Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 25 June 27 >

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 Bizarre adventure. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 22:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian general election, 2009[edit]

Indian general election, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I was the original creator of this article but after seeing the latest events i doubt the election would happen in 2009. This brings up the wiki policy of what wiki is not.

This article is basically a crystal ball even if it is an election topic as in India elections can happen any tie. i propose to delete the article until there is mainstream news coverage about election date. WP:NOTCRYSTAL— Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talk • contribs) 06:51, 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 Delete, "blatant and obvious misinformation" i.e. G3 fits nicely. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 12:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolala[edit]

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

Confused with Koala? Trekphiler (talk) 21:34, 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 and improve. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States federal budget, 2009[edit]

United States federal budget, 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. All information is simply a summary of the primary source website (the US government) with no secondary sources provided. Regardless, the article is entirely unencyclopedic, any specific commentary on the President's 2009 budget submission (which is not provided here) is best left to other articles. The title is also misleading since the entire article is dedicated to the President's submission for the 2009 budget, rather than the actual US Government budget for 2009, so it has elements of WP:Crystal as well. Debate 木 13:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete my main concern is that it is simply a summary of the U.S. government's website information (a primary source). No secondary sources are provided. Happyme22 (talk) 17:27, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no question that the topic is notable. Describing the President's submitted budget should only be part of the article, of course. But there is already media discussion of the details and as it works through Congress there will be more. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major legislation is notable--and this in its various forms is always the most important legislative act of the entire session. DGG (talk) 02:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Where are the secondary sources discussing this budget? We may feel prepared to interpret and discuss budget requests but they are incredibly complex, written to obfuscate and inchoate in the extreme. The summary tables (30 pages) are wholly inadequate in providing an NPOV and independent look at the budget itself. We should not feel comfortable building this page from primary sources. Protonk (talk) 05:31, 25 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Explaining my above !vote. If secondary sources showing up which perform the analysis and present the numbers, then I am happy to reverse my vote, but the presence of those sources is VERY important. Just a few examples: The 'budget deficit' quoted in either CBO or OMB reports seems like a unitary term but it really is the conflation of two distinct budget processes, the on-budget material (defense, FEMA, NASA, etc) and off-budget material (Social Security, Medicare). The proposed budgets usually include the off budget revenue along with the on-budget shortfall in order to make the deficit appear smaller. It is not (often) clear which method of calculation is being used. Also, when tax revenues or future costs are being collected, complex and arbitrary formulas are used to determine the future tax revenues (e.g. Obama's campaign budget assumes savings from conversion to EHR's and Bush's proposed budget assumes that the 2002 tax cuts were temporary--although it is/was the stated purpose of his administration to strive to make those cuts permanent). Other assumptions exist (like estimation for road construction expenses) that are buried deep in the material but impact the total numbers presented. I'm not saying that primary sources shouldn't be used, but an article like this will end up being misleading if the primary resource is presented uncritically and it would violate WP:OR to present novel criticism of the source matter in the article. Protonk (talk) 04:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve This seems like a perfectly viable topic for an article, and should be improved rather than deleted. I imagine that this will receive masses of press coverage and there will be heaps of discussion, which should enable the article to be fleshed out. Nick Dowling (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve reasonable and important subject material. Give author time to include other material on the subject as subject develops.Pdeitiker (talk) 22:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve per WP:POTENTIAL. We're also going to have to reupload the information if we delete it so it's better to keep it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've fixed the article up to the 2008 fiscal budget standards. It is now identical to the 2008 page with the exception of numbers and the year. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reagan budget meta-article. This gives us a good idea of how hard it is to tease facts from the budget as a primary source SPECIFICALLY (as in, in comparison to other possible primary sources). While I'm not accusing the OMB today of the mendacity of budget directors past (not explicitly, at least), it is not in their interests to be truthful. I see posts about WP:POTENTIAL. that's all well and good, but there is nothing here (save the cool graphic!) that can't be recreated when proper secondary sourcing exists. This isn't a stub which just hasn't seen enough TLC. Also, there is ZERO benefit for us to be ahead of the news cycle in any way. If the article on the 2009 federal budget proposal from the president doesn't get written until December, well after the budget has passes, we lose nothing. We are better off presenting the budget in the context of a full and proper analysis later rather than presenting it uncritically now. To me, this falls more broadly under WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Minds may differ on that characterization. Protonk (talk) 16:40, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30 Frames a Second: The WTO in Seattle 2000[edit]

30 Frames a Second: The WTO in Seattle 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Appears to fail notability guidelines for films. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:34, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails to establish notability. Also fails to explain about ANYTHING- all it says is that it's a documentary about a protest, and contains interviews from the leaders of the protest. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:22, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm confused. You complain that the article says too little, but say that you want it to say less (i.e. nothing). Which is it? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 28 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, Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Here's another review to add to the ones above that already established notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - definitely meets one WP:MOVIE criteria, specifically: "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics."--Finalnight (talk) 05:28, 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 to delete any of these. Best to take the merger discussion to Talk:Doctor Eggman. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Robotnik (other media)[edit]

Dr. Robotnik (other media) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Dr. Robotnik (Sonic the Comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dr. Robotnik (American TV series and comic) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Redundant! Basically they're all child articles of Doctor Eggman with no real world references. Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chaos Deletion Control! Yeah, this one just needs to be stomped on. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki anything that could be useful to http://sonic.wikia.com , and delete the rest. Let us be done with this fancruft, and that's coming from a Sonic fan myself. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 01:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no third party real life sources to establish notability for inclusion in Wikipedia, and that includes the parent article too. --tgheretford (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: into Doctor Eggman under the animation section.Fairfieldfencer FFF 09:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seventeen tons of unreferenced plot summary; no article needs this merge. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (and transwiki anything useful elsewhere as suggested). Non-notable characters (i.e. no sources to demonstrate notability), articles violate WP:GAMETRIVIA, massive in-universe stuff. --Craw-daddy | T | 14:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Robuttnik, I mean Doctor Eggman. Let's go, slo mo! JuJube (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, existing info at Doctor Eggman aptly covers this. Fin©™ 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge where applicable to Doctor Eggman. It is reasonable to include short sections containing the essential information on these character variations, it is not reasonable to maintain articles so fractured and overfed they are of no use to our readers. Also "a merge would be hard" is not a compelling reason not to do it. Also I would venture that suggesting an article needs to be "stomped on" is not the most mature frame of reference through which to view any AfD. Ford MF (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as small, summarized and to-the-point paragraphs. The current plot dumps ("articles") are excessive as per the arguments above. Kariteh (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete preferably; merge for consensus, although it may raise UNDUE issues if not done with a strongly excising hand. Eusebeus (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has improved since nomination and since several of the delete "votes", but even without that, I just noticed something that gives me cause to recommend a speedy close/keep. A merge discussion was underway when this AfD as initiated. Therefore, we should let that discussion play out first and then see if an AfD is necessary, but we absolutely should not have two related discussions occuring simultaneously. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    A typo has been fixed and you added a rescue template. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per points above, Dr. Robotnik in other media is notable but better off in a united article. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: All articles contain interesting and relevant information which wouldn't fit into the article on Eggman. The character's personality greatly varies in each adaptation. There are after all, seperate articles on different incarantions of Megatron. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh dear. The long, drawn out, silence. --Jupiter Optimus Maximus (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Megatron article is hardly an example of a good article. There's a few real-world content, but its mostly 90% plot dump, with bits and pieces of real world info here and there. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the record, if we're going to use the titles are redirect, that doesn't mean that anyone will just be allowed to recreate the content of the article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:58, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folk music by Jerry Lee Lewis[edit]

Folk music by Jerry Lee Lewis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Personal essay/ramblings, unwikified, redundant to existing Jerry Lee Lewis article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree this is redundant and comes off as an essay. It could be addressed with a paragraph in the biographical article, but that's about it. 23skidoo (talk) 02:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing new to add, just making a clear consensus. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:40, 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 deleted, copyvio.. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 22:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flake (Australia band)[edit]

Flake (Australia band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band Ecoleetage (talk) 23:05, 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 web content - a non-consumer open source software project - that contains no indication of importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Security Auditor's Research Assistant[edit]

Security Auditor's Research Assistant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

SARA does not appear to be notable. No new content has been added to the article since the initial creation besides a copy/paste of features from the official SARA page. It has no sources and does not make a claim for notability. swaq 22:25, 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. Stifle (talk) 11:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notes to the Coroner[edit]

Notes to the Coroner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not enough info right now. The first source is just a mention of it on Country on Demand, and the second source is a YouTube video blog. None of the tracks can be confirmed. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article pertains to the upcoming studio album by Chely Wright. Plenty of "forthcoming album" articles have been create many moons before any official information was released. Chely is not a mainstream artist, thus finding news about this album is not easily obtained and is scattered (throughout the Internet) here and there. Chely is an active participant in both her MySpace and YouTube pages thus the information is coming from the horse's mouth. There are references provided in the article they list the official date (which can also be confirmed on her official website) and another from the artist while she is working on the album (there are many videos were is in the recording studio, etc. on both her YouTube and MySpace pages. Additionally, as it is mentioned in the article, the six songs referenced were displayed in the music box on Chely's MySpace page and it indicated that it was a demo for the new album. Also, Chely performed the six songs mentioned at a fan club party in Nashville (June 3) where she mentioned that they will possibly be included on the album. The justification of "not enough info" is not constructive reasoning to delete an article. None of the information in the article is malicious or based on gossip as some articles are and I cannot find a plausible reason as to why this article was nominated to be deleted (a mere hour after its creation). As with any other Wikipedia article, information will be added as it is provided by reliable sources. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of where its posted, if the information is coming from the artist's mouth and the producer's mouth then one would assume that the information is crediable. I can understand if it was a typical YT blogger but this is Ms. Wright herself. Alkclark (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no official tracklist, no album cover, per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a violation of WP:CRYSTAL until more reliable sources are available. Eric444 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just noticed this article was here. It does not meet any criteria specified to be deleted. Everything that the original editor has stated can be re-comfirmed on the artist's website except for song titles. I suggest that the song titles be removed. A title and release date has been confirmed that is sufficient information for creating an article. Many articles have been created based off of rumors, gossip and speculation and have never been nominated. (Madonna, Celine Dion, Ashanti, Whitney Houston, Britney Spears just off the top of my head.) As the OP says, Chely's an independent artist thus news about this album will be far and few. If it honestly bugs you that much, don't pay attention to the article. Alkclark (talk) 17:33, 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 as a non-notable company.

Novatech[edit]

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

The only assertion of notability here is that it is one of the UK's top mail order computer suppliers - and even that is uncited. The only reference is the company's website. I suspect this is a promotional article, but neutrally written so avoiding WP:CSD#G11. Nevertheless the notability of this company seems minimal at best, even if its existence is verifiable. M♠ssing Ace 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rewrite if properly sourced Current version seems promotional, however I suspect from news ghits at news.google.co.uk that this company may indeed be notable. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable company, little significant coverage. One single 'news' article that reads suspiciously like a press release. --neon white talk 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a notable computer supplier with 100 employees ? Far too small a company to be notable and web searching through news archives backs this up - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep if the company is indeed worth £46 million ($92 million) it may indicate that it is mildly notable. More (and better) references are needed to keep the article. TubularWorld (talk) 15:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, the company is notable. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 11:08, 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 withdrawn by nominator. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Moisander[edit]

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

Contested prod. Article is for a football player that has not yet played in a fully professional league and has no other assertion of notability. He made zero league appearances in the Swedish Superettan (2nd level) and zero league appearances in the Finnish 1st level. Jogurney (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please withdraw - although the player had never played with I first prod'ed the article, he made his first professional appearance yesterday (June 25). Sorry about the confusion. Jogurney (talk) 21:33, 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 23:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles 'Flip' Fairbanks[edit]

Charles 'Flip' Fairbanks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an entertaining story, but it's a hoax. What it adds to the account in John Cabot of Cabot's 1497 voyage to North America is the alleged name of the man who was in the crow's nest at landfall, and a story about his nickname and his toes. I thought it unlikely that this sort of information had survived from the 15th Century, and a little research shows that it did not. Cabot's records have disappeared, and the only sources are second-hand - four letters which are available on the web and say nothing about Fairbanks and his toes. The book cited as a reference does not seem to exist; and the picture presented as a statue of Fairbanks is actually of a statue of Cabot. More detail, and the pictures side by side, on the article's talk page. JohnCD (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, excellent research by JohnCD. ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete-- A rare case in which the article's discussion page is better than the article itself. It's too bad that we can't save JohnCD's work as a guide on spotting and neutralizing a hoax. I'm especially impressed that JCD found the statue that was used to illustrate the story. Mandm2008 had left his scent on articles like List of maritime explorers; kudos to User:Edward321 for reverting those. Mandsford (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save The idea of looking at one website to determine 'truth' is outlandish. The scant details that are mentioned are done so because of Fairbanks condition. Had he not not overcome his diability he would have been forgotten like the rest of his crew. Savario Grimaldi (1957) "I Saw the Future" was published by "Ediesse" (Italy). The facts are taken from an original copy though I admit I am not a formal translator. The image was done in error and has been corrected. I needed to copy/paste code because I was having difficulty. I did commit an error but the fact that his face was not visible makes an assumption. What I find objectionable are your comments about his physical condition and the suggestion that this is a hoax because he had this condition? I think you should open your eyes and see the big picture - people with physical difficulties can make a difference. If Franklin D. Roosevelt can become President - why can't a sailor with a disability see North America? His eyes were fine. Mandm2008 (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)— Mandm2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment It's not a case of using "only one web-site to determine 'truth'." I chose that one to quote from because it gives the clearest statement of the message you get wherever you look: the only contemporary records of the 1497 voyage are a few letters which go into little detail (and do not name any of the crew). In view of the great interest in establishing just where Cabot's voyage went I cannot believe that, if your 1957 Italian book is a reliable source giving the level of detail you quote, it would not have been picked up and quoted in papers such as this. Are you sure it is not a novel - fictional characters and events woven around Cabot's real voyage? JohnCD (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Save Let's clarify this "what level of detail" are you referring to? His name, or nick name and/or his ailment? I don't know. The site you point to refers to a hypothetical account, quote, "The hypothetical voyage advanced above is no more than an approximation to the truth, closer than which it may not be possible to come barring further documentary evidence." The book I am referring to is does not make any such commentary.
  • Delete - I would say "Per nom", but I disagree strongly with the assertion that this is an entertaining story. We have NOTHING verifiable here. Zero verifiable sources (after a reasonable search for evidence of the source claimed. If it isn't a hoax, the subject simply isn't notable. This crap-tacular veneer of outrage about marginalizing persons with disabilities makes me want to wheel over to the original editor and threaten hir with a good ole "oops, sorry to crush your toes like that". Yes, there have been people marginalized for various reasons: disabilities, race, gender identity, age, culture, etc. But this horse pucky about giving credit to the guy allegedly in the crow's nest is not that story. Seabound exploration typically gives credit for discoveries to the person heading the expedition. Remember Magellan being the first explorer to circumnavigate the Earth? Well, he died before he got all the way around. Now we have someone put up in the crow's nest by his captain and we're supposed to cheer for him because of his extra toes? If he existed and this is his story, delete the article anyway. I know we have virtually unlimited space and all, but we can always use the extra to pull the bushes out of the way to expose FDR's wheelchair or help more people see and hear the real heroics of Helen Keller (no, not the Miricle Worker crap). - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Save The point is not about entertainment, you are taking the discussion off course. Fairbanks is notable. What else does he need to do? He is the first to look and see the future - North America. Should only Columbus get credit for 2 continents? As far as your threats are concerned, I have nothing to say to that. I see why so many people have entered this debate, it's fine to not discriminate against race or gender but when someone has a condition, that some people believe is humourous - they think its unacceptable. Why must we continue to discuss his ailment, his family accepted him, Cabot accepted him, the crew accepted him and now today we have a person who wishes to cause others physical injury. With regards to your other points - why does the person heading the expedition need to get all or the the only credit? Someone had to be in the crow's nest, someone had to see land; Fairbanks should be included not because of his disabilty - he should be here because of his actions. As for Helen Keller and FDR; I will reserve my comments except to say discrimination should not be tolerated. It's a disgrace and all of you who agree with Mdsummermsw should be ashamed. Mandm2008 (talk) 21:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandm2008 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)— Mandm2008 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete If not a hoax it seems to be unverifiable. I find it hard to believe that if the said reference exists it has the complete details asserted regarding this !person, his toe count and the derivation of his nickname. If I were to stretch AGF to the limit I might believe the book referenced was a hoax, but c'mon, 'his family accepted him, Cabot accepted him, the crew accepted him', this is all also contained in the book? All this aside, the key points missing from this article are verifiable, reliable sources. Mostly cloudy (talk) 22:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Save Please clarify "what level of detail" are you referring to? His name, or nick name and/or his ailment? I don't know. I did not make mention of his toe count. With regards to 'acceptance' this was not part of the article. I made this comment when Mdsummermsw said some discriminating comments. This was not contained in the book obviously. Mandm2008 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm afraid that you painted yourself into a corner when you said that the source was a book written in Italian, and that you were (not formally, of course) translating it (!!). So the title means "I saw the future", huh? What was the original title? Tell ya what, if you can copy a sentence or two about Flip Fairbanks from the Italian text, you'll have me convinced. Online translation services won't deliver fluent Italian, but if you have the book in front of you... that won't be necessary, will it. Buona suerte. Mandsford (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Save I don't understand your train of thought and how 'I painted myself in a corner'. What I said is true I am not a formal translator but the title "Ho Visto il Futuro" doesn't take much translating. In fact, I can copy the paragraph where I find Fairbanks (Fayerbankes)in Italian and then translate to english. But I don't want this to be a joke. I feel everyone here believes this is a hoax and are feeding off of each other and not the actual article. Mandm2008 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is not verifiable as put by the nominator and quite possibly a hoax. JBsupreme (talk) 05:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to Save This is just an opinion/comment. My question is 'Do I have to be a formal translator to add to Wikipedia?' Let's put his ailment, which I find superficial, but appearently quite humourous to young adults, on the backburner. Is the Fairbanks notable? This is what the discussion should be about. No one other then Mdsummermsw has said otherwise. Therefore when I translate the paragraph I want Fairbanks back up on Wikipedia where he should be. Mandm2008 (talk) 16:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barbadian Brazilian[edit]

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

Again, another useless article. There is nothing written about these people, in fact, the number of Barbadian Brazilians is not known. This is another "[insert nationality] Brazilian" ethnic group page created by users who don't even know anything about the population of these people, and these users leave the page almost blank or make up information using sources that does not mention anything about the population. Lehoiberri (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Once again, there is no use to this article. I'd even support blocking the editor if this continues--but I'd like an Admin to look into it first. Seems like there's a lot of these no-value, no-reference, no-information articles being assembled. Heck there's not even any information in it if I were interested in the topic!--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The article contains no information beyond that implied by the title. One can't create an article about an ethnicity just by combining two demonyms and saying "Fooian Barian is a Barian person of full, partial, or predominantly Fooian ancestry, or a Fooian-born person residing in Bar." This article is not even a stub-quality article. Please warn the article creator to create articles only after he has some information to put in them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article doesn't establish the notability of a Barbadian Brazilian and is totally unsourced. Artene50 (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Paul McDonald, there is alot of articles in the Brazilian section that are "[insert nationality] Brazilian" that are nothing more that almost blank pages. Just look at Template:Demographics of Brazil it is filled with groups that are not visible in Brazilian Society. The only ones that are visible are the Portuguese, Italians, Germans, Spanish, Poles, Ukrainians, Africans, Japanese, Jews, and the Arabs. I don't know about the rest. Lehoiberri (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to establish notability. Punkmorten (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 - No consensus, default to keep - Peripitus (Talk) 21:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Bansgrove[edit]

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

Fails general and specific notability standards. Wikipedia is not the IMDb directory; there is nothing inherently notable about being the gaffer (or any other technical non-creative) of a film, no matter how notable the film itself is. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete per A7, so nominated ukexpat (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- what next, are we to have grips and bestboys and extras in the wikipedia? Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for gaffers, If they are truly notable in their profession, yes! The grips and bestboys are subordinates of his, and probably never notable. But the gaffer is the chief lighting & electrical tech, and I consider that and similar high-level technical roles as being creative professionals--and apparently the cinematographers do as well--see the quotes in the article. We need some actual evidence, of course. Though perhaps it can be implied from the films, and from the apparent dedications listed, it also needs something more specific--and the Variety ref is I think a good source for that, and I've added it to the article along with another similar reference--I am a little surprised at someone saying there is one, and not helping the rest of us by citing it.) Considering the nature of the LOTR films, it makes sense that the gaffer might well be particularly important to the results. DGG (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gaffer is still a subordinate to the director of photography (DP), much like the camera operator; they do not independently make any creative contributions. Their job is to execute the DP's wishes and coordinate the work of setting lights. That's all. I'm not saying that there's no skill or art in the work, but it's nonetheless a completely subsidiary job. Whatever creative input they have is at the discretion of the DP and is not an implicit function of the job. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'd be glad to change my opinion to keep if we can get the sources to pass WP:BIO. But from what I've seen so far, those sources aren't available. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 23:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability is properly asserted in the opening paragraph aAnd the two references in provided at the bottom of the article back up the claim which is made. When the winner of an academy award openly acknowledges the contribution made by his gaffer, then the peer recognition demonstrates notability in his field. It meets the guidelines as far as I'm concerned. Austin46 (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query as an aside, is the quote "Bancroft and his crew were the 'key element'" a typo and should read "Bansgrove and his..."? I assume so but perhaps another editor knows for sure. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no reliable sources that address the subject in detail per WP:N. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve, at a glance the first 100 hits on English Google (all relevant to the article) seem to indicate lots of notability. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you please provide us with some direct links? --Explodicle (T/C) 13:17, 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 delete.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Nureh Staff[edit]

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

Disputed prod. Self-published books (from PublishAmerica) do not meet notability guidelines, and no reliable sources have been provided. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:06, 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.

e

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

The result was keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Historical realism[edit]

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

Appears to be original research ukexpat (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. It looks like the editor who created the entire article is new and probably unfamiliar with policies. Nk.sheridan   Talk 20:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but stubify or rewrite this is an awful article but it is a notable subject. A very very quick google scholar search brings up a journal article and a book review[4][5] about the term. These two sources on top of the list of sources at the page's bottom demonstrate notability. While there are no footnotes and while the page is written utterly improperly, the subject is itself notable enough for an article. I'd also point out that a discussion of this term appears in Dictionary of Concepts in History[6][7][8] .Any OR can be removed the page without having to the delete the article--Cailil talk 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cailil hit the point quite neatly, while the article needs stubbing, the book he mentioned has a specific entry on the topic at page 366, and also quite extensive. Unless we want to pretend to know better than scholars and specialized encyclopedias, keeping this is simply obvious.--Aldux (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but tag for "Wikify", and as "essay". This is potennially a useful article on the theory of history, but it looks like an extract from a good student essay, though uploaded with its bibliography and not its footnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Good idea. DA PIE EATER 14:26, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saniyasnain Khan[edit]

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

Delete nn person, article exists primarily as a WP:COATRACK for the subjects publishing business (article already speedied as blatant advertising) Mayalld (talk) 19:47, 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. Kevin (talk) 23:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Brazilian punk and hardcore groups[edit]

List of Brazilian punk and hardcore groups (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable, no sources to establish notability (or factual accuracy), and most of the stuff in the list is broken pipes to non-existent articles.

The tone of the article also is not encyclopedic, as somebody else noted before. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Clean up is needed is this a list or an article? "a lead section should be provided which briefly and clearly describes what the list is about" (WP:LISTS) --neon white talk 21:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable topic that should be cleaned up/referenced and not sent to AfD. Lugnuts (talk) 08:10, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Hooper[edit]

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

Contested prod, this man appears to be a non-notable fetish photographer and all the sources that were added by the editor removing my prod tag were either: to sites maintained by Hooper, or to a website called http://www.webwire.com, which, according to http://www.webwire.com/LoginPR.asp is a service for disseminating press releases. The article is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia as Hooper has no work included in major collections (only something in the Kinsey collection - which according to that Institute's website contains many thousands of photographs including amateur photographers' work). Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. The way that it was written, it seems blatantly like an advertisement. I suspect the person who disputes the prod is either Dirk himself or someone representing him. Aside from that, as you've pointed out, notability hasn't been established. Wikipedia is intended to be an encyclopedia and the careers of obscure perverted photographers are not encyclopedic. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the initial article was created by an SPA, the prod tag was removed by an SPA that is an Oklahoma City IP and then the 'improvements' were made by a third SPA that is also an Oklahoma City IP. Hooper is based in Oklahoma City; it may be a coincidence but I am a bit doubtful given the questionable quality of the sources. As can be seen below, Blushard, a major editor to the article and the only editor here to argue to keep the article is most likely demonstrably Dirk Hooper himself although he purports to be a third party. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Independent sources are way too thin. Webwire is a PR platform for more or less unmoderated press releases, not a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there a few google hits for "Dirk Hooper" but neither those[12] nor the sources cited are good enough as regards WP:N--Cailil talk 21:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: nominator read my mind. -- Hoary (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC) ........ PS: I now reread the nomination and find that I don't agree with all of it. The nomination reads: The article is clearly not suitable for an encyclopedia as Hooper has no work included in major collections; inclusion in a major collection would be sufficient but is not necessary to show notability as there are alternatives. -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable/not supported. Also, the Kinsey collection isn't a photography collection like those of the Getty or George Eastman House: assemblages of works chosen for their aesthetic, (art) historical and related merits; the Kinsey Institute gathers photographic (and other) works - regardless of their aesthetic, etc. merits - as research material for scientific studies, based only on their subject matter. Works so gathered bear no distinction and their presence in such a collection confers no notability on the works or their creators. Pinkville (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It seems like the two major issues are supporting references and importance of this article. Since this is not a voting process, I’ll stick to those two issues.

    The references I provided are what I found easily on the internet. If they are flawed or weak, then I’m capable of digging deeper and will continue to do so, if allowed. There are numerous independent sources that will back up the information in this article.

    The second issue is importance. Clearly, Dirk is not Winston Churchill. The categories that he has been placed with (fetish photographer, fetish artist) are thin and largely in need of additional information and biographies. Two different groups (BDSM and WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality) have asked for additional information here, not deletion. Someone has placed this article as a sexual article with mid-level importance, not high, but not irrelevant either. While some people may not find importance in this article, clearly other people associated with Wikipedia does.

    Hooper is an active artist in the small fetish community, he has a consistent track record of juried shows, two solo shows and has been accepted into the Dirty Show (which is a large multinational juried erotic art event) three years in a row. He just had a major exhibition in Brussels Belgium, which demonstrates a wider audience.

    Again, remember we’re talking about fetish photography here. How many fetish photography shows have they had at the Whitney or MOMA? How many fetish photographers have work in “major collections?” Maybe Helmut Newton? If that is the bar we’re going to use for measurement here, then you’re going to have to delete a lot of additional photographers and artists on this site.

    Additionally, despite opinions to the contrary, the Kinsey Institute Collection is a legitimate collection backed by a major university and they state clearly on their site that the collection contains the work of notable commercial and fine art photographers.

    Statements like “perverted photographer” suggest that some people who are voicing their opinion have more of a problem with the subject matter or are not sympathetic to any effort to expand an area where Wikipedia lacks, and they are not personally interested.

    As for my own involvement, I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work. I'm not aware of any restrictions that Wikipedia has on updating biographies of someone whose work I admire. I’ve updated this article for several years and my experience on this site is mostly relegated to this article. I think advising me or helping me to write a better article makes more sense than deleting. - Blushard —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blushard (talk • contribs) 05:58 and 06:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good, intelligent defense there, Sir. ¶ If [the references found so far] are flawed or weak, then I’m capable of digging deeper and will continue to do so, if allowed. / Please do. ¶ Two different groups (BDSM and WikiProject Sexology and Sexuality) have asked for additional information here, not deletion. / You'd be welcome to appeal on the talk boards of both for efforts to improve this article. ¶ [Hooper] has been accepted into the Dirty Show (which is a large multinational juried erotic art event) three years in a row. He just had a major exhibition in Brussels Belgium, which demonstrates a wider audience. / It would be appropriate to say more about these, e.g. to create an article about the Dirty Show (if it's as significant as you say). ¶ How many fetish photographers have work in “major collections?” Maybe Helmut Newton? If that is the bar we’re going to use for measurement here, then you’re going to have to delete a lot of additional photographers and artists on this site. / I really don't know the answer to that first question. When I'm in bookshops I notice that Taschen seems keen to blur any distinction between "art" and "porn" and suppose that this effort isn't unusual. It seems to have a fair number of books of photos of women tied up, tying others up, etc., but these tend to look much the same to me so I can't look them up here. One Taschen-published (homoerotic) artiste whose name has managed to lodge in my memory is "Tom of Finland"; for what it's worth (never trust Wikipedia!) the article on him tells us that: In 1999, an exhibition took place at the Institut Culturel Finlandais (Finnish Cultural Centre) in Paris. [An exhibition of what? And no source is given for this claim.] New York's Museum of Modern Art has acquired several examples of Laaksonen's artwork for its permanent collection. [Sourced to a book about ToF rather than one about MoMA.] ¶ despite opinions to the contrary, the Kinsey Institute Collection is a legitimate collection backed by a major university and they state clearly on their site that the collection contains the work of notable commercial and fine art photographers. / Yes it does. Then the question is of how it classes Hooper's work. If all we know is that it's in the collection, we don't know why it's in the collection. ¶ As for my own involvement, I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work. I'm not aware of any restrictions that Wikipedia has on updating biographies of someone whose work I admire. I’ve updated this article for several years and my experience on this site is mostly relegated to this article. / Your editing history is legitimate. But when somebody concentrates so much on a single exponent of a style, this raises suspicions. ¶ Clearly, Dirk is not Winston Churchill. / Well, that's a major relief. For an eye-opening account of the war heroism [hollow laugh] of Churchill, look him up in the index of Nicholson Baker's Human Smoke (which I happened to read last week). -- Hoary (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've updated some references and I'll keep looking. I guess I never considered expanding the Dirty Show article, but it does need some help as well. You might end up roping me into even more work on here! I'll check out "Human Smoke" too. Thanks! - Blushard —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.228.71 (talk) 05:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I hadn't noticed that the DS already had its own article. But (through no fault of DH's or your own, of course), it's, uh, unconvincing. A bit of time spent on that would probably help your cause. (Incidentally, you sign by hitting "~" four times in a row.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I appreciate your attempts to improve the article but I still see nothing here that leads me to believe that Hooper satisfies notability criterea for creative professionals. Moreover, I'm not sure that all of the new sources are all that convincing. This leads me to believe even more so that Hooper is not notable given the fact that further research work the article's subject himself hasn't been able to turn up more. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disclosure Blushard, in the interests of disclosure and honesty, you should reveal that you are actually Dirk Hooper, the subject the article under consideration. This [13] shows that Blushard is a pseudonym used by Hooper professionally. In addition, your last comment was added by the same IP as was used earlier to edit the Hooper article anonymously and is an Oklahoma City IP. That's either a hell of a coincidence or you are Hooper. Since the latter seems more likely, I'll note that I think its a little disingenuous for you to claim that "I’ve met Dirk on a couple of occasions and I enjoy his work" when you *are* apparently Hooper. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per WP:Rule I just made up: If you argue to keep an article about yourself on Wikipedia, you're not notable. Delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the connection made explicitly there (though it could of course have been rewritten). But see the entry for Dirk Hooper (blushard) here. -- Hoary (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you scroll down to the 'statistics' section it gives Blushard's 'real name' as Dirk Hooper (also note that the photo of the model has 'dirkhooper.net' emblazoned on it. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 21:58, 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 Speedy deleted per creator request at Talk:Joune. Was created by accident at Wikipedia instead of Wiktionary. —Angr 19:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joune[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, especially not Afrikaans-English one Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, sorry i know this was a bit n00bish of me but it was an accident. please delete if you have access rights to do so. sorry -HannesJvV- (talk) 19:19, 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 media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ghosts In The Machines[edit]

The result of the debate was Speedy delete per CSD A3. The article has been purged of all unverifiable content, leaving the article literarely empty. Consensus to delete is clear as well. — Edokter • Talk • 22:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts In The Machines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:CRYSTALBALL. I cannot find any official confirmation that this is the name of the Christmas Special, nor any sources that back up the facts shown this page. It is pure speculation, about an episode that is still six months away. TalkIslander 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - no proof of the title or the content, and there is already a Torchwood episode entitled "Ghost Machine" (which makes this title even less likely). --Ckatzchatspy 19:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I feel like screaming at something. This name seems to come from nowhere, it is not in the fifth series anyway (but the between-series specials), and this Metro fact is probably absolute rubbish. U-Mos (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Stephenb (Talk) 19:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What should be done when articles that are blatantly going to be deleted disobey capitalisation conventions? Is there any point moving it to Ghosts in the Machines? U-Mos (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is totally WP:CRYSTAL. No reliable sources (just the mention that an actor on the show mentioned it, but there's no link for proof). I can't find anything about it anywhere else. It also fails per WP:V Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 20:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Is there any point continuing this? I know that technically this article doesn't violate any of WP:CSD, but anyone think this can be closed per WP:SNOW? Unless a rock-solid source can back up the existance of this title, it will stay as speculation. TalkIslander 20:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no reliable source, and even filming won't even start for at least a month. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 21:26, 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 Withdrawn. DustiSPEAK!! 18:40, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lee (Korean)[edit]

Lucy Lee (Korean) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Subject appears to fail WP:PORNBIO in all criteria. She does not appear to have received or been nominated for any serious awards in the field of pornography, does not seem to have made any unique contributions to the field (she's certainly not the first Korean or Korean-American pornographic actress), and I cannot find many, if any, mentions in the mainstream media. Sourcing for the article is shaky at best, relying on an old AVN bio from 2003 and a very questionable blog post suggesting that she may have been arrested.

Article had been PROD'ed once before, for "no assertion of notability", and was removed- there seems to be an assertion indeed but not much else. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:48, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:02, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WiN Global[edit]

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

Women in nuclear was deleted twice as spam. Is this any better? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as spam Nk.sheridan   Talk 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete The version has got to go; it reads like a vision statement. There may be mentions in reliable sources (namely news articles), but these seem to amount only to announcements of awards granted by WiN, workshops they've held, and information about the growth of a particular chapter. There may be one or two scholarly papers out there to attest to their significance (Requires IEEE membership), but I cannot access them. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The full text of the mention in this article reads "In 1993, a group of professional women started Women In Nuclear (WIN), to advocate the nuclear industry. The basic objectives of WIN are to promote women in the field of nuclear technology, to provide a network to help further their professional development, and the most important objective is to provide an association through which the public is informed about nuclear energy and nuclear technologies. The associations like WIN are trying to promote the nuclear industry with Congress and public. This organization should be deep rooted into every university with a nuclear program and at every nuclear facility." I leave everyone to draw their own conclusions Kate (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as advertising...and copyvio [16] (I'd marked for speedy for copyvio previously and someone tried to clean it up and it's STILL got issues) LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:44, 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 Speedily deleted per G3 by ESkog, non-admin closure. TN‑X-Man 19:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cbage stick[edit]

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

Listing for another editor, as Twinkle apparently goofed. Apparent movie-related nonsense. TN‑X-Man 18:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete. Vandalism. Note "jerry seinfeld as a consultant". — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - crystal balling of movie that has no verifiable google hits. Booglamay (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: one relevant search result. The link is blacklisted so I can't provide it, but this link should provide access (first link). It seems a bit iffy too - the website is advertised thus - "...[we] invite you to contribute original video, text, audio and images on any topic to gain exposure and earn cash". Hmm. Booglamay (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the website you provide is a humor website, the article is a parody. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete, obvious vandalism - Brian Welch as Jesus ? Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as pure vandalism, and so nominated. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:08, 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 23:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Medical Solutions[edit]

Clear Medical Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:SPAM appears to be a promotional PR piece. Contested PROD. Nk.sheridan   Talk 18:02, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toallagate[edit]

Translates to "Towelgate", this is a news item and not fit as an encyclopedia article. WP:NOTNEWS seemingly applies. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per the rationale provided as nominator. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 17:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think this page could added as a section to this page Vicente Fox as it is about him and his government. harris 578 (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It was in the news for at least six years: [17]. Zagalejo^^^ 18:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep, If the article can be sourced better I would keep it, if not merge to Vicente Fox per harris 578. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obscure political scandals tend to crop up on Wikipedia occasionally. If they aren't of significance either to the average Wikipedian (meaning, American or European) or of international significance, then they don't seem notable. The information here could be merged to one of the other articles. I agree it's an obvious case of WP:NOTNEWS. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The scandal did receive a fair amount of coverage outside of Mexico: [18]. Zagalejo^^^ 21:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wikipedia does not exist for the benefit of "the average Wikipedian", or even of all Wikipedians. It's an encyclopedia about the whole world universe that happens to be written in English, and exists for the benefit of readers and potential readers. And what's obscure about a political scandal that gets continuing media coverage over 8 years as already demonstrated above, and is also covered in books as I will demonstrate below. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As well as the extensive long-term media coverage shown above this scandal is getting into the history books, such as these in English [19][20] and plenty more in Spanish [21]. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan McMillan[edit]

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

Jordan McMillan has never played in a senior football match, which means that he clearly fails both WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 17:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a similar vein, I would also like to nominate Rory Loy, Steven Kinniburgh and Ross Perry. None of whom have made a senior first team appearance either. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Rangers regularly selected youth players for their bench last season to comply with Scottish Premier League and Scottish Cup rules that state that each club must name players under the age of 21 in their match squads. Last season, Rangers only really had Steven Naismith as a genuine first team player who was under 21. They regularly had to bring in players from their youth squads to comply with the rules. Obviously if those players were actually used, then they pass the WP guidelines. See Walter Smith's comments on these rules in this article. The gist of what he is saying is that these young players who were named on the bench but did not play would not have been there but for the rules forcing him to select them. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as they fail notability at WP:ATHLETE. --Jimbo[online] 11:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as they fail WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep I'm thinking that playing in the friendly against the LA Galaxy might be enough to meet the spirit of WP:Athlete. Even though it was an exhibition game rather than a league match, it was two fully professional teams (each in the best league of their nation) playing against each other. If it's been established as policy that professional level friendlies don't count for WP:Athlete, then deletion would be in order, though. Vickser (talk) 18:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the friendly match is enough, here's ESPN's article confirming that McMillan and Perry played. Their substitutions are mentioned at the end of the first section. Loy and Kinniburgh are clear deletes. Vickser (talk) 18:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think playing in a friendly qualifies him or Perry per WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN. Both Rangers and LA Galaxy are clearly professional clubs, but the guidelines state that the player must play in a competitive match (ie league, cup or international play), not a friendly match (or exhibition game as its called in the US). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's generally agreed that friendly/exhibition matches don't count, due to their non-competitive nature and the fact that clubs often dilute their teams with youngsters and triallists..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As per the above, playing in a friendly game does not help him meet WP:ATHLETE criteria. Friendly club matches are useless for determining notability, as they are often used by clubs to trial players who they may never sign and therefore may never play professionally. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If it's established precedent that friendly games don't count, then by all means delete. Just establishing that it was in fact true and giving a relaible source. Switch my vote to delete. Vickser (talk) 21:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Separate into different AFDs and relist. While some of these are clearly not notable, others are debatable, and as such this doesn't meet the criteria for bulking together. Nfitz (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - sitting on a bench does not confer notability. WP:ATHLETE is definitely clear. --Angelo (talk) 08:27, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:19, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of comic and cartoon characters named after people[edit]

List of comic and cartoon characters named after people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article appears to be entirely original research. Also, much of the article is non-compliant with WP:N and WP:V. Also, since it deals with people, the unsourced information (the entire article), may conflict with WP:BLP. The idea of the page itself does not seem to follow WP:FICT guidelines. Finalnight (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep Some of the entries can obviously be sourced. [22] I think this is something to discuss on the talk page. have attempts been made to find sources. --neon white talk 21:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete I suppose that it can be sourced, but do we need "proof" that "Cary Granite" on The Flintstones is a parody of Cary Grant? Or that "Helga Pataki" on Hey Arnold! has a name that sounds inspired by George Pataki? This is original research by someone who has heard the names "Yogi Bear" and "Yogi Berra" and put 2+2 together. Mandsford (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Yogi Bear/Berra connection has been made by many sources and so is not original. However, when the baseball player threatened to sue, Hanna Barbera denied that there was a connection. The disputed connection is thus quite notable and we may find other similar examples from the pages of Private Eye (which currently lampoons Gordon Brown in the style of The Broons). Colonel Warden (talk) 06:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually, putting 2 plus 2 together is the classic example of what is not OR; common sense is a permissible editing method. As other people will have discussed both the obvious and the non obvious, it will be formally sourcable, as even admitted by an editor wanting to delete the article. I suggest that people should have tried to do so before nominating it here. The BLP connection seems rather remote unless some of these are considered offensive, in which case those ones will indeed need actual sourcing. Can't see what any of the multiple proposed versions of FICT has do do with it, even if there were any agreement on the guideline DGG (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some of these associations are very notable and so the list has a good basis. The current lack of sourcing is not significant because it is a list and the blue links provide reasonable basis for the entries. If there are some disputed entries then these should be addressed individually. This is not a reason to delete the entire article. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sorry, I agree with nom. Saying that something could be a reference to something, without a source to back up, is original research. Saying that something is a reference to something, without a source to back up, is even worse. And this list lists characters by a non-defining characteristic: Alexander Lemming, Alvida, and Ann-Margrock share being named after real people - so what? – sgeureka t•c 07:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world), What Wikipedia is, and Wikipedia:Lists (discriminate, encyclopedic, notable, unoriginal, and verifiable). Also, legitimate search term with clear editorial interest. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Flintstones wikipedia page shows examples of several characters named after celebrities of their time, it rather obvious in those examples. Dream Focus (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, quite a few of these are sourced back on their main article. This suggests that people consider the information encyclopedic. A few of them are fabrications/pure OR, but AfD is not cleanup. Just put a "citation needed" tag on the ones that are hard to confirm, then remove them after a few weeks if no sources are forthcoming. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Ford MF (talk) 02:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fee Fi Foe Fum. Ford MF (talk) 02:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:20, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P & Mr. Jones[edit]

AfDs for this article:
P & Mr. Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a future album, fails WP:CRYSTAL. TN‑X-Man 17:47, 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 Merge to Knuckles the Echidna. I am not in a position to do this myself, but perhaps the regulars to the page can do so. Stifle (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knuckles the Echidna (comic character)[edit]

Knuckles the Echidna (comic character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nothing but an in-universe "fictional biography" of a less-notable depiction of a video game character. Delete or Merge to Knuckles the Echidna. Jonny2x4 (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: To Knuckles the Echidna. But I do request that it is a good long section.Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Knuckles the Echidna already has this well covered. No need for two articles on a secondary video game character --T-rex 19:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant. Also, just redirect to the original article, as per...well, everyone. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Knuckles the Echidna as per T-rex and WP:MERGE - there is significant "overlap" here and no reason for a whole article for the comics at this time--Cailil talk 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Knuckles the Echidna per WP:MERGE. Significant enough overlap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Knuckles the Echidna has this covered, and would not benefit from having 79 tons of solid unreferenced crap dropped on it. It has its own referencing and notability issues. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge probably about two paragraphs of relevant material to Knuckles the Echidna and redirect there. No need for all of this in-universe stuff that is completely unsourced. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no real life, third party reliable sources to meet notability for the article, just like virtually every other article on Sonic the Hedgehog that I have seen, including the major games and Knuckles the Echinda! Unfortunately this is a problem which is widespread, and this AfD may be the first of many from a number of editors. --tgheretford (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki any content that is salvageable to http://sonic.wikia.org . If it's a fictional biography, then a site like that Wikia is likely able to hold this fancruft, should they not have it already. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 23:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let Angel Island fall on the article Merge the content, but don't redirect. Nobody will be looking for something with (parentheses) enclosing it. Raymie Humbert (TrackerTV) (receiver, archives) 23:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you definitively state what "no one will ever look for"? I look for parenthetical subjects all the time; I reckon many people do, who frequently search for comics or video-game related articles. Redirects cost nothing and harm nothing, so there's no compelling reason not to have one. Ford MF (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the main article on the character, as there's no need to have an article on a variation of a character. Question in response to one of the comments above: Wikia is not part of Wikipedia nor is it affiliated in any way to my knowledge. Would the "trans-wiki" option actually be applicable? To my understanding it's only applicable when referring to moving material to a Wikipedia-operated site like Wiktionary. Just a comment. I agree with the above that there's no need to keep this as a redirect. 23skidoo (talk) 02:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world) and What Wikipedia is. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 03:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man In Black. A large pile of unsourced in-universe information, which Knuckles the Echidna has already covered in a better balance per WP:UNDUE. – sgeureka t•c 07:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I revised it somewhat to make reference a section more out of universe. Clearly a legitimate search term that at worst would be merged and redirected without deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 08:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per most everyone. I've always found the existence of the Archie Comics version of Sonic characters ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete At the risk of repeating what's already been said, the article is duplicative and unnecessary. Surely, anyone looking for the character would look for 'knuckles' rather than 'knuckles (comics)'. The main character article (which is weak and of dubious legitimacy itself) really doesn't need a load of WP:NOT#PLOT violations (of which this article mostly consists of) merged into it. Bridies (talk) 17:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please note Wikipedia:Merge and delete. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into main article on character, but cherry-pick a few of the most important bits only and compress it to a minimum - there is far too much unsourced, unneeded content. Synergy/Blades (Talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Man in Black. WP:NOT for plot summaries, etc. Fin©™ 09:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge where applicable, and redirect. Character offshoot that does not seem distinct enough to warrant its own article, and would be better covered in Knuckles' main article (which could use some tidying itself). Ford MF (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per a Man in Black; merging this is unnecessary - the info that would be merged already exists, as MiB points out. Eusebeus (talk) 14:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Article has improved since nomination and since several of the delete "votes", but even without that, I just noticed something that gives me cause to recommend a speedy close/keep. A merge discussion was underway when this AfD as initiated. Therefore, we should let that discussion play out first and then see if an AfD is necessary, but we absolutely should not have two related discussions occuring simultaneously. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The improvements consist of renaming a header and rearranging some templates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. Redirect to Knuckles the Echidna per discussion below. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Information verifiable in a variety of sources that does not advance a thesis is not original research. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 21:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sources? I'd imagine most of it would be from the primary source (comics themselves) anyways. What secondary source has addressed this directly in detail? --Explodicle (T/C) 22:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reviews of the comics that also mention the characters. "Knuckles" in general is a notable character across multiple forms of media (even a titular character in games) and so at worst I could see a reasonable case for merging and redirect to an article on just Knuckles in all of his incarnations, but given the number of editors who worked on and read this article, it's obviously a legitimate search term and so the real disucssion should be about whether it's worth merging and redirecting, but I don't see any basis for something as decisive as an outright deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - For the record, if we're going to use the titles as redirects, that doesn't mean that anyone will just be allowed to recreate the content of the article. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge: To Knuckles the Echidna. central character.Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ans possibly transfer this in-universe material to a Wikia site which is dedicated to these types of things. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:15, 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) -- RyRy (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As seen on TV (marketing)[edit]

As seen on TV (marketing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability, is not referenced, is inaccurate, and is not written in a suitable style. It also borders on spam. (Prod was removed without any reason given.) SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not notable, not referenced, very subjective. Don't know about spam, but the other issues are enough to delete this. - Vote changed, see below. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Evidently notable so should be kept for improvement per our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - clearly not spam as it isn't pushing any particular product. Needs to be cleaned up, but poor writing is not a reason to delete. A very notable, and well used marketing and sales term --T-rex 19:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 19:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Obviously notable through repeated media use, regardless of the article's current state. Jclemens (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Direct marketing, if there's anything worth keeping. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. it's a notable marketing technique, and this isn't really spammy - it doesn't really advertise items that are as seen on TV, and in fact fails to mention the As Seen On TV stores. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Speedy?) Keep. There's at least one entire book dedicated to this exact subject, which I added as a reference. Did some editing to make it less spammy, though like every article on Wikipedia, it could be improved further.--Father Goose (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That book, at least the part excerpted on Google Books, is hilarious. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jclemens and Father Goose. JuJube (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Direct marketing as suggested above. The phrases "Not sold in stores" and "As seen on TV" are little more than catchphrases used in this type of marketing and are not, in and of themselves, independently notable. Shereth 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Direct Marketing. Whilst a common marketing tactic, the article is nothing more than a definition with examples. jonathon (talk) 03:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability by virtue of fact that most American television watchers will recognize the phrase. See Where's the beef? and Think Different. After AfD, consider merging using normal WP:MERGE procedures. Article needs substantial improvement though. All editors are invited to fix it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Excellent work. JeanLatore (talk) 00:33, 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 Nom withdrawn, see below. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patty Bartlett Sessions[edit]

Patty Bartlett Sessions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A midwife who may or may not (sources seem to disagree) have been one of the wives of the mormon founder. Notability is not inherited and being a midwife is not especially notable. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn see below[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. —TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If as the Sedgwick page states, her cabin has been rebuilt as a tourist attraction, and her diaries have been published, that would seem to indicate notability.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the book has been published, but I don't think that automatically makes her notable. Haven't been able to verify the cabin claims. Is Sedgwick a reliable source? From its web presentation doesn't appear to be, but I'm not too familiar with it to judge. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think we can necessarily consider that page a reliable source, but if it's true, it ought to be findable elsewhere.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair number of GNews hits ([23]) mentioning her.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Your link doesn't work for me and mine is name droppings, only one about her. Others just mentioning her. I agree, we should be able to find better sourcing and if we do, I'm happy to withdraw but I haven't been able to find much of anything in Scholar, Books or elsewhere. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed the link. Seems to be the same as yours, but on that first page are an article about a play based on Sessions' life and a lecture on Women in Utah History devoted to Sessions. The story about the sampler exhibit calls her "prominent". The sourcing is definitely out there: we're just not finding it yet.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • She looks notable to me based on the sources I looked at. The current content, however, falls far short of being a decent article and it might be better to stub it down to the lead. GRBerry 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sessions is the subject of at least one chapter of the first book listed here, although I didn't check the rest of the list. Agreed with GRBerry above that the article could stand significant improvement and possibly reduction as indicated above. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I've added several references and cleaned up the article. Her published diaries have been reviewed in several journals and are frequently cited by historians. (I count 21 cites by Google Scholar [24] and 39 cites by Google Book [25].) In addition, she's the subject of two published chapter-length biographies (in the references, see the chapters by Rugh (1976) and Smart (1996).) Thus, she clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:N and WP:BIO of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Because of her diaries, it's clear that historians of early Mormonism and of the settlement of Utah regard her as one of the most important women of that period. BRMo (talk) 03:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn as I said, I'd be happy to withdraw if I was found wrong. While I don't think she would have been known if not for her marriage to the Mormon founder, * Rugh, Susan (1978), “Patty Bartlett Sessions: More than a Midwife”, in Vicky Burgess-Olson, Sister Saints, Brigham Young University Press, pp. 303–322, ISBN 0842512357 appears to establish notability. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 03:06, 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 redirect, they are cheap after all. Let me know if you think this is incorrect.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Kenpo[edit]

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

Originally proposed as a merge with American Kenpo, but the editors there stated it is not noteworthy. (see Talk:American Kenpo#Merger_Proposal) Apparently there are many offshoots of American Kenpo, and the notable ones are already included in the American Kenpo page. Dragon Kenpo itself has no encyclopedic content. There is also another page on this topic, DragonKenpo, which, while longer, is even more spam-like, and is up for its own AfD. Livitup (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect but don't merge--redirects are cheap and it's a plausible search term. Otherwise, delete. JJL (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Dragon Kenpo is a non-notable marketing concept derived from American Kenpo. Vantelimus (talk) 19:27, 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 - Merge to the main article. As there is already a minor mention per Sgeureka, I leave any moving of material to editors, from the articles history. Just redirecting to Les Miserables (musical)#International productions - Peripitus (Talk) 21:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Les Misérables (Netherlands)[edit]

Les Misérables (Netherlands) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We do not have separate pages for different productions of plays and musicals. Encyclopedically speaking, this production, while notable, is indistinguishable from any other production of the musical. As such, it does not get its own page. — MusicMaker5376 16:07, 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 Deleted (non-admin closure) by Esprit15d per CSD A7 as a group/company/etc not asserting significance/importance. WilliamH (talk) 16:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Gloff[edit]

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

Could not find third-party sources to show subject meets WP:BAND NeilN talk ♦ contribs 16:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neither could I. Grey Wanderer (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails notability standards with flying colours; all his works are essentially self-published. 65.241.15.131 (talk) 21:06, 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 redirect all. Kurykh 22:51, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Comedy Awards 2000[edit]

Canadian Comedy Awards 2000 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominating multiple stub pages that do not follow WP:N for the individual years and also WP:CFORK for innappropriate forking/duplication from Canadian Comedy Awards.Finalnight (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Canadian Comedy Awards 2001‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2002 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2003‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2004 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2005‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2007‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 Canadian Comedy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Canadian Comedy Awards 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

--Finalnight (talk) 16:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Objection Although the 2000-2006 pages are very bare, the 2007 and 2008 pages contain a lot of information that should not be put on the main Canadian Comedy Awards site. I moved the 2000-2006 details to the main page, but keeping all of the 2007-2008 data there would clutter up that page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PaidWithA20 (talk • contribs) 22:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note the above objection appears to be from an SPA that has only worked with these articles for one day.--Finalnight (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the articles, 2001 to 2006 should be deleted and redirected back to the main article page. These 1-2 line substubs do not do anything for the subject or the encyclopedia. The 2007 and 2008 articles appear to just be laundry lists of the people nominated for awards. For these, I'm weakly leaning towards a merge and redirect of the winners, although could be swayed if these subarticles were expanded to be more than a list of winners and losers (events of the leadup/night, controversies?) and more diligently sourced. If kept, the 2007-8 listed need to be removed from the main article. -- saberwyn 23:53, 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 Deleted (non-admin closure) by Werdna per CSD G7 due to main author requesting deletion or blanking the page. WilliamH (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beginning EP (Self-Released)[edit]

The Beginning EP (Self-Released) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Self released records are inherently non-notable per WP:MUS Mayalld (talk) 15:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While typically that does make sense, as this was a release from a notable and popular signed band and part of their discography which is available and distributed world-wide, I feel it is of definite use to those searching for information on The Features. Bananaco9 (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2008
  • Keep Perhaps, however, i don't see it as such in this case, considering the reach of the album at the time, notability of the band, and the further releases of the album, it alone is notable. The artcle however, needs greatly improving and expanding on, or i shall change my vote to delete in later discussion of it's encyclopedic content. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'm trying to expand their Wikipedia entries currently and will continue to flesh out the details for the releases. Thank you! Bananaco9 (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008


This page is ok for deletion. As this album was later released by a major label I have simply amended the major-label release page to include this basic information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bananaco9 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 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 Withdrawn by nominator, as 2005 NY Times article added by Artene50 establishes notability. TN‑X-Man 18:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hopstop Inc.[edit]

Hopstop Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. Non-notable company and article has no reliable sources. References cited are for company site and a bulletin board service. TN‑X-Man 14:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - NN company... - Adolphus79 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CORP. Shovon (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep current state is not a reason for deletion and there are sources among press releases that establish notability including PC Magazine, Crains and others. It's been designated as "leader in online mass transit directions". There's plenty with which to build an article. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a New York Times article on this site. It is quite interesting and somewhat notable. Artene50 (talk) 09:04, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notable company. Brianga (talk) 18:41, 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 merge to Coprophilia. Ok, now, before everyone starts in at me and points out that there were relatively few people here voicing to merge this information, allow me a moment to explain. This is the ninth nomination on an article that consistently fails to reach consensus. Clearly this is indicative of a problem that cannot be ignored; were I to take the "easy route" and close this one as no consensus this would only result in the 10th nomination sometime down the road. On a strictly "by the numbers" basis those arguing to delete outnumber those arguing to keep, and while that really isn't consensus it certainly indicates that allowing this to sit in it's current form is not going to please most folks. All the same, there are several well-reasoned voices for keeping this material that cannot be ignored. What we have here is a curious situation where there does exist a consensus that this article is, and likely forever will be, a dictionary definition, while at the same time there exists a consensus that it is notable. What to do? Neither this article nor the one on coprophilia are particularly large or fleshed out, and when the examples thereof are discounted both are mere stubs. When comparing this article to the state it was in a year ago it is largely unchanged except for some formatting and addition/removal of some examples of its use in the media - there is no indication that leaving this article alone will result in subsequent improvement. As there is no argument that a "cleveland steamer" is a subset of "coprophilia", I fail to see how any conclusion other than merging the material is one that will bring this issue to any semblance of a satisfactory conclusion. Shereth 20:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland steamer[edit]

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

It's been a year since the last Nomination, and as it was No Consensus, i feel it needs to be discussed again. Obviously i considered it for a while before posting this, and decided i did feel there was serious grounds to finally delete the article. Please in responding, consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established in previous Nominations. Unless you have a very strong argument for either of those points, keep away from the topic. However, whether the topic is notable or not, it has no serious content and there is little chance it can be improved. Also, considering it's importance in the context of related topics, i don't see much that could be added, or reason to merge the examples into larger articles. My primary reason, it is a dictionary (length) article, and impossible to make encyclopedic. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 14:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Changed to merge to Coprophilia Whilst we are all probably agreed the subject matter is not particularly edifying, it is encyclopedic. Looking at the last AFD general consensus was that this could become an sound article (for example in terms of the derivation of the phrase etc.) So whilst no-one has bothered making substantial improvement to it I still can't see why that justifies deletion. We have many, many articles badly in need of betterment but that doesn't mean we get rid of them - even if substantial time has passed. I understand the nominator assertions that this is little more than a DICDEF but I feel it is sufficently more than such to escape deletion on those grounds. M♠ssing Ace 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Considering that any dictionary definition could easily be expanded with a large Etymology, history of use, and other contentless side points, what is it about this topic you feel could be said to expand it? I tried long and hard to consider an angle on expanding it, and despite other people's previous attempts to justify such, i still see no substantial points that could be made. Any points would be useful to this consideration. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 15:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll reply to this later if that's okay. I'm on an employers machine, so I'll wait until I'm home before looking further off of wikipedia regarding this :) - I agree that perhaps it's flippant of me to say "expand don't delete" without offering concrete areas in which it could be expanded - apologies. M♠ssing Ace 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of "offering concrete areas in which it could be expanded", why not expand it into those concrete (coprolite?) areas? (When somebody slapped a PROD on Ragnar Axelsson, I disagreed, so I promptly made the article at least twice as good.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted, Hoary, if you'd provide the diff where my suggestion to provide "concrete areas for expansion" did not include me actually expanding the article. Please don't play semantics with my attempt to apologise to the nominator for not giving due weight to his nomination. That's pretty poor. M♠ssing Ace 19:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll avoid playing semantics and I'm sure your apology was sincere and all that. -- Hoary (talk) 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The term received news attention through its use in a U.S. Congress staff hoax email -- now is that major or what? It's something that "a young staffer" for some congresswoman wrote. It got news attention! And just what news attention did it get in Foggy Bottom -- an article in the Washington Moonie, perhaps, or even Washington Post? Well, uh, neither, it would seem. (Here's the story: E-mails were flying around Capitol Hill on Wednesday about a dump in Rep. Jane Harman’s (D-Calif.) office. Yes, that kind of dump. / LOG IN / NOT A SUBSCRIBER / 1. Username / 2. Password / 3. /Forget your password? Click here or / Call 202-824-6800 / Subscribe to Print and/or Online /Click Here) And wait, this phrase has been spoken in "popular culture". Most excitingly, one character in Family Guy once asked another if she would like a "Cleveland steamer". Now there's significance for you (earnestly wrung out into six "encyclopedic" sentences). ¶ Though as it happens it's not significance for me. That some teenager used this jocular neologism in lame email that then got written up by a barrel-scraping website, and that the phrase was then uttered on television, seem matters of profound triviality (though yes, the kind of thing I might have chortled over when I was ten years old). Dig a hole for this, throw it in, do a dump on it, and then cover the hole; I mean delete it. -- Hoary (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not the whole article. Roll Call requires you either have a subscription or work on Capital Hill to view it's stories. The two sentences you've quoted are just the preview. Further, Roll Call is not "barrel-scraping" by any sense. It's a long running commercially successful paper owned by The Economist Group with prominent current and former staffers. Vickser (talk) 02:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh yes, I looked at the site, and it has some worthwhile content. What little I know of this (non-) story, however, suggests that it scrapes the barrel too. I don't work on Capitol Hill and am not going to buy a subscription; if you or anyone else works there or has a subscription, then let's hear what significance is adduced in the rest of this article. -- Hoary (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NINTH times' the charm, right? SashaNein (talk) 16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I really doubt it even exist. Either clearly label this as hoax or legend or otherwise delete it. (This is approaching the GNAA record *sigh*.) SYSS Mouse (talk) 16:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Though i always appreciate a vote in favour of my position, please read my Nomination and previous nominations. This is a reality and not a hoax, and should only be considered for it's encyclopedic content, unless you have some proof this is a fantastic hoax. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But your nomination appears to wobble. You say: consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established beyond usual doubt. [...] it is a dictionary article. This would imply to me that it's about a term whose [whatever] have been established. (Cf fuck, an article about a term.) But instead you seem to be saying that it's an article about an activity that's notable, but about which there's nothing much to say. Of course, any activity involving voluntary emission of body fluids must be actual and notable in WP, because anyone who suggests otherwise will be labeled a prude. Why be fuddy-duddy and demand such evidence for this as articles in academic journals or books? (Me, I say it's a long and uninteresting dictionary entry for an insignificant and jocular term to describe an activity whose significance has not been adduced.) -- Hoary (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm afriad i don't see your point. I wasn't trying to be "fuddy-duddy" by saying avoid talking about notability, but because there have been 8 nominations already discussing that fact in such detail that it is a waste of time. I myself know numerous people with the Tenacious D T-Shirt mentioned previously. The topic is notable, it simply isn't deserving of a full article on Wikipedia. If we begin discussing Notability, significance, or the opinion of it's deserving of an article, the discussion will slip fast and there will be a no consensus close again. Also note, you don't seem to understand what i mean when i say dictionary article. I do not mean it is an article about a term/definition, but that the content is so small and unexpandable that it couldn't possible provide a full article. Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK, got it. I guess where we differ is that I see no reason to believe that the topic is notable (let alone that this article is worth preservation). There's a great academic industry about sexology and I wonder how it is, if the subject is notable, that a grand total of zero (0) academic articles have so far been fished up from JSTOR to document its notability. Instead, the article depends on such sources as a book cowritten by "Karl Marks", The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks. I'm seriously underwhelmed; but then perhaps I'm fuddy-duddy, because after all academic articles are seldom devoted to individual Pokemon and all those other subjects that make Wikipedia so inimitable and wonderful. -- Hoary (talk) 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- this does not go beyond a dictionary definition and a list of trivia. There is no real article to bring out of this mess --T-rex 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: no mention of Tenacious D, huh? OBM | blah blah blah 16:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After all these nominations it still hasn't been revised enough to warrant keeping. The references list is worthless. It is not now nor is it likely to become encyclopedic, notable, etc.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the nominators statement of consider the fact that notability and factuality have been established beyond usual doubt. He then goes onto say: However, whether the topic is notable or not, it has remained without any serious content for far too long to believe anyone will improve it. So what? - There is no deadline. Notability has already been established, referenced and cleaned up since nomination #1 and nomination #9. I would even push for the irony of it being notable ONLY via the fact it's been up for deletion so many times and survived. Same time, next year? Lugnuts (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Notability is not the only criteria for inclusion. Why vote keep on the matter, when there are reasons to delete it? Also, notability has nothing todo with it's Number of AFD's, that would not be sufficient. Note to anyone reading the previous quotes, i intend to edit my original nomination to prevent any more people quoting only parts of my statement to backup there small points. Especially considering discussing notability from either angle is a waste of everyone's time. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your quote Why vote keep on the matter, when there are reasons to delete it? is a pretty weak arguement. You could apply that to 95% of the articles on here! Lugnuts (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It wasn't an argument, it was a rude, offhand comment aimed directly at you for childishly focusing on Notability like it matters in this case. I've made perfectly valid and strong argument in my opening comments, if you choose to ignore them, that's your choice, but if you are going to comment, comment on them, not unrelated responses. Thankyou. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Childish comment?!. Good luck with your one-man crusade. Lugnuts (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NINTH nomination? Seriously? The nominator has basically stated that the subject matter passes WP:N. It clearly passes WP:V. This is a blatant WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. This nomination should be closed re: WP:SNOW and WP:POINT. — MusicMaker5376 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the other eight nominations. While it does resemble a dicdef somewhat, it is sourced and appears to be notable. Clearly a WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (On both of the above) I have no opinion on this article... I couldn't care less about the content, so your magical ability to read inbetween the subtext must be flawed, especially, as if you look closely at the actual words i use, "it is a dictionary (length) article, and impossible to make encyclopedic" (these can be found in my nomination, not just in your imaginations), i have stated the reason i believe the article needs deleting. If you can profer some way in which the article could become more than a dictionary definition, then fair enough, I would love to see an article improved instead of deleted! However (as stated in the written text of my nomination, where i didn't give any opinion on the article), i don't believe (and no one has given possiblities as to where) it can be improved. Notability and Verification are of course not points of discussion, because i cleary accept both in my Nomination! Just as i accept that the word "the" is a word, however, notice it doesn't have a page dedicated completely to it, because there can be no serious content for just it. Also, the number of nominations should not affect your Vote, and saying "Per the other eight nominations" is not useful to the current discussion. If you feel there are any points in previous discussions relating to how this article can be improved or in what way it isn't a DICDEF (Note, once again incase you missed it, i have accept the WP:N and WP:V on this article too many times to count), please post them and help the discussion move along. I apologize if i seem condescending, but i find it incredibly rude when you jump in, claim notability without reading my nomination, blatently ignore the thought i put into AfDing this in order to improve Wikipedia, and accuse me of letting my opinion (WP:IDONTLIKEIT) affect me, when clearly it hasn't. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wholly unencyclopedic, belongs in a list, not its own article. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not a prude. I thought the coprophilia article was interesting. That said, it's an impressive testimony to Wikipedia culture that so much support for this junk article ever existed. This is nothing more than a pop dictionary definition with a (very small) trivia list of pop culture examples thrown on top of it, and is quite clearly outside a few policies and guidelines. Even clicking on some of the hyperlinks used to demonstrate notability, I'm not surprised to find that the links are either broken or the sources no longer exist. Does Sit and Spin Magazine, for example, even really exist or is it a gag site? Please don't get me wrong, I love watching Family Guy as much as anyone else from my generation, but using a throw away comment from one of its cartoon characters to demonstrate encyclopedic notability seems a little odd to me. My favorite sentence comes from a previous AfD commentator: "Smear this 'article' with feces and then pull the trigger." Well said. :-) J Readings (talk) 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pointless trivia about a word that is only a slang term for a coprophiliac act. The word could be added to the coprophilia entry but it certainly doesnt deserve an entry of its own. At the moment it is just a definition and some fancruft. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given that over 50,000 people have viewed the article recently one can only assume that our readership are after some information. So to delete an article from an encyclopedia, when our main goal is to give out the sum of all human knowledge (however crap </joke>), seems wrong. The facts of readership seem to indicate the article has interest and warrants expansion if possible - or at the very least a merge to Coprophilia and a redirect accordingly. M♠ssing Ace 21:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia page hits (much less those cited out of context as above) are not a credible or reliable guage of encyclopedic notability. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed they don't give credibility to an article - but they do demonstrate that our readership is interested. And my understanding is that the readers are are most important thing. So to not have an article, or at least a redirect, serves our readership poorly. Why, by the way, do you believe this is "cited out of context" ? M♠ssing Ace 22:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think 50,000 page hits demonstrates anything about Wikipedia's readership. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it demonstrates a lot about our readership. I believe the article on Anal sex used to be ranked number 2 or 3. What that demonstrates about our readership is another thing however :). FWIW given that people are evidently interested, but there is exceptionaly good points made above, I'd say merge to Coprophilia. M♠ssing Ace 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this isolated, unconfirmed statistic, given out of context and interpreted through your good faith original research, very likely demonstrates more about the Internet than Wikipedia's readership :) Gwen Gale (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gwen - Did you actualy bother clicking on the link below before you accuse me of OR ? M♠ssing Ace 22:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an accusation at all, I think you're sharing these thoughts in good faith, to help the encyclopedia. I did click on the link earlier and sampled other article stats too (and had fun doing it). I mean that your interpretation of the statistic is original research. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for my own edification and acknowledging that it has absolutely no relevance to this AfD (Gwen Gale is right), which site do we visit in order to learn that 50,000 people have viewed this (or any other specific) article on Wikipedia? I'd be interested in using this tool (provided that it's reliable) for other things. J Readings (talk) 22:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Err... just the usual one? Sorry I'm confused. Sorry, I see now. this is the answer to all your counting stat worries! M♠ssing Ace 22:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this tool is great! Thanks so much. I'll be playing with it all night now! :-) That said, Gwen is still right. It has no real relevance to an AfD. J Readings (talk) 22:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yep - snazy isn't it! M♠ssing Ace 22:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. As mentioned above, it's just a dictionary definition and some trivia. Worthless encyclopedia entry - and I'm saying this as a person who is generally an inclusionist. Kelly hi! 23:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well, I'm generally a deletionist, but this is plainly not just a dicdef. That aside, while I could absolutely live without the article, there comes a time when you just have to accept that consensus has been established, over and over and over and over again, and let it go. NINE AfDs???  Ravenswing  23:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Nothing beyond slang dicdef and growing list of usage examples. May be mentioned in coprophilia article, but no merge. Mukadderat (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5th and 6th were keeps, 7th and 8th no consensus. This is the 9th. Is the intention to continue until by chance the balance happens to be different? It will happen eventually,if we let people do it. After all, one delete is enough to kill it, but no number of keeps can keep it from being killed. Not just keep., but keep with a statement that further nominations will be considered abusive. DGG (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting aside the putative abusiveness of a tenth nomination, any particular reason for keeping the article (beyond the fact that it hasn't been deleted yet)? -- Hoary (talk) 02:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the term is notable, the act is not. There is a band by the name now, so even if this article is deleted, it will be back. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the topic is not notable. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. This is not a slang term, because there is no other term for it. People use the term, and its use is controversial. It appears in Google Books, Google News and numerous other places on the internet. It is a rare day that less than 1000 people view the page, and sometimes it spikes to 3000, presumably because somebody uttered it on TV. If it was a non-pornographic term, no one would nominate it for AfD. Since WP:NOTCENSORED is policy, this AfD must be rejected. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 07:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's striking to me that the act is notable and the term is not. The term doesn't even have a fixed meaning (see my comment, below); as a synonym for coprophilia it is merely one among many slang and non-slang equivalents (coprophilia, scatology, human toilet, etc.), as a synonym for "shit" (as in the Jane Harman example cited in the article), well, the cup runneth over... As for the act, it is already described in several Wikipedia articles (including those mentioned on this page), it has been the subject of numerous books, journals, papers, etc. in sociology, psychology, cultural studies, and so on. Writings on the practice have often seemed to be the bread and butter of Autonomedia's publications (e.g. Semiotext(e)), RE/Search, et al., to say nothing of the published outpourings of various Queer cultures... Pinkville (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in case you missed the other million times i've said it, i would have nominated this for deletion if it was about Bunny Rabbits being cuddled, and bunny rabbits were my favourite thing in the world (They're definetly high on the list). I didn't Nominate because of the term, I nominated because it's two lines which haven't been expanded on, couldn't be expanded on and no one here (despite me asking) has provided possible topics of expansion. Please stop assuming you know why i Nominated it, and don't consider the other nominations beyond the speciifc arguments that apply to the current discussion. Thankyou. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 09:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's interesting, because I was just about to add to it, specifically that there is another definition. Sourced. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 10:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well i've now waited on you posting these sources for 17 hours. I know that's not a very long time, but in terms of preventing a mistaken deletion, it seems fair. If you have ther sources please do add them, or post here a link to proof that more can be said about this than a series of dictionary definition. If you do so, i will happily withdraw my nomination, and i'm sure everyone else who believes it should be deleted purely for its lack of possible content will not wish to continue. However, if there isn't a secret source of content for this article that no one else knows about, try not to get my hopes up, i really don't like deleting things that other people don't wish to have deleted, even if they will lie to keep it. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 02:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, unfortunately. While reprehensible, it is a notable sexual act and there are ample sources available to demonstrate that. I'm surprised the article is so brief in length, but this appears to be due in part to a long term edit war of sorts. JBsupreme (talk) 07:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Actually, it's because there is nothing else to add... hence the reason for the AfD, no one questions it's notability, please read nominations before commenting. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge and redirect to coprophilia. Unless it can be expanded (say with something on the etymology) it's going to remain as a dictionary definition with some attendant trivia. The term is clearly notable, but this really belongs on Wiktionary. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm only called Pinkville after I've had a good bath, but even I think the focus of this article is far too narrow to be viable. Cleveland steamer is a mere synonym among many for this Dionysian activity, and the term hasn't left a sufficient trail through history to warrant its own article; if we were to keep it (for the 9th time, are you sure?) we might as well add the full contents of every lexicon we come upon (this source, for example, will provide such articles as Duckbutter, Calf-slobber, and Assjack, even while we already have Smegma, Beer head, and Pillow). In other words, it ain't notable, it ain't singular, and there's nothing noteworthy to be said about it that hasn't already been said in coprophilia, scatology, toilet humour, and (presumably) other articles. Pinkville (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to coprophilia. Seems like a redundant article of coprophilia with a bit more information. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notice that the example of the Jane Harman email suggests a definition of "Cleveland Steamer" merely as "shit" (plopped a Hot Cleveland Steamer on our carpet), without any suggestion of coprophila. The definition of the term is probably not even stable enough for a dictionary, nevermind an encyclopedia entry. Pinkville (talk) 18:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not only has there been enough reliable sources that have written enough about his topic to create a neutral article which now has one of the highest citations-per-text ratios I've ever seen on Wikipedia, but it has also been scrutinized by the Federal Communications Commission as to its obscenity on the Deminski & Doyle Show .[26] --Oakshade (talk) 19:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And anyone could come up with a million times as many reliable sources, controversies, etc. for the word "crap", but the Wikipedia article is shit (plus feces for the more strictly scientific meanings). Sure, Cleveland steamer can be found in a number of different sources, but the general term used to describe the practice - the subject that is encyclopedic - is coprophilia. Cleveland steamer is just one among many slang terms for this practice, and many of those could be found in reliable sources, too; I hope you don't think we should have articles for all those equivalent terms as well. Furthermore, Cleveland steamer doesn't even seem to have a fixed meaning, judging by the Jane Harman example cited in the article, in which the definition suggested is merely "shit", not coprophila. I can see the Cleveland steamer (disambiguation) page already... Pinkville (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per all the sources in the article, Oakshade's FCC citation, and out of respect for all the editors who have weighed in a previous eight times. There's clearly not a consensus to delete it, this is to me becoming too much WP: IDONTLIKEIT Vickser (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If another User Accuses me of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without reading my nomination, any of the other comments about deletion, my responses to this very accusation or realise that this discussion is about a completely different point to the others (which shouldn't be a consideration anyway), i promise to turn from rude and slightly too abrasive to nasty, and if it means i get blocked, thank god i don't have to continue to read idiotic comments like this. Fair enough, make your point! Even say keep and i will be perfectly civil in response (as i was to Missing Ace who wasn't simply trying to get their comment in without reading my nomination), but at least be on topic and helpful to the process. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do agree that a number of comments seem to have missed the point of the nomination, which as I read it is that Jimmi Hugh feels this article would be better of on Wikitionary as a dicdef, but certainly has no scopebeyond it. I'm not sure blue linking to IDONTLIKEIT is helpful to a collegial discussion. This is not a bad faith nomination, and I would urge editors to take care in the implication that it is, through linking to certain guidelines (note - not policies). However I would also urge Jimmi to calm down a bit, in light of his last edit summary. I don't feel any editor here is taking this personally, simply linking to guidelines unadvisedly. Let's all keep calm and get to the business at hand. Just my thoughts. M♠ssing Ace 22:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If consenting adults get their jollies from dumping on each other (or merely on the carpet, see Pinkville's research), my own reaction is less "I don't like it" than howls of derisive laughter, settling down to "Don't consenting adults do the durndest things?" and "It's a rum old world". In the last 48 hours or so, the likely candidate for next US Prez that I find less repellent has pandered to the booboisie in at least three ways that I like a lot less than the notion that somebody somewhere may be jerking off to the sight (or aroma or whatever) of somebody else's bowel movement sitting on something or other. (Perhaps we need the two graphically combined. George Grosz, where are you?) -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oakshade, the article is more than a mere dictionary definition and meets Wikipedia criteria for notability and verifiability as well, with flying colors. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a flying-color pass of WP's criteria for notability and verifiability can be obtained by mentions in (i) "Sit and Spin's Dictionary of Poo Sex"; (ii) transcript of the Deminski & Doyle Show (January 9, 2002); (iii) The Complete Asshole's Guide to Handling Chicks; and (iv) a "Sex Dictionary" published by "Body Vibes Adult Toys" on mybodyvibes.com, then I wonder what a bog-standard pass would be (a single mention by Jerry Springer?). Maybe this activity is notable; if so, let's see the evidence of notability. We have, after all, been waiting for it since 09:29, 24 March 2005. And, as Pinkville has shown, this fails even as a dictionary definition. -- Hoary (talk) 00:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Jesus, how many Google hits does Springer get?! And who cleans his carpets? Pinkville (talk) 02:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merge to Coprophilia - Well referenced, notability established, and properly organized. Take THAT, Encyclopedia Britannica! --Explodicle (T/C) 20:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you could say exactly the same of, say, technicolor yawn, yet it rightly is merely a redirect to vomiting. What's special about Cleveland steamer that isn't already covered by its more established equivalent terms? Pinkville (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, redirect, no merge there is not reliable sources about the description beyond occasional usages. No reason to merge occasional usages in "popular culture" which describe nothing, only used to produce a shock value. Laudak (talk) 00:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this. I was directed here by someone whose attitude I didn't know until I'd made my decision. It wouldn't have mattered either way. This gives WP a bad name, and frankly, the cited uses are SOOOOO trivial. Let's try to keep a semblance of authority on the Internet, please???

TONY (talk) 15:13, 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.

Skanch[edit]

The result was Delete (non-admin closure), WP:NADWP:Snow.  Wiki11790  talk   22:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary or guide to slang and is not for things made up one day; this is an unsupported neologism and there is no indication that it is notable. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete with fire. I'm sure I could throw acronyms at this all day long, but JohnCD hits the nail(s) on the head(s) extremely well above. OBM | blah blah blah 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Wiki is not a dictionary. Shovon (talk) 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. Not a dic, not notable, will not become acceptable in the future.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete with a side of warn. WP:NAD doesn't even begin to cover this sitation…a word has to be real to get into the dictionary. :) Livitup (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete besides WP:NAD, article doesn't assert notability or importance. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per WP:DICDEF and WP:MADEUP. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 19:31, 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. Although I recognise the low contribution to the AFD and would usually relist, the lack of references and google hits leads me to delete. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Open System (music)[edit]

Open System (music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While there are some claims of notability for Michael Martin that might equate in an article for him (blue link is to a dab page), there's no evidence the duo (doesn't even appear to be a band as such) is notable. A G search is false positives, blogs and MySpace. Creator appeared to have a COI. TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 14:40, 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the subject fails WP:BIO because of the apparent lack of reliable sources covering her in any detail. As noted in the discussion, assertions that such sources may or do exist carry little weight if these sources are not cited and the citations added to the article.  Sandstein  17:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Acharya S[edit]

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

Non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Please note this user has written negative articles on Acharya S, tried to include them in her article, then threatened to write more negative "reviews" of her work if he didn't get his way here. ^^James^^ (talk) 06:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Although 'this user' researched a thoughtful and provocative article on the relationship of Acharya S to a relative, that should not preclude the inclusion of my comments in this forum. The article was only considered negative by her associates and they have responded with Ad Hominem attacks. The substance of the material was never questioned or disputed.Jchurchward (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete This article has been, for over 3 years, on wikipedia with no reliable sources. The subject is non notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The author is notable in her field. This is a basic article - who she is and what she does. As it should be. Aren't her books reliable enough sources when describing what she writes about?? ^^James^^ (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many people write books. For notability, more is required than having a book or two. There must be reliable sources that show the subject of the article to be notable. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please see WP:N#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines: "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." So this might be a bit premature. Also, I note that you have littered the article with inappropriate fact tags. ^^James^^ (talk) 05:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Please see Three year history of no reliable sources. Also, you have been editing this article for three years and have added no reliable sources. So, as you stated above, "If it is likely that independent sources could be found for a topic..." Well, you have had three years. Do you have anything else to add? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has questioned her notability until now. It's been taken for granted. The article is a bio (see WP:BLP) on a notable person in a niche field. The articles content is very basic, so doesn't currently need outside sources for corroboration. Why you've added all those fact tags is beyond me. You seem to have some sort of misunderstanding. Anyone interested can review the "fact tagging" conversation here.^^James^^ (talk) 06:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is the second time that the article has been marked for deletion which indicates that questions about her notability have been raised previously.Jchurchward (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, and it was determined she was notable. That was 2 and a half years ago. Shall I add some notable reviews of her books? Do you remember why they were removed? Personally I'd rather keep the article as basic as possible. ^^James^^ (talk) 18:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been edited for over 3 years by ^^James^^ and other editors concerned with the article. In this time, no reliable sources have been added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While not a credible scholar in any relevant field, she IS notable in that her work is popular in conspiracy theorist circles. Her work almost single-handedly keeps alive the "Jesus Myther Theory" and "astro-theology" theories of Christian origins amongst the popular crowd. While she has not sold as many books as Dan Brown or had a career as long as Jordan Maxwell's, she's at least as notable for her being one of the prime sources for "Zeitgeist: the Movie." She's a minor internet celebrity, but a fixture of the popular speculation community. Her work was notable enough for Robert M. Price to review it (negatively, but still). Not every article on an author needs to have a complete bio. She is deliberately secretive about her life details, but a few do exist, including her photograph, real name, a few family details, education, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.52.143.152 (talk) 11:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC) — 68.52.143.152 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This person, Jack Churchward has been harassing Acharya S libeling, smearing and defaming her and her work Since November 2007. Jack should be completely banned from posting anything on or about Acharya S here at Wiki. His radio show and his articles and other videos and comments should be reviewed by an attorney. Jack Churchward has been asked to stop but he refuses to do so as demonstrated here, Jack continues to essentially stalk Acharya S.
Read the discussion at the "James Churchward" wiki page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Churchward
I request that her name be kept to Acharya S or D.M. Murdock only. She has already experience a child abduction by 3 strangers due to getting a hold of her *PRIVATE* information. Jack Churchward cares nothing about Acharya's safety or privacy or her family - I see he's made some threat here about writing about her private life?
I notice a mention about a relationship implied above which is totally bogus. It should be removed as it is just more lies for Jack Churchward and his friends to post on their smear campaign against Acharya S who has never done a single thing to Jack or his friends.
I remember when Acharya was being harassed here by another stalker named ZAROVE, who was eventually banned because of threats and possible libel. It may be that Wiki's lawyers will need to be contacted again concerning this latest libel by Churchward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.16.230.16 (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— User:84.16.230.16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at Ism schism (talk) Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment Once upon a time, I wrote a commentary podcast about my great-grandfather & the use of his works in Acharya S's work, "The Christ Conspiracy". After some vengeful individuals had the video removed from YouTube, I wrote another commentary podcast. This is the extent of my involvement in the so-called "smearing and defaming of her and her work." I did not initiate the Article for Deletion and a rationale person would not believe that I should be excluded from voicing my opinion. After all, don't her ardent supporters jump in? There should be some civility in these discussions, otherwise, I should just use a sock-puppet next time. Why should I have to defend myself against all the lies spread about me when I just offered an opinion? Jchurchward (talk) 23:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a debate on the (lack of) notability of this subject and whether or not there are reliable sources. Whoever ^^James^^ is or Jchurchward may be is as relevant as Anons with no edit history and no references and lots of opinions . As is, this article is about a non notable and should be deleted. After 3 years of discussions, debates, and edits - this article still fails notability and has no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk)
  • Comment I, somehow stumbled on this a couple of days ago thinking it was about an Indian Guru. Then saw the whole trail from the past, the YahooGroup and all. I believe many more IPs and other new users will come here and vote to keep this article. And this message is for them. Please do not try to create a smear campaign against your fellow editors. Rather, you can try and improve the referencing of the article and help in keeping it. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 13:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No secondary reliable sources given to establish notability.--Boffob (talk) 03:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding notability, how popular are her books relative to others in her field? What about the many radio interviews she's done over the years? Robert M. Price wrote a review of her book The Christ Conspiracy, and has also reviewed Suns of God for the "The Journal of Higher Criticism". They have appeared together in a joint radio interview. Richard Carrier wrote an article concerning the author. Earl Doherty has reviewed The Christ Conspiracy. What about her involvement with the movie Zeitgeist? She is very popular with the counter culture crowd. These facts are or have been in the article at some point, but its been stripped down to the basics. Ism schism suggests otherwise, but he is mistaken.^^James^^ (talk) 10:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you could cite reliable third party sources instead of Acharya S' own website (which is not at all neutral in matters of establishing notability for a living person) or commercial websites like Amazon, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Find neutral third party sources and cite them, and the article can stay. It's as simple as that.--Boffob (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo Boffob comments above concerning notability and reliable sources - "Find neutral third party sources and cite them." Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:57, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Boffob I'm not sure I understand - neutral with respect to what? The people in her niche field have reviewed her work - is that not neutral enough? What about her appearances on all those radio stations? Are they not neutral? The only time I used her website above was to show what radio shows she has been on and to show a review reprinted from "The Journal of Higher Criticism". Robert M. Prices first review appeared in Skeptic MagazineFree Inquiry. And Amazon does give one an idea of how popular her books are. Is that not a factor to note when establishing notability? While not universally respected, she is well known in the Jesus Myth circle, in the counter culture crowd and on the internet. As it stands I see little difference (in terms of "neutral third party sources") between Early Doherty's page, Robert M. Price's page, Acharya S's page, and probably a ton of other bio pages. ^^James^^ (talk) 17:44, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, note that a google search of "Acharya S" reveals 76,000 hits. ^^James^^ (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply James, the number of google hits does nothing to help establish reliable sources and notability. Citing google hits is using a kitchen sink strategy. Please find reliable sources if you want this article to be kept. Presently the subject is about a non notable with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to Ism It appears to be fairly common to use google hits as a general indicator when AFD's come up. I've already given you reliable sources for her notability, but you seem to ignore them. I repeat:
  • She has appeared on many radio shows, including the Jeff Rense Show, and the Alan Colmes show.
  • Her Books have been reviewed by peers in her field including Robert M. Price (2 reviews which were published in Skeptic Magazine and The Journal of Higher Criticism respectively) and Earl Doherty. Many others have reviewed her work, but these are the most notable.
  • Her involvement with the popular movie Zeitgeist.
  • The popularity of her books relative to those in the same niche genre.
  • She is well known amongst Jesus Mythers and popular amongst the counter culture crowd as well.
Maybe someone could explain the apparent sliding scale required for popular writers? They have to be reviewed by a number of academic journals before they're considered notable? ^^James^^ (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well James, please do perform these searches to establish the popularity of Acharya S, Amazon.com and Amazon.com2. It clearly seems that she is non-notable although you would like us to believe otherwise. Shovon (talk) 18:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you ignore my qualifier: "relative to others in her field"? We're talking about a niche field here. Why do you ignore all the other material I've presented? ^^James^^ (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The person's notability has not been established using "neutral third party sources". As the present case stands, she seems to be a fringe conspiracy theorist/author. Shovon (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent, reliable sources. Acharya S does seem to be well-known on the internet and has many radio appearances to her credit, but these don't qualify as reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to James Please, as many have stated before - if you have reliable sources - please add them to the article. Also, dont keep telling people you have reliable sources - just add them to the article. It is that simple. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? We are discussing her notability here. Isn't that what this is all about? Once that is established, we can work on improving the article. ^^James^^ (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply James, if you have sources that show she is notable please add them to the article. You have edited this article for 3 years - it is time for you to produce any reliable sources you claim to know of. These are needed to establish notability. I do not see any reliable sources and doubt any exist - Please prove me wrong by providing reliable sources that confer notablity. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea to add reliable sources to the article while the AfD is running, because not everyone who votes here is going to take the time to read the discussion above. They usually will read through the article to see whether it establishes the notability of the subject. Of all the things that you've mentioned, James, only the book reviews seem to qualify as reliable sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep -- Nomination to delete appears to be based upon POV-pushing reasons. Notability requirements are more than met by multiple sources. DreamGuy (talk) 17:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are no academic reviews of Acharya's work listed in ATLA Religion or L'Année Philologique. Even popular reviews seem to be purely self-published, with one exception I can find: The Christ Conspiracy was reviewed by Robert M. Price in Free Inquiry 21(3) (Summer 2001), but this seems to be an abridged an earlier version of the review formerly on his website and now retracted. I tried searching LexisNexis, but that turns up a single dismissive sentence in Catholic Insight. EALacey (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why you think it was an abridged version. Anyway, I disagree with this very narrow interpretation of what constitutes notability. It's absurd. Do all popular writers need to be mentioned in academic journals? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Do all popular writers need to be mentioned in academic journals?" No, and no one is arguing that. They need to be mentioned in reliable sources, which self-published websites aren't (usually). --Akhilleus (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, how about being interviewed on the Alan Colmes show, and the Jeff Rense Show, and a host of other radio talk shows? How come they aren't useful to establish notability? What about the documentary that used her work extensively? How come that's not useful? ^^James^^ (talk) 20:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, WP:V#SELF seems to suggest Doherty's review is useful to establish notability, as is Price's review both Suns of God and Christ Conspiracy. Carriers article is also useful according to this criteria. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. User:Gekritzl today posted the following comment on the archived Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acharya S: "It is absurd that this article was considered for deletion. KEEP." I presume that was intended for this page. EALacey (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Amazon.com, which would normally be expected to include excerpts from third-party reviews of the books if there were any, doesn't seem to have any material except the publisher's descriptions. It would seem that at this point, editors in favor of a keep have some obligation to conduct a search and identify third-party sources covering the author or her works in order to avoid a delete. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I don't believe policy requires coverage by academic journals. Although this author is claiming to come from a historical/secular scholarship (as distinct from a religious or theological) perspective, she doesn't need to be accepted (or even taken seriously) by historians to be considered notable. The criteria for notability are different from the criteria for being a reliable source. Coverage by any substantial third-party publication would count. Anewspaper with substantial circulation, a publication of a major religious denomination, a television program, commentary by a notable religious commentator, or any one of a wide variety of other sources would count to establish notability. If she is widely discussed notability should not be hard to establish. However, coverage by private web sites etc. which don't themselves have indicia of reliability for identifying who is notable don't count. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for answering my question, Shirahadasha. What about national radio shows? She has been appeared on the Alan Colmes Show, and on the Jeff Rense Show numerous times among others. What about book reviews by her peers? Her books have been reviewed by Robert M. Price and Earl Doherty, and Richard Carrier wrote an article in response to her work. Movies? Her work was used extensively as a source by a popular documentry which made her views very well known, and where she also served as consultant. Would appreciate your thoughts. ^^James^^ (talk) 10:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just cited the Free Inquiry reference from ProQuest. If you can find a way to read the full text, it's a fascinating read--Price clearly thinks Murdock is a nutjob, despite agreeing with her. It supports notability nonetheless. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really isn't the place for this discussion, but in all fairness... Price has warmed up to her considerably over the years, especially after reading her second book. He is planning to revise that original review apparently. His review of her second book was far more moderate, although he still disagreed with her in many areas. He has appeared with her on radio, and wrote the forward to her third book. ^^James^^ (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment again I just cited more of her radio appearances, and cited her bio info from her website. Per WP:SELFPUB, it's perfectly appropriate to cite such sites for that information. Unable to source Colmes radio appearance, however. Overall, I have one recommendation to all concerned parties, echoing Shovon: Stop quibbling and start adding citations to the article. I again repeat my assertion that there seems to be plenty of material to demonstrate notability. Contra Shovon, however, neutrality is not required by WP:N--independence from the source is, but that's a different matter. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 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, consensus is that the article does meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 20:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seattle Knights[edit]

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

Previously A7 speedy deleted, back now with more links, but still just does not appear to me to rise to the level of notability. AFD this time instead of speedy to let others agree or disagree. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete. Advertisement.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - with a complete rewrite to eliminate all the puffery and advertising. They have been featured in the Seattle Times, along with some other very minor coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete but not so speedy. If some of the claims in the article were properly cited then they might be notable enough to deserve an article. However, as the article is written right now it's clearly a copy-paste job from a promotional piece, though I googled a couple phrases and couldn't come up with anything. The added "citations" are not sources for the "facts" they proport to cite. Give the author and/or other editors a few days to try to clean up the article. Livitup (talk) 17:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Changing my vote as I have worked with the article's creator to turn this into a real encyclopedia article. Not that it can't be expanded a lot more, but it's at least encyclopedic at this point. Livitup (talk) 19:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very new to this. Guess I just write too puffy. (Used to do volunteer PR for Girl Scouts, and still in this mode). There is more news coverage. In process of contacting the Seattle Knights for more information. Does the television and screen credit help notability? What else should be there? More television/screen? (That seems superficial to me, so trying to look up other things on wikipedia for clues as to what makes it notable).TexasAndroid, when you first said it looked like a club , although they are not a club, I decided to look up clubs, namely the SCA, to see what I had done wrong. How is it the SCA gained notability, and avoided deletion under the "club" category? I am asking that some other savvy people help with the rewrite. Please bear with me (and advise, please - I really appreciate it). Also, RE: the recent updates, is that going in the correct direction? PSQ (talk) 17:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • FWIW, I'm working with PSQ to see if we can't do something with this article before it gets deleted. Livitup (talk) 18:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The troupe is locally well known, and the cites included seem establish wider notability. Does need to be rewritten, though. Jclemens (talk) 20:24, 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; redirect to Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008. Not enough significant coverage.. Tan | 39 19:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shan Oakes[edit]

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

Previous Speedy and Prod both contested. Candidates for elections are not normally considered notable in their own right and there is no reason to expect Ms Oakes will win the Haltemprice by-election. PamD in removing the PROD notice argued "the circumstances of this election make the two candidates standing against Conservatives for established parties unusually notable". However, none of the citations in the article constitute substantial, independent, reliable source coverage of Ms Oakes, so there's no evidence here yet of this claimed unusual notability. Bondegezou (talk) 13:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to the Elizabeth Shenton deletion discussion if anyone is interested. Road Wizard (talk) 23:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. No clear evidence of notability in the article; while she would obviously be notable if she wins the election, that doesn't seem particularly likely to happen. I note, however, that our article on the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, 2008 links to articles on ten of the candidates, some of whom seem even less notable than her... Terraxos (talk) 01:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the other candidates with pages, as far as I can see, are notable for other reasons. Oakes' page, in contrast, was created specifically for the by-election. —Wereon (talk) 02:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. The other candidates with articles were notable prior to this by-election, with the possible exception of Mad Cow-Girl. However, if you think there are any other articles that are not notable, then you should start AfDs for those articles. Bondegezou (talk) 11:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Haltemprice by-election itself is highly notable for its' odd circumstance and the Green campaign is notable for it being the major credible opponent to David Davis. The ongoing growth in media coverage of Ms Oakes' campaign suggests she will become amongst the best known of British green politicians. GullibleKit (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Being an electoral candidate is not in itself notable. To become a candidate in the UK you need signatures from ten members of the public and a small amount of money to pay a deposit - hardly the best credentials for justifying an article on Wikipedia. If she later becomes "the best known of British green politicians" as suggested by GullibleKit then an article could perhaps be reconsidered on those grounds when this status is achieved. Wikipedia cannot support articles on the grounds of potential future notability. Road Wizard (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is precedent of articles being created for candidates in notable elections. For example, Winston McKenzie, the independent London Mayoral candidate. GullibleKit (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your comments about the ease of standing and not supporting "articles on the grounds of potential future notability" are true and if she were an independent I would vote Delete. But these valid points don't invalidate her notability as the democratically chosen candidate of the fourth largest political party in an election where the other main players are absent.--Richardob (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As was predicted by others, new media sources have indeed emerged, including a New Statesman article Greens: We're civil liberties party which says a great deal about the Greens and their candidate. --Richardob (talk) 21:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • While the publication of new sources is useful, an opinion piece by a Green party member about the Green party in a publication that explicitly points out that the article is written by a Green party member is not the most reliable of sources. As referred to in WP:RS, "great care must be taken to distinguish news reporting from opinion pieces. Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. When citing opinion pieces from newspapers or other mainstream news sources, in-text attribution should be given. When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." Road Wizard (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, it is indeed an opinion piece and its conclusions should not be taken as factual. But the point is, we know Shan Oakes isn't fictitious (from several reliable independent news sources including the BBC) and what this article provides is further evidence of her notability as someone newsworthy enough to be discussed in an independent news source. New Statesman isn't Indymedia. It is a weekly, well respected current affairs magazine. --Richardob (talk) 23:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The New Statesman article is not about Ms Oakes: it is about the Green Party's campaign in the seat and may be a useful reference for the by-election article, but it says basically nothing about Ms Oakes. Without more independent, reliable source articles about Ms Oakes, I don't see that she is notable in her own right, separate to coverage of the Greens' campaign in the by-election article.Bondegezou (talk) 16:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia isn't the voice of The Establishment. It is a democratic source of independent encyclopedic knowledge. For this reason alone I would be surprised if this article were deleted. The fourth largest political party has placed a candidate in an election in which the others (Lib Dems and Labour) are absent. Where do I come to discover an unbiased biography of an increasingly notable woman who is heading this political development and happens not to be the daughter of a Lord or rich businessman; a Princess, or celebrity? I think it is Wikipedia. --Richardob (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the basic principle of notability for biographical articles is the presence of reliable source articles about a person. References in the article are either not reliable (her own blog, Green Party site) or have only fleeting references to Oakes. (And Greens being the fourth largest political party is debatable. On some criteria, that would be the SNP, DUP or UKIP.) Bondegezou (talk) 07:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Expanding on my last point, in terms of votes at the last UK General Election, the Greens were 6th, behind the SNP and UKIP, and only just ahead of the DUP. In terms of Commons representation, the Greens have no MPs while the SNP and DUP and others do. In the Lords, UKIP are represented and the Greens aren't. Among MEPs, the Greens are 5th, behind UKIP. The Greens are not the "fourth largest political party". Bondegezou (talk) 07:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Current Parliamentary composition indicates party's positions in 2005. By most recent elections, Greens were 3rd in Henley. GullibleKit (talk) 10:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, if you look at that result, you will probably say that Labour Party is the fifth largest party in England! Shovon (talk) 16:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • We can wait and see the position of New Labour after the next general election, I'm not speculating. GullibleKit (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Usually I am the first to ask for deletions for all failed non-notable candidates, but this is slightly more complex. Broadly speaking, Shan is non-notable, and this article should be deleted. But not only is this candidature one for the only mainstream party bar the Conservatives, itself notable, but Shan is on the European Parliamentary candidature list, so I am torn between the "Elizabeth Shenton" position (which was a clear delete) and this, where it is a bit more borderline. doktorb wordsdeeds 08:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I recognise this is an unusual by-election, but I don't see much notability arising from Ms Shan being a Green candidate for the Euro-constituency of Yorkshire & Humber: there is little to suggest that she will get in at the next Euro-election. What I suggest is, rather than arguing back and forth about the notability of particular candidacies, we focus on the core definition of Wikipedia biography notability, namely multiple reliable source articles about the individual. Such has yet to be provided for Ms Shan. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - with the intention of revisiting on 11th July to see how notable she appears to be after the election result and subsequent coverage. She is the only mainstream party candidate standing against Davis, and likely to get increasing medai coverage in next 2 weeks. I know that WP:Other stuff exists is no argument, but considering the amount of trivial, non-referenced, unencyclopedic stuff which is out there it seems harsh to delete this serious article at this stage. PamD (talk) 21:25, 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 --JForget 23:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Around the Horn+[edit]

Around the Horn+ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Article is about a non-notable game, details the rules, and does not appear to make much of a claim of notability. If anything, should be a redirect to the Baseball Hall of Fame. TN‑X-Man 13:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Notability for this event is not asserted and it would seem highly unlikely from the text that any would be found. The (as ever not very reliable) google search shows nowt about this game. If anything could be found it could surely live in Cooperstown, New York rather than having an article of its own. But without sources even that seems too much. M♠ssing Ace 14:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If the tournament at which this competition is held is not notable enough for an article, how could a component of that challenge be notable enough for its own article? Livitup (talk) 16:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiki is not for not so bright ideas made up in one day. Shovon (talk) 16:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The game someone and their friends came up with one day isn't Wikipedia-worthy unless it gets coverage in a reliable source. To take a quote from another Around The Horn, self-promotion is the mating call of the delete button. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 05:53, 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. Anyone who cares to transwiki this to Wiktionary can contact me or any admin for a copy of the content and history. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tick (Time)[edit]

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

Will never be more than a dictionary definition. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


--What do you mean? The article or the word? If you think this page should be deleted just because you do not like it, maybe you should check out some of these: Run_(album), Hyperbole (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hyperbole it is in the wiki dictionary too), Minute(http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/minute also in dictionary). If you wish to see more, I can continue. I am at work now, so I have to go.
--CloneDeath 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC) 14:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete dicdef. Belongs in Wikitionary, not here. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 14:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to WIKT, delete This is a dictionary definition. There is no information about cultural use, very little about etymology, etc. Not suitable for a wikip article. L'Aqùatique[review] 16:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikitionary - unlike Minute there is not a clear definition for this unit of time (or even if it is a unit of time) --T-rex 16:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wiktionary definition already exists.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki There is additional (probably sourceable) content in this article that is not yet part of wikt:tick. However, I see a good chance of this actually becoming a decent article once it's more than a dictdef. --/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 21:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:DICDEF --SJK (talk) 14:20, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dj Tempo[edit]

Dj Tempo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete unanimous vote and WP:ATHLETE --JForget 23:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Collin[edit]

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

Contested PROD - reason given was that when Googled, he pulls up 800+ pages. Player clearly fails notability at WP:ATHLETE having never played in a fully-professional league/tournament. --Jimbo[online] 12:52, 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, consensus is that this is a neologism. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinazi[edit]

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

I'm not seeing any of the sources here using the term "Chinazi", they mostly seem to be used to back up arbitrary facts surrounding the term rather than the use or notability of the term itself. Neologism. Article is very POV too. Closedmouth (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as an unverified neologism. The bulk of the article is not about the term "Chinazi" but rather about China's human rights record, and the professed sources are primarily in support of those statements (and don't contain the term). The two sources that do refer or define the term are for the relevant urbandictionary site and for a simple google search, which should be brought into question anyway as, having had a look through a few of the results, the term appears to be used in several different contexts. Also counting against it is the overwhelming POV flavour of the writing. OBM | blah blah blah 16:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as POV Neologism. Jclemens (talk) 20:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-neutral, neologistic bunkum. I've always wanted to use that word in a sentence. --Gimme danger (talk) 20:47, 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. Shereth 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ABC Doll Club[edit]

The ABC Doll Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This doll collecting club is not notable. The external links are its own website and Facebook; the two references are about expensive dolls but do not mention the club. 40 Ghits, many of which are not about this club. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete - I can't see any substantial independent coverage, or really any claim for notability. -Hunting dog (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I would also be somewhat concerned about this article as it is about the webdesign company that is re-designed the website of the page under discussion here. It seems possible that there are conflict of interest issues here too. --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sorry, am I supposed to be responding here? I was using the discussion tab. Yes, unfortunately the description from the first reference doesn't contain the club. It is online somewhere and I will have to hunt for it. The second link references it in the actual reference! It refers to us by the acronym, they do have an article there that mentions the club within the page contents. ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 12:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just fixed the two links so they DO refer to the club within their content pages. I didn't think that referencing an ebay page would be a good idea and the page will eventually disappear after a while meaning that my link becomes redundant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk • contribs) 12:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable organization with no apparent non-trivial news coverage. --DAJF (talk) 12:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion discussions usually last five days, but may be closed earlier if there is an evident consensus. Even after a page has been deleted, an admin can recover a copy for you on request; but it might be prudent to make a copy for yourself now. Click "edit this page", then click within the text box and click Edit/Select All and then Edit/Copy, and you can paste into Notepad or any word-processor. JohnCD (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, thank you. I'll try my best in the next few days to grab as much valid references as I can! ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 13:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Utterly nn Mayalld (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In reponse to the number of google hits. The name "ABC Doll Club" was formally "Australian Barbie Club", it had to be changed due to legal issues bought on by the company Mattel. If you do a google search on "Australian Barbie Club" there should be more hits.ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just added a television appearance. There will be more references added in the next few days.ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 14:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Please review page again as I have added more references, hopefully they are more suitable than the earlier refs. ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 16:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hello? Is anyone still around? ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can you please tell me how this club is lesser than these examples Climbing_club and Noble_Society_of_Celts. ABCdoll Wikiperson (talk) 03:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I proudly invite anyone to come review this page. It has been greatly improved with references from various national Australian newspapers. Neefie Pawpaw (talk) 07:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My vote above remains unchanged; I'm simply not convinced that this club meets the relevant notability guidelines. As an aside it may do the author good to read this essay, too. OBM | blah blah blah 09:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What do you mean??? How do the items that I've cited above be any more suitable? There has been consistent coverage of the club in "reliable, independent secondary sources"


Firstly, the Wikipedia:Notability article
"Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance."" - the club is worthy of being noted because it is a national club focusing on something of interest to popular culture. It isn't "famous" and it doesn't cover something important as famine or weapons but then it doesn't have to be to fit as "notable". Have you actually read any of the articles referenced? Some are quite lengthy and detailed. The articles referenced are not "Press releases" and an indepth article spanning multiple print pages would be covering more than just "trivial coverage". This entry is a reference article NOT an advertisment. The club has forums that it can practise those activities within without having to enter such debates as this. The club's "activities are national or international in scale" - they may not be large scale involving large amounts of money or persons, but they do involve individuals from around the whole of Australia and then some from overseas, although to a lesser extent. The club is NOT an "Individual chapter", it is THE WHOLE club. The activities are NOT just "local in scope".
"organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered" - the club has been in existence for almost two decades, at the largest it consisted of 350 members. The club is not commercial and does not provide or charge for any products or services so the following paragraphs do not apply. The journalists who have written about the club are NOT of the club. I have copies of the articles if you are unable to find the articles yourself. I believe I have reached the end of that page.

Secondly, the Wikipedia:Other stuff
"point to similarities" - please do. As you might have noticed, the categories I've added aren't even listed on Wikipedia yet. And they're not vague unknown categories either. The reason why I have created this article is "articles do not exist that probably should" - believe me, I have searched for a more comprehensive article on the collection of dolls and any collectives that might be involved in organising any club or society for such activities. Ok, so I've finished that paragraph on comparisons.
Besides thinking that Star Wars is awesome, I can't find anything to comment on in the next section.
"articles of a similar nature and construct" - please refer to the pages that I have cited in my previous response.
If you really really believe that this topic has no notability, can you at least direct me to a "conglomerate page" of a suitable topic where I can be somewhat of use. Because I haven't found any myself yet - there probably is but I don't live on Wikipedia 24/7 (yet).
And I can't find anything myself in the following section.

Please do not insinuate that I am making up a fairy tale or that I am ignoring guidelines. I admit that I am unexperienced as and editor in Wikipedia, but I have tried my best to follow most directions (except that PROD thing referred to up the top, I must have done something silly when I was really new and didn't know what that was) and I have read your recommended articles and I feel that this article complies to the guidelines set out. 144.138.141.187 (talk) 11:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Neefie Pawpaw (talk) 11:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok then. Firstly, I would appreciate it if you could link to the new sources on the page, rather than give article titles and pointing towards newsbank.com. I'm not sure if I'm alone in my thoughts but having to search for a purported source rather than have it easily accessible is not ideal. Secondly, I don't feel like the notability of this club is asserted enough. As the guidline says: "The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered"... I'm not seeing such information in the article. Thirdly, my reference to the other stuff essay was in reponse to your comment above that X and Y clubs exist. This is not a good argument, so I was pointing you towards that essay to demonstrate this. Apologies if I should have been more specific in my comment. Fourthly and finally I think you might want to look at this part of the Ownership of Articles policy. It is primarily about other people editing articles that you have created, but I think the final line speaks volumes in this case. I believe the conflict of interest evident in this article may be hindering your attempts to contribute effectively to Wikipedia. The conflict of interest guidline (specifically the part about avoiding them) may be of use. And I can't apologise enough for throwing policies and guidelines at you, but you may be able to better understand the deletion process once you become more familiar with them. Thanks OBM | blah blah blah 12:26, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoomie[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Stoomie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Seemingly non-notable musician. Originally deleted via AfD two years ago; db-repost declined on the basis that "the current article is not "substantially identical to the deleted version."" i contest that the lack of notability, however, is susbtantially identical. N.B.: His "record label" is actually permanently piped to the biography of an actor who directed one of his videos. tomasz. 11:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not notable.Russian Textiles (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked Google News archives, and also a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, and was not able to find any independent sources. Delete if sources are not forthcoming before the end of this deletion discussion, since the article's subject does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC otherwise. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet WP:MUSIC and fails to indicate biographical notability. JBsupreme (talk) 02:54, 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.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Severed Fifth[edit]

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

"Music project" announced within the past couple weeks which fulfills no criteria of WP:MUSIC. 142 Google hits in the blogosphere [27], but no reliable sources turn up. Since this album has not entered production, let alone released yet, it fails WP:CRYSTAL as well. Article written by a SPA, prod removed with the comment "it's a relevant article" by a second SPA.  RGTraynor  10:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would this radio interview, Ars Technica article and the notablity of the person behind the project (Jono Bacon) satisfy the notability requiermnts of the article? Also I'm not an SPA ;) --Ali Davoodifar (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think so, no. Bacon is no more than barely notable (and could stand some scrunity, as to that). The Ars Technica citation is a blogpost, and the radio site is nothing more than Wolverhampton's local FM station, presuming anyone can get that link to work. Certainly you have to get pretty overwhelming to bypass WP:CRYSTAL, and this isn't remotely it. (As far as being a SPA goes, this article represents all your edits within the last year, and you only have had a half dozen other edits total. I'd likewise be curious as to who User:Erky38 is, whose removal of the prod tag represents his sole Wikipedia edit.)  RGTraynor  14:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've also done edits without loging in. The point is I've not created an account just to make this entry. I've been around for while simply because I like wikipedia and what it stands for.

I would think if having a musical entry in his own page is a notable addition so should a project that relates to that. (Radio link fixed) --Ali Davoodifar (talk) 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion: As the chap's own project, perhaps Severed Fifth could be merged with Jono Bacon under the Music header, at least for the time being? --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 15:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete, massively non-notable project, not to mention unexceptional as an artist independent of the record industry trying to distribute himself has been done a million times already anyway. The only reason it's getting treated as novel, i suspect, is because of this man Bacon's crowd aren't particularly familiar with the topic and because he's decided to write a future article about it. tomasz. 13:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Beyond that, there's a basic premise involved: that new creative works, no matter how prominent the artist, just don't qualify per WP:MUSIC unless there are confirmed release dates in the "near future" and backed by multiple reliable sources.  RGTraynor  18:03, 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: nomination withdrawn, no remaining deletes. Will have a go at translating it into English based on the sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cúram Software[edit]

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

Delete Article fails to establish notability. References are company-generated promotional. Bardcom (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nomination - Sunday business post article meets requirements and establishes notability. --Bardcom (talk) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article could use some wikifying but I came accoss [28]. I figure if HP recognises this software and IBM recognises it here [29] and here [30]... it passes WP:N. --Pmedema (talk) 10:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, your references indicate that Curam have joined the "Developer Programs" of both HP and IBM. Part of the package of joining means you get listed in their "Solution Catalogs" - so no, these references do nothing to indicate notability, and do not mean that either IBM or HP "recognise" the software, etc. Again, these are company-generated promotional references. --Bardcom (talk) 11:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strongly, possible speedy delete. A maker of non-consumer software with no showing of particular importance. It's chief product is — guess what! — a "business application suite." What's it do? According to the article, it is an enterprise platform that provides a technical flexibility to allow social enterprise agencies to implement solutions to meet both short-term and strategic objectives. Do you know what it does now? Neither do I. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cúram's main business right now seems to be selling systems for governments to manage their welfare programs. According to this article they are the vendor for the State of Utah's largest IT project, and New York and Wisconsin use their software on a smaller scale. That's a third-party source, not just a corporate press release. I think it makes Cúram notable. Someone needs to add the info to the article, not delete it. Ntsimp (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: selling systems for governments to manage their welfare programs - if whoever first wrote this article had written that, we might not be here. I'm still not sure that every supplier of software to a government is notable, but it certainly suggests involvement in public affairs that might lead to notice in reliable, third party sources. If the writer had actually described the software and the nature of the business, rather than giving us buzzwords and evasive abstractions, I might have given it a closer look. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:15, 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 to delete. Discussion about merging can be taken up on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sold in stores (marketing)[edit]

Not sold in stores (marketing) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article does not assert notability, is not referenced, is inaccurate, and is not written in a suitable style. SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, and without prejudice. I have no doubt that a concrete and interesting article could be written about this particular catch phrase, but this seems full of inaccurate speculation. "Not sold in stores" doesn't seem to suggest that a particular product is "cutting edge", whatever that means, but rather that the only place to acquire it is by responding to the TV ad.

    Suggest that the article As seen on TV (marketing) should meet the same fate as this one, since they may be by the same authors and seem to cover similar subjects in a similar way. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I gave that page a PROD. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable, no refs, personal observations, cannot verify. I originally prodded this article, and it was contested. I agreed to wait to give the author time to fix it, but no suitable progress has been made. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a well known large marketing and sales genre. Article needs improvements, but that is not a reason to delete --T-rex 16:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It isn't a genre, it's a term. In it's current state it doesn't meet inclusion criteria.--SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I used the term genre losely. Perhpas refering to it as a well used marketing style would be more appropriate --T-rex 19:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a preliminary effort toward discussing a real segment of the modern economy. It needs some cites, and could be better-ordered, but I see no reason to dis it. I suggest that those who wish to dump it should spend some time prettifying it instead. Thanks. Raymondwinn (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Why should we waste time "prettyfying" an article which deserves to be deleted? Would "prettyfying" it overcome notability issues? The article above makes no sense. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not policy if the subject is not notable, and a rewrite or "prettyfying" will not make it so. And in this case, it won't. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notability is not policy. This is also a work in progress. This marketing genre is undoubtedly well-known anyway. I see no valid reason to delete being offered. Disclaimer: I am the original author. JeanLatore (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC) You can also comment on me here: Wikipedia:Editor_review/JeanLatore[reply]
    • Notability is not a policy?!? Where on earth did you come up with that notion? We delete or retain hundreds of article daily because of notability. It's one of the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is a guideline. Not a policy. Celarnor Talk to me 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my comment. Notability is a guideline not policy. Please see WP:N. JeanLatore (talk) 01:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and I found this in the lead paragraph: "notability is an inclusion criterion based on encyclopedic suitability of a topic..." Maybe not a policy, but clearly has a major impact on suitability for inclusion. And this subject is not notable. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is one criterion of many. It has no impact on suitability than any of the other criterion, many of which escape simple definition. JeanLatore (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To say that notability has no impact on suitability flies in the face of logic and common sense. Notability has a huge impact on suitability, and is the underpinning of most of the criteria for speedy deletion as well as just plain ol' deletion. I think you are trying to confuse the issue, which would indicate you have a budding career as a politician. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, Direct sales is a redirect to Direct selling. I've just suggested that Direct selling (which is awful) be merged to the section of the same name in Direct marketing (which is not great, but much better). Feel free to weigh in on the merge. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For some reason this page is still showing up as redlinked in the AFD template on the article itself. I tried taking a look at it but was not able to fix it. Can somebody else take a look see plz? JeanLatore (talk) 01:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Direct marketing as suggested above. The phrases "Not sold in stores" and "As seen on TV" are little more than catchphrases used in this type of marketing and are not, in and of themselves, independently notable. Shereth 15:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Direct marketing. I've given this one more thought than I usually do. Yes, if this is kept, it isn't likely to become a good or featured article, but most don't. This is a popular cultural phenomenon/phrase and a subset of direct marketing frequently used in television. On the other hand, ultimately, it's really just a phrase that is used in direct marketing, which mirrors a fairly substantial amount of the material here. Unless someone can dig up some linguistic/etymological data on the phrase itself that they could use as sources independent of a section of an article on direct marketing, I think the best thing for this content is to move it to its parent subject. Celarnor Talk to me 02:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with and redirect to Direct marketing. This is yet another marketing tactic. The article itself is nothing more than a definition and example. jonathon (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets notability by virtue of fact that most American television watchers will recognize the phrase. See Where's the beef? and Think Different. After AfD, consider merging using normal WP:MERGE procedures. Article needs substantial improvement though. All editors are invited to fix it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:27, 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, consensus is that the article does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DragonKenpo[edit]

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

Reads like an original essay, not an encyclopedia article. Ecoleetage (talk) 09:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment there's currently two articles on this - the other one is at Dragon Kenpo which would be the correct title. That's already listed for merge to American Kenpo discussion is at Talk:American_Kenpo#Merger_Proposal. I agree that most of the content of this one should go, but have no firm opinion on delete versus merge. -Hunting dog (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minor Non-notable sub-style, 584 G-hits is not a good sign. Little useful content to merge as it is mainly an advert --Nate1481(t/c) 13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree that the material is non-encyclopedic. Also per the discussion at the American Kenpo talk page. Livitup (talk) 14:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect--nn and as a search term it'd be more likely to have a space. JJL (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article reads as original research. Also: "Dragon Kenpo was originally spread by Mr. Ed Hutchison as a correspondence course, students could by the tapes of Dragon Kenpo to learn at home and students received in the mail a Black Belt certificate with their tapes." McDojo by mail. jmcw (talk) 08:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree the "style" is not notable. And the article reads too much like promotional material. Vantelimus (talk) 03:05, 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 as unverifiable. Davewild (talk) 19:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tripchalk[edit]

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

Hoax article by a SPA; zero reliable sources either in the article or found otherwise referencing this term as a street drug.  RGTraynor  09:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Probably made up. And even if not, an article on a drug that doesnt give it's chemical name / structure is useless.Yobmod (talk) 09:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. US$1,800 a gram?! Wow. Sounds like some amazing shit. Or alternatively, just fantasy. tomasz. 13:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Unless the creator or someone else can give some reliable sources I think that it should be deleted. harris 578 (talk) 13:58, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HP Pavilion dv6408nr[edit]

HP Pavilion dv6408nr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No assertion as to why this notebook/laptop is any more notable than the thousands of others on the market, seems to have no innovative or unique features. Almost a speedy as advertising Ged UK (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Single product is not notable. Maybe Merge into a HP article, but i don't know which.Yobmod (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In fact, I've put a Speedy Delete tag on the article. Blatant advertising. --Bardcom (talk) 16:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've cleaned up the double-creation mess that Twinkle made. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:N, while I'm sure many reviews/articles have been written about it, it is not notable in the sense that, as a laptop, it is truly notable/exceptional. If it is (which I don't know) then by all means merge or redirect. I'd even be in favor of keeping the article if it asserted notability and had references to back it up, but as it stands this is just one of 1,000 of laptops. It's my understanding wikipedia is not trying to catalog every piece of hardware ever manufactured, just the notable ones. Compare to the apple MacBook Air which, while just a laptop, asserts notability and has the refs to back it up. Faradayplank (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No assertion of notability. Enigma message 07:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We don't have articles on individual computer models -- there are just way too many of them, and they're all too alike anyway. Only the product line, possibly, gets its own article, if its notable enough. --SJK (talk) 14:26, 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 per WP:NOT.. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wicked cast lists[edit]

Wicked cast lists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This pretty much defines indiscriminate collection of information. Wikipedia is not the place for a cast list such as this. Part of my problem with it is the scope. If they include these productions, why not local productions? What I mean to say is that it doesn't actually tell us anything, i.e. it's indiscriminate. WoohookittyWoohoo! 08:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 09:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. External links with casts can be given in the wicked article. This list is too indiscriminate, and could grow for ever.Yobmod (talk) 09:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment And it has. :) Basically every time a new production has started, more names have been added. The thing is, the Internet Broadway Database (and others. There are several like it) has plenty of information like this. Better place for it. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 11:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:NOT --Bardcom (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete this page. If you want local productions then add them. It's not Wicked's fault. Please don't delete it. It is useful to know if anyone new has joined in case you want to watch it. It gives a detailed look at the cast and productions history. Jack —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.128.242 (talk) 16:26, 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 Redirected to Club Nintendo. Can be merged from history if desired. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Participating Club Nintendo Australia Products[edit]

List of Participating Club Nintendo Australia Products (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable and non-encyclopedic list of games. No reliable sources provided Mattinbgn\talk 08:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This is a contested PROD. The stated reason for contesting was "This list should not be deleted as this is a list that people can refer to when looking for club nintendo compatible games in australia."
  • Hm. A lack of reliable sources is fixable, but notability is not. Notability is the general yardstick for measuring whether or not a topic should be included and calls for multiple, reliable outside references. The thing is closer to a stopgap measure than brilliant insight if you ask me, but this place does need some limits - for instance, a proposal to automatically add several million articles for places across the globe was shouted down because we'd never be able to maintain and unvandalize those.

    I am writing like this for the author of the article so that we wikipedia editors won't come across as assholes. You can't really deny that there's a tendency for that.

    Since there seems to be only a handful of Club Nintendo Australia games, wouldn't the given reason for contesting be served as least as well if the list was added to the Club Nintendo article, which already has a place for that? Since this article would then be redundant and would not be an useful search term, I say we do that and delete this. --Kizor 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All the information is already contained in Club Nintendo, and it is not a useful redirect. Kevin (talk) 00:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the few titles that aren't listed into Club Nintendo. Regardless of whatever policies and guidelines exist, I think the most useful outcome for wikipedia users is locating the small list inside the Club Nintendo article. Where the example size is small, it would seem most useful to users to list all the examples. I've seen this approach taken in other articles and I think it adds well to article so long as the list is not excessively long. I suppose we can cross the notability bridge when the list becomes larger. Icemotoboy (talk) 03:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Club Nintendo as mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 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 Delete, 100% forecast of snow. . TravellingCarithe Busy Bee 15:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sins,tragedy,revelations[edit]

Sins,tragedy,revelations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Wikipedia is not the place to host your unpublishable novels Mayalld (talk) 07:46, 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 per WP:NOT. Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi: The Next Generation cast and crew[edit]

Degrassi: The Next Generation cast and crew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

IMDB handles this sort of thing. WP:NOTDIR. Can only be truly verified through the credits on episodes. No secondary sources. Degrassi: The Next Generation and each season page handles this way better. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:41, 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 23:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Degrassi theme songs and opening credits[edit]

Degrassi theme songs and opening credits (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Where to start? Violates WP:NOTDIR ("Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as … persons (real or fictional)") WP:NOT#LYRICS. Everything in here (or the majority) can be read at Degrassi: The Next Generation#Opening sequence. Finally, nothing can be verified through reliable sources. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go to http://www.degrassitngho.com if that's the kind of fancruft information you're looking for. A complete list of the order of credit appearances and lyrics isn't encyclopaedic. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. I agree completely with you. There's no need for such a page when there's another article that summarizes everything. User:Candyo32 pointed out that it shows the progression of the opening credits through the show's history, but are details about that necessary to include? - k|e|n|g - t | c - 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia isn't a directory. To the people stating speedy delete: I'm pretty sure this doesn't fall under that, so just wait until this debate is over. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per copyright violations and/or "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information". –thedemonhog talk • edits 06:38, 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. Ѕandahl 16:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Kebbel[edit]

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

Obscure actor whose resume is three bit parts in direct-to-video productions, fails WP:BIO. His sister is more prominent, but notability is not contagious.  Ravenswing  07:44, 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. Kurykh 01:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychophile[edit]

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

Obscure, defunct British band, fails WP:BAND. There are a number of hits on Google UK, but none from any reliable sources. Two albums released on an equally obscure label. No cites on Google UK news.  RGTraynor  07:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are plenty of obscure bands on Wikipedia. The bands record label Wasp Factory are a legitimate indie / alternative music label, and the band is referenced in 4 other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.172.156.4 (talk) 08:21, 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Floyd Eiler[edit]

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

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 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.  —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 16:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert V. Murray[edit]

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

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:12, 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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Kronschnable[edit]

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

Subject appears to be notable only for being shot; WP:BLP1E (although as he's dead, I'm not sure if BLP applies, even though he was alive at the moment he got shot). There's also WP:NOTMEMORIAL and it seems a bit propaganda-ish ("Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented") so WP:NOTADVERTISING, too. While it may be a tragedy, it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Article has just come off an AfD, but the closing admin said he had no objection to an immediate re-opening, as long as each article was nommed individually. I should also add that I created the article. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 07:17, 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 redirect to Master race. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Herrenvolk[edit]

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

POV fork on a straightforward translation of Master Race. An attempt to turn it back into a redirect was reverted by the creator. Latebird (talk) 06:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • turn into redirect: While I did not detect any POV, I think it is entirely redundant on Master race. It also seems to contain some unsupported and rather unusial claims, namely that the "Herren" in "Herrenvolk" was originally used in the same sense as in "Herrenmagazin" (men's magazine?) or "Herrenfahrrad" (man's bicycle), not in the sense as in "Herrenrasse" (=Master race) or "Herrenmensch" (=single member of Herrenrasse). I.e. that the original meaning of "Herrenvolk" would be about the same as "Mannsvolk" (menfolk) or maybe "German menfolk", and that the modern meaning of "master race" was only a product of the Nazis twisting the word's meaning. On a minor note, the focus on Germany (as opposed to all "Nordic" peoples) also seems a bit too non-obvious to accept it without further support. Yaan (talk) 10:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The German word for Master Race is 'Herrenrasse' not 'Herrenvolk'. The term Herrenvolk was used by Germans before the Nazi's used it and Herrenvolk was applied differently than the word 'Herrenrasse'. Therefore, the article should be kept. Green Squares (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Herrenvolk would translate to "Master people", and the term can be traced back to even before WWI. But at the current state, the only part of the article that is not redundant to Master race is a false etymology and a (garbled?) quote. Yaan (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. You can find many non master race usage at Google Scholar now just relax, wait and let a consensus be built. Green Squares (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice if you could bring up a specific link, since to me, many many of those links seem indeed refer to some kind of "master race" concept. Btw. can we at least agree that "Herren" really has two syllabes, not just one? Yaan (talk) 18:13, 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. Ѕandahl 16:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brett 'Crusher' Murray[edit]

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

Biography of a non-notable subject. The article provides no independent reliable sources asserting notability or supporting the claims made, a real concern given that this article is about a living person. Mattinbgn\talk 06:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment No, it shows that he has been mentioned obliquely in articles written about other topics -- Mattinbgn\talk 00:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - I have added one ref to the article which is not a trivial mention. Kevin (talk) 23:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Once the OR is removed, nothing but a bible quote remains. Also unsourced. May be recreated if sufficiently sourced for notability purposes.  Sandstein  17:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Armor of God[edit]

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

This article appears to not follow WP:OR as it is written in the form of a religious sermon/message. Also, fails WP:NPOV with statements on Christianity Finalnight (talk) 06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 09:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definately sounds like OR to me.Yobmod (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essay/sermon/original research, not encyclopaedic anyway -Hunting dog (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, weakly, without prejudice. The metaphor from Ephesians is easily notable enough to support an article, and there surely is sufficient public commentary out there to make one. This is just the author's personal interpretation, though. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, weakly, per Smerdis. It may not be as notable as Good Samaritan but the term is old enough that I expect there's far more references out there with which an appropriate encyclopedic article could be written. I would expect that there might be references from Constantine to the Crusades, for instance. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable and OR per Yobmod. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable term. Remove the OR. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 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.

Squirreling[edit]

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

WP:NOTDICDEF. The article is even structured specifically like a dictionary entry. There are 2 main uses of the term described in the article, both of which are poorly sourced and not notable enough for an article in their own right. Any relevant content related to the actual animal is already present in the related article Squirrel. And any relevant content related to Scientology jargon could be incorporated into the article Scientology terminology - but if and only if that material could be sourced to secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, which is not really discussed in any third-party sources in anything more than a brief mention of one sentence or less. Thus, nothing really of interest to merge anywhere else that would be useful or able to be sourced to independent sources, so recommend deletion. Cirt (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and possibly move appropriate content to Wiktionary as Wikipedia is not a dictionary Anonymous101 (talk) 06:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:DICDEF. --Eleassar my talk 07:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Justallofthem (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --GoodDamon 19:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Fahrenheit451 (talk) 22:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Anyone who goes looking for the term "squirreling" is almost certainly looking for information on independent Scientology. Doesn't making a redirect and modifying the target article to explain that this is an offensive term only used by the CHurch of Scientology make more sense? - 65.78.13.238 (talk) 14:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply to Comment: The Freezone folks would not appreciate such a label which is highly POV from the cofs. There is no reason that the article should be retained.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 23:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply to reply to commet: Wikipedia's coverage isn't determined by what the subjects appreciate, I thought, or else the Church of Scientology's coverage here would look a lot different. What about making a redirect to Squirrel (disambiguation)? -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to Disambig Page - for people looking for Squirrel-related activities, or people looking for Scientology. As it is at the moment, it's not an encyclopaedia article, and there isn't sufficient notability alone for either of its uses, to be a standalone article. -Toon05 16:08, 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 -- notability seems dubious. — xDanielx T/C\R 20:56, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Trevino[edit]

Taylor Trevino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. It seems that the crux of the argument here is whether or not the list is discriminate per the style guideline for lists, and a number of equally good arguments are raised on both sides. The comments in support of deleting the list argue that its members are linked only by virtue of their being the same species, while the comments in support of retaining it argue that the fictional nature and independent notability of the list members refutes this claim.

After discounting the arguments supporting the deletion of the list in favor of a category--as Colonel Warden points out, the two are not mutually exclusive--it seems that there is no firm resolution on whether or not the list is sufficiently discriminate. --jonny-mt 02:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fictional Pandas[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and make into a category instead. JIP | Talk 05:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Already a category that existed before and is the source of some of the contents of this list Category:Fictional pandas. --Tombomp (talk/contribs) 08:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a focussed list and so not indiscriminate. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not indiscriminate, but redundant oif there is already a catergory.Yobmod (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. People use encyclopedias to find information. Under what circumstance could someone possibly pick up an encyclopedia, asking, "I wonder how many fictional pandas there have been?" I also can't picture the folks at Britannica sending historians or other experts to research the matter. I'm sure Disney appreciates the advertisement, though! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you ask, a topical circumstance might be that, having enjoyed Kung Fu Panda, readers might look for more of the same; look for background on pandas; look for tie-in opportunities to preserve this endangered species. What seems more bizarre is, now that a volunteer editor has gone to the trouble of researching and creating this article, that other editors should go out of their way to attack it. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zenwhat did ask. --Kizor 17:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep People use encyclopedias to find information in an organized way, and this is the best way to organize this information. It can do what a category cannot, which is to indicate the works. It is not indiscriminate, for it includes only the notable ones, the ones with Wikipedia articles. If there are some notable ones missing, we can add them; a list is not indiscriminate because its incomplete. It would be indiscriminate if it included every fictional panda, even in non notable works, but it does not do that. No I can't picture Brittanica doing it, which is why we have organized Wikipedia. DGG (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. RobJ1981 (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have heard this from the nominator already. What neither of you have done is provide the slightest evidence that this article fits this complaint. Your comments thus fail WP:VAGUEWAVE and so should be discounted. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's for the closing admin to decide. I don't see it useful that you are just insulting comments others made. RobJ1981 (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a discussion not a box-ticking vote. Pointing out weaknesses in the cases made is normal practise here. Please take no offense since none is intended. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:01, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse me, how is a list of unrelated fictional characters relevant if the only linking factor is that they're pandas? This is very indiscriminate and loose-linked, not to mention the category is already doing its job. That is how it's indiscriminate. If you don't think that way, then prove me wrong. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, if I had it my way, I would nuke more than half of those fictional animals lists for being indiscriminate lists, so that argue doesn't fly with me. Really, they're hardly connected at all. I can understand the first four, and I know very much about lists and their organization. But really, a list of every panda in fiction? It doesn't matter if it's complete or never ends up completed, the only discriminating factor is that they're pandas in fiction. That's rather indiscriminate, if you ask me. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of those animal lists are the indiscriminate ones, in your view? Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, you seem to be basing a large part of your argument around the recent release of Kung Fu Panda. I suggest you reread WP:N though, especially the part where notability is not established by shear popularity. And even if it was, fads come and go, and this list would be hitting AFD in a couple months anyway. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 15:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I mentioned Kung Fu Panda by way of explanation of why we are are here - the article was created only a few days ago and so is still new and in need to development. But the movie is certainly notable and so gives our readership all the more reason to be reading about pandas here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Might I suggest you read WP:NOTINHERITED? Notability is not inherited, and the page that the section I have linked you to is arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Also, as stated by WP:N, notability is not temporary, so five years from now when Kung Fu Panda is old news, will it still be notable? Absolutely not, and my belief is that it is not now. And that comes as part of being an indiscriminate list. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 21:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A list of this sort necessarily inherits its notability from the articles which it lists since it has no other content - the purpose of such a list is to help find and navigate this notable content. But the nomination is about the supposedly indiscriminate nature of the list. You have still provided no proof or evidence of this while I have demonstrated ample precedent for such a list. List of fictional monkeys was challenged at AFD using exactly the same rationale and the strong consensus was to keep. Why should we have a list of fictional monkeys but not a list of fictional pandas? To have one but not the other would be absurdly indiscriminate and no service to our readership. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. In this case, I believe no notability is inherited. And no, we shouldn't have one but not the other. We should have neither, but that's my opinion, and I've got a strange feeling this is going to end in no consensus. And you have provided no evidence to me that this is a discriminate list. Every panda that is fictional on Wikipedia is listed? That's just absurd. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 05:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have provided evidence - you just refuse to recognise it. Please indicate an example of the evidence that you want to see by reference to an existing list such as List of fictional monkeys. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or convert to a category. However, if this is converted to a category, the category must be up and running before the list is deleted. In no way should the effort collecting this list be discarded. Phil Sandifer (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - subject adequately covered by the category. PhilKnight (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as it does not establish notability and the category is sufficient. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 , due to coverage in sources. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 16:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Douglas[edit]

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

Unsuccessful actor and comedian who happened to have been the son of Kirk Douglas. Notability is not inherited. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:09, 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 delete. Shereth 18:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Ball AF[edit]

Dragon Ball AF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A non-existent series sourced exclusively by fansites and fan rumors. Wikipedia isn't generally in the habit of giving notability to ne fan website's april fools joke that has no actual real world notability. Its pure WP:OR and a Hoax. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep, sourced and notable, which makes it impossible to call WP:OR on it. Wether it's an april fool's joke or not, it's gained a lot of notability through the "rumors". It does exsist, just not as a series. It's an event, similar to Essjay.--Koji†Dude (C) 03:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability in non-reliable sources does not make it notable. We aren't a rumor mill. It isn't similar to Essjay as Essjay actually had significant coverage in multiple news papers and other reliable sources. Please actually show where this fake series has significant coverage in reliable sources, not just fansites. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason why we should delete it instead of looking for sources?--Koji†Dude (C) 04:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the article? It begins with Dragon Ball AF is a non-existent anime. And goes on to explain in detail how it doesn't exist (read the whole section titled Validity). — MaggotSyn 05:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Sourced to a fansite, which fails to meet the requirements for sourcing, and not notable, since the series doesn't exist. Rumors and April's Fools jokes are not encylopedic content - at best, move the article to a Dragonball wikia. Doceirias (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR and cited as hoax no less. I wasn't aware we had this article as I'm familiar with it. You'd have to establish how this fanishness is notable. (oh and this has nothing to do with Essjay, at all)— MaggotSyn 04:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The fact that DBAF doesn't exist is no reason for deletion. WP:HOAX articles are deleted, but articles on notable hoaxes are not. Now I ask you, how would one go about establishing this hoax's notability?--Nohansen (talk) 05:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteTo respond to the above, you would establish this hoax's notability the same as with any other - by multiple nontrivial mentions in independent reliable sources. When the hoax is noted by such, an article is appropriate. Until that time, one is not. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 09:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Let's take the easy route and just delete the damn thing, so we don't have to do any work.--Koji†Dude (C) 15:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seriously original research. Greg Jones II 13:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete I don't really know where to stand on this in terms of policy. However, please note that from a notability point of view, there doesn't exist a fan of Dragonball beyond the occasional watcher that hasn't heard of AF, or mention of the possibility of a new series. It may not be a topic about a substantial "thing", do consider the fact that the idea exists and is highly notable in fandom at least. Of course, personally i don't feel this is deserving of an article, but i don't seem to be able to decide which way policy views it. Added, per Delete Though i feel the topic is somewhat more notable than it is given credit for, there is little chance of serious news articles referencing it, and therefore little way to determine notability. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as OR. Fan-driven OR is still OR. Eusebeus (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Original Research is only Original Research in terms of Wikipedia, when it's original here... obviously all topics were Original Research somewhere once. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 08:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No coverage by reliable published sources from which to presume notability. Just because it is popular in some circles doesn't make it notable. --Farix (Talk) 00:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above. I can't believe this crap still exists. Jonny2x4 (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everything said. This is just as insignificant as Dragon Ball RJ, save for the fact that it's a more popular hoax. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:55, 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.  Sandstein  17:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-imagism[edit]

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

I can't find any evidence that this is an actual, notable literary movement. The article's full of hedges like "little known" and such. Crystallina (talk) 03:50, 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 00:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Faaspeak[edit]

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

More neologism shenanigans. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No references are provided to demonstrate the truth of the article and the only things I find online about "Faaspeak" refer to the Federal Aviation Administration. I'm not sure if this is just someone trying to take credit for what's I've always thought of as "leetspeak" but I guess it doesn't matter since there's no measure of notability here. Mostly likely hoax/OR/WP:NFT, etc. Rnb (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a neologism for SMS language. I can find no evidence of use of the expression "Faaspeak" to refer to anything other than the aviation jargon mentioned by Rnb. Considering that this article's Faaspeak is supposed to be an Internet activity, zero relevant Google hits outside Wikipedia does not speak well for its notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE!! you guys shouldnt delete it. its full of information. is epic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.102.246 (talk) 04:04, 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 as no one other than the nominator recommends it for deletion. — MaggotSyn 10:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Records discography[edit]

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

Non notable topic, poorly formatted list, not interesting, not cited, original research, not verified, shall i go on? Myheartinchile (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • DeleteMyheartinchile (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep While the formatting isn't that good (maybe should be brought up to the standards of the Factory Records catalogue article), you're using the arguement of it being not interesting and poorly formatted (along with others) as a reason for deletion. It should be tagged for references/improvments. This is a notable record label with many well-known bands on it. Lugnuts (talk) 07:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 09:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this is a finite and easily verifiable listing of releases on a very notable record label. "Not interesting?"... please! --Canley (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep vote from me. Whilst it is a bit of a mess, the subject is entirely worthy and really only requires cleanup. Lugnuts's reference to the Factory Records article is a good call and an accurate equivalent to take cues from. Deletion reasoning is a touch flawed, too. OBM | blah blah blah 11:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Encyclopedic and fairly easily verifiable, even if lacking references at present. Most of these releases are listed in Martin Strong's "The Great Alternative & Indie Discography", and I would imagine elsewhere too.--Michig (talk) 11:47, 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 G3 by Kinu, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nickolai Ebersbacheichel[edit]

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

One of the least amusing hoaxes to come around in a while. Believe it or not, this one was declined a speedy delete. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:01, 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 G3 by nom. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henrik Clarke[edit]

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

Hoax / vanity article, a simple google search does not ascertain the notability of the subject and refutes the claims of the article. -MBK004 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 Speedy keep, nomination withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:33, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't You Know Your Beautiful[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Don't You Know Your Beautiful (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Music as it has not charted or been performed by many noted artists LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I also added a source and moved it to the correct spelling ("your" ≠ "you're"). I swear, I'll trout the next person who makes such a blatant grammatical error. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:22, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per TenPoundHammer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 02:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WITHDRAWN Thanks guys....should have looked more closely! LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:32, 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 Redirect to Kris Kristofferson - Peripitus (Talk) 02:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kristofferson[edit]

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

Pointless dab. The singer and his album are linked to each other, and the Tim McGraw song has been redirected. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I originally created this as a redirect to Kris Kristofferson and so I think it should be a redirect over a deletion... but I don't really mind the dab page either. gren グレン 04:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an appropriate disambiguation page. Axl (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Kris Kristofferson or weak delete. I do not see how this is an appropriate dab page because, as stated, the pages are linked to each other, see dab pages with only 2 entries and the song listed doesn't have a page. Wouldn't really care if it remained a dab page but it doesn't seem needed. Faradayplank (talk) 00:28, 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Know (Jessica Simpson album)[edit]

No sources, proving title, tracks and anything. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sippin' on History --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:51, 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 Keep. — MaggotSyn 23:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Jimenez[edit]

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

Fails notability criterion as he hasn't played in a fully professional league or at the highest possible level. This is also noting that football is not an "amateur" sport so top amateur level does not exist. GauchoDude (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've given the article a quick tidy up, including an infobox. GiantSnowman 16:28, 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 G3 as hoax by Athaenara, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 01:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haxsasauras[edit]

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

This is a hoax. There is no Haxsasauras, there is no article announcing its publication, and there no such journal as the English Journal of Paleontology. J. Spencer (talk) 01:45, 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 — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 23:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Neilson (actor)[edit]

John Neilson (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable actor who had a couple of bit parts in a handful of memorable films. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:32, 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 00:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Neals[edit]

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

I believe it is possible to question the notability of Ms. Neals' contributions to the cinema. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as per all of the above Greg Jones II 00:15, 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 Delete — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 22:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nepean City Soccer Club[edit]

Nepean City Soccer Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable community sports group; no evidence of relevance outside of its neighbourhood. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete No notability, and can appear as an advert TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability is not inherited from "roots going back 30 years", no indication of notability outside local area. TN‑X-Man 19:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 21:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 22:04, 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 redirect to American Modern Ensemble . This does not preclude a merge, but there's a consensus that this article can't stand on its own. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Paterson (composer)[edit]

Robert Paterson (composer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable and main contributor has a COI claims of being a Pulitzer Prize for Music winner which was removed by an IP after mentioned on talk page is suspicious. Also same IP removed speedy tag. BigDuncTalk 01:23, 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 per WP:SNOW. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mrinal kaul[edit]

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

Blatant autobiography. Is he notable? — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no evidence of notability. A few college awards? Meh. Ultimately looks like a WP:RESUME. --Kinu t/c 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As I understand it, he does not have a doctoral degree yet and is only planning to pursue one (see here [33]). It is not clear if he already has written significant books or other academic publications (googling does not produce evidence of that and the article does not give any references either). So does not pass WP:PROF at the moment. Could possibly be notable as a poet, under WP:BIO, as indicated by the awards mentioned. However, with no references indicating what poetry and where he published and without more info about the awards mentioned, the case for notability as a poet has not been made either. Nsk92 (talk) 06:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I think this should be nominated to Template:Db-person - not here. It's an article written by the user about himself. Check the author name. --gppande «talk» 08:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was asserted in the article, so speedy was inappropriate. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Not even a PhD, no evidence of any notability. --Crusio (talk) 10:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete It looks like a resume, no wikilinks, formatting, sources. Besides, he doesn't seem of importance. TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Nsk92's reasoning. TN‑X-Man 19:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • possible keepspeedy delete if sources are found may be somewhat notable (meeting WP:BIO guidelines just not this editor's interests) if sources are found. ill try and see if it can be {{Rescue}}d.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC) - in my attempts to imrprove the article i found that the sources simply prove that this is a self-promotional ad not an encyclopedia article.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 00:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not speedy for it says he won prizes. The prizes are only by his colelge, so they dont count towards notabilty & the others are only nomination for prizes he did not win. Suggest a SNOW if nobody speaks for it. DGG (talk) 03:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One of the sources is merely a blog site which is not a reliable source. The other is this person's own site. Artene50 (talk) 09:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Yet another autobiography.--CyberGhostface (talk) 15:44, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep.  Sandstein  17:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia African People's Democratic Organisation[edit]

Namibia African People's Democratic Organisation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Namibian political party with a relatively brief and (it appears) undistinguished history. Unless people believe it should be merged into the SWAPO article, I would argue it can be removed. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep a political party for an entire race of people in an African nation is totally notable, if its true that is, sources are needed but i'm sure they will be found soon enough, its hard to find them for obscure lands in poor places that are digitally divided however =(.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to South West Africa People's Organization. I have put in a reliable source. Internet sources for early African political parties are hard to come by so we need to exercise greater caution when dealing with such topics - and we are talking about a significant aspect of African history - the 20th century fight for independence from Western control. I would suggest a speedy close or the nominator withdraw this one. SilkTork *YES! 14:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, almost a case study of what systemic bias means: the party is considered utterly unsignificant because it's not on the web, forgetting that it suffers 1) from being an African party of a little known nation 2) from being no more active. But not only the web: just from a look at google books it's name compares with some info in several books: Independent Namibia: Problems and Prospects, The Dictionary of Contemporary Politics of Southern Africa, the already mentioned A History of Resistance in Namibia, where it surfaces at pages 93, 95, 100, Escape from Violence, Political Dissent, To be Born a Nation, Namibia: The Violent Heritage, Namibia, Challenge to the United Nations, and some others. Also, please keep in mind that the name has some variants: it's also called "Namib African People's Organization", "National African People's Democratic Organisation", "Namibian African People's Democratic Organization".--Aldux (talk) 20:38, 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 keep--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 03:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ESPN Sunday Night Baseball results (1990-present)[edit]

ESPN Sunday Night Baseball results (1990-present) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Blatant case of sportscruft. Wizardman 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep I'm the creator of the article in question. I don't believe it to be anymore "sportscruft" than Monday Night Football results (1990-present), any of the other similar football results lists, or a list of television series episodes, which, essentially, is what this is. This is the longest running prime-time baseball series, which should cover its notability. I concede that it is not complete, and perhaps other improvements can be made, but I don't think it should be removed completely.--Highway99 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete They're baseball games on Sundays that are played under lights and air on ESPN. Nothing special here, and agree with the nom that this is cruft. Nate • (chatter) 06:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination seems to be based upon its qualifications as a sports list when, in actuality, this is a television episode list in the same vein as the many episode lists here on Wikipedia. List of Doctor Who serials, for example was a Featured List, and it is not much different in that it basically lists out the individual episodes along with when they aired. Kinston eagle (talk) 11:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CRUFTCRUFT is never an appropriate rationale to bring to AFD, administrator or not. SashaNein (talk) 16:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral It doesn't meet deletion criteria (in my mind), but it seems like a semi-useless list that doesn't belong on wikipedia. TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article has not even picked if its a list, coverage of baseball games, coverage of a tv show, coverage of tv show episodes or what.Myheartinchile (talk) 21:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename to List of ESPN Sunday Night Baseball games, and get some sources to confirm those games were aired. SilkTork *YES! 14:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - follow SilkTork's recommendations, I think it's worth keeping since there's no policy reason to delete it. matt91486 (talk) 18:52, 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 - Merge to Mitch Murray - Peripitus (Talk) 02:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Down Came The Rain[edit]

Down Came The Rain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Perma-stub on a song of no notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - plenty notable, see the two sources listed on the article. Al Tally talk 00:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources prove the existence of the song and that's it. Does that mean that I can make a page for every track on Tim McGraw's latest album because someone might indeed search for "Train #10"? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge I think the album can be included with this song listed in it. Bstone (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable song. Maybe Merge to artist / album article, if the info isn't there already.Yobmod (talk) 09:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect to Mitch Murray.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete Per above TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I could write on this based on the sources given (are they reliable?) is that it's a classic comedy song. Permastub. Merge/redirect (closing admin; you can add the above statement and the refs) to Mitch Murray. —Giggy 13:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge --John (talk) 14:42, 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 . The keep arguments don't sufficiently prove their point that the references fall in line with the general notability guideline, and the delete arguments are much stronger. I'll be willing to undelete if he makes a higher office, such as mayor or state legislator, in the future. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Ferrell[edit]

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

Nom - This biographical aticle appears to be of local note only and thus fails our standards for biographical articles. Rklawton (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold textb>Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Elected city council officials are notable. Article lists several sources. TN‑X-Man 13:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Since when are city officials automatically notable? My reading of WP:POLITICIAN returns quite the opposite--only national and first-level sub-national (i.e. State Legislature, Governor, etc) would meet that. City council and "vice-mayor" don't even come close.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unnotable goverment position. It's not even the guy's full time job. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Vice Mayor isn't a notable position. Mayor-- maybe, vice, no. TheDJAtClubRock :-) (T/C) 19:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN, and there is nothing extra in his life to compensate. SilkTork *YES! 13:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It does fail the WP:POLITICIAN criteria, if you consider local newspapers not to be valid in "significant press coverage," but it meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," in which case I think they would count. Obviously, for example, the New York City Council isn't going to get much coverage in Phoenix, Arizona, but this shouldn't preclude its members from inclusion just because it's local. Is it then a question of how lowly populated the municipality has to be? I guess if this article is deleted, I would advise that most of the articles linked from Metropolitan Council (Davidson County) be deleted as well. Daniel Bush (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - following your logic, then everything covered in the local press would be worthy of an article in Wikipeida. However, that is obviously not the case. The article is about a politician, therefore, the notability requirements for a politician apply - and (as you noted) this politician fails that test at this time. Rklawton (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep county level politicians are notable as are city councilpersons of significantly large cities, if anything merge into an article about the current leadership of the jurisdiction.Myheartinchile (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wrong - this is about a county council member, not a city council member, and the difference in terms of budget and power are significant. And the standards don't say "large cities" the standards say "major metropolitan city". Nashville isn't even in the top 25 U.S. cities by popluation. Lastly, counties are only second level sub-national division, so he doesn't qualify on that front, either. Rklawton (talk) 15:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, he's both a county council member and a city council member. Nashville merged both governments together in 1963. He's also one of five members that represent all 650,000 or so Nashvillians. Nashville has the most city council members of all the major cities (The Tennessean considers it one), so if you were going by representation, the others should probably come next. If it helps, he was the editor of the Nashville Scene, which 1 in 13 Nashvillians read, going by circulation. Daniel Bush (talk) 19:48, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment doesn't matter. Two non-notables don't make a notable... the individual probably has a whole lot more non-noteworthy events in his life.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment don't care if it's city or county, neither meets the notability of "first-level sub-national" (i.e. state legislature, governor, etc). I'm not seing it for this position, and the lack of coverage in the news supports that this is not an exception to any notability guidelines.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  17:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phentramine[edit]

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

Looks like one of the many hoodia diet pills on the market. Hoodia itself is a notable substance and there are numerous references talking about Hoodia as a diet pill ingredient. But this seems like just one brand of Hoodia and there is no indication in my google search that anything independent establishes notability of this brand on its own. Montco (talk) 22:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The product exists, and there are refs out there to support this. I've put one in the article. In my experience, all drugs get listed on Wikipedia - and I'm thankful for that as in my current position I need to check what drugs elderly patients are taking, and I'm able to use Wikipedia as a quick reference! SilkTork *YES! 13:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contra User:SilkTork, while I agree with Wikipedia listing active ingredients, this is just a brand name, and I brand names don't generally get their own article. If they are particularly notable, they might get a mention on the compound's article and a redirect, but I don't see any evidence this is even notable enough for that. And it frightens me to think that you'd actually trust the information on Wikipedia for use on patients. --SJK (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not prescribing the drugs. ;-) I'm overlooking a mass of data about elderly people which includes as part of their medical history, details of which drugs they are taking. The name of the drug by itself doesn't always tell me what I need to know - so I do a quick google, and most of the time it is Wikipedia which provides the best response. I'm not making any judgements about care packages based on this, but it provides me with some background knowledge of the client.
Your comment about brand names is pertinent. I'll take a look into that. SilkTork *YES! 12:21, 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 Delete — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 20:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In God We Trust: But Which One?[edit]

In God We Trust: But Which One? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 23:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: no sources, no assertion of notability, mostly a quotefarm of quotes "attributed to this book", but lacking page-citations for verifiability (or even evidence that others, let alone WP:RSs, have made use of these quotes). HrafnTalkStalk 05:43, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Most mentions on the internet are by the author herself. SilkTork *YES! 13:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Does not have any sources and is not notable. Schuym1 (talk) 03:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)schuym1[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nation's Favourite Musical[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Nation's Favourite Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  16:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - poll has no claim of notability. wikipedia is not the place to publish poll results --T-rex 14:16, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. Madcoverboy (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was speedy delete as copyright infringement, not notable, and crystalballery. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ferrari f430 scuderia[edit]

Ferrari f430 scuderia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable enough (yet). StaticGull  Talk  16:14, 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 - no sources, and no evidence of notability. Allow for re-creation when and if such evidence arises. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Hodges[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough, also quite POV. StaticGull  Talk  16:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a reply posted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2008 juni 26 in regards this article, please help to move it here. The creator of this article is new to wikipedia. They have been shown the wikipedia autobiography page, as well as requested to reply here on this page. Is there any other advice they can be offered in this regards? Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by author (moved here by JohnCD from where it was mistakenly posted, see above)
To Whom It May Concern: I posted the Ben Hodges entry (it's me; I have edited and published over 13 publications, including the most important pictorial and statistical record of the American theatre, "Theatre World.") My publications are in over 15 colleges and universities, and I am the most prolific anthologist of gay and lesbian plays ever published. In addition, I have won and/or been nominated for major national awards for my work. In addition, all information posted is accurate and verifiable. What's the problem?
Ben
  • The problem is that because Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view people are strongly discouraged from writing about themselves, which inevitably involves a conflict of interest - see the guideline on autobiography. The advice is "You should wait for others to write an article about subjects in which you are personally involved" and (to put it brutally) if no-one independent of you is interested enough to write an article about you, perhaps you are not notable enough for an article. Wikipedia is not a place for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 07:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment by author (moved here by JohnCD from where it was posted on this debate's talk page)
I would ask Static Gull firstly: what, exactly, is POV about the article? Secondly, why was Static Gull's activity limited by Wikipedia on June 23? and finally, how, exactly, is having published more anthologies (complete with commentary and introductions) on a genre than any person living or dead (Gay and Lesbian Theatre), combined with editing the definitive reference on commercial theatre production, in addition to having served as editor in chief of the most complete annual pictorial and statistical record of the American theatre for 7 years– with an accompanying study by students in scores of colleges and universities, totaling 13 published works, NOT qualify as notable? Benhodges (talk) 19:17, 26 June 2008
    • @ Benhodges' second comment
To answer your first question, words like "prestigious" make the article POV, but most importantly, WP:COI does. If by your second question you're refferring to the use of {{User:StaticGull/Break}} on my user- and talk page, my activity wasn't limited by, but on Wikipedia. As for your last question, WP:SOAP has a better answer than I do. StaticGull  Talk  09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK– Ben again here....So, just so I understand it clearly...the problem mainly with my entry is that someone else didn't submit it? Clearly someone else could have, and secondly, your whole POV argument rests on the word "prestigious"? A 64 year old ceremony that is the oldest award for Broadway and Off-Broadway debuts, which began with persons such as Barbara Bel Geddes and Burt Lancaster being awarded, and just 25 days ago had Alec Baldwin and Laura Linney, Carol Lawrence, and Andrea Martin, and Lin-Manuel Miranda and Ben Daniels, amon others, winning, doesn't count as prestigious? IS THERE AS VOICE OF REASON OUT THERE WHO CAN JUDGE THIS OBJECTIVELY??!?!?!? THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.115 (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I posted (Ben again here), the entries for Frederic B. Vogel, Theatre World, and John A. Willis, on the same day, all of which apparently sneaked by without event. Apparently, since Fred's dead, and John is 92 and therefore I posted his bio for him, combined with the fact that Theatre World is an inanimate object, make them all qualify for an entry, whereas, as a living, breathing, person, who submitted my own entry, albeit completely accurate and fact checked, is disqualified. I have to tell you as an editor of a worldwide publication, with 13 books to my credit in over 20 colleges and universities, and as a current mid-career intellectual property law student, I would be very, very, very, suspicious of the credibility of a website if my comments here with respect to it are accurate. Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.115 (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean up. Article is poorly written by our standards but does seems to assert notability as an author and expert in their field. That they're a wikipedia newby and now a bit hostile to terse anonymous editors who want to delete their work is of little surprise. Back off and encourage this article to flourish and just maybe we'll also recruit someone who just may be a great wikipedian as well. Banjeboi 22:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subject of the article does not meet the criteria set forth at WP:ACADEMIC, the relevant notability guideline here. Pop Secret (talk) 10:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete Possibly notable and salvageable, but WP:COI and WP:AUTO flags make me think that NPOV will be an on-going issue with this borderline notable living person. Madcoverboy (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Needs referencing though to confirm notability. So marked. No prejudice against a renomination if references aren't found. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otaku Magazine[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  16:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is a first entry, will update it with more info and magazine covers now. S2mega (talk) 16:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Looks to me if it's a real magazine being published by a commercial publisher, and not a fanzine, we don't even need to be discussing this here. --Gwern (contribs) 20:34 29 June 2008 (GMT)
  • Keep per above. Its been running for a few years, even. What would make it "seem notable enough" anyhow? 208.245.87.2 (talk) 15:47, 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. Neıl 龱 14:57, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patronat d'Estudis Osonencs[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patronat d'Estudis Osonencs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  16:02, 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. Article needs expanding, and sourcing. Could possibly be a good merge/redirect candidate to Dumbo if not expandable. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I See an Elephant Fly[edit]

When I See an Elephant Fly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:56, 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 for now. New article, new user, a possible chance at notability. Bring it to a WikiProject, get some sourcing in there. If unsuccessful, bring it back here for nomination Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pawistik Lodge[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom; also, it's spammy. JohnCD (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article has been created by a user new to wikipedia, who had not up till now been welcomed or informed of wikipedia policy. He is now welcomed, and given advice on article writing, prose, citations, notability, and fishing articles in general. It may be wise to also inform the wikiproject on Fishing when a new user article is being considered for deletion. Kind Regards SriMesh | talk 02:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A bit of quick research disclosed that indeed this lodge has some notability because it is associated with Scott Jeffery, a notable publisher in the Canadian Oil and Gas industry. As well the region and river in which the lodge is located is indeed rich is history. The article needs more sourcing, better organization, and should refrain from outright promotion of the lodge but otherwise should be retained.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:28, 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 Keep (non-admin closure) Oo7565 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Karen Hanson[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Doesn't seem notable enough?

1 - This article should fall under the scope of the WikiProject Biography and the Science and Academia Work Group.
2 - Hanson's name was already in the article for Indiana University (Bloomington).
3 - There are many other similar biographical articles on Wikipedia of American academic administrators. To cite a few:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Kevin_Dorsey (Dorsey is dean and provost of a school which is a division of Southern Illinois University - which is a much smaller school than Indiana University.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kay (Kay is interim provost at the University of Michigan-Flint.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_A._Alutto (Alutto is the Provost of Ohio State University and is one of Hanson's colleagues in the Committee on Institutional Cooperation - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Committee_on_Institutional_Cooperation)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meredith_Hay (Hay holds the exact same position as Hanson at the University of Arizona).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Freund - a former Provost.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_S._Zeppos

There are also historical articles such as this one about Charles Custis Harrison http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Custis_Harrison - the most notable thing about whom was that he was the provost of an American university.

"Chancellor" is a similar academic position and there are bios of chancellors on Wikipedia (e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Reno).

I could go on like this all day.

4 - Hanson also has numerous highly-regarded publications in the field of philosophy, which I will add to her entry soon.

5 - Her book, The Self Imagined: Philosophical Reflections on the Social Character of Psyche has been cited by numerous authors including Thomas Sebeok (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sebeok) and Hans Joas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Joas), thus meeting the notability standard of secondary source material.

6 - What's more...EVERY football coach in the not-so-illustrious history of Indiana University football has a Wikipedia article. But a chief academic officer does not merit one?

Soonerhoosier (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Point 1 is only valid IF the subject is in fact notable. Point 2 does not confer personal notability. Points 3 and 6 see WP:Othercrapexists. Points 4 and 5, well every academic publishes so this doesn't set her apart or above in and of itself. G, Gnews, Gscholar and Gbooks searches show she exists but again I'm looking for something to hang notability on. Soonerhoosier's user name and edit hx indicate a narrow focus, I might revise my position if more detached comments indicate a notability I'm missing.Mostly cloudy (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I do not put much stock in administrative positions (at least those below a university President or Chancellor). However, Hanson holds a named chair professorship (Rudy Professor of Philosophy) at a major research university. Named chair appointments are reliable indicators of academic notability. Moreover, in a humanitarian discipline such as Philosophy, they are particularly rare. GoogleBooks also demonstrates a substantial number of mentions related to her work, 152 hits for "Karen Hanson" philosophy[35]. Nsk92 (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreed that the academic positions by themselves do not prove anything much--though at a major university like this the Provost or equivalent almost always is actually a really unquestionably accomplished scholar, because they need to maintain the respect of the faculty--the essential part of their job is making the final decisions on senior appointments and tenure. But the holder of a named chair at a major research university will always be notable--the judgment of their fellow scholars is how they get there--its the top rank in the academic world. Published academic work is what makes scholars notable. The extent and quality of it is the deciding factor. DGG (talk) 03:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per DGG changing my view on this. Mostly cloudy (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG, but I'd be so much happier if this article had encyclopedic content, explaining the impact of her work on her field, rather than focussing on her CV and status within her home institution. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:18, 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 -- Population centers are inherently notable. — caknuck ° is back from his wikisiesta 20:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Porto Dinheiro[edit]

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

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This a appears to be an actual village/population center which are in inherently notable. --Oakshade (talk) 05:36, 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 Keep. This vastly improved article bears little resemblance to the one nominated. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Genesee County, New York Sheriff's Office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem notable enough. StaticGull  Talk  15:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - virtually the only law enforcement agency between Buffalo and Rochester. Can be cleaned up, cites can be found. Bearian (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep this is clearly a notable subject and the very nomination of such a title seems like a bad faith or at the very least poor judgment nomination.Myheartinchile (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - concerning the nominator's good faith, have a look at the article as it appeared when nominated. By now it's vastly improved, but still the sources are either what I'd call directory entries (USA cops website, Officer Down Memorial Page), not independent (Sheriffs' Association, Sheriff Office website, jail website) or not about the article's subject (New York laws). WP:N requires multiple non-trivial reliable sources independent of the subject. This article doesn't satisfy the requirement. Huon (talk) 19:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - clearly it's NOT bad faith, and it was a mess, but I'm still owrking on it. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. SGGH speak! 11:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per above statements for Keep. --Mifter (talk) 01:02, 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glis[edit]

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

Doesn't seem very notable. StaticGull  Talk  15:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Several Times (talk) 20:22, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_June_26&oldid=1116722225"