (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My problem is this - if the only sources are self-published and we keep on that basis, then we are de-facto saying that self-published sources are enough for an article. This means that, this afternoon, I can knock up an official site about my new application "app X" - get three of my friends who are academics (and I used to be an academic so this wouldn't be hard to do) to insert it into lecture notes or self-publish a review of my app X on their sites - and tomorrow, I can have an article - because by the arguments being made here - that's plenty good sourcing - which is nonsense. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Horologium (talk · contribs) writes: "However, this particular field is one where there is a great deal that is common knowledge among those involved with the field, which is never mentioned in our ordinary "reliable sources." Actually, no. If this was a notable language, there would be articles in ACM SIGPLAN Notices or in Data and Knowledge Engineering. There would be accepted conference papers. Maybe a doctoral thesis or two. If it was widely used, there would be books about it, articles in Dr. Dobbs or IEEE Computer, and probably an O'Reilly guide. There would be blogs and forums about it, a user commmunity, bug trackers, and FAQ sites. I'm not seeing any of this, and I've looked. This just isn't notable per WP:NOTE. --John Nagle (talk) 15:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I didn't write what you had quoted; my comment got appended to an unsigned quote by another user (I believe it was Abd (talk · contribs)); I have reformatted my comment to more clearly differentiate it from the preceding statement, which was to what my comment was written in response. I agree with the assessment that the language is ultimately non-notable. Horologium (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could be. I think that if the article is given its best shot, it is still possible that the community will decide it is not notable. I'm only trying to help it get its best shot. I have leads on sources. They might exist. Remember, this is an old language, apparently, earlier sources may be difficult to find. There is private email correspondence with at least one expert, with more being possible. Let's see where it leads. --Abd (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an old language at all (10 years) - so I'm not sure why that is relevent or even claimed? --Allemandtando (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm wrong, who suffers? It's relevant because even ten years ago, some sources that either never were published on the web or were published but the sites are now gone, might not presently be findable. That doesn't make them unusable, it merely makes it harder to find them. This AfD is indeed wasting a lot of time, pointing out, once again, how a rapid renom is a Bad Idea. Simply allowing some time to lapse could make the next AfD either not happen (crackerjack sources are found, no claim that this is likely), or it happens and may be far less contentious (no process complication, and a definite set of sources, truly a "best shot," to discuss). I'm not predicting how that would come out, and, as I've written, I'm not placing or making any bets on it, except to say that if I thought it impossible, I wouldn't be wasting my time assisting McCullough, nor the time of the community in debating this here.--Abd (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What? what are you on about? that has nothing to do with my question or your assertation. You are claiming that the language being ten years old means that it is an "old language" - this is explictly your claim and is the basis for your special pleading about sources (that they are more difficult to find because of age). Fortan, Lisp, Cobalt are examples of languages that any objective observer would consider old (within the context of the field) - A language developed at the turn of the century is not old by any objective standard and special pleading based upon that factor should be rejected. --Allemandtando (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New section to aid in edits[edit]

Comment. I'm counting 11 Keep !votes and 9 Delete (including Userfy as Delete, which it effectively is, and I did not count the original author's Keep) plus the nominator. It's pretty unlikely this is going to close with a Delete consensus, though it's possible that an administrator could otherwise decide based on arguments. In which case, given what I've seen, it would probably go to WP:DRV, wasting even more time. I'm suggesting, folks, that we let this go for the moment. Those interested in helping improve the article, please do help. Those interested in seeing it disappear, save your ammunition until you know what you'll be shooting at. The final article, in a month's time or perhaps more (two or three months has been suggested by some), is unlikely to look much like the present one, and I expect it to be better sourced. Whether that will be adequate to satisfy the community, I can't predict at this time. My crystal ball is in the shop. --Abd (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote figures above are obsolete. I did a !vote analysis in Talk for this AfD, it's at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination)#Just for fun, did edit count analysis on the !voters in this AfD. --Abd (talk) 03:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can only describe the behavior of some contributors here as obstructionist. There is one factor to consider: Has this topic gotten significant coverage in non-trivial sources? Despite the obfuscation and obstruction, I think we have a pretty clear answer to the one relevant question. Nose-counting is irrelevant in comparison. Friday (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep, as this really belongs at Deletion Review. Ford MF (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Changing to delete and userfy. Procedure for procedure's sake can get a little Kafkaesque when the consensus is this clear. And given WP:SNOW and the creating user's now now documented penchant for cross-posting the same info across numerous platforms, I've been swayed towards delete. Ford MF (talk) 17:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For any "speedy delete" nominations, this article can be cited as justification for opposing it, on the grounds that they need 3 months to prove anyone aside from the author has ever heard of it. This really opens a can of worms. If that's what you want, you've got it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? What exactly is the harm in keeping this article around while the author and others look for sources? There are no personal attacks, copyright violations, or other potential legal problems, and the article is not so poorly written, self-promoting, or factually incorrect that Wikipedia's reputation would significantly suffer from hosting it for a little while. If Wikipedia's goal is to build an encyclopedia, prematurely deleting content is about as close to the antithesis of that goal as you can get. TotientDragooned (talk) 22:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have given me the exact phraseology I would use to defend most any article up for "speedy delete". Do you really want to be setting such a precedent? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look over the entire situation, you'll see that your suggestion doesn't apply here. It's generally reasonable to give these things the benefit of a little time. However, the author has had 10 years to find sources. He's in a very good position to know what sources are out there. We're already seeing the best he could come up with. No amount of special pleading is a good reason to set aside our normal standards. Friday (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also had 10 years to forget some of my sources. If you look at the latest mKR talk, you'll see a very different story. Rhmccullough (talk) 23:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's another aspect to independent sources. I'm an engineer. Most engineers are self-published. Only the professors in the universities are going to satisfy your independent source guidelines. So, if you want to keep those scruffy engineers out of Wikipedia, don't change your guidelines. Rhmccullough (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy. Lack of reliable sources, minimal claims to notability. Creator of language himself tends to give evidence against the inclusion of the article. Sadly, all that will happen is the AFD will get closed with a no consensus result, leading to DRV, potentially more AFDs... an admin just needs to IAR; delete, userfy and work with Rhmccullough to see if the article can provide better sourcing within a timeframe. If so, great, a good article. If not, then deletion willb e proven to be correct. Or is that too much of a common sense suggestion? Minkythecat (talk) 07:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:Minkythecat on userfying at this time (as I think I already discussed earlier). Dr. McCullough: If you haven't encountered the term before, "userfy" means that the article would be moved into "userspace" — probably at User:Rhmccullough/mKR (programming language) or something like that — rather than deleted outright. That gives you more time to figure out the sourcing rules and see if there's anything you can do to meet them. Note that pages can be (and are) deleted from userspace as well, but traditionally there is much more leeway there (and anyway, usually a deletion from userspace is due to copyright/libel issues or somesuch, which don't apply here). Userspace isn't an "article graveyard" where any article can be moved willy-nilly, but if you want extra time to find sourcing then this is as good a way to do it as any. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 08:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - while I agree with many of the points made regarding the encyclopedic quality of the article, I do believe the subject very much deserves an entry. (If the process suggests userfying then I won't object, though personally I believe a direct entry wouold be more appropriate). I'd hesitate to call myself an expert, though I do have had around 9 years direct experience with Semantic Web and related technologies (and for well over a decade prior to that was an enthusiast of AI and logic languages). While many in the Semantic Web community would disagree with various aspects of the approach taken by Dr. McCullough (myself included!) and find faults in the MKR language, the fact remains that this work is a notable and valuable contribution to the field - even for folks that hate the language, it offers a useful counterpoint to their own arguments. MKR does have several unique characteristics, although (IMHO) it's greatest impact in the Semantic Web community has been as a discussion-starter (which is again taking rather a negative view, but this in itself is notable). Unfortunately I can't find a way of filtering out Dr. McCullough's own emails, but if you read associated posts on the [email protected] mailing list [17] you will find plenty of said discussions. Assuming (as I hope) the article is kept, I will be more than happy to review it as an independent specialist (inserting appropriate references etc. as appropriate). Danja (talk) 13:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first comment from someone directly involved with the relevant community (Knowledge Language or Semantic Web). Having now taken a look at some of what is going on in that field, I agree with Danja that there is some reason to consider mKR important. My first look at the mKR language was that much of it was hard to understand, so I was skeptical of "user friendly," but when I looked at RDF, I saw what McCullough was getting at when he said that mKR was "user friendly." Relatively speaking, it is. By a long shot. Doesn't help us, though. If McCullough's memory is correct, there were independently-written reviews of mKR on two defunct web sites, one for Ralph Griswold and one for Brian Riley. We may be able to recover these from the Wayback Machine, if we can find the old URLs. I have never said that it's certain that mKR is notable, but that it will take time to tell. The author is *not* reliable in terms of whether or not such source exists. He's a retired engineer, if I'm correct, and not only is his memory sometimes unclear at first, but he may not have been aware of all reviews (and it is reviews that we are mostly missing. There are implied reviews in two sources that might be usable, and I just found another. But, so far, no detailed review that would be more clear for our purposes.) Danja apparently subscribes to the above mailing list; I might suggest that a request there for possible sources might turn up something.

Elsewhere there was reference to "spamming" mailing lists. I've seen some participants in mailing lists object to posts which they, personally, consider out of place, but when a formal objection was made, users essentially shouted it down. Some don't see relevance where others do. From Danja's comment above, that mKR is irrelevant may not be a majority opinion there. Looking at the list involved, I don't see any evidence of "spamming," beyond isolated comments, so that seems to be an inflammatory comment, which is unfortunate. It's irrelevant. We aren't proposing his posts, or the fact that someone responded in whatever way, as source.--Abd (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find appropriate references, that would be a start - in 4 days and 100s of posts not a single person has managed to do so. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the mailing list you suggested shows interest and discussion:

I would like to join Giovanni in expressing my concern that the larger body of subscribers to this mailinglist is not particularly interested in your contributions. Just some statistics: about 40% of the posts to the [email protected] mailinglist in the past 6 days were sent by you, none of which have received a reply.

Richard, are you sure your posts are appropriate in this ML While they might seem on topic, there is no reply nor hint of direct interest and they involve what appear to be idiosyncrasies and are anyway are hard to follow. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danja (talk · contribs) suggests that on the [email protected] mailing list [18] you will find plenty of said discussions. I looked there. There are indeed, such discussions. See, for example, [19] Unfortunately, the discussions are about how to get McCullocgh to shut up: "Dear Richard, Since the discussion about your contributions has been opened-up (yet again). I would like to join Giovanni in expressing my concern that the larger body of subscribers to this mailinglist is not particularly interested in your contributions." --John Nagle (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is really outrageous. Nagle gives us a reference to a post that duplicates what Allemandtando quoted. and not mentioned was the date of the post: 16 Feb. 2007 for the one ref'd by Nagle. That's a fairly active list, and lists like that will always have curmudgeons who will write like that. To really assess Dr. McCullough's work with that list, we would have to do more than comb it for negatives, we'd have to see what kinds of responses he did receive. Danja has claimed that his mail started valuable discussions. Is this a common discussion? How to get rid of McCullough? That's what Nagle implies with "the discussions are about how to get McCullough to shut up." That is a direct contradiction to what an actual participant claims to have seen. People who propose something different than what is standard often run into shut up responses. And all of this is irrelevant now. McCullough isn't on trial here. If he were, I'd take the time to examine the responses, McCullough has long participated in that list and in the list that preceded it.--Abd (talk) 18:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth are you talking about ? Those quotes from from the the link that Danja provides which is already flitered to show all posts on this matter - they are not from any of us going there and searching for dirt in the list - those are from the page you goto when you click the link and they already provide all of the posts. Are you actually READING any of those links or just posting for the sake of it? So what's it to be ? Danja selected that link because he knows what he's talking about or he selected it in error because he doesn't? We shouldn't highlight what's on the link provided as evidence of interest? The only outrageous thing here is the amazing level of wikilawyering to try and cover up the core fact that you are unable to find ANYTHING approaching a real source --Allemandtando (talk) 18:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has gone far enough. "wikilawyering" "cover up" etc. is personal attack. And I have no need to comment further here. I haven't claimed sufficient reliable source for the article. Yet. I've said exactly what the situation is. Allemandtando supposedly withdrew his nomination -- part of action to avoid sanctions, perhaps -- yet he continues to argue tendentiously and tenaciously for Delete. Enough. I'm working on the article, not a rapid renom AfD that shouldn't have existed in the first place, and would not have existed without Allemandtando's edit warring on the speedy close. --Abd (talk) 18:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably onto the reason that the author is so keen on getting this article to stick - because it would lend some "legitimacy" or "notability" to his computer language that is apparently otherwise unverifiable or nonexistent. Meanwhile, keeping this article would seriously undercut the basic axiom that wikipedia does not originate information. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an inflammatory comment, and irrelevant. The author doesn't appear particularly keen, he's actually quite laid back about this. He doesn't seem to have a clue about WP policy, and no suggestion has been made that Wikipedia originate information. The author's improper edits, true, did have that appearance, but he simply did not know how to go about doing what is possible here. The big hump to get over is notability, and if that obstacle can't be overcome, the rest is moot. The language has been "noticed," that's clear, and not just the negative notice that Nagle pulls out of that list. However, how deeply it has been noticed is another story. And I don't know yet if it has been deep enough. Danja's comment should really be read carefully, the only person here who has indicated familiarity with the field considers mKR to be important. It's possible, for example, that the article is improper (though I haven't concluded that yet, there remain tantalizing leads), but that mKR is still notable enough to merit a line or so in another article, such as Resource Description Framework or elsewhere. In which case we might be looking at a Merge and Redirect as an outcome.

If it seems that way, it's because I'm getting rather irritated. I've seen articles with better verifiability than this get shot down almost immediately. The arguments used to defend this article have nothing to do with the way things are supposed to be done on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but to be fair this AfD also has little to do with the way things are supposed to be done on Wikipedia. TotientDragooned (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to the fact that the first AFD was ramrodded to "no consensus" and then someone caught on to that and posted the second one that's being legitimately investigated, then I reckon you're right. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)Baseball Bugs is using the word "fact" to refer to his own unsupported opinion. The first AfD attracted little comment, so "ramrodded" must have some weird new meaning. The !vote was 3 Keep (included a Keep by McCullough, who probably should not have !voted, but since the whole AfD was first of all based on his COI, it was harmless) to 3 Delete, including the Nominator. The issue of sources, contrary to some assertions here, was clearly raised. One source mentioned is the "original 1997 announcement of mKR and mKE," which is, in fact a usable source. One Delete comment specifically mentioned that "sources are all debatable, none seem notable." The other two Deletes didn't go specifically into lack of sources, but "non-notable, obscure," (nominator), and the other Delete was "per nom" and repeated the "non-notable, obscure" comment. The AfD was filed 08:01, 15 June 2008 and closed 21:54, 20 June 2008 (UTC) with the comment that the "article should be cleaned up." The nominator did add a comment that more vigorously asserted the sourcing problems.[20] So the claim that the original AfD didn't consider sourcing is just plain false. It's true that there has been much more examination of sources here. Too much, too soon, probably. If there is another AfD, a proper one this time, and better sources haven't appeared, the next AfD will be pretty simple. This one is complicated because it's out of process, and because some of us prefer to give articles the benefit of the doubt and some time for research into sources. In a month, the presumption will reverse. Proper AfD process minimizes wikifuss, and this is why we should strongly discourage rapid renomination, it attracts flies. This was all over AN/I because of the edit warring over the attempted close, which would have saved many hours of editor time (and the nominator had an AN/I section named after him the day before, edit warring with a different administrator, different article.) I'd say, let this stand as a lesson: don't allow rapid renomination, period, end of topic (absent true emergency, and in that case, an admin can simply delete pending discussion). DRV is the forum for dealing with alleged improper close. DRV might have decided to reopen the AfD to gather more !votes, or it could have decided other things.--Abd (talk) 20:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the lesson to be learned is to not be in such a hurry to close the original AFD, and to investigate the issues properly, which was obviously not done, or we wouldn't be here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Involved here is a totally wrong-headed understanding of how AfD works. The AfD was open for five days, the standard time. The administrator looked at it, and probably at some of the sources, and, without making it into a major research project -- which can take *days* with something like this, if one wants to be thorough -- made the decision. The process depends on the community doing most of the work. An administrator is not expected -- and it might even be a bit improper -- to take a major interest and do tons of research. The closer was reasonable, even if incorrect, which is debatable. The proper procedure would not have been to keep the AfD open, for the time had passed, but to make a decision, which the admin did. And then if someone came across it, as did Allemendtando, and disagrees with it, there is DRV. DRV could have decided to reopen the AfD, and then we'd have had, I'd guess, far less drama here, because the problem of process violation would not be afflicting this. It would be purely about the sources. There is no way to predict how a re-opened AfD would have gone. This AfD has attracted a lot of participation, I suspect, because of the AN/I report. All that I can tell, for sure, is that this is an example of how poor process can waste enormous amounts of editor time. Friday, above, was wrong. Keeping this open has caused harm to the project. The search for better sources for the article had already started, there were editors involved who know the policies and guidelines, and if they come up empty after a month (or the "eight weeks" that Allemandtando stated as his intention, above), then the conclusion would have been simple, and far less editor time would have been wasted debating process and speculating about sources (either way), and teetering into incivility.--Abd (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with Abd. Baseball Bugs is wrong in his earlier comment and has his characteristics reversed. The only ramrodding done relative to this article was done by this nominator in engaging in an edit war with Al Tally to push this 2nd AfD through despite it's clearly process abusive nature. This AfD is a rogue deletion discussion without any legitimacy. The 1st AfD did bring up the issue of sourcing, as Abd pointed out, but the participants put most of their argument strength into the COI issue. That's bad debate strategy, and it failed. Too bad, they had their chance. The first AfD close was proper and legitimate considering the strength of argument. It had nothing to do with ramrodding. If there were issues with that close, DRV was the proper path, not forcing another AfD within four days. What's next, renominating the same day if an article fails deletion? There are good reasons to not allow frequent and too soon renominations. This AfD ignored those reasons and is disruptive to Wikipedia. This really does highlight the need for policy/guidelines on renominations. In the last comment, Baseball Bugs does have a point about investigating all the issues properly in the 1st AfD. They should have, but they didn't strongly enough, although they had the usual five days. And the proper path to remedy that perceived issue was a DRV, not ramrodding a 2nd AfD that's illegitimate without proper process. That's the point and the lesson to be learned. — Becksguy (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're hiding behind "procedure" when you should be focused on the fact that this article has no business being here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comment about hiding behind procedure betrays a serious misunderstanding of what process and procedure is. That's arguing that the ends justify the means, that process is just speed bumps or impediments on the way to the goal, or just a technicality. That is conceptually the same as allowing the justice system to bypass due process protections in the real world. After all, the defendant is guilty anyway, right, so what's a few cut corners in the interest of expediency and getting the perp into jail. So a search warrant wasn't obtained, so the defendant wasn't given Miranda rights. Wrong! Due process is the foundation of the social contract. Same here. Without process and the trust that process is followed, there is no Wikipedia, as a collaborative project this massive absolutely requires it. That's the major issue at hand here. You can't get to the goal without going through proper process. And if process is violated and corrupted, as it was here, then the conclusion is compromised, since the process becomes part of the conclusion or goal. If the DRV had been initiated, maybe we would be at the 2nd AfD anyway, or maybe the article would have been userfied, or the close endorsed. But if there was a 2nd AfD, it would have been a legitimate one that followed process. And all this drama and disruption would have been avoided. — Becksguy (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you all had done the AFD correctly in the first place, you could have avoided this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danja's comment should really be read carefully, the only person here who has indicated familiarity with the field considers mKR to be important. is an attempt at an argumentum ad verecundiam, it's irrelevent what anyone who claims expertise thinks of it - all that matters are reliable sources - and the mail list provides a) doesn't demonstrate that and b) doesn't even demonstrate the point that Danja was making - in fact it provides more evidence of the non-notability of this language. --Allemandtando (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mKR and epistemology (theory of knowledge)[edit]

I hope I'll be successful in creating a new section here, because scrolling through the hugh volume of edits is getting out of hand. Rhmccullough (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Dr. McCullough, I'd recommend you avoid much comment here. Without being familiar with Wikipedia standards for notability, you have some tendency to shoot the article in the foot.--Abd (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I don't give a damn. I'm tired of every important point being censored out of existence.Rhmccullough (talk) 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion above, several people had called upon me to comment. So I put together my ideas, and I was able to preserve them in spite of the edit conflict. My remarks are about 1 page long, and I would like to "enter them into evidence".Rhmccullough (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever anyone is ready to listen to me, let me know, and I will paste my remarks into this page. Rhmccullough (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments are, of course, always welcome. It's worth mentioning however that you do not need to defend MKR, or claim new relevance in another field (epistemology). What is under discussion here is the ability to produce reliable sources that document the encyclopedic notability of the subject. Ford MF (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Dr. McCullough, there is one thing you should understand. You certainly understand mKR more than any of us. But you don't understand Wikipedia and Wikipedia process. Nothing is being censored. Everything written here is preserved, period. Even if an article is deleted, it isn't actually deleted, and you can't be "tired of" important points being censored when that kind of deletion hasn't happened yet. If we can't find sufficient proof of notability, it will. You've been told, over and over, how to avoid problems with edit conflict, and, apparently, you haven't understood them. Stop. Listen. Try to understand. And, no, do not "enter into evidence" here 1 page of ideas. Click on the Talk page for this AfD and put it there. Then post a short link to it here. You are free to ignore my advice, but I don't recommend it.--Abd (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just saved my one page in my own user space. As things have gone so far, you don't have to delete it, because no one is ever allowed to look at it. It might as well be deleted. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, but I did listen. That's how I was able to save my one page, even though there was an edit conflict. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my one page, I tell you why mKR is notable and important. The innocent man is supposed to have his say before he's hanged. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did I just hear you tell me to put my 1 page on the Talk page, so people can read it? I would be happy to do that. That's quite different from being told I can't show it to anyone, which has been my understanding up until this time. Rhmccullough (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. I'll go away & you can talk to me later.

We might as well break all the censorship barriers today. This is what I wanted in the article, but was not allowed to be used: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rhmccullough/Sandbox/History Rhmccullough (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon me for all the interruptios, Ford.Rhmccullough (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the "userfy" suggestion someone made would, if adopted, see the article moved to a subpage of your user space. Anyone can look there, it's just not in mainspace - there's no restriction or ban on it being viewed or anything else. I am more inclined to keep for a period to see whether we can get this sourced, but my initial looks on Factiva and Gale Academic OneFile were not promising. Orderinchaos 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Has anyone looked at the print sources provided? Are we just arguing about this because there are no internet sources? I think I misread a comment above that stated the sources were directory listings, which now I think means google-able sources, rather than the print textbook ones provided. Ford MF (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall seeing any print sources that allegedly mention mKR. Print sources have been used for concepts mentioned in the article, those sources (such as Ayn Rand) presumably don't have any reference to mKR. If I'm wrong, certainly, there might be some print source or sources. Part of my operating hypothesis is that there may be sources that are not googleable. I already have reason to believe that to be true, but I haven't recovered them yet, and don't know how usable they would be. It takes time.--Abd (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to "directory listings" there are on-line lists of programs considered important by certain experts, but "how important" is not necessarily clear. mKE appears in a number of such lists. There are a number of sources that each show some notability, but none that, by themselves, show it. And the collection is ... not clearly good enough yet, in my opinion. There are a couple of leads I'm following to sources that *might* be enough. The Wayback Machine doesn't have everything, though, and finding stuff there when you don't know the URL can be tricky. Last I noticed, they didn't have a search engine going for the archive. Maybe that's changed. --Abd (talk) 20:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for one second. I thought you were talking about Googling my website when I left. Just be aware that it may not be entirely successful. There are some pages which are not linked into any of the web pages. Rhmccullough (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm talking about using the Wayback Machine (google that if you don't know what it is) to find web pages from web sites that don't exist any longer. You have mentioned a couple of web sites that don't exist any more. But you have never given URLs for them. Now, please, let's not discuss details here. This AfD is already way too long. And the comment in this section about censorship is just plain silly. You aren't being censored, and you always could have put anything you wanted, incivility or a few exceptions aside, in your own user space or in Talk or in Talk subpages (as I did by creating Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources. You can use your sandbox as you did, or just create a file in your user space. But you can do just as well or better putting it up on your own web site and pointing us to it with a URL. Your reasons for creating mKR and your philosophy, in my opinion, are important for background, but we cannot use stuff you write here on that in the article. Maybe if you put it on your web site we can use it, in certain restricted ways. I've now explained this to you more than once, and it's getting a little irritating.... --Abd (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Getting the right answer is important[edit]

Please don't try to make this about anything other than getting the right answer. Doing what's right for our content is always more important than procedural objections. To endure this huge mess-of-an-AFD and then not try to arrive at the right answer would be a real shame. Whether the search for sources is driven by DRV or AFD is a minor little detail. Friday (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that getting the right answer is important. However, there is also the question of how we get the right answer. The most important thing happening now is the research into sources. There *are* additional sources. And speculating here about them, or even reporting them here, is a waste of time, because there are obviously users here who will argue, intensely, against about anything that could be considered as weakening their argument, if we look above. So I'll leave it at that. I have *some* additional source, and I'm working on more. I'm going to put it with the article, either in Talk there or in Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources, first. What I have *so far* and I have not exhausted all leads, is probably not going to ultimately satisfy the community, I would guess. But it's more than was available when half the !voters here voted for Keep at least until the next AfD.--Abd (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Response to Friday - you can probably guess what I am going to say, but let's get it on the record anyway. "Getting the right answer" is not all that is important here - that is an "end justifies the means" argument which can be used to justify any amount of disruptive behaviour, as long as the disruptor says "But my intentions were good". What is important is "getting the right answer through the correct process". The correct process here was DRV. By defending this invalid AfD, you are defending the nominator's disruptive hebaviour, which includes reckless re-nomination (ignoring the first AfD and DRV process), edit warring, unfounded accusations of personal attacks and misuse of the "right to vanish". Better that we give a [borderline but not outright offensive article the benefit of the doubt than that we condone such behaviour. Wikipedia procedures exist, in the most part, for sound reasons born of past experience, but editors who find them too onerous to follow are always free to leave the project. Gandalf61 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that an "end justifies the means" argument could be used to justify disruption. Fortunately, this is not at all what I'm doing. I'm not in favor of disruption; I'm against it. The worst disruption I could see happening here would be for us to endure this preposterous mess of an AFD, and then have process wonks derail it through endless filibustering. We don't filibuster here, and we don't let technicalities tie our hands. As for other questionable behavior, sure, there's been bad behavior in many places... so what? We don't throw the AFD process out the window just because someone misbehaved somewhere. There is a good answer to be found here- you just have to look past the irrelevancies and wonkery. Friday (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Response to Friday - so you are in the "we all know this article is guilty so let's just get us a rope and string it up from the nearest tree" camp; whereas I believe that the "wonkery" and "technicalities" of due process are what makes Wikipedia a civilised community. We will just have to agree to differ on that point. Gandalf61 (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's nothing nearly as dramatic as all that- at least in my opinion. It's simply a case of dispassionately evaluating the sources available. If we really were talking about a lynching, I'd be in favor of stricter rules, as you might find in a legal system. But, we're talking about a run-of-the-mill editorial decision- thousands like it are made every day with far less pomp and circumstance than this. Wikipedia is not meant to be a system or law, or a circus. I just wanted to plead for the jugglers and dancing girls to not get in the way of folks seeing the essential relevant facts. Friday (talk) 18:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Let's recap a few relevant facts. The nominator initiated a second AfD without bothering to check for a previous AfD; when this was pointed out they edit warred by re-opening the AfD twice, instead of going to DRV; they made unfounded allegations of personal attacks; and they refused to reveal their other account(s), spuriously claiming a "right to vanish" when they have clearly not vanished. Do you really mean to condone this behaviour just in order to secure the deletion of a borderline article ? Gandalf61 (talk) 18:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I do not. As I tried to explain, I'm not condoning anyone's behavior. I don't care about it right now- it's not relevant to the important question. Bringing up irrelevancies is why I've describe some of the behavior here as "obstructionism". The second AFD has been discussed, and there was substantial support for letting it run, because the first one didn't do what it should have done. A deletion review might have been better, but that's not what happened. It doesn't much matter whether we use form 12A or 42B. We can consider the relevant issues without worrying much about technicalities. Friday (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you say - you don't care about the nominator's edit warring and disruption; you only care about deleting a trivial and borderline article. Sorry, but I think your priorities are dead wrong here. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think defending a trivial and borderline article is a high priority, I don't know what to tell you. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, please do not try to confuse the issue by mis-stating my position. Where exactly have I defended the article ? I have always said that this AfD is procedurally invalid. The merits of the article are irrelevant. What is important here is the edit warring and disruptive behaviour of the nominator. Gandalf61 (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Defending the integrity of Wikipedia process is very important. Compared to that, this article could be here or be gone, it makes almost no difference. So, my question: why so many insisted on keeping this can of worms open? In a month (my suggestion) or two (Allemandtando's suggestion), the article will go the way it will go without fuss, almost certainly, and it would have done that without this AfD. If we want to do a post-mortem and assign blame, it would be about AN/I, where editors ignored edit warring (major issue, harmful to the community) and started asking about and debating notability (not an issue for AN/I at all). It's a point to watch in the future.--Abd (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're worried about fuss? You've been one of the leading contributors to the fuss, here. You can stop the fuss at any time; it's all on you. Friday (talk) 20:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about process that creates fuss, not about specific fuss. Sometimes you've got to make a little fuss to stop a lot of fuss later. And I learn from this. Next time I see an abusive nomination, *I'll* close it. Or reclose it. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So let's get this straight - edit warring is bad, but you'd edit war to close an afd ...em...kay..kids...--Allemandtando (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, Allemandtando will edit war to keep an AfD open, he did it. I would not edit war either way. I would make a single edit, as an independent judgment. When I saw Allemandtando revert Al_tally, I almost pressed that Undo button. I shoulda done it. Not edit warring. Rather one editor confirming the judgment of another. But that isn't what I was referring to above, I was referring to an ordinary action closing an AfD as being an improper nomination. Any editor can do that, it's not edit warring. Reverting it might be, if one is the nominator. Reverting it twice definitely would be, and that is what Allemandtando did.--Abd (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been cut a lot more slack than it probably deserves, so simmer your complaining and get about the business of demonstrating notability. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware that I've complained about anything? Okay, I'm complaining now, I'm positively whining: "Where did I complain? Mommy, he said I complained. Tell him to stop." And, remember, I care more about our process than I care about the particular article. I'm doing what I can to help the author find sources. It takes time. And, I'm sorry, I'm not going to search for sources for mKR eighteen hours a day....--Abd (talk) 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, every minute you spend responding to others cuts into the time you should be spending finding some evidence that this article belongs here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I hadn't noticed (until it was pointed out on the talk page) that I had not explicitly !voted to delete, so consider this to be a formal !vote. Based on the lack of genuine, independent sources, I do not believe that this programming language meets the notability guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Under Notability, the fifth bulleted point in the "general guideline" section states "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. There is precious little here that meets that. All four references have nothing to do directly with the subject of the article, but rather with concepts that are asserted (by the author) to be represented in the language. There is no independent coverage of the language itself, which is the benchline for verifiability and notability. Without that, it is simply an interesting collection of Original Research, which is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep One could make a case the article probably isn't noteable, but then again its a bit borderline. But in any case, saying keep because I disagree with renom so soon after original AFD. --SJK (talk) 14:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out of interest, how is an article that is original research and doesn't have a single source considered borderline? --Allemandtando (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, you want to know? I've got to assume that, AGF. The article has sources. The sources are borderline, so far. As borderline sources, if they are put in the article, they are removed by Allemandtando, among others, who then can say, with a straight face, "It doesn't have a single source." The removals are justifiable, on the face, because of strict application of guidelines; but guidelines have exceptions, which is why rough consensus is our actual standard, not guidelines. Because this article is under AfD, I'm not inserting these sources at this time, which could create a senseless edit war (senseless if the article is then deleted); rather the sources are referred to, some of them, in Talk for the article and in a Sources file under Talk. This is the essential problem: if mKR is notable, then -- as well as the independent sources -- the official mKR web site is a source that can be used for some statements about the program. If not, not. So the question is: is it notable? Until we have, at least, an operating presumption from the closure of this AfD, it's a waste of time to try to improve the article, or even to cut it back to a proper stub. I do think that if sufficient notability can be shown for Keep, and that's a community decision, not my own, then there is more than a stub here. I agree with SJK, precisely. One could make a case that the article probably isn't noteable. And then again its a bit borderline. Clearly borderline? I didn't say that, neither did he. Come the next AfD, it will all, I predict, be clear. What I don't care to predict is what that AfD will decide. It will have the benefit of extensive efforts to find sources for notability, I can say that. If those extensive efforts fail to establish reasonable grounds for notability, then the decision will go one way. And if the community is satisfied that Wikipedia is better off with the article than without it, it will go the other. That last, question, by the way, is a variation on Rule Number One, WP:IAR, lest we forget it. I am not arguing that mKR is notable, I have only argued that, one, it is possible that it is notable (but not clear, i.e., "borderline"), and two, this AfD was an abuse of process and improper and is only here, continuing to waste editor time, because Allemendtando edit warred to keep it so and AN/I got distracted over the notability issue, which had nothing to do with the report there. The Keep comments here are almost entirely on procedural grounds, because the procedure is designed to make a decision and stick with it long enough for an article to improve. Keep (or more accurately, here, No Consensus), with a marginal article, which the original AfD recognized as such, is a decision, not to ultimately Keep, but to allow an article time to breathe. Got it? Do I need to repeat this?--Abd (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't pose the question to you and have no interest in reading your very long-winded diatribes. --Allemandtando (talk) 15:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what policy is being cited in support of this "give an article time to breathe" stuff. I have seen national news stories killed as articles on the grounds they weren't "notable". This debate has been going on for a week or more, and nobody has found anything. What's so special about this item? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The policy cited is WP:DEL in which it says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. I also included that policy reference in my Keep vote. — Becksguy (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind the next time a well-documented national news story gets targeted for deletion on the grounds that it's "not notable". The question in this case, though, is how long is needed to "improve" the article, i.e. to prove it's notable? Another week? A month? A year? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we consider policies and guidelines as a whole, rather than taking one sentence and pretending it tells the whole story. If someone makes an article that says "Billy and Bobby are the two kewlest kidz in Somewhere High School", this article could be improved by fixing the spelling. However it's still not something we want to keep. Friday (talk) 18:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. And we consider guidelines in the context of actual community practice. If someone makes that article about the kewlest kids, and that's it, like Friday describes, I'd !vote Delete without a hesitation, but it wouldn't even come to that. The article would be speedied, and we would only see it here if there was some serious resistance, and the chance of that article surviving its first AfD would be about zero. Unless. Unless some sources were asserted, enough to convince the !voters and ultimately the closer that there is No Consensus to delete, as a minimum, and therefore the article does have a reprieve. By giving an irrelevant example like this, Friday shows that, in spite of the age of his account and his huge pile of edits, he really doesn't understand, still, what's going on here. The big issue here isn't the notability of the article. It's the process. I describe the process and its justification, Friday and others respond with arguments about the notability of this article. Which is almost irrelevant to the process at this point. There is a very strong reason for disallowing rapid renom, *regardless* of the alleged non-notability of the article, notability is not an inherent characteristic of subjects, it is a community judgment. And the community doesn't want to be asked the same question over and over, day after day, it wants, obviously, to see better evidence, and it takes time to develop that. An allegedly non-notable article, such as the one before us, does practically no harm beyond some speculative "If he's allowed to get away with this, droves of creators of non-notable articles will appear and cite this AfD as precedent." And that wouldn't fly, as Friday would know. Whereas wasting community time answering a question that it just answered a couple of days before, does real harm. Want to think of this AfD as a possible precedent? Think of what happens if it closes Delete. Every AfD that doesn't close Delete can then come up again, rapidly, with what are really the same arguments (the problems with sources were asserted in the first AfD, contrary to some comment here), and more and more time would be wasted arguing over what would better be decided after a decent pause.

Baseball Bugs asked above what policy was involved. It's, in fact, WP:Deletion policy, Deletion discussion, which lays out the procedure to follow. From it: If there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging or redirecting as appropriate. and Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome. And then, next section, Deletion review, spells out what to do if one disagrees with at deletion decision. And it most definitely is not immediate renomination.

There is nothing in there about "If you think that the article is blatantly non-notable, that the closed AfD was decided by a bone-headed editor who obviously disregarded policy, guidelines, and just plain common sense, why, then, renominate immediately, why wait for such an obviously non-notable article." No. If you should think that, there is (1) discussion with the closing editor, who may change his or her mind, and (2) Deletion review. And you could go even beyond that, to ArbComm if need be. What you can't do or at least shouldn't do is edit war over a closure by an editor who is clearly following Deletion policy in closing a rapid renom. --Abd (talk) 19:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have seen a number of admins protesting this AFD, noting that a previous AFD had just closed. However, the previous AFD was closed by a non-admin, who had been deeply involved in editing the article, who placed the retired template on his user page 20 hours later. (and stopped editing the following day.) The only abuse of process involved was in the first AFD. This might have been better as a DRV, but I suspect that that will happen soon enough, because I don't see either side letting go here. (And yes, I am including myself in that last statement.) Horologium (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen anybody argue here that taking the first result to WP:DRV would have been improper. It is commonly possible to assert some defect in a closure, so that cannot be taken as a reason to allow rapid renom. For Holologium to claim that the "only abuse of process involved was in the first AfD" is preposterous. The first AfD may have been improperly closed -- I have not investigated that, and there are some problems with what Horologium asserted, on their face, but I'll note that this is the first time that the defects Horologium alleges have been brought up. And the remedy would have been WP:DRV or maybe a revert of the closure (not an edit war over it), if the closer was COI. If contested, again, DRV would have been the forum for dealing with it. What was most clearly improper here was edit warring over the speedy close of this AfD, and the failure of AN/I to respond to the report to prevent this monstrosity from growing; instead, certain editors very active here successfully distracted AN/I by arguing notability there, and the original report, about editor behavior was lost. The only proper issue for AN/I was the edit warring, period, AN/I is not intended to deal with content issues. If this AfD closes with Keep, I'd be astonished. If it closes with No Consensus, I'd say that the closer pinned it. And if it closes with Delete, I have no fixed plans. I have no personal attachment to the article, but a great deal of interest in seeing that Wikipedia process functions effectively and efficiently. --Abd (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, User:Diligent Terrier was not "heavily involved in editing the article" before closing the AfD. Five minutes before he closed the AfD, he placed a COI tag on the article; I'd assume he was considering the AfD and was looking at the article, so he popped it down. This is "heavily involved"? As to the rest of the claims, they are moot, and, specifically, any experienced editor may close an AfD if it is not Delete, and I'm worried that Horologium, an administrator, wouldn't know that. --Abd (talk) 22:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, he added a COI tag, closed the AFD five minutes later, and then made 14 straight edits to the article, plus a pair of edits to the talk page in a 23 minute span. The involvement was after the non-admin close, but clearly was related. You need not worry that I don't understand procedure, thankyouverymuch. Any non-admin may close a debate if it's not controversial, which this was not. The fact that he announced his retirement precisely 19 hours and 24 minutes he closed the debate is cause enough for concern, and it was only when I realized that nobody had addressed any of this that I decided to bring it up here. Everyone is so wrapped up in this AFD that they never bothered to really look at the first. Horologium (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that was a non-admin close. It is clearly contraversial, and the close should have been immediately reversed, but this AfD "poisons the well" against that one being handled properly. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought somebody would interpret Wikipedia:Non-admin closure that way. The "Appropriate closures" section doesn't list a No Consensus closure as appropriate, but the "Inappropriate closures" section likewise doesn't list it. It wasn't "clearly controversial" when closed. The AfD was pretty peaceful, actually. That nobody brought it up before now that he wasn't an administrator shows to me that this is pure wikilawyering, looking for a procedural defect, when it is actually irrelevant. Perhaps we should discuss this at Wikipedia:Non-admin closure, because the interpretation here by two administrators is troubling. There is a good reason to limit Delete closures to administrators, but no good reason to limit non-Delete closures the same way. Administrators, in theory, have no superior editorial privileges. Just more buttons. And buttons aren't needed for non-admin closures. Just an understanding of how to do it.

And I totally fail to see what the retirement of the closer has to do with anything. Besides, he isn't completely gone. Lots of people looked at the first AfD, but they didn't check admin status because nothing looked that unusual. The closure was procedurally correct on the face, I'd argue, and his not being admin, and deciding to help the author of the article after closure, (mostly, by the way, telling the author, no, you can't say this and you can't say that), are just what I and others have been accused of blowing: smoke. Utterly and totally irrelevant. DRV -- or possibly reversion -- would have been the remedy, and if User:Killerofcruft hadn't disruptively nominated here, that remedy would still be open. The close was not "immediately" reversed, because nothing looked wrong about it, that is, even if we accept that non-admins should not close a No Consensus AfD, we know, we all recognize, that the closure made was one that many admins might have made. It was only when this huge flap was made over the renom that all this attention was focused on it. Otherwise it was just a routine, ho-hum, No Consensus closure. If I'm wrong about that, any diffs? --Abd (talk) 00:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, it nearly slipped through virtually unnoticed, despite the lack of any evidence that it belongs in wikipedia. The editor is to be commended for raising the red flag and not allowing the spammers to get away with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Procedural wanking aside, it seems that no one – including the creator of the language and preeminent expert on the topic – has been able to come up with the sort of verifiable and independent sources that we demand for our articles. It strikes me that there has been plenty of opportunity to provide sources during both the previous and the current AfDs, and the article has received a great deal of attention. Eventualism is all well and good, but eventually we have to acknowledge that an article can't be fixed and isn't suitable for inclusion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I simply looked at the article as it is now, I'd consider !voting the same way, except that the procedural question is a critical one. Look at the article now, no sources. However, there are no sources because they have all been removed from the article by editors active here, on the claim, true in some cases and possibly not in others, that they weren't usable. Resolving questions like that takes time. I don't want to go through the trouble of properly sourcing an article under difficult conditions while there is the threat of immediate deletion hanging over it. Too many times I've done it, actually found reliable source, put it in, and then the AfD closed Delete because, after all, so many had already !voted Delete. Sure, I could have gone to DRV. If I cared that much about the article! I choose my battles. Most of what I've found is in a subpage, just for showing notability, nothing else, Talk:MKR (programming language)/Sources, at the top, and I haven't completed the task of looking over all that was removed, or following other leads, that may or may not pan out. Properly, we'd have a month or two. It is clear Deletion policy that TenOfTrades is dismissing as "procedural wanking." So ... given that there are policy disagreements here, maybe some can start to understand why I'm bothering to participate, and why I might be starting to analyze what is going on. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much policy wankery, as ToaT has noted. None of the sources that were removed were acceptable sources, which is exactly what this whole debate revolves about. You accuse those of us who support deletion as wiki-lawyering, but your arguments (which are starting to become a bit tendentious) are advocating ignoring policy and allowing unverifiable, unsupported, non-notable OR to remain on Wikipedia. Without trying to become melodramatic (probably too late for that), why bother having any policies at all if they can be dismissed by allowing something that violates so many of them? If you disagree, please specify which sources you believe are acceptable, and why they are so. Please identify at least one source that is not self-published which discusses this programming language; I haven't seen any yet. Without independent sources, there is no justification to retain this. It's interesting (on a philosophical level), but there are plenty of things that are interesting that don't belong on Wikipedia. Horologium (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, my position, and that of many Keep !voters, is that the notability of the article is actually irrelevant here. This is an out-of-process AfD and should have been closed, and could still be closed, as such. The whole point of having clear process is to avoid discussing things more than necessary. But, since Horologium asks for one source, what could be the harm? There was a newsletter on ICON published for years by Ralph Griswold, and he or a co-editor chose to publish a description of Knowledge Explorer that had been provided, the editor noted, by McCullough. This wasn't self-published. It was a newsletter edited by a notable expert. It isn't, as some have claimed, a "Letter to the Editor." It's an article, albeit brief.[21]

There is only one editor who has !voted here who has knowledge in the field, and that editor, User:Danja, a very long-time Wikipedian (October 2002), claimed that mKR "is a notable and valuable contribution to the field," based on personal knowledge (nine years of involvement with the development of the Semantic Web), and offered if the decision was Keep here, to help "as an independent specialist (inserting appropriate references etc. as appropriate)." It's worth reading the whole diff.[22] --Abd (talk) 03:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That reference that Abd cited is sufficient to establish notability for the purposes of this AfD as a reliable source. The subject of the article is not controversial, and sourcing is required when the material is challenged or is likely to be challenged, per verifiability. Sourcing is not required for every single fact or for every single reference. Nor is it desirable, as it would heavily salt and pepper articles with inline footnote refs all over the article, which would violate style and make it hard to read. Since this is not an article with BLP or copyright issues, sourcing is usually less stringent than for controversial articles. Granted the more sourcing the better, up to some reasonable point.

The nominator was willing to give it eight weeks to find reliable sources when he withdrew the nomination, and I thought that was generous. We probably all have had articles either deleted or kept that we believed shouldn't have been. A lot of it depends on who's on the jury, so to speak. I argued strongly to delete a non-notable movie still in production, without any sources but what were essentially two trade magazine press releases in my view, and yet it was kept. So go figure.

Much of the debate here is goal focused thinking vs process focused thinking, which are different thinking and problem solving modalities. This AfD is not just what some might call a typical Deletionist vs Inclusionist debate, I think. And I suspect the difference in thinking modalities has been the source of some of the view point differences.

There are eleven editors that have expressed process concerns, including the admin that properly tried to close this AfD at inception, Al Tally [23], and an editor that only commented [24] in the ANI thread I included below. Several of those editors voted to keep on a procedural basis (including me, although I also invoked WP:DEL). All in all, that shows a very significant community concern with how this AfD violated process. This AfD indeed "poisons the well" and that's why it should be closed as withdrawn or no consensus, or just aborted. My guess is that this will go to DRV no matter what the close. I feel for the admin that gets this to deal with.

— Becksguy (talk) 04:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That citation is a piece written by its proponent. If that's the best you can do for a citation, you're on very thin ice. Has anyone besides the proponent directly written about it? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Something seems to have been missed here. "Proponent" is irrelevant. This isn't politics, and it isn't about a controversy. This is another version of the COI issue that was claimed to have derailed the first AfD. Who wrote that article isn't relevant. The article was published independently, not by the author. The author isn't the "proponent," he is the designer of the program, describing in an accepted and published article what the program does, and the article was published in a print publication edited by a notable academic. Is this the "best" that can be done? I don't know. Did you actually read any of what I've written above? No obligation, of course, unless you care about actually understanding what's going on. Baseball Bugs has "spam" on his brain, so he's thinking of everything in terms of "promotion," and thus, since the creator of the program is COI, everything he's written is suspect. However, COI actually has nothing to do with sourcing policy when the topic isn't controversial. COI means that McCullough probably shouldn't edit the article directly, unless it's clearly not likely to arouse opposition, he should leave that to others. But this is true for the author of any article that is cited as a source, the author shouldn't be the one to put it in, especially if someone protests. I was asked for one source, not self-published, as a challenge. I met that challenge. Clearly. Now, this wasn't new. It was already described in the Sources page I've written about several times here. It's not the only source. But this AfD is out of process. Nobody should be having to defend the article's sourcing here, so I'm not putting more time into it. I could run into edit conflict on a close any minute! I hate that! --Abd (talk) 06:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This citation does not pass the "reliable sources" rule as I understand them. And to call the COI question a red herring is itself a red herring. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's my understanding as well that an article in a reputable journal, regardless of the article's author, counts as an independent source for the purposes of notability. TotientDragooned (talk) 07:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have anything like that - we have a descriptive account supplied by the author of the article published in a self-published newsletter by someone who'd retired ten years previous. That does not in any way, shape or form represent a "journal" type source. --Allemandtando (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Allemandtando's enthusiasm for discrediting sources using whatever argument he can find to throw at them leads him to exaggeration. He should be more careful. The article suggested as source is not "Self-published," i.e., published by the author. The newsletter is published by the publisher, like any publication. The editor and publisher (holder of the copyright) was Ralph Griswold, and he retired in 1995, not "ten years earlier" than the publication date of 1997, as claimed by Allemandtando, and I fail to see how his retirement affects his notability as an expert in the field. He died of cancer in 2006. The newsletter was a print publication, real paper, we only have web copies for the last issues. See [25] for more details and URLs.--Abd (talk) 14:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that this reference qualifies, but if the experts think it does, then they will probably win the case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The voice of consensus just spoke.--Abd (talk) 13:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would likewise question whether a "newsletter" like this qualifies as a valid source. How is it any more valid than a blog, for example? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of ANI thread into this AfD[edit]

The WP:AN/I thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive438#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MKR (programming language) (2nd nomination) that was opened (and never closed) on this AfD is included herein by reference. — Becksguy (talk) 03:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down!!!![edit]

I'm amazed that this AFD is getting so much heated discussion. I've seen it before on highly contentious issues, but over such an obscure topic? (And I say this as someone who understands, mostly, what the page is talking about.) Maybe everyone should take a break, and come back in a few weeks? I'm not even sure how someone could be possibly close this AFD, its just too verbose to digest. And that's part of why I said Keep above, not because I think this article is necesarily worth keeping (my original comment that it looked "a bit borderline" was based on a rather cursory review -- having reviewed it a bit more, I'm more doubtful than I was earlier about its value) -- but rather simply because I think people need to step back for a little while, let the status quo stand (basically once an article exists, keeping is then the status quo), and then come back in a few weeks, give its proponents some chance to try to improve it, and I'm suspecting if I notice it then, I might well give a different opinion than I did this time. --SJK (talk) 11:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, SJK. This, in fact, is what I've been arguing. I'm probably far more familiar with the sources, though, and I can't tell how it is going to play out, with respect to the notability issee. Given that we have a !voter familiar with the topic who thinks that mKR is important, we may indeed be able to find sources. We have a defacto process here of vetting sources by editorial consensus, which, in fields where almost all knowledge exists only on-line, explains why articles in such fields are often less sourced by what is RS elsewhere, but editors knowledgeable about the subject have agreed that the material is not controversial, well-known. Definitely, there are problems with this, but I don't think the best solution is to toss out the baby with the bathwater. Sustained editorial consensus among knowledgeable editors is, in fact, quite reliable, even more reliable than peer-reviewed publication. (which involves acceptance by a small, sometimes biased, review board). What is really going on here, what has attracted such extensive comment, is a confrontation over process. It's not the article, and I've been saying that all along. It's the process. AfD process *must* be efficient, or it becomes quite harmful. We need to address the policy over rapid renomination, probably, and nail it down so that closing rapid renoms doesn't get bogged down in debate over notability. It shouldn't be a debatable question, it should be clearer than it is. Even though there was clear policy violation in the edit war over fast closure of this AfD by an admin, that didn't make clear what to do once the damage had been done and people started to comment. I'll be suggesting that a time limit be set, and that to open an AfD before that limit would require DRV, clearly and explicitly. Other issues have been raised here, as well. Do non-admins have the same editorial rights as admins? Tradition has been that they do, except where buttons are required, but Wikipedia:Non-admin closure can be read otherwise. Should debate over notability be allowed on AN/I? Indeed, AN/I has become quite dysfunctional because of all the noise. What can be done about that? Etc. The debate here is not stupid, it only seems stupid if we think it is only about the article. That would, indeed, be stupid. All this time over a marginally notable article? (Whatever, we think, the claim that there are "no" sources simply wasn't true; the real question is whether what there is, is enough, and sufficiently reliable. Probably if sourcing had been considered more closely in the original AfD, the article would have been deleted, I can easily agree with that. But the article at that point had been put together by a COI SPA editor, the programming language's creator, who had no idea about how to go about sourcing and what was usable and what was not, and the closer specifically noted that the article needed cleanup, which will, if we do as you suggest, and simply what policy already required, result in an article with the best available sources, and participation with knowledgeable editors like Danita, making an ultimate notability decision far easier. I've put so much time in here, not because I'm attached to this particular article, but because issues are raised which are really very important. And, indeed, I regret the inconvenience to the closer. As we confront the realities of the massive increase in scale that has descended upon us, we will find ways to do this much more efficiently. Largely, we are reinventing the wheel, there are better ways known, if we realize that our problem isn't a new one.--Abd (talk) 13:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided waaaay above are quite weak and hardly fit for Wikipedia. The article itself is short and doesn't give that much information.--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 14:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think whoever closes this AfD deserves some sort of award (regardless of what result they see)! Is there a medal for "Courage Under Verbiage"? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and a cake. and a party hat --Allemandtando (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed...--Xp54321^{(Hello! • Contribs)} 14:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a reminder in their electronic to open a new AFD after sufficient time that no one can complain that it was "too soon". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject has yet to receive non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can someone cite the rule as to the minimum time before a new AFD can be posted? I'm not finding it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DP does not define a specific minimum time, but it does say "Renominations: After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." (my italics). Gandalf61 (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, the complaint that this quick renomination violated process is a false claim. There is no specific minimum time period. It's a judgment call based on circumstances, not a rule. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already posted the above text from DP in response to the same inquiry before. *Nobody* has argued here that a couple of days is a "reasonable time." Try it. What is the shortest "reasonable time"? Three days? One day? One minute? The policy is, like many WP policies, deliberately vague to allow some flexibility. Yes. There is a judgement call involved. Where does that call take place? Not through edit warring and AN/I. It takes place at WP:DRV. Either for the first AfD (best) or for the renom, once the renom was made and closed. It is this kind of tendentious argument that is causing me to believe that a major portion of the problem here has been the behavior of Baseball Bugs, which I believe a careful review will show. It was his intervention at AN/I that immediately derailed what was actually urgent, edit warring over a speedy close, turning the AN/I incident report into a notability debate, which should not have been allowed, period. Relying on a loophole in the policy as if it were some kind of proof that a preposterously short interval is allowed is pure wikilawyering of the worst kind.--Abd (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's generally not good to immediately re-AFD something that just had one. However, in this case, as already discussed elsewhere, the first AFD was handled poorly and did not result in a proper investigation into whether the article should be kept or not. It would have been better perhaps for it to be relisted with proper instruction into the relevant issues, rather than being closed as a no consensus. However, this isn't what happened, so here we are. Friday (talk) 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Deletion Review would have done is speculative. The AfD was proper on its face. Relisting was a possible option for the closer, in order to gain wider comment. But he did not choose that. Some closers would, some wouldn't. The close was well within normal variation. Even before Deletion Review would have been simply asking the closer to change the decision. The nominator here knows that's possible, because I'd done it the day before or so, much to his chagrin. (A Merge decision was changed to Keep or No Consensus -- which is Keep, effectively.) (He edit warred over that as well, but he backed down.) In any case, if *anyone* had thought the original close was not proper, before this one was filed, they could have reverted it (once). But the time had elapsed, there was actually No Consensus. I think that close would have been sustained at DRV, unless it, too, got distracted by hand-waving, but that's just an opinion. The only reason this AfD got a lot of attention and created such fuss is the fallout of the edit warring and the AN/I report. What Friday misses is that, contrary to what he's claimed, the most important thing is not to get it right. That is, not to get a provisional, temporary Keep "right." If this article were truly some kind of danger, it would have been speedied out of existence immediately. It is essential that deletion process not take up undue time, there are so many articles being considered. After all, it is being asserted that this article isn't notable. It is also not being asserted that it is actually harmful. As has been pointed out, it exists, and there is, in fact, clear verifiability source for that, without question. The only question is whether it is sufficiently notable to warrant an article, and we have found that, if we take the time to do it right, -- which means waiting between renoms -- again and again, an ultimate consensus appears and the matter is settled. We do not want, generally, to second-guess closers, so unless a closing is clearly improper (not merely "wrong"), it is discouraged to go to DRV, it is, in fact, suggested to wait to renom. It makes for much less fuss. Friday eventually tried to assert, above, that the original closing was improper because the closer allegedly had worked intensively on the article, which was, simply, not true at all. A mistake. It didn't happen. (When this was pointed out, Friday then said, "Well, he worked on it intensively after the close." Which means? It means that he's a helpful Wikipedia editor! There are people actively making up new arguments here, trying to support a fixed and prejudicial conclusion, and that is part of the problem. --Abd (talk) 17:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's edit warring to keep this AfD open instead of taking the issue to DRV certainly violated process. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I question his approach, but his points were valid. There is yet to be any evidence presented that this article belongs on wikipedia. And that's where the focus should be. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) It is totally normal to believe that an AfD came to the wrong conclusion. Indeed, the focus should be on notability. But through process, not through chaos and rapid renomination; there is clear consensus that rapid renomination is abusive and a waste of time, and if we try to debate each possible exception we waste even more time. So we focus on notability by following process. A second AfD, after perhaps as little as a month, it's unclear, (I think two months would have been fine, as the nominator originally suggested when he attempted to withdraw) would have focused entirely on notability, particularly if the article wasn't in active flux by then and had settled, with sources, such as they exist. That required wait isn't some detail of the policy, it is crucial. There is a class of editors who make deletion of non-notable material into a kind of battle against the forces of darkness. "Spammers" is how some commenting here have put it. For them, any delay is intolerable, "the spammers are winning," hence the sense of emergency, the drive to "get it right," not be distracted by "process wonkery," or mere details like precedent and orderly procedure. I'm glad I'm not going to close this AfD! However, how this AfD closes will have almost no effect on whether the article is here or not three months from now. But the process precedents will. If this closes with Delete, we will have rewarded edit warring on a proper speedy close. How much damage that would do is unclear, but I can guarantee this, seeing the other editors involved: It would be tried again. If this closes as No Consensus, which is accurate, or Improper Nom, there may still be more fuss, but at least it will be within process, I assume. And if it closes as a simple Keep, well, I'd be astonished. There clearly is no consensus on that. And, of course, then there are the arguments.... --Abd (talk) 17:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Revert non-admin closure, and note (as a comment to this comment) that a non-admin closure as no consensus is almost always wrong. I'd be willing to accept the closure of this one provided the first AfD is reopened as having a prima facia invalid closure. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supporting what Abd said. There is already substantial community consensus that this rapid renomination was unreasonable and out of process. Yes, the minimum period between renominations is a left as a judgment call for flexibility. But that judgment, as all judgments are, is subject to what is called a reasonable person standard or rule. That is, what would a impartial, uninvolved, and reasonable person do in the circumstances. So the "false claim" claim by Baseball Bugs doesn't have legs. With eleven editors expressing process concerns, some rather serious ones, the community has spoken very clearly on this part of the issue, if not on the notability part. — Becksguy (talk) 18:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the first AFD had no business being closed, this one is effectively a continuation of it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:02, 30 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 merge to Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yoram Rubin[edit]

Creator contested prod. Subject fails WP:N. Should redirect to Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, as this event is his only claim to notability. Nudve (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I objected to the deletion. I do not object to a merger into Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, if this is what you suggest. gidonb (talk) 11:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. Feel free to merge. -- Nudve (talk) 11:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment now merged, per WP:BOLD. Speedy close. Ohconfucius (talk) 12:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would have voted weak keep, but this is a good compromise. Thanks everyone for cutting back our red tape! gidonb (talk) 13:01, 24 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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rotalic[edit]

Rotalic is afaik not a common used term in typography. Afaik it is only used to describe the work of Filip Tydén as mentioned in the article. Christoph Knoth (talk) 10:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interesting and curious but not notable. The author, Hugo Timm, is (according to Google) an associate of Filip Tydén, and this is the only wikipedia article Hugo Timm has edited. Filip Tydén's own web presence has him graduating soon and looking for a job. With all due respect, etc, this does not add up to much. --Lockley (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A well written albeit short article that fails WP:RS. If this were notable as with italics or Small caps there would surely be articles or book refs (I couldn't find news or book mentions but my searches were brief) This may become notable but WP:crystal applies. Here's a blog that refs the article (scroll down for the entry), and I found that blog from another blog creating circular referencing. Faradayplank (talk) 22:36, 29 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. WP:V is determinative here; the sources may be "out there", but they are not in the article, where they count. Unsourced content should also not be merged. I've discounted this utterly unreadable comment. Sandstein 22:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Ecbatana[edit]

No content except for info box. This is a re-creation of a speedily deleted article. I'd improve it but I can't find any sources for such a siege. Doug Weller (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very weakly. This is an ancient battle for which sources are sparse, but it appears to be at least alluded to in the Chronicle of Nabonidus. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It isn't clear that there was a battle, and I don't see how you can besiege a country either. The text of Nabonidus says "Cyrus marched against the country Ecbatana; the royal residence he seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Ecbatana he took as booty and brought to Anšan." I'm not saying there wasn't a city called Ecbatana which was the 'capital', just that there isn't any evidence for either siege or battle in Nabonidus. Cyrus may not have had to fight at all. If this belongs anywhere should be just a short mention in the Cyrus the Great article. Doug Weller (talk) 15:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If such event had simply taken place it would certainly be notable - but that's a big if. I've been unable to find any reference in google books of a siege or battle of Ecbatana in 549 or 550; thus I believe this article is probably just a mistake, or a free extrapolation of the creator of the article.--Aldux (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No content. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero reliable or verifiable sources to establish notability of subject. This article doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Artene50 (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - We have a short article Ecbatana, which describes it as a walled city which Cyrus the Great took and plundered. From what is stated above, it seems we have no details as to how he took it - whether by siege, storm, or plain surrender. Accordingly, there is little known fact to write an article about. Accordingly, redirect to Ecbatana. Alternatively substitute "Capture of Ecbatana" for "Siege of Ecbatana" in the template and then delete. Certainly there is no place for this to survive as an article, though the campaign leading to its capture does legitmately appear in the Cyrus template, which is all wew have on the page at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So far I have not found any specific reference to a siege there, but I am still looking. Though some of the potential sources are online, I'd be happier with a proper print search, but that will have to wait for next week. The name seems to have been used for the city, the country around the cite, and the palace. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ecbatana, naturally. Tan | 39 23:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is small but as was said above, it is about an ancient battle that does have few sources out there. It can be expanded as more becomes available. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment We have 2 sources, Ctesias and Herodotus. Neither of these suggests it was a siege. It was part of the Persian Revolt and belongs either there or in Ecbatana or both. What I have found is that Ctesias says Ecbatana was surrendered to Cyrus after he threatened to kill Astyages daughter [26]. So, not a siege. Doug Weller (talk) 05:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ecbatana with use of Capture instead of Siege. Britannica mentions the fall of Ecbatana to the Persians (Cyrus) and Herodotus mentions the city surrounded by 7 walls. The idea of the city being sieged is plausible, however, the article is just too weak in its current format to justify anything more than a mention in Ecbatana. I'm somewhat partial to a rename to Capture of Ecbatana as mentioned above, but at this point without more sources and info I think this stub would find a nice home a section within Ecbatana, particularly because that article could use some expansion as well. Expand Siege/Capture article at a later point if required or general Ecbatana info becomes too cumbersome. Just keep it altogether at the moment. Interesting one though! Note for researchers, don't forget this city carries several names: the modern "Hamedan" and the Old Persian, "Hâgmatâna" ("meeting place"), so more may be found there. Trippz (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the creator of this article, I have gathered information from this page and from other notable sources which is presented here. This user is also open to the idea of renaming it as RAID or CAPTURE, raid might be better. And from the Babylonian tablets pertaining to Ecbatana, notice it says the words MARCHED AGAINST, SEIZED, CAPTURED, TOOK. Babylonians, because they have an archaic language, and middle English is used for most translations, never use the words Siege of Ecbatana, they use seize though, as SEIZE in military terms basically means SIEGE. Ctesias says he took it, and by force as provided by this user, simply means Cyrus must have gone to some length to successfully control the city. When Ctesias says it, he may have meant the inner walls, and this is not speculation, as Ecbatana has inner walls to the main city, just like Babylon, it was multilayered. Now, he had threatened to kill the daughter, because he could not find Astyages, and Spitamas lied or gave Astyages up, as one may know, Spitamas was a Median noblemen married to Amytis, the daughter of Astyages. So Cyrus executed Spitamas and others. And on the Persian side it is unknown how many died in this minor siege, if not a RAID. But, this might not have been a siege parse, more like a raid, which there WAS CASUALTIES, by very, very few in number, maybe only a couple of people. So as most historians say Ecbatana was not besieged, they are only referring to Herodotus' version of events, so the best I can give this article PERSONALLY is a RAID, but the ONLY reason I call it a siege is for it to have a normal title. Ecbatana is similar to Siege of the Sogdian Rock, in Alexander’s battles, Alexander had 300 men, and only lost 30 men on the climbing, and the city was BARELY besieged, it immediately surrendered, almost like Ecbatana, but its still called a SIEGE! Please someone explain it to me, as you know I model the Cyrus articles on Alexander’s, because Alexander’s article is much more complete than Cyrus'. Anyways, if one checks out Alexander’s siege, they will see what I mean. For now, please read these three sources and more sources are to come.

[[[1. http://www.lastgen.net/articles/biblecharacter-cyrus.html Excerpt: Unable to carry out the inhuman act, Harpugus secretly turns the child over to a Persian herdsman and his wife. And the boy, Cyrus, grows from a helpless infant into a fearless hunter. Gaining the confidence and respect of all Persia, he leads a revolt and storms the city of Ecbatana.

2. http://books.google.com/books?id=0c_fbw5RaCkC&pg=PA591&lpg=PA591&dq=cyrus+siege+of+ecbatana&source=web&ots=jl83Cbq_Co&sig=DCDnVkg-TcBB8c5tYEXfXBEurnI&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=4&ct=result Excerpt: Says on page 591, Cyrus had to take Ecbatana to be called the ‘Great King’.

3. http://www.parstimes.com/library/brief_history_of_persian_empire.html Excerpt: Faced with the Persian revolt and the betrayal of the aristocracy, Astyages was captured, and the royal city of Ecbatana had to SUBMIT to Cyrus, according to Ctesias because Cyrus threatened to torture his daughter Amytis, whom Cyrus later married.]]]

Now these are common sense comments from most users that responded on this page;

Keep. Very weakly. This is an ancient battle for which sources are sparse, but it appears to be at least alluded to in the Chronicle of Nabonidus. The text of Nabonidus says “Cyrus marched against the country Ecbatana; the royal residence he seized; silver, gold, other valuables of the country Ecbatana he took as booty and brought to Anšan." *Comment - We have a short article Ecbatana, which describes it as a walled city which Cyrus the Great took and plundered. From what is stated above, it seems we have no details as to how he took it - whether by siege, storm, or plain surrender. (ACTUALLY, BASED ON SOURCES, STORMING AND SURRENDERING TOOK PLACE), accordingly, there is little known fact to write an article about. Accordingly, redirect to Ecbatana. Alternatively substitute "Capture of Ecbatana" for "Siege of Ecbatana" in the template and then delete. Certainly there is no place for this to survive as an article, though the campaign leading to its capture does legitimately appear in the Cyrus template, which is all we have on the page at present. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)*Comment So far I have not found any specific reference to a siege there, but I am still looking. Though some of the potential sources are online, I'd be happier with a proper print search, but that will have to wait for next week. The name seems to have been used for the city, the country around the site, and the palace. DGG (talk) 18:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Keep. It is small but as was said above, it is about an ancient battle that does have few sources out there. It can be expanded as more becomes available. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2008 Merge. To Ecbatana with use of Capture instead of Siege. Britannica mentions the fall of Ecbatana to the Persians (Cyrus) and Herodotus mentions the city surrounded by 7 walls. The idea of the city being sieged is plausible, however, the article is just too weak in its current format to justify anything more than a mention in Ecbatana. I'm somewhat partial to a rename to Capture of Ecbatana as mentioned above, but at this point without more sources and info I think this stub would find a nice home a section within Ecbatana, particularly because that article could use some expansion as well. Expand Siege/Capture article at a later point if required or general Ecbatana info becomes too cumbersome. Just keep it altogether at the moment. Interesting one though! Note for researchers, don't forget this city carries several names: the modern "Hamadan" and the Old Persian, "Hâgmatâna" ("meeting place"), so more may be found there. Ecbatana is the original name. Trippz (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because sources are so sparse, and everyone copies each other, a mere imply or suggestion by the ancient historians must be taken somewhat seriously, and currently there are 7/11 replies that are in favor of either keeping or renaming the Siege of Ecbatana!.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Janera.com[edit]

Non-notable -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 10:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - appears to be simply a social networking site and has no references. Orderinchaos 17:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no refernces, no claim to be notable --T-rex 18:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per non-notable websites clause. Ironho lds 14:13, 27 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 22:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nbtah[edit]

The only references I can find to Nbtah as an Egyptian city seem to all trace back to this article. Tanis was the capital at this time. This isn't even OR, it's just something made up. Doug Weller (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and lack of WP:RS I know much about Egyptology and have never heard of this city. Secondly, Egypt's political capital from 945 BC until c.740/730 BC was Tanis; the Libyan Dynasty 22 kings are buried here. So the article's info. is all wrong. The 46 Wikipedia results [27] come from either forum sites or mirror sites of Wikipedia (like answers.com) Leoboudv (talk) 10:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not an expert on this time period, but there seems to be no info about this city anywhere, and this article contains such a small amount of information that it's impossible to use it as a starting oint to gain info. (Is Nbtah an ancient name? A contemporary Arabic one? etc. And the Sais article states that the capital before Sais was Tanis, it does not mention Nbtah at all.) – Alensha ^talk 22:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the Sais article, I changed Egypt's previous capital city from Nbtah to Tanis because Tanis was Egypt's capital from 945 to 740 BC. I have never heard of a city called Nbtah. If it was Egypt's political capital, it would definitely be mentioned in the history books but there is nothing on it. So, I think Nbtah is someone's mistake. Leoboudv (talk) 00:59, 26 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. Wizardman 17:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace Next Top Model[edit]

Contested prod (presumably by the creator while logged out) - Appears to be a out-and-out hoax. If not it fails verifyability from reliable sources and most other things Peripitus (Talk) 10:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as hoax. Claims to be produced by Saleisha Stowers (a real model), but Stowers has a Myspace page which makes no mention at all of this. Note that author's only other contribution is adding similar misinformation to the Supermodelo article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is conspicuously absent, both from the article and any attempt to confirm this independently. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom --T-rex 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I recall an article on this topic previously being deleted (however can not find the record of this) --T-rex 18:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 24 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, fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John P. Paone Jr.[edit]

Article appears to be a vanity piece; notability is not confirmed in the article (as of this writing) Ecoleetage (talk) 09:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - An article about J.P.P. Jr. written by username jpp1234? Obvious WP:COI problems there. While Paone Jr. can easily be found via google, picture included, I could not turn up any non-trivial reliable sources to establish notability. --Millbrooky (talk) 00:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Changed my vote to weak delete per my comment below.[reply]
Delete as a non-notable autobiography. No sources to establish notability, as Millbrooky points out. --Bfigura's puppy (talk) 03:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article would need to be drastically rewritten and sources added, but it does include credible claims of notability in terms of media coverage and honors in his profession. Alansohn (talk) 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since my original vote, the article's author (the subject's nephew), has added a number of reference links. The majority of links simply verify the number of organization to which Paone belongs to or the awards he has received. While the list is impressive, I don't believe either one is significant enough to warrant keeping the article. One reference does point to the NY Times, but only Paone is simply representing that article's subject with a quick quote and the not the subject himself. --Millbrooky (talk) 22:31, 26 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 --JForget 23:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dimension X Advertising[edit]

Fails WP:Note, references are "in passing" Blowdart | ^talk 08:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. A publicity business using Wikipedia to generate free publicity for itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Serious conflict of interest having the article written by the company, and fails WP:N --Matt (talk) 14:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Nothing but an advertisement. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 16:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost all the article creator's edits here have been on this company. It looks like WP:SPAM to me. Artene50 (talk) 06:22, 25 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 unanimous vote and WP:BIO/WP:ATHLETE --JForget 23:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radosav Petrović[edit]

Football player who fails WP:ATHLETE as has never played in a fully professional league (the best he's managed is the regional 3rd division). Was originally prodded, but removed (without explanation) by article's creator. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for now as he hasn't made his pro debut yet, although he has only just signed for Partizan in the last few days. Judging by the coverage his transfer has on the team's website, it seems he could very well feature in the first team this year (I know thats just crytstalballery on my part) so this article would probably be recreated in the next few months as and when he makes his debut. Bettia (talk) 11:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Recreate when/if become notable. Giant Snowman 16:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ATHLETE is quite clear. --Angelo (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 21:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE as well as WP:FOOTYN. He is not notable. GauchoDude (talk) 18:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is yet to appear in a fully professional league, as far as I can tell, and is therefore non-notable. Dancarney (talk) 10:12, 30 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 Alex Muller 06:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Paper Mario 2[edit]

Will perhaps be notable in the future, but for now, it is based on rumour and speculation. Toytown Mafia (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: User:Toytown Mafia did not tag the page with {{subst:afd}}. I have done so now. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Toytown Mafia (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a crystal ball. JIP | Talk 16:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - articles of this type need solid reliable sources --T-rex 18:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:CBALL. MuZemike (talk) 22:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL Artene50 (talk) 09:31, 25 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BSA Twin Tower[edit]

Appears to fail WP:N. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs help in rewritting it. FYW09 (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. A former condominium converted into a notable shopping mall due to low tenant turnout. Starczamora (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sorry but I can't find reliable sources that discuss the mall in general. The closest source that I got is a brief mention here in Manila Bulletin. According to that article, the mall was created on 2005 so I think there should be more online references to assert its notability. I would downgrade to weak delete had this mall been founded earlier as there are scant online Philippine references that is dated in the late 90's and early 2000's.--Lenticel ^(talk) 12:48, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this will be saved, better move it to St. Francis Square. --Howard the Duck 07:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Weak keep St. Francis Square would be a better title for this article. However, while the mall is well-known as the tiangge mecca of Ortigas Center, unless enough independent sources can be found, I cannot give much support to this article with regards to this AFD (to note, most info on this particular mall is concentrated in the Philippine blogosphere). Likewise, St. Francis Square has a website. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:46, 22 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, jonny-m t 07:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to St. Francis Square; there is notability in reliable sources under that name (via Google News). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:43, 24 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 as Sri Rajarajeswari Peetam (already merged). Not eligible for speedy deletion, as such, discounted. — _Maggot^Syn 13:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sr Rajarajeswari Peetam[edit]

Non-notable temple, fails WP:ORG, WP:V. Only 19 Google hits, including this article, the temple's website, and so on. No reliable sources proffered or seemingly extant. RGTraynor 07:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete "X is very notable" is an entirely trivial assertion of significance. Beyond that, there's nothing to indicate that this passes WP:CSD A7. Tagged as such. deranged bulbasaur 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/move/merge I soon found a reliable source which I have cited. Note that the article title seems to contain a typo - Sr rather than Sri and this will throw searches off. We also have translation issues to consider - Hindi sources ought to be searched too. This article and author seem to be new and so seems to need some nuturing rather than being stamped on. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the speedy. Found one ref [28]--Tikiwont (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll refrain from restoring the speedy tag to make a point, but I believe that your removal was in error. A7 is about assertions of notability, and the inclusion of such assertions is its test. The article still does not include such an assertion. The existence of sources found through web search has no bearing on a test that is contingent on the current content of the article. deranged bulbasaur 16:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A temple asserts notability by virtue of its intrinsic holiness. CSD A7 is weaker than your interpretation and is intended only to screen out very mundane matters. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supposed holiness is not an objective property of entities that can be used for evaluation of their encyclopedic suitability. deranged bulbasaur 16:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is holiness not an objective property of entities??? Holiness doesn't even need reliable sources at all, it just is. It is all around us. We are all ONE!!! This is objectivity at it's strongest. Wow, I am amazed and in a complete state of awe because of the holiness!!! Love the holiness. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. Such places claim to have divine associations or spiritual sanctity and so they are usually treated with respect and deference. They therefore have a status which places them above ordinary dwellings or commercial establishments. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holiness is a very strong arguement - especially intrinsic holiness! And, since the issue is beyond "very mundane matters," all editors should proceed with caution as this article concerns the holiness of Sr Rajarajeswari Peetam. Let us all take a while and reflect upon the importance here, at this very holy time during this very holy Afd discussion. I feel sacred to be apart of this process. Thanks to all the holy editors. Ism schism (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to argue whether the original content would justify a speedy deletion or not. But, to quote the respective policy "Deletion is not required if a page meets these criteria." And i think in this case we're better of with continuing this already existing discussion to assess whether or not we should have an article on this topic, than with the simple decision-making process of speedy deletion. --Tikiwont (talk) 08:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Have you yet formed an opinion for the AFD process? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete Non notable with no reliable sources, which has been very difficult given the holiness factor... Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the article cites a reliable source, your comment should be dismissed as unreliable. Are there major schisms in Hinduism which explain your prejudice? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My prejudice, as you say, is against poorly written, non notable, non referenced articles - and the editors who support them with useless statement after statement of empty words. Ism schism (talk) 12:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability and verifiability is extraordinariliy strong due to the subject's inclusion in a 2004 Oxford University Press source. So unless there's evidence of wantont bad faith, I must say keep. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What I linked above is actually an article excerpt of ~~the mentioned~~ a 2005 academic study by Corine Dempsey that is also mentioned in Shaktism.--Tikiwont (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this study as additional source to the article. It is also from Oxford University Press. A preview that indicates that it is an in depth coverage of this particular temple can be found here.[29]. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:39, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above reference mentions this temple in a chapter in a book published by Oxford University Press. The temple is not the subject of the book, nor even the chapter - the chapter is a story about people moving into a new temple. This reference lets us know that the temple exist, but it does not explain how it is a notable temple - as the subject of this chapter is NOT about the temples notability, but is a story about a move from a garage to a proper temple structure. This is a passing reference for the temple itself, one that is concerned with specific people, and does not establish notablity on the temple itself. Were this a chapter in a book on notable Hindu temples, then I would agree. But as it is, there are no references that establish notablity on the temple itslef. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the other source, "Diaspora of the Gods," only mentions the temple in one sentence - out of an entire book. This is a passing reference as well. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Diaspora of the Gods," only mentions the temple. If i look at the publishers' page of "The Goddess Lives in Upstate New York"[30]] , it is listed as "profile of a flourishing Hindu temple in the town of Rush, New York" and the cited reviews there call it "Dempsey's study of an unconventional, but successful, Hindu temple community in upstate New York" and "Corinne Dempsey's study of the Rush Temple in Rochester, New York" respectively. I understand that there is a large part of additional material in the book than solely about 'the temple itself', whatever you may mean by that, but unless I am mistaken about the identity of the temple it seems really to be about a case study on this temple, its rituals, its guru and its community. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of Dempsey's studies on temples in "Upstate New York," this story about certain people and their move to New York is relevant. This chapter could be used in an article on "Hinduism in New York." Though, in the context of notable temples, this one does not have much notability aside from this study. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Hinduism Today link is a reprint from a page of Dempsey's comments on the temple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete A passing mention in a reliable source, or two, is a much better argument than holiness. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure if the move to Sri Rajarajeshwari templeis helpful. I'd moved to Sri Rajarajeswari Peetam where the original creator has created a duplicate instead of joining this discussion.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is all under the one heading now. We probably need another move to Sri Rajarajeshwari temple (Rush, NY) but this should do for now. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete Part of the subject of one study, but aside from this; there is little to no scholarly attention and the article is not the subject of significant media attention. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 15:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An OUP book specifically and exclusively devoted to this particular temple is surely enough for notability. This very much amounts to scholarly attention. Given the additional material as well, there really should have been no question on this after that reference was added.
Keep Cant argue with da DGG. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the importance it gives to the Srividya worshiping society, that is not very big as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.195.240 (talk) 19:40, 29 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 Moot since the factual record has changed underneath the AFD. This closure expresses no opinion on the relative merits of the original contention and its disputants. deranged bulbasaur 09:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tada Station (disambiguation)[edit]

A disambiguation page is by definition a page that provides readers with possible resolutions of an ambiguous search term. If none of the articles referenced in a "disambiguation page" exist, then it fails to comport with the definition of a disambiguation page since no resolution of the search term is possible. If it is not such a page, and it is in article namespace, then it must be an article. This article fails to assert notability and has no sources to establish verifiability. deranged bulbasaur 07:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:22, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But having this page hurts no one, no? What is that we want to achieve by deleting this page? (Deletion doesn't save a disk space, by the way.) On principle, articles that don't belong to Wikipedia have to be deleted. This disambig page does belong to Wikipedia because eventually we are going to have those articles on stations linked in this page. Also, notability or verifiability is really applicable here because this is a disambig page. Disambig pages, by their nature, don't need to be sourced or to be on notable topics. -- Taku (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:HARMLESS. Also, for the foregoing logically derived reasons in the nomination, this article is not a disambiguation page. If you contend that it is a disambiguation page, please justify how a page that does not disambiguate can be a disambiguation page. deranged bulbasaur 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: What a pointless exercise. I agree with the editor that wrote: "There are going to be the articles of this name. So, it is pointless to delete this page." in the edit summary when he removed the earlier PROD tag added by User:Deranged bulbasaur. Maybe User:Deranged bulbasaur would now like to close this AfD himself. --DAJF (talk) 11:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I decline. deranged bulbasaur 15:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly agree with DAJF's pointless exercise comment. In this case, the legwork done by the article's creator would also save duplicitous effort in the future: If someone were to create the Tada Station article that is already linked from Tada Jinja, the name would violate the Japan trains wikiproject naming convention, and be moved to Tada Station (Hyogo) anyway. Having the DAB pages in place keep that from happening, as well as eventually fulfilling their real job of disambiguation (as Takuya wrote) as the project works towards making the article set more complete. Neier (talk) 14:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you mean duplicative, not duplicitous. deranged bulbasaur 15:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still trying to reconcile the claim that "none of the articles exist" with the fact that one of them does, ~~and did at the time of nomination.~~ Ah, well. In any case, both stations can easily be verified as existing, and since train stations are both de facto and de jure wikinotable, it can be readily assumed (without resorting to original research) that eventually the other will be created, at which point a disambiguation page will be needed. Nominator is right that by the letter of policy, a dab-page for only one extant article should not exist. The question at hand is whether to insist on deleting now and recreate the page come the needed day, or decide such wikilawyering is more tendentious than useful. Personally, I hold the latter: keep as the dab-page it's intended to be. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Check again. The article was created since the nomination. I went ahead and struck your manifestly false claim, since falsehoods contribute nothing to the discussion, especially those that impugn the actions of other editors. deranged bulbasaur 18:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Gah. You're right. I misread the time-stamps. My apologies. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Especially now that there's at least one of the two articles created. I think the authors in question deserve some leeway. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: now that at least one of the articles exists, I see absolutely no reason to delete. Scog (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is a disambiguation page. The fact that one of the articles does not YET exist is no reason for deletion. Its existecne may even encourage some one to write the missing article. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Interestingly enough, the fact that there are no articles by that name or only one article by that name is more of a reason for having a dab page versus where there are two articles by the same name. If there are two articles by the same name, all that is needed is a hatnote on each page pointing to the other page, thus making a two-entry dab page extraneous. However, when there is only one article, it would be inappropiate to have a redlinked-hatnote, thus giving a basis for a dab page. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it now clearly disambiguates. Nomination appears to have lost validity. The desired effect has perhaps been achieved, or at least halfway so. --AndrewHowse (talk) 04:47, 25 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 but could barely meet WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hot Karl[edit]

Contested prod. There was once a different article by this title deleted or redirected, but it did not have anything to do with the musician named "Hot Karl". I do not believe that this artist meets WP:BIO due to a severe lack of non-trivial coverage. JBsupreme (talk) 07:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep According to the article, he meets WP:MUSIC; he's signed to EMI. Also, someone fix this AfD please? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The criterion you're looking for is number 5, which says in relevant part: "Has released two or more albums on a major label." I see no assertion of the release of 2 or more albums on EMI. deranged bulbasaur 07:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete You are of course absolutely correct; I must've mixed up WP:ATHLETE with WP:MUSIC. Obviously this guy doesn't meet the appropriate criterion. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no indication here of meeting WP:MUSIC. deranged bulbasaur 07:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Barely squeaks by WP:MUSIC criteria nos. 1, 5 and 10. Was featured in a significant video game title, has been signed to EMI and indie label BBE, and has recorded two CD's (albeit one unreleased). See here for more. Groupthink (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Not to be a jerk, but point 5 requires that second album be released per WP:CRYSTAL. Point 1 may not be satisfied as your link may not constitute a reliable source, and alone doesn't constitute significant coverage- it reads like a fanzine or maybe a press release. And if only point 10 applies (due to NBA Live 2003), then I'd suggest he be mentioned in that article and redirect as the point suggests. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm not saying that that one link alone justifies a keep, but there's a smattering of other articles like it out there. Ordinarily I'd agree with you on your point about the album not being released, but we're not talking about a self-recorded or self-released title here -- we're talking about an album recorded under EMI's auspices but quashed. I'm not passionately advocating for this article to be kept, but WP:MUSIC is a guideline, not a policy, and I would argue that this article conforms to the spirit (if not the exact letter) of that guideline, which places the article just on the ragged edge of being worth kept. Now I'll confess this is an unusual position for me to take – I normally subscribe to the "when in doubt, throw it out" school of deletion procedure – but in this case, I would advocate for a keep-and-improve. Groupthink (talk) 20:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles about him in the Los Angeles Times (which was reprinted on 17 Nov 2002 in the Chicago Tribune) and in PopMatters, both of which I have added just now, so I'm willing to say keep based on WP:N or criterion #1 of WP:MUSIC. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:35, 25 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, fails WP:N. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brand architect[edit]

A term coined by Richard Seireeni and written up here by user:Seireeni. Esssentially spam for Richard's company. (He has also created Elaine Kim about his wife.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite Brand architect may actually be a notable term (per hits in reliable sources; though I'm not sure if there's a definition in any of those). It appears to be a job title perhaps. Regardless, article as it is written is unacceptable, and is surely original research of Mr. Seireeni's. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In an effort to "rewrite", I've added additional outside references for use of the professional discipline, Brand Architect. Seireeni (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni[reply]

Keep/merge My initial search for sources indicates some currency for this term. The rest is matter of content-editing. If there isn't much too say then, at worst, we would merge with an article like Brand image. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not necessarily with prejudice. Regardless of whether this is a notable neologism or not, when it is defined in gushing but unacceptably vague terms, as an experienced in-house leader or outside consultant who blends strategic, behavioral and creative skills and who is experienced in all communication medias — from print to broadcast, from the internet to live venues, the article needs to be so thoroughly rewritten that deleting the current text would do no harm. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note addition of background information leading to the emergence of this new discipline. On the suggestion of merging with 'Brand Image', this would not be a good idea. Brand image is a phrase that has fallen into disuse among brand development professionals. Brand image is really another word for 'brand identity' with a slightly broader meaning. Nevertheless, the term focuses too much on the creative side – the 'image' side – and does not balance the equation with strategy. 'Brand Positioning' is now the more popular term as it implies a strategic underpinning to brand expression. Left brain AND right brain. 216.244.32.116 (talk) 16:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Richard Seireeni[reply]

I wish I can !vote Keep, but there's just too much original research in the article. It needs a drastic overhaul.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 18:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would ask you consider the trade-off here. Either we can post a relatively new idea written by the concept's champion and open the discussion of this idea, which is gaining worldwide currency, to public discussion and additions - or we can delete it, in which case an important topic in the world of branding goes begging. It would seem that the goal is to promote the exchange of ideas and discussion. I admit that I cooked up this notion some 15 years ago, but the term has gradually come into common use. Walk into any brand, advertising or marketing firm, and they know the rough meaning of 'Brand Architect'. What they may not know is the history of its origin, which I think I know better than anyone else. There is also the confusion between Brand Architect and Brand Architecture, which is roughly the difference between an Architect and Architecture. I.e., the difference between a person and a thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seireeni (talk • contribs) 23:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that expounding and discussing this concept is a good thing, but it flies in the face of Wikipedia policy. This encyclopedia's goal is to gather and publish well established and sourced concepts, not to be on the forefront of new concepts. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:53, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / redirect to Brand management, which already contains a paragraph about Brand Architecture. There's worthwhile and accurate content here, but it just seems to me the topic is better described within the broader context that Brand management provides. I don't know if it's "official policy", but wikipedia seems to redirect most job-description-type articles into other corresponding articles. For instance industrial designer redirects to industrial design. And this seems to work well. --Lockley (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hum. That's not a bad idea. If it were placed with a separate heading before or after Brand Archtecture, it could help define the difference. So, who does the merging? Me or someone on the Wikipedia administration team? (Assuming this meets with the group's approval.) Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia does have an entry for Brand Architecture on its own. A corresponding one for Brand Architect in addition to an expanded entry on Brand Management may also be considered.216.175.70.170 (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni[reply]

You can do the merging yourself, but please bear in mind to only merge what is not original research. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please see addition to Brand Management entry. Seireeni (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni[reply]

I've moved it to Talk:Brand_management#The_Brand_Architect as it was highly promotional and poorly sourced. It has all the problems mentioned here in this AfD. Regardless of where the information is added, it must be verifiable, properly sourced, and balanced so not to appear purely promotional. --Ronz (talk) 21:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Sorry. I have many books on the subject and will add references.

216.175.70.170 (talk) 04:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Original research written to promote the editor's business venture. The article would need to be rewritten from scratch with completely new sources and material to meet even basic policies and guidelines. --Ronz (talk) 15:04, 30 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 but needs a thorough rewrite. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Kim[edit]

A fashion designer written up by user:Seireeni who is Kim's husband, Richard Seireeni. (Richard has also written about his own company at brand architect.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite She may have some coverage in reliable sources. Check Google News for "Elaine Kim" fashion; though many of the sources are not available to me. The article as it is written is unacceptable, however, and definitely violates conflict of interest and is probably largely original research. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
References to the author have been removed. Seireeni (talk) 12:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Richard Seireeni[reply]
- Comment Article still needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic; it's written in promotional terms and is questionable for that reason. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional NY Times article describing 'Product' label was found and added. 216.244.32.116 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Seireeni[reply]

Hello all. I've rewritten the piece, removing flourishing language making it more style neutral. I've added additional links to support subject covered in the text, and added a bit more detail. I would ask you to consider posting the entry and then allowing the community to add further amendments and support as it becomes available.

Seireeni (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) SEIREENI[reply]

Keep. Added references (especially one from NY Times) show notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Needs to be rewritten from the point of view presented in the reliable sources that actually show notability of the subject. The article as it is now is little more than a resume with references that show notability added on to the end. --Ronz (talk) 15:14, 30 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 22:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iraqi auction[edit]

It appears that Iraqi auction is a neologism. While there may have been a type of auction characteristic of ancient Mesopotamia, I don't believe the term "Iraqi auction" has been used for a type of auction. Web searches aren't the ultimate authority, but a search for "Iraqi auction" returned copies of WP material, notices of modern Iraqi central bank currency auctions, or other auctions related to modern Iraq. A Google scholar search returned nothing. I believe this is another neologism similar to Swedish auction. Cretog8 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Please excuse my awkwardness in my first AfD.)Cretog8 (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep You know, there's a book source in there. I'm not sure if it's a valid one, but there's a book source. The page needs more sources, but I think it's a start. Question though, are articles innocent until proven guilty, or vice versa? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- They're guilty until proven innocent by demonstration that they satisfy the various core policies (for instance, by having sources). The analogy to criminal justice is a false one. deranged bulbasaur 07:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Alright, thanks- I'd been curious about that. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, the article is guilty by association. It was created along with a number of other auction articles by the same editor. Each article had the Milgrom book as a reference, but (for instance) no mention of "Swedish auction" in the Milgrom book was brought up in the Swedish auction AfD. Also, Milgrom isn't subtle, he writes a lot. As User:Debate helpfully noted, Milgrom has a large Powerpoint presentation of lectures related to his book--the slides are posted freely at his web page [31]. Nowhere in there does the word "Iraqi" occur (though "English" and "Dutch" do). Likewise, it seems extremely unlikely that a type of auction would be named in the book but neither Milgrom or anyone else would mention it in an academic paper.Cretog8 (talk) 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Interesting point. Hmm. Well, if we can definitively exclude the Milgrom source (and thus remove it from the article), I'd gladly change my !vote to delete. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Oh hell, I just read the old AfD myself and it's plain as day. I need to go to sleep now. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article should be deleted because of lack of reference (unless user Max7437 can state the page number in Milgrom's book where this concept is defined.) Ulner (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. A copy of the Milgrom book is literally sitting in front of me at the moment, and I can confirm that there is no reference in it to "Iraqi Auction". Furthermore, as Cretog8 suggests, the odds of anything predating World War One being considered Iraqi-anything are pretty low given that Iraq essentially didn't exist in any practical sense prior to this time. "Mesopotamia Auction", maybe... The only significant distinguishing elements of this so-called variant auction type are marginal, at best. Debate 木 13:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And I'd like to say that searches for "Mesopotamian auction" and the like are just as unsatisfying as "Iraqi auction". --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't in Milgrom (I don't have it in front of me, but I would have remembered). It isn't in Klemperer. It isn't in The Origins of Value (although that isn't really about auctions, it delved into pricing schemes for crops and loans in mesopotamia enough that something like an Iraqi auction would have been mentioned. I removed Milgrom from the "further reading" section in order to eliminate the suggestion that the auction is in his book. Protonk (talk) 04:20, 25 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 into The Perhapanauts. The two unrelated articles are exactly that, unrelated. Procedural close on those two, no prejudice against a separate nomination. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arisa (The Perhapanauts)[edit]

WP:FANCRUFT. Each of the fictional characters mentioned in the article for the minor comic The Perhapanauts has been given its own extremely short article which gives no more information than the parent article. Fails WP:Notability (books); this states that the characters should be listed in the main article, which they are already. I changed one to a redirect but the article creator reverted without explanation. Ros0709 (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

J.J.M.M.H.S.S. Yendayar[edit]

Non-notable, unreferenced, poor article name and difficult to salvage. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero ghits for the actual name John Joseph Murphy Memorial Higher Secondary School. The article name appears to be what it goes by in the world, but even that has very few ghits. I can't find anything on this topic. I hate to take the argument that if I can't see it, it must not exist... but if nobody can see it, is it notable? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The school does exist according to the Kerala state government.[32] Try searching for variations on the name. • Gene93k (talk) 00:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - needs sources, but high schools are generally notable --T-rex 18:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been verified to exist, and, as with any high school, there is bound to be coverage of its achievements in reliable sources, even if they are not all online and in English like this one in The Hindu naming the school as one of the top athletics schools in Kerala and this one describing how one of the school's students won the 100m hurdles at the Kerala School Games after a thrilling finish. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All high schools adequately investigated have been shown to be notable, which is why we adopt the convention that all the articles are notable to avoid wasting time dealing with them here. As expected, this one now has sufficient references to show athletic notability. DGG (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sources have already been found and this article needs time for local searches. We must take care to avoid systemic bias against those countries without a great internet tradition or where sources may not be in English. This high school is, additionally, notable for its significant place in its community. TerriersFan (talk) 04:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a high school so notable IMO, sources may be difficult to find in this case but deleting isn't the answer and would endorse systemic bias. RMHED (talk) 22:39, 29 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. — _Maggot^Syn 05:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kepahiang[edit]

The article states "Kepahiang is an agricultural nation in southern Sumatra". But no such hint in google search [33]. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If it's wrong, then please, be bold and fix the article. It appears that this is actually a place, judging from Google searches and Google Maps. It's located at 3°39′52.46″S 102°33′3.21″E / 3.6645722°S 102.5508917°E / -3.6645722; 102.5508917. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've rewritten the article and sourced it. It's still really short and needs expansion. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Since corrected (nice work), notability is now clear. that the article is underdeveloped is not a reason to delete. --Merbabu (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sub districts as locations in the Indonesia project are adequately notable and do not deserve afd's Satu Suro 04:21, 25 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 --JForget 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chisbee[edit]

Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Google search shows 22 ghits [34], but no significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to establish notability. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:31, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete self-understood (BTW, Google gets 0 hits. The hits in nom's link refer to people by that name or to Wikipedia pages that link to the article). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article admittedly fails WP:NFT- The game was invented at the Sunland Navigators 2008 Pine Valley Summer Training Program for semester schools. A group of the students there had a frisbee and used the lawn chairs to create a game. Can we play Fizzbin instead? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid kids doing stupid things. JuJube (talk) 15:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS and WP:N. No reliable third party sources. Artene50 (talk) 09:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and everybody else. Nothing valid here. --Lockley (talk) 22:20, 25 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 (G4). -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muzza[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable term. Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as repost of deleted material. Undeath (talk) 05:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt as recreation of deleted material. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So nominated by Undead warrior (talk · contribs) --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:41, 24 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. John254 00:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blue's Clues episodes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Blue's Clues episodes

This article should be deleted before its content was previously deleted from Blue's Clues because it was deemed unnecessary. In addition, the content of this article has not been sourced. It is WP:OR, and most of the edits have been made from anonymous IPs. Finally, it was created by a known sockpuppet (User:Codybigbucksnowhammiesstop) with a clear agenda. --Figureskatingfan (talk) 05:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN list, no reliable sources. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The program is itself notable, so i don't see why an episode list is not. Is far better than the majority of list articles - at least the info CAN be verified. It's lack of cites does not indicate "OR" - does anyone contest the info is not true? IP edits are to be welcomed, not deleted.Yobmod (talk) 14:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ~~Comment~~ Yes, I'm not certain I understand the rationale here. At the moment, this is a barebones list of episodes of this eminently notable show. Certainly, it requires expansion to comply with WP:LIST, but are we saying that there are no reliable sources for this information for a show that's this popular? My instinct is to !vote keep, but I see that the nom is herself a bit of a specialist in this area, so I'll defer at this time pending a bit of clarification. Xymmax

^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I agree with the others that sock allegations aside, the article itself is sourceable and can be made to stand on its own. If there are problem editors on the page, we can deal with that as a separate issue. I've updated my !vote to keep. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 19:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I pretty much rewrote Blue's Clues and got it to GA. Of course the program itself is notable, but I have problems with the intent of its main editor. I suspect there might be some sockpuppetry going on. The editor(s) of this article has never attempted to include reliable sources, even if it's from TV.com (which it seems so). --Figureskatingfan (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't remember if it is explicitly stated, but I'm generally opposed to using AfD to settle issues of WP:OWN. Episode list subpages are perfectly reasonable for notable shows, and there don't appear to be any gaping issues with this particular article. I have no reason to doubt the content, so even if RS are not included, they can certainly be found. -Verdatum (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All content is sourceable and verifiable, and the article would be a helpful addition to Wikipedia. Mac Davis (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - could use some wikifying, but having an episode list for a well known show like this is not out of the ordinary --T-rex 18:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A list of episodes of a notable series is the norm. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definete keep, surely notable. Sunderland06 (talk) 21:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:EPISODE recommends breaking out this type of information into a separate article for notable shows. Could use some editing and expansion, but those are not deletion issues.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - see WP:FICT's talk page for the sordid details. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode lists are generally within acceptable bounds for TV show coverage. -- Ned Scott 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 08:04, 27 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 by User:Zedla --JForget 01:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florida alpha[edit]

Social fraternity with just 60 members. Surely that cannot be notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not show any evidence of notability. Entire article is written by member of or someone associated by fraternity without disclosure of conflict of interest.--Finalnight (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ORG, or redirect to Sigma Alpha Epsilon. Ohconfucius (talk) 13:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, don't bother redirecting as the capitalisation isn't even right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable "fraternity" or "sorority". JIP | Talk 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:00, 25 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ganapathi Sachchidananda[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. :—Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Swami Ganapathi Sachchidananda is infact highly notable. He has temples and centers worldwide.

A host of websites regarding his spiritual music. Please spend some time to go through the links in the article. His ashram has been visited by whos who of India time and again. He has scores of devotees world over and centers in Europe and Australia. I mean if all these doesn't make him non-notable , then I dont understand what else will. Please do some more research and check following links.

www.dattapeetham.com

www.sadguruseva.org

http://www.dycdallas.org/

http://www.dycusa.org/

http://www.dattatemple.com/history/index.php

http://www.yogasangeeta.org/YogaSangeeta.html --Andhrabhoja (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Also, copied from the following user

User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< User:Stifle

Jump to: navigation, search

If you're involved in the deletion process, please don't limit your comment to "non-notable" or "nn".

This comment has come to mean nothing more than "I want this article deleted" and/or "I think this article shouldn't be on Wikipedia", and may give the impression that you are not bothered to actually check up on it or find a proper reason for deleting the article. Tell us why you think the subject is non-notable, and what you understand by "non-notable".

This goes double if you're nominating an article. "NN" is not a reason for deletion. "Fails WP:BIO", "I think this subject is of interest to only a very limited number of people", or "unverifiable" are. At the very worst, please expand on why you think someone or something is non-notable.

The exception to this is when referring to CSDs and the like. The nn prefix here refers to the articles lacking any assertion of notability. --Andhrabhoja (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Check the sources provided

From wiki, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.

An article published on india-today magazine, the premier weekly magazine of India.

http://www.yogasangeeta.org/IndiaTodayArticle_SGS.pdf http://news.bn.gs/article.php?story=20080325132706775.

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Following this criteria, there are multiple highly regarded secondary sources, the above ones and here http://www.opm.gov.tt/photo_gallery/gallery.php?gid=1172681335&id=1177530362

I don't know, if this is not notability, then half of people's bio on wiki should be deleted.

Please do some research. I will provide more sources. Andhrabhoja (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More Sources to establish Notability

http://living.oneindia.in/yoga-spirituality/faith-mysticism/2008/ganapathy-satchidananda-090608.html

http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/fr/2007/06/15/stories/2007061550300300.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/2006/09/07/stories/2006090704420200.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=vdJT6BksUJ4C&pg=PA539&dq=ganapathi+satchidananda&sig=ACfU3U2J_K53S2l-KaCeGd8ajFUP6xMZUw

http://books.google.com/books?um=1&lr=&q=ganapathi+sachchidananda&btnG=Search+Books

I think these sources are good enough with the ones I provided before.--Andhrabhoja (talk) 15:49, 29 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. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crime in South Australia[edit]

While this may be a valid topic for an article, as it stands this is not even convertible into a valid sub-stub and would need starting from scratch Mattinbgn\^talk 04:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Valid topic, article is in no shape to be kept. Merge any relevant information to Crime in Australia. Five Years 05:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is just a random list of crimes. Expected an article about prevelance / causes / disusion of crime in Aus. This doesn't cut it.Yobmod (talk) 14:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quick guide to blowins like me - it has three lines, one of which is a set of links to four other articles, and isn't even categorised. I'd say speedy per A1/A3. Orderinchaos 17:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No valid reason for deletion was given. Lot's of great articles have suffered through such humble beginnings. Take for example Crime in Australia, it also started off as a bunch of links. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What in the article as it exists is encyclopedic and what would be kept if the article is expanded? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 20:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply It depends what you mean by "encyclopedic". If you mean something that is informative about a notable subject then everything in the article is encyclopedic. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A random list with nothing in common other than their geographical location with no context provided whatsoever is the opposite of encyclopedic. It is the definition of trivia. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge material into Crime in Australia, and redirect this page. Happyme22 (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, should be a no-context speedy. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 10:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as contentless and contextless. There isn't even anything there to keep really. Ford MF (talk) 02:34, 30 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 --JForget 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smuglets[edit]

Fails WP:NEO, WP:NFT Madcoverboy (talk) 03:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article says it all: Smuglets is an obscure outdoor sport[...]; WP:NFT, WP:N. There are all of 15 actual ghits for the term "smuglets". While that isn't sufficient criteria for deletion, I definitely consider it helpful. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no notability asserted, no sourcing, no relevant Ghits, regional at best.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, violates WP:V. No WP:RS. Extreme WP:NFT. --Kinu ^t/_c 03:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- non notable, sounds like was made up by kids in one street. Unverified.Yobmod (talk) 14:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable and completely unsourcable. See WP:MADEUP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stupid kids doing stupid things. JuJube (talk) 15:24, 24 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 22:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shri Ramakrishna Kshirsagar Swamiji[edit]

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 03:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 03:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Highly POV/PEACOCK, no external sourcing to show why subject is notable.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: almost all web refs trace it's origin to wikipedia. No other RS found. --Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable to anyone except his followers.Yobmod (talk) 14:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Redtigerxyz. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:44, 27 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 by Ugen64, non admin close. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avail Health[edit]

New article fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 03:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as non-notable corporation with no assertion of notability. Srsly. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy as G11 as well.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Agreed. Even so I'd nom it under A7 simply because I've been bitten in the backside one too many times by something that isn't quite blatant advertising with G11. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:56, 24 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, although an editorial merge is rather strongly suggested. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sherron Rolax[edit]

Subject's sole claim to fame is being controversially frisked by former New Jersey governor Christie Whitman, an incident which ended up being a fairly minor footnote in her political career. After the incident, he went on to get in some degree of trouble with the law and was eventually (presumably) murdered, events which went largely unnoticed even in the greater Camden, New Jersey area. Since all of the encyclopedic content on this individual is on the Christine Todd Whitman article, article should be deleted/merged appropriately. Thunderbunny (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christine Todd Whitman#Frisking a sixteen-year-old. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Appears to be a ONEEVENT case.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:57, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above, although the merge is just a formality. The discussion of the incident at Christine Todd Whitman#Frisking a sixteen-year-old is already better than it is in this article. Also, I just added the photo of the incident to the Whitman article, where it really belongs. Neutron (talk) 05:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect of course, per everybody above. --Lockley (talk) 07:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rolax was a continuing subject of media coverage for the remainder of his life. Ample claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 05:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. There was nothing really earth-shattering about his drug arrests, and his death was not exactly extensively covered. The earlier incident with Whitman is the only reason why anybody knows about any of this at all. Thunderbunny (talk) 04:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of press coverage to warrant an article. Everyking (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above; the event is notable due to Whitman, not Rolax. Neıl 龱 11:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per above.:) Sticky Parkin 11:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It will not be merged. The birth date and the various arrests even if added will eventually be deleted as not relevant to that article. Merge will in fact become delete and no one here has a good argument for delte. We are becoming way too deletionist. There is nothing wrong with wikipedia having this article. Further I'll bet closers act like this is a vote. The arguments used are what is supposed to matter. WAS 4.250 (talk) 13:54, 26 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 as blatant advertising and an article about a commercial business that makes no particular claim of importance. Without prejudice to Mandsford's suggestion, of course. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BM Solutions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, see related nom at [35] Madcoverboy (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I'm not seeing an assertion of notability in this article (or its sister). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no notability asserted, no info given beyond promotion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to laxative, obvious solution Mandsford (talk) 13:59, 24 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 as blatant advertising and an article about a commercial business that makes no particular claim of importance. = Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bmsolutions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP Madcoverboy (talk) 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm not seeing an assertion of notability in this article (or its sister). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - no notability asserted, no info given beyond promotion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Nothing I can find about the subject to assert that it is in any way notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:50, 24 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. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight Sergeant Jolly[edit]

Fancruft Madcoverboy (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - license on original source (BattlestarWiki) is CC-BY-NC-SA, which is not GFDL-compatible.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment So wouldn't that mean this is blatant copyright infringement? Or is it not blatant? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering the license on the source, I wouldn't call it _blatant_, but since we can't fulfill the "NC-SA" part, it should probably come out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed the copyvio and stubbed the page. -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Without the copyvio material, there is no content. No establishment of independent resources to establish notability per WP:FICT. Content is perfectly sufficient remaining in the battlestar wiki. -Verdatum (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to something like List of Battlestar Galactica characters now that it's been pruned; there's no content. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Create List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (original) ; to match the list for the current BSG series. Don't merge into the List of Battlestar Galactica characters, because that one is not series specific. 70.55.87.161 (talk) 05:01, 25 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, fails WP:BIO. This also could have been speedily deleted as a CSD A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Sandborn[edit]

He's a candidate for office...but he doesn't hold it. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 02:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability in addition of a failed candidacy (or is he candidate for the next election?)--JForget 23:32, 30 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 - could also be a speedy A1/A3--JForget 01:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video gaming by country[edit]

Unclear of what content or articles would populate this list Madcoverboy (talk) 02:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is the author trying to make a category? --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 03:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no clue where this one is trying to go.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is he trying to do?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looked the the formation of a comparison article that was abandoned or something of that nature.--Finalnight (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. No content --T-rex 05:25, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems to be an attempt to start a series of articles on video gaming in each country worldwide. Interesting idea, surely, but I'm not sure most countries have enough of a video game market to support such an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a useless article, before we end up with redlinks about all the 190-odd countries on our planet. JIP | Talk 16:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – My guess is that the creator of this article intended for this to be a list or category. Otherwise, I have no clue what is going on. MuZemike (talk) 22:57, 24 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. John254 00:46, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tubular tyres[edit]

Dictionary definition, merge to other articles Madcoverboy (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- merge if possible, but it doesn't seem likely that it's necessary.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- No need to merge. Tubular tyres are no more related to bicycles as they are to other types of ground vehicles. Redirect to Tire, if anything. --Millbrooky (talk) 06:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC) Per comment below, it seems I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll abstain from this vote, then. --Millbrooky (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate that the term is associated almost exclusively with bicycles, especially racers. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is much to be said about this topic as there are numerous sources including a complete book. The dicdef argument fails immediately - what we have here is a stub. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've seen nominations like this before. Common objects articles that are still in the stub stages and a misguided user believes the topic is un-encyclopedic because so far they see only a "definition." Not only does its commonness make it encyclopedic (can easily be expanded to its history and variations plus many other details), but as Colonel Warden pointed out, it's the subject of secondary coverage included an whole book, the primary criteria of WP:N. --Oakshade (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It's a thing not a definition. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hard to believe someone would write a whole book about a type of tyre but there we are. harris 578 (talk) 22:12, 27 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel-bad comedy[edit]

Highly subjective essay, with no referenced sources and a randomly assembled mini-list. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the article was expanded, included citations, and connected, but not merged, with Comedy, than I think it would make a pretty good article. Leonard^Bloom (talk) 03:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete -- I agree wholeheartedly with Leonard^Bloom about the possibilities, but Google doesn't have a huge number of hits on the phrase, which makes me think it's not sufficiently sourceable. Convince me otherwise so I can change my !vote.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are mentions of this term in some reliable sources (e.g., New York Times). However these may just be cursory, and also probably don't define the term. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Reply — The way I see it, the term "feel-bad comedy" is although not well known, but as stated above in the New York Times, and this explains its lack of decent hits from Google (but it does retain a few, like this one). But, Google doesn't necessarily determine somethings notability. Sure, it's a good indicator, but when looking for notability on this case, I'm not going to go to Google; it doesn't yield anything except a couple blog posts, yet I voted keep (as I do on this one) because I feel it is notable. Another point: Although "feel bad comedy" isn't a reliable term, and the only hit I could find that showed decency was the New York Times, it could be said that this term is common sense; we know there are movies that present themselves with the intent to entertain, but also to depress, and this notion/idea needs an article. It's that simple. A case like this is rare; Google can not help with such an.. indepedent term. I hope that convinces you! I tried! Leonard^Bloom (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirect or merge with Black comedy. -- Ned Scott 10:48, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sourced; appears to be original research at this point.-Les boys (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand the concept, but I do not think the term "feel bad comedy" is used to describe it. As such, this article is OR and should be deleted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't this a tragicomedy? Like Muriel's Wedding? Tragicomic is the term i know, this one is non-notable.Yobmod (talk) 15:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Perhaps the term is used, but it does not seem to have been fleshed out by any reliable sources. It would need to be more than a single source, though, to warrant an article. If there is reliable sourcing, there can be a few sentences at comedy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:46, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus but likely a notable topic if thorough sourcing ever shows up. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family economy[edit]

Article reads like an original essay (or a book report for school). No references to back up any of the points raised. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR. Keep now references have come to light. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite This appears to be an actual term used in historical research, check Google Scholar (e.g., 1 2). That said the current article appears to just be someone's essay. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rewrite per Mendaliv. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 03:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless much improved during AFD period - This is such a naive piece of writing as to be largely worthless. It reads like a 14 year old's school essay. If retained at all it should be Renamed Medieval peasant family economy, as the present title does not reflect its content. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 24 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, moreover this could have been speedy deleted as either CSD G11 or A7. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faces Casting Agency[edit]

The article reads like an advertisement, and notability is not immediately clear. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in news about them, it would seem. Though there is a "Hidden Faces" casting agency that does business with the BBC (article). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:44, 24 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) 00:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incandescent Darkness[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable software product, for a company that itself appears to be non-notable. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delisted Not software, game... --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - One programmer working on it, release date slipping, might never make it out.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparent self-promotion, no secondary sources, no notability. Possibly speedy G11. Ham Pastrami (talk) 07:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL -Rushyo (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – WP:CBALL; no sources, no notability, no nothing. MuZemike (talk) 23:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an indie development, by the lead developers own description. There is some talk about the game blogs and such but I haven't been able to find any sources to indicate notability. I'm sure there are examples of indie game projects that are notable, but I haven't seen anything to indicate this has been picked up by reputable secondary sources that would indicate this is such an example. Icemotoboy (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:23, 28 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 Politically exposed person per consensus, (non-admin closure). Finalnight (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politically exposed foreign person[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a dictionary, no assertion of importance, no context, orphan Madcoverboy (talk) 02:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with politically exposed person.Madcoverboy (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, also, wikisource might like it...--Serviam (talk) 18:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree, a merge with politically exposed person is best. Happyme22 (talk) 20:49, 24 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 22:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exploit Submission Wizard[edit]

Notability appears to be lacking in this unreferenced article. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article screams advertisement. Does not seem notable. I found it difficult to impossible to find any reliable sources via google that were not download links. --Millbrooky (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Key issues are WP:N and WP:RS. As stated 1,000 of ghits to download sites. But is this notable software? If so why? I cannot answer that. Article's content is nearly identical to the company website, maybe even a WP:COPYVIO. Created by an anonymous account and the software version number has never been updated. Does this software even work with modern systems? Un-sourced statements like "The Submission Wizard was the very first automated search engine submission tool, released in 1995 ..." need to be sourced or removed if the article isn't deleted. --Faradayplank (talk) 21:52, 29 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 by Nousernamesleft. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria Manor[edit]

Created and speedily deleted five times now. Please Delete and Salt, and please consider applying cluebat to the creator. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 02:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be more useful to contact the last admin who speedied it and asking for that next time (unless you already did). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:19, 24 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. — _Maggot^Syn 13:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makers and Takers[edit]

Non-notable book, no references. Chimeric Glider (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant advertising; there's a link to the Amazon sale page, and the article appears to be merely a synopsis of a non-notable book. However, the book may become notable as press picks up on it, as it apparently has with Schweizer's other book. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Appears to pass the notability guideline for books as it has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works which are independent of the book itself (e.g., 1 2 3 4) --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's not blatant advertising. It seems like an objective description of the book. Note that it already has received some media attention: [36]. Zagalejo^^^ 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Point taken, I've changed my opinion above. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to the (welcoming) stub article on the book's author - Peter Schweizer. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and for the same reasons as Mendaliv; the number of independent reviews and interviews by the author is quite large, especially considering how new it is, (to mention reviews in non-fringe[37], [38], [39]).--Aldux (talk) 21:11, 24 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 Speedied. Tawker (talk) 02:00, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1/4 birthday[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/1/4 birthday

Notability and lack of sources. Fleetflame 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above and nonsense. --Non-dropframe (talk) 01:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: See here. Fleetflame 01:52, 24 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 G3 hoax. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rudiighar von rjchthon lundgren[edit]

Hoax. A world championship boxer with zero Google hits? I think not. Note also that the same user created the same page earlier as a rip-off of the Evander Holyfield article - see logs and content (admins). Bencherlite ^Talk 01:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as a hoax. There is no way that a world championship boxer has zero g-hits. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly happy with a speedy delete, I just didn't want to be the only pair of eyes on this! Bencherlite ^Talk 01:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Definitely a hoax. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:02, 24 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, fails WP:BIO. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rylan Yee[edit]

Even if the band that he's involved with is notable (it isn't), he doesn't meet the wp:bio/wp:music notability criteria Google News comes up with 2 hits. brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:26, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Fails WP:MUSIC, and Google shows no good hits except for Myspace and passing mentions in news sources. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP-Nominated twice for Hawaii Music Awards<http://www.hawaiimusicawards.com/hawaii-Music-Awards1.htm>, full article(not passing mention) of "Admit One" album and Canadian national tour in the popular Hawaiian newspaper "Midweek"<http://www.midweek.com/content/columns/musicmontage_article/pimpbot/>, played with bands such as Less Than Jake, The Toasters, The Aquabats, The Aggrolites, and Chris Murray, a Canadian national tour and 3 tours of the West Coast of the U.S., play on Multiple Hawaiian radio stations including KUCD and more. Shall I go on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyStack (talk • contribs) 01:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does being nominated for the Hawaii Music Awards establish notability? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. References supplied by Tommy Slack are for the establishment of notability for the band, not Mr Yee as a person. There is no problem with the band being notable though, I actually found a ref that wasn't their myspace that does confirm they got second in the Hawaii Music Awards in 2006, which I've added to the band article. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

contribution to said notable works does not in itself make one noteable? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyStack (talk • contribs) 02:48, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Think of it this way. If I add an article on Wikipedia, do I become notable? No. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 05:08, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should the singer be added to this discussion too? Seems to have the same notability issues as Rylan Yee. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not really, he has other musical experience other than this band. PErhaps that should be added to his wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TommyStack (talk • contribs) 14:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Personally i think so. The article claims he's been part of however many tours and albums, but leaving aside Pimpbot the bands are all non-notable and the references are a record label page (that confirm he, or a man named Fernando at least, played two gigs as a guest musician) and three MySpace pages. tomasz. 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:BAND. tomasz. 19:04, 28 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) 00:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centre for Distance Education (Nova Scotia)[edit]

Delete Non-notable private career college. Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 01:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable claims a broad category for a "trademark." Spamvertising. Me-123567-Me (talk) 01:11, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. nat.utoronto 01:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:Notability. Google news returns 3 unrelated hits, shows lack of 3-rd party sources. No assertation of notability/ why it's so special or anything like that. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 01:24, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable advert. Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn and too generic for a rd. JJL (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delisted from that list; sorry I saw disease not distance --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable- the link to the CBC article only mentions them in passing. There's another article listed on news.google.ca that may mention them (requires subscription). There doesn't seem to be much anything else out there in reliable sources. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, 8 faculty members. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:45, 27 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. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Soy de Burque[edit]

An underground movement in Albuquerque written up by user:Soydeburque. Is it notable? (The Q (Albuquerque) by the same author could probably become a redirect because is duplicated in the Albuquerque article.) — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 00:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Comes off as a WP:COATRACK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 01:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:06, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:COATRACK, created by an SPA with the same name as the article title... I love the smell of WP:SPAM in the morning. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Indeed, there are some WP:COI issues with the article's author. Ecoleetage (talk) 15:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
LeaveI recognize my user name may question WP:COI. I think it is an important issue in Albuquerque. I picked the user name "Soy de Burque" simply because it means "I am from Burque" and I am just that...a concerned resident from Albuquerque. The organization "Soy de Burque" simply motivated me to do my part to raise awareness for the rapidly spreading urban sprawl in Albuquerque. I believe the organization is viable as noted by the news coverage it has received which is documented in the article. This is the first article I've tried to add, and though it may be biased because I don't want to see the greenwashing or urban sprawl, these topics have been reported by viable sources in the media. As noted in the article, the documentation sites the Albuquerque Journal and KOBTV news, both very notable sources within Albuquerque. I am open to suggestions as to how I can better shape the article, but I think "Soy de Burque" is a viable organization, not just in the realm of Albuquerque politics, but also as a community organization attempting to raise awareness which could inspire similar movements. Had I know the user name would be an issue, I would have chosen something different. Again, this is the first article I've written and I'm open to suggestions to better improve the article. Thanks.Soydeburque —Preceding comment was added at 05:31, 27 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, fails notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My Fault[edit]

Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:V and WP:OR. The song was not released as a single and therefore it doesn't deserve a separate. No citations and pure original research as well. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:39, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Slim Shady LP. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:50, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merge what? It's all unsourced! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 18:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. Redirect and merge whatever is sourced. The article's infobox has sources. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?!? Is there even an Infobox to this article? Where do you see it? Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 22:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I must have been hallunicating again. Darn it, I guess I have to go back into rehab. Okay, redirect, and merge whatever is sourced. If nothing is sourced, than don't merge anything. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:34, 25 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, fails notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Till I Collapse[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/'Till I Collapse

Delete per WP:MUSIC#Songs, WP:V and WP:OR. Unlike the infobox of the article says, the song was not released as a single and therefore it doesn't deserve a separate. No citations and pure original research as well. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 00:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC#Songs & WP:COPYVIO for printing the lyrics. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 02:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. i highly doubt that the amount of lyrics quoted here could class as copyvio. that's a quote, pure and simple. If you were referring to an earlier version that quoted the whole song or something, then apologies (tho i think copyvio could easily be dealt with by the simple expedient of removing the lyrics). tomasz. 14:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not a single, never charted --T-rex 05:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or Merge Wasn't a single, but the existance of remixes by very notable artists puts this beyond a simple album track, notability-wise. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to The Eminem Show. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merge what? It's all unsourced! Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Merge what can be sourced, of course. "Unsourced" is not an insurmountable issue. tomasz. 11:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a nice song, but the notable artists mentioned didn't do remixes (as far as I know), they contributed verses. Not notable per WP:MUSIC. The article makes a bunch of weasly unattributed claims about the song's reception. -Verdatum (talk) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Just to point out that in hip-hop, remixes tend to take the form of different artists to the original/name artist, (though possibly also including them) contributing new verses over the same beat as the original. Therefore, the notable artists mentioned did do remixes and contribute verses here. In the crazy world of HH, it's the same thing — tomasz. 14:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Fine. But I'm fairly certain Tupac didn't produce the remix...being that it's hard to book studio time post-mortem ;). -Verdatum (talk) 15:23, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply. But he's not dead, don't you know, Chuck D said so... nah, on a serious note, missed that one, you are of course completely right. Tee-hee. tomasz. 15:42, 25 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.