Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 10

Guide to deletion

 :The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. jp×g 22:50, 17 October 2022 (UTC)(non-admin closure)===Fictional atheists===

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

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A little while ago, the category "Fictional characters by religion" as well as it's subcategories were deleted. The reasoning for this was that it's unlikely that people will look for characters based on what religion they adhere to. You can review the the discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_February_24#Category:Fictional_characters_by_religion

Personally, I disagreed with the decision to remove the "Fictional characters by religion" category, but I trusted that the opinion of more experienced Wikipedians was superior to my own. And since it's been concluded that these Wikipedians are right, don't their arguments also apply to fictional characters who do not believe in any religion?

It was concluded that in the case of characters for whom religion is a defining trait, that there are better categories that can be used. This also true of characters who are nonbelievers. Take Rorschach for example, simply putting him in the Objectivism category is far more useful than inclusion in a category for atheists. Calling him an Objectivist is more specific, and says more about what beliefs actually motivate the character. Atheism by itself leaves his motivations vague since it has no dogma attached to it.

And as with specific religions, a character's atheism isn't usually what the character is known for. In Clone High, Joan of Arc's atheism is just a joke, and doesn't effect the show anymore than Homer Simpson's Protestantism effects The Simpsons. Ash Loomis (talk) 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Bulldog Party

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

Non-notable student government political party at Truman State University. Article functions as mere historical record of a student club at a university. Makes no assertion of notability. (According to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education school clubs are not notable.) Contains no third party reliable sources - all 5 sources are from TSU student newspaper and Googlenews search comes up empty [4]. Stubbed information already moved to main article here. RedShiftPA (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - This is very similar to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bearcat Voice

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:ORG and notability of the school does not descend to its student groups. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep should be the norm. The 'notability' is the organization is unique to student groups currently featured on wikipedia. I authored the article, but was never a member of the Bulldog Party or even associated with Truman State University, when I heard about this group I wanted to find more. What I found I put in this article. If this fails notablity then wikipedia is failing its purpose. This is not a place where you better bring a law degree and read pages and pages of rules before you even dare write an article. It seems like we have more wikilawyers running around out there trying to delete aricles than are trying to write them. There is a groupthink at work and it is hard to stop. I write this not to get a response from those who nominate or support deletion but for those who truly want this web site to be the number one encyclopedia on the web. The article is not "original research", what can be found is cited, but not everything in the world can be linked in a wiki article. The Truman Index is a university supervised publication not a self-publication, it is a 'reliable third-party publications' Bottom line Bearcat Voice should be combined with Bulldog Party as a sub-heading and maybe even with Student Association of Missouri, from what I found all three relate directly back to the Bulldog Party. BCV (talk) 05:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - There are dozens of clubs at the average college; clubs for playing tag football, clubs for peer assistance, clubs for watching movies, clubs for leadership development, clubs for future optometrists, etc. There are tens of thousands of colleges and universities in the world. The only way a college club can be on Wikipedia is if has notability, by the standards of WP:ORG. An example would be the Porn 'n Chicken club from Yale. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I questioned the notability of this article back in December. At the time, I decided to leave it alone and tried to give User:BCV a bit of coaching on what makes an article notable, how he could improve it, and arguments that he shouldn't be making in an attempt to keep it. I kept it on my watchlist hoping he would eventually add to it, and try to improve it. Other than the addition of a few references within a few days of the initial {{notability}} tag, no changes have been made since, and none since my coaching attempt. It didn't meet the requirements of notability set by WP:ORG then, and it doesn't now. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 13:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, has no notability outside of the university. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep One Alumnus of the Bulldog Party is now on the Board of Governors, the governing board of Truman State University. Where have all the Porn 'n Chicken alumni gone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.162.123.133 (talk) 16:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Please note that 99.162.123.133 tried to start an AfD on Porn 'n Chicken in a pointy response to my comment above, only to leave it unfinished. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Big Four (American snakes)

Big Four (American snakes) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Core article information is bogus. Jwinius (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I can find no reliable sources using this terminology. There are more than four venomous snakes in N. America[5] and the "main" types number three[6] or two depending on classification methodology. Four are listed here but these are sources of lower reliability than some others. Quite a few of the sources I found discuss only snakes of a certain region like a US state (Texas, Florida), and again numbers vary as high as six. The only reliable uses of "Big Four" are the Big Four (Indian snakes) (ex.). --Dhartung | Talk 02:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Unless it gets reliably sourced before AfD closure. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Subjective, arbitrary unreferenced choice of four snakes. Omits other rattlesnakes which are a hazard in some regions of the U.S. Information about which snakes do most of the bites, or which snakes cause most of the deaths, could be included in the Snakebite article, which does not appear to give regional breakdowns. Edison (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - looks like made-up classification--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Nonsense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge. I have redirected to Shortland Street; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Kath Bennett-Henderson

Kath Bennett-Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable fictional character, first appearing on television recently. No evidence of third party coverage. Prod removed by anon without comment. J Milburn (talk) 23:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable character on a TV show. Not every character on a show deserves their own article. JIP | Talk 06:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the article on the show, or an appropriate spin off article on the characters. Merge is always preferable to deletion.DGG (talk) 02:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This AfD was not listed on the article itself between 22:07, 13 March 2008 and 12:29, 14 March 2008. Fixed now. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 12:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Abiotx (band)

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

This is my first time nominating a page for deletion so I hope I'm doing this right. Anyway, the article in question doesn't assert notability and their "website" is a MySpace page. Also, the article doesn't seem to meet the WP:MUSIC criteria. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia:1000 things not to write your article about and (more importantly) WP:MUSIC. This is the editor's first page and stinks of a (non-notable) band's self-promotion. The band are unsigned, and (as stated above), the one link is to a MySpace site. Booglamay (talk) 23:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I would also like to point out the lack of references. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: indeed - just one of a number of things against the notability/relevance of this article (WP:REF and WP:MUSIC seem to be the biggest violations in this case). Booglamay (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per previous comments. No notability asserted. Billscottbob (talk) 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as per WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Scarlett Keeling case

Scarlett Keeling case (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Should be speedy deleted. Non-notable news case, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and egregious violation of WP:BLP. My speedy tag was removed. Corvus cornix_talk 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) delete I removed the speedy because it doesn't meet the speedy criteria. (It is not a BPL concern because keeling is dead, it is about the case - not the person and it is sourced that D'Souza is accused of rape.) Nevertheless it should be deleted. While there is some coverage, as there sometimes is for murders - especially rape-murder involving minors - this has no significant lasting and historical interest and impact. This belong on wikinews, not here. Jon513 (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Another 5 sentence article about some murder. Tragic for the victim and her family, but not encyclopedic. WikiNews, indeed. Rien Post (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - its newsworthy but at the moment there's no evidence of any lasting significance. And there's no reason why someone who has been arrested, but not charged should have their name in an encyclopedia.--Doc^g 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Newsworthy, but this isn't a news source. TJRC (talk) 23:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This has recieved a lot of news coverage here in England, but until evidence is shown that the case has lasting significance (documentaries, books etc) this should be removed, as Wikipedia is not a news source. J Milburn (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as above. Potential to become 'encyclopaedic' over the next few weeks/months as this story unfolds, but is not article-worthy at present - can easily be written IF and WHEN it is more than a headline. Booglamay (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete BLP1E, etc., not nearly ready for an article. Lawrence § t/e 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep? Seems to me there is plenty to say on this (highly odd) case, enough to warrant an article. It just needs expanding. U-Mos (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is a developing story and although looks small as compared to other bigger problems the world faces, is still a major issue in India. Goa has become a hotspot of crime and drugs, in recent years, this is what this case preciely points to and not just rape and murder, so I suggest we should keep it and see what the outcomes are.This article just needs expanding. sandy_amity ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Transwiki to WikiNews. 202.54.176.51 (talk) 04:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  wikilawyering That is a little bit difficult, the Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License (wikinew's license) is incompatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. To move it would require the permission of everyone who added to the article. (As a contributer I give my permission for a tranwikification, Your vote to transwiki gives implicit consent for your additions, the only one left is User:Pauly04 who started the article -I'll go ask him.). Jon513 (talk) 14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Pauly has given his permission (here). I recommend an immediate transwiki. Jon513 (talk) 19:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse transwiki as all parties agree to the re-licensing and this is best suited for Wikinews as explained above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep anmd am baffled as to why anyone would say different. We have multiple reliable sources for a case which becomes bigger by the day. If we cover all English girls tragically murdered in England, which we do, then why not this case, unless people think it being in India makes it unnotable. While I dont object to wikinews covwering thios case we should either be consistent and delete Disappearance of Shannon Matthews et al. The real problem with this afd is that it is was immature as the case keeps rolling and getting bigger and bigger. Why no mention of her mother and the accusations of neglect? Why not make a better article? Thanks, SqueakBox 15:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Plaxall

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP, and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Plaxall (apparantly Plaxall is his client^[7]). Was speedied twice under WP:CSD#G12. google produces very little, asside from lawsuits. Has a few links but they seem to be merely trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. which is clearly noted in the notability guidelines. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note/clarification: The author of the article is the IT manager of the company. [8] --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Googling produces hundreds of websites. In fact only a single lawsuit is noted in which the ruling went in favor of the company. The company invented thermoforming and has been in existance for more than 70 years and as such the article has historical importance. — Cschiffner (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

Comment Notability seems to rest on the apparent claim that Plaxall invented thermoforming. Do we have a source like Wiley's Encyclopedia of Polymer Science and Technology, rather than a local newspaper? --Boson (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete as per nom. Not notable Bardcom (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If inventing thrmoforming isnt notable then what is? It seems as though wikipedia has lost its ability to grow. Not allowing articles in unless they are already published somewhere else just makes it a copycat. --70.107.249.106 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.107.249.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. There is insufficient evidence of notability. There is a claim of notability based on the subject being the inventor of thermoforming but this does not seem to be widely known, let alone accepted, and there is also evidence that the subject of the article did not invent thermoforming. --Boson (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom, insufficient evidence of notability. The article claim that the subject was central to start of thermoforming appears to be contradicted by other sources. As the article's [[WP:N|notability] hinges on that central claim, I support deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

KEEP The article states that it is commonly thought to hav been invented in modern form in the 1930's. The decade Plaxall was founded. No other "inventor" is offered.--70.107.249.106 (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— 70.107.249.106 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment: 70.107.249.106 has been reported as a suspected sockpuppet. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Cschiffner—Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddst1 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 11 March 2008

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 03:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Lancashire

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

Has not made an appearance in a fully professional league so fails WP:ATHLETE. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. robwingfield ^«T•C» 23:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 23:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as a Saints fan, I can raise no objections. Despite having a squad number, he has not appeared in a first team squad. If he makes it, the article can be re-created. --Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - since I posted the above, he has been named in the squad for this evening's Championship match[9] so I guess his day will come soon!--Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Russia Moscow Mission

Russia Moscow Mission (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There are over 300 missions of the LDS Church. Main article is at Mission (LDS Church), but no other mission has its own article. Previous mission-specific articles have been deleted/merged here and here. I see nothing about this particular mission that would suggest this one is notable in any way that would justify a separate article. Article contains no references except a link to a mission "alumni" site for former missionaries. There are actually other references mentioned in the article and a link to another webpage, but from what I can see they seem to deal with the more general topic (and possible article) of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Russia than to this particular mission. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom.--Thalia42 (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notably distinguished from other missions to warrant Plutonium27 (talk) 18:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Brooke Skye

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Brooke Skye
• Articles for deletion/Brooke Skye (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Brooke Skye (3rd nomination)

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

Procedural nomination from DRV here. Article was deleted in a previous AfD and recreated multiple times. Additional references have come to light in the deletion review, but there was no consensus regarding if these met WP:PORNBIO or other notability criteria (and they have not yet been added to the article). As this is a procedural nomination, I am neutral. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I still do not see compliance with WP:PORNBIO. BlueValour (talk) 22:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - She seems to satisfy the basic criteria of WP:BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." There's at least 3 non-trivial articles about her in what I presume to be reliable sources: Tampa Bay Times, UPI, and CourtTV Vinh1313 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Is the subject of multiple secondary reliable sources, the core criterion of both WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BIO. And according to WP:BIO's subclause WP:PORNBIO and porn actor qualifies if the have "been featured multiple times in mainstream media." (Even if a person doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, they can still pass WP:BIO). --Oakshade (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Week keep. New information added since DRV establishes sustained WP:RS interest over time for general notability, but coverage is on the thin side. I would still like to see more. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I say keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VxlPoff (talk • contribs) 02:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — VxlPoff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep per WP:BIO#Pornographic actors. According to her article, Skye's website was the first to offer HD video (unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre — okay, it's a little bit of a stretch). She's also appeared on Bubba the Love Sponge several times (featured multiple times in mainstream media) and was nominated as Xbiz Web Babe of the Year (been a serious nominee for a well-known award). — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above, notability is well established for this figure. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge to Power Rangers. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Power Rangers crew members

List of Power Rangers crew members (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; this list -- even when complete -- isn't really suitable for Wikipedia. IMDb is much better suited to it. The main people - EPs, directors, et al - can be noted on the show's main article or episode lists, etc. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

After a note on my talk page about this AfD I realised WP:IINFO perhaps isn't the rationale I meant; I don't think it strictly falls under any one category for deletion but between WP:DIR and this simply not being a particularly good idea for a list I'm not convinced it warrants its own article. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete per nom. It's possible that some readers would want to see this, so I'm not 100 percent sure I want to get rid of it. Still, it can never become much more than what it is right now, and that's not encouraging. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge merge to some other Power Ranger article --RedShiftPA (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Power Rangers or similar. JPG-GR (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge it as prose into the Power Rangers article. --Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fulham F.C. season 2007-08 matches

Fulham F.C. season 2007-08 matches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ignoring the fact it's incomplete, I'm not convinced this is a wise idea for an article-fork. It's a bit of an indiscriminate collection of information; and we already have Fulham F.C. season 2007-08. This seems like going in to too much detail for what Wikipedia's scope.

For a similar AfD a while ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Madrid C.F. Matches 2007-08. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete and redirect to Fulham F.C. season 2007-08. This seems fairly clear-cut. We generally do not go into greater detail than the season. EJF (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If we kept this, we'd have to have an article for every match played by every club. And let me tell you, thats alot of matches! TheProf | Talk 22:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and don't keep as a redirect (improbable search term). I am a big supporter of seasonal articles but this is a step too far. BlueValour (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and all above. – PeeJay 23:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 00:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - if any of the matches are notable in their own right, then by all means, articles can be created. However, this is effectively a sub-article of the main season article, assuming notability of all individual matches. As per the nom, this is too much detail. robwingfield ^«T•C» 00:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and redirect per User:EJF. JIP | Talk 06:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 08:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Neo-Stalinism

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Article doesn't describe its own supposed topic, it just leaves a few lines of commentary, bit that are already covered elsewhere. No real definition of the term 'Neo-Stalinism' is presented. Soman (talk) 22:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I suppose the author considers the phrase to be self-evident. Anyway, here's a stack of sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, I have a problem with 'self-evident' articles. Moreover, what would be a distinction between Stalinism and Neo-Stalinism? Stalinism is already a very ambigous topic, is there anything to the term 'Neo-Stalinism' except 'Stalinism that is (in any way) new'? --Soman (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The distinction is not limited to, but is along the lines of, acknowledging that Stalin-era policies and actions had negative effects, but still finding the positive things he did for Russia, in effect morally rehabilitating him. This falls short of advocating a return to those policies. --Dhartung | Talk 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment, two points: 1) There is no substantial material in article itself on this, 2) it seems the purpose of the article then would be way to portray the pov putin=stalin ? --Soman (talk) 07:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Comment And you get that from what, exactly? Putin is not even mentioned in the article. --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the Colonel's stack of sources. The article could be improved and fleshed out more with recent developments in Russia. KnightLago (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Well, the term is used often scholastically, and after perusing some of the ghits, they're pretty reliable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - Well, I would guess that Stalinism is a continuation of the Stalinist tradition, where as Neo-Stalinism historically is trying to revive those ideas in a new context. I'm not an expert though. But the subject is scholastically valid. matt91486 (talk) 04:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per the above listed sources. The definition is self-evident, although it could use with some fleshing out. Celarnor (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per above.-Staberinde (talk) 16:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Redirect/Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Immaculate Conception School (Kentucky)

Immaculate Conception School (Kentucky) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per precedent and failing WP:N. Public elementary schools are generally held to be inherently non-notable, and a small, private school should also require something impressive to warrant an article. Article is unsourced, and doesn't appear to have any reliable sources that are independent of the organization for material. Lots of Ghits, but they don't seem to be for this specific school, as Immaculate Conception is a common name for parochial schools. Finally, school no longer exists as an independent entity according to the article. Horrorshowj (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete — appears to be no sources available to show notability of this particular school. EJF (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete if the school doesn't really exist any more; redirect per Double. CRGreathouse (t | c) 03:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville under Saint Mary Academy. The school has merged with Mother of Good Counsel Elementary School to form Saint Mary Academy and even the school website now redirects to Saint Mary Academy. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge & Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville under Saint Mary Academy. This article alone should not exist. --DerRichter (talk) 07:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

(Talk) 15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge & Redirect to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Louisville under Saint Mary Academy. TerriersFan (talk) 17:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. The delete !votes - besides being well outnumbered - have also not established that the topic itself is non-notable. If it needs more references, if it needs some POV fixing, if it needs any sort of clean-up, by all means, hit the "edit this page" button. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Heavy metal fashion

Heavy metal fashion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This deletion is per the article being in serious violation of WP:OR, WP:NPOV and having no citations/ sources/ references. The article is horrible and (here's my own POV) I think any metal fan would be ashamed of it. It is so completely wrong. Delete! Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - There is a source, but only one, in the "historical origins" section.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - Yeah, it's a reference to an article about Rob Halford being gay...not exactly helpful. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 19:48, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Agree with nom. Article is laden with WP:POV and WP:OR. Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- Sofixit! This is a fantastic article, why would you delete it? It's been around since 2004, has more than 500 edits, and is viewed fifteen thousand times a month! Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - are those really strong arguments to keep the article? Most of the time policies are used in arguments for or against... Scarian^{Call me Pat} 22:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - No those aren't strong arguments at all. "Fantastic" is POV as I could easily say this article is total lies and crap (and it is). It doesn't matter how long the page has been around, the number of edits on it, or how much it's been viewed. The fact that it's been viewed so much is a bad thing due to what kind of state the article is in. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Yeah, it's really an irrelevant argument. And it's not fantastic at all, the article is an apalling mess. It's that big, and it lacks a single reference. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - The page does have a single reference. Please familiarize yourself with the page.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, one reference is pathetic. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Requires citations, but is definitely culturally relevant. Also, WP:NPOV is not a reason to delete. It's a reason to improve. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I didn't just cite WP:NPOV. Please read the other things. And "culturally relevant" is POV. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: It seems that the objection is to the content rather than the existence of the topic. If so the objecting user(s) should do a rewrite instead of deleting the article entirely.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Actually, now that you mention it, I am opposed to the existence of the topic as it is arguably non notable (you are either a metal fan or not) and I think it's hideous to have such a topic as an article. That is POV, though. A comprehensive rewrite is not enough. It would be easier to delete it and redo it, if that is what you wanted. The whole article is messed up. Full of weasel words, peacock terms, orginal research, point of view, misinformation and no citations, references or sources. There's no chance of rewriting it. Besides I think article about a certain subculture's attire are inane. The attire or "fashion" is what you make it. Just because there is a thin thread of commnality of "fashion" in a subculture (due to people imitating the bands and such) does not constitute a wikipedia page designed to iterate such said inaneness. It's totally non notable IMO. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - There is a source. But only one.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Regardless of the comment above, there are certainly recognizable fashions among the metal scene and recognizable looks, and I feel that it's quite reasonable to document those if it can be done in a NPOV and well-researched manner without descending into original research. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - The problem is that you can't document it. There is no research on it that is comprehensive. It would be impossible. People would disagree. It's up to the individual. Did I also mention that this article is full of wrong info?

Comment - I think that some aspects of this topic can be documented, regarding origins and influences. I think that "what's cool and what's not among the rocker fans" is what cannot be documented.

Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

NOTE - Also, I should point out that there are no fashion articles about such things as rock, emo, pop, country, jazz, etc. There's a reason. There are only a few music fashion articles on wikipedia. Hip-hop fashion, punk fashion and gothic fashion that I can find. All of these should be deleted as well. Same thing with subculture. There is no heavy metal subculture article (as it would be inane), but there is a punk and goth subculture article. Both should also be deleted. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• (ec x2) It is unclear with some of the material in the article what is OR and what is simply in need of citing-sources, but I do not find it to be unsalvageable. And if one performs some basic source-searching it becomes apparent that this is a topic that quite easily passes WP:N. Keep and improve with proper sourcing. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Those books you mentioned talk more about genres, the music of heavy metal and how it developed more than anything else. Some of them may talk slightly about subculture, but I don't think any talk about "fashion." The thing with subculture and fashion is, is that it changes person to person and everyone's interpretation will be different. Therefore it should not be made into an article. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - This article also breaks WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a primary source nor is it a crystal ball among other things. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of them, such as this one very clearly talk about fashion. Have you attempted to find any sources? It is part of Wikipedia guidelines that you do so before nominating an article for deletion on the basis of "no citations/sources". --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I nominated it for deletion for a number of reasons. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, and as others have been pointing out in this discussion, WP:NPOV and WP:OR and "this article is horrible" (all from your initial statement) are reasons to tag or improve an article; they are not reasons to delete an article. It is part of Wikipedia guidelines that you make your own attempt to find sources before nominating an article for deletion and declaring "no sources". Okay, end of lecture. :) --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT - I should also point out that having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - As I explained to Nav, I'm really on the fence about this. I'd say that the article is relevent (to a certain degree), but since Nav pointed it out, I've noticed the article is a total mess. I think every article should have at least one reference or source, but it is simply apalling to see an article of this size with this much info without a SINGLE reference. I had to convice myself that they are there, and I just missed them - but I honestly cannot find a single reference amongst that mess of original research and POV. No article of this size should be without a single reference... if this doesn't get deleted, it needs a serious overhaul... I would vote "keep", and push for a complete and utter re-write, but I'm more inclined to vote "delete" because I know that if it is kept, that re-write will never happen. I doubt a single source will be added a month after the AfD. So, although I'm on the fence now, expect me to come back and change my neutrallity to delete, as I'd say it's better to delete this even if you think it's relevant, rather than have this joke of an article around. (Just as a quick addition, as I got an edit conflict with Nav's reply above mine - I could not agree more with Nav's last comment). ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - There is a single reference.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Many of the heavy metal related articles are just as awful as this one with little to no references or citations. I've been doing my part to help improve the quality of some of these articles but I'm certainly not capable of improving every single one of them. Heavy metal fashion is a subject that merits an article on wikipedia. I have personally come across the subject in many serious literature on heavy metal. In fact, one of the problems I have with the academia treatment on heavy metal is the overwhelming focus on sociological issues (including fashion) at the expense of the musicological side. I do believe this article can be rewritten and improved to a high standard (even a featured article status) if some editors were to collaborate on it, remove all the original research and look up some reliable sources for the subject. --Bardin (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Neutral I am neutral on this one but on a keepish side so I will change my vote if something changes. It is full of POV and OR and needs toning for NPOV and reliable sources but then again like Nav said if the views between authors are too different there could be problems. Although the article ties on to the fashion of heavy metal, there needs to be a complete overhaul to this article. Simply put, fix it now or let deletion take away all the filth in one press of a button and we can start anew without having to deal with incredible OR and some incorrect information as well. Oh and metalhead needs a lot of work too... just two references... Also, just a suggestion of any rewrite, I think the ideals of fashion should be separated like the heavy metal music article for genres and then talk about the fashion of each genre (although the underground ones will be very difficult to come up with and black metal "fashion" was an example of that). −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 03:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think metalhead deserves to be deleted moreso that heavy metal fashion. --Bardin (talk) 04:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Go discuss it over there. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The article as it currently stands is a horrible mess, full of OR and POV. There is not a single reference despite its prestigious length. However, I believe the topic itself is notable and that it should be relatively easy to find some sources talking about fashion and fashion trends within heavy metal over the years. If a comprehensive rewrite were achieved then I think the article should be kept. However, I don't care about it enough to bother editing it myself. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 08:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - There is a single reference.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - heavily original research, with no verifiable reliable sources and not written from a neutral point of view.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 12:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  comment - with all due respect, those aren't reasons to delete an article - those are core policies which are easily fixable. This is a question of whether or not the subject is notable. The only time WP:V applies is if the topic is not verifiable. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 13:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This article is not a delete it's a fix-it. The subject of the article certainly exists. It's no different from Punk fashion. It has a category attached to it and several articles that are associated to it as well. It just needs to be improved. Seal Clubber (talk) 14:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - The article definitely needs to be cleaned up and sourced. Lot of OR, POV. It needs to be renamed too, fashion is not what I would call it, Metal attire or something like that. Welt^anschaunng 14:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment I agree, the title should be heavy metal attire or something on those lines. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 17:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed my vote to delete and merge. I propose that the article be merged with with Heavy Metal for now, and possibly be recreated if more cited text can be added to the topic. Welt^anschaunng 09:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Too much original research. The 'fashion' section in the Metalhead article is more than enough anyway. Bloodredchaos (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment - While the nominator claims that he/she did not know which way the above user would "vote", I feel there might be a cavnassing issue here: [10]. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Note - Sorry but I did'nt CANVASS and your point is totally moot as I asked about 10 people to vote here and most voted for keep. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep. - BUT delete all unsourced material. I am the person who provided the one reference this page has. Which is to say that I at one point thought there might be some virtue in beginning a wide-ranging revision to this article to bring it up to some standards regarding the documentation of fashion trends and origins. I have repeated in my comments above that there is a reference in this article because to the extent that arguments for deletion are made on the basis of there being "NO REFERENCES" I think they raise at least some question about the readers' familiarity with the article. With all of that said, I have been watching this page for awhile, and have found it to be a magnet for users opining about "what counts" and "what doesn't count" as metal attire today. Much of this reflects an unencyclopedic concern with "fitting in" and futile efforts at trend-setting. I'm not sure that the attraction of this a topic for these kinds of contributions can be overcome by any amount of research. But I think it might be worth deleting of all material regarding current trends and refocusing what's left in terms of origins and influences....which CAN be documented.Dpmath (talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Agreed. If this article survives, which it looks like it will, I am going to personally go through the article and delete about the whole last half of it among other things.'

Please Note

IMPORTANT - I'm not sure why people aren't getting this, but let me reiterate. Having a fashion article about a subculture (one that is still continuing) is unencyclopedic in nature. Everyone has a different perspective of what constitutes "fashion" and it differs from person to person. Therefore it cannot be discussed in an encylopedic way. Everyone's POV is different and will come into effect in this article. Secondly, there are no fashion articles about such things as rock, emo, pop, country, jazz, soul, funk, blues, etc and they all have subcultures as well. Should we make a fashion article on all those genres? NO, because it makes no sense, much like this article! Any fashion article about an ongoing subculture perpetuates POV and is non-encyclopedic. Lastly, if this article is kept, as it look like it will be (unbelievably, even though no one's cited pollicies), then I move to rename this article Heavy metal attire as a few users mentioned above. At least we would get rid of the blasphemous "fashion" word. And yes, I always talk with a certain amount of POV on most talk pages, but that doesn't mean that my main points are wrong, damnit. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 18:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe you've already made your point. Let the discussion proceed unabated. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You cannot cite WP:POINT to me. Read it, perhaps. I am the one citing policy so it is you that needs to stop bring up your points, if you were making one. I'm not breaking any part of that or any other rule. Pleas stop accusing people Wisdom89. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the salvageable content from this article (if there is any) can be merged to Heavy Metal#Attire. I really don't think it warrants its own article in absence of refs. Just an idea though. Welt^anschaunng 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps. If the article is kept then I am liable to agree with you. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Note to the nominator. I'm going to ask you politely to please stop canvassing. Thank you. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to strike your comment as you obviously did not read my above response to your ridiculous allegations. Someone already warned me on my talk page and then striked out their own warning after seeing what I actually did and after I explained it. Please read above or my talk page if not satisfied. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 20:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per Tlogmer and Dpmath. Culturally relevant topic, sources available; however, I would support removing unsourced material, as this article seems like it would be privy to a lot of OR. GlassCobra 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'd just thought I should bring attention to the visual element section in the featured article Heavy metal music. There's two paragraphs there on heavy metal fashion fully cited and referenced. So it can be done. Whether you think those two paragraphs are enough or whether there's room for expansion in a separate article is up to you. With regards to the suggestion for a name change, I would note that fashion is a broader term that encompass hair style as well as clothing whereas the term attire tend to refer only to clothing. --Bardin (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I read through the deletion article and I think the topic is alright, but everything is wrongly justified or one view of its events and for instance the origins are totally and utterlly wrong. If anyone watched or researched documentaries and articles on the origin of heavy metal clothing you would ultimately know it was Rob Halford whom bought clothes for his band Judas Priest and started the craze. Also, you then would know that this and I quote:

The influence of modern military fashion on heavy metal fashion is significant with metalheads been known to wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots. This influence could be due to the impact of the Vietnam War on popular culture in the United States during the 1970s and the 80's, with images of American Vietnam veterans wearing their old combat uniforms in civilian life, as well as the fresh memories of the conflict were still in the minds of many Americans.

wear modern military clothing like field jackets and articles of camouflage and olive drab green uniforms like shirts and/or trousers to wear alongside their black T-shirts and black combat boots.

As I was saying in my introduction this is one view which can be aquited to America, and my second point this is the 80's. Not when the founders of the fashion were in the 70's.

Furthermore, this article goes away from the 'heavy metal' era and into the modern 'power metal' era in the 90's with blind guardian being primed example in 'other influences'. In Hairstyles they get mixed up between Glam Era and Gothic era amongst others.

Either the article has to change it's name to 'metalhead wear through the ages' or it should be deleted.

--METALFREAK04 (talk) 11:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - appears to be primarilly or entirely original research. A strong indicator of this problem is the fact that the article has over 500 edits in four years (over 50 edits just in this year), yet still lacks reliable sources for nearly all of the article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete - This is arctile is should be deleted.Metal heads some follow the fashion and others don't care.Metal is very diverse.It doesn't follow any look —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.228.93.250 (talk) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I have made my decision finally and it should simply be deleted. It is laden with POV issues, most of/or the entire article is full of OR and not written with NPOV in mind. It needs more sources (reliable ones) which something really should have been done within the three years (hard to believe) of its existence. Also, the fact that we are taking ideas and pooling it as a generalized culture is enough to bare. If it doesn't get deleted then this is a wakeup call. −₪ÇɨгcaғucɨҲ₪ ^kaiden 20:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. This is a topic which has unquestionably been the subject of plenty of 3rd party sources; music magazines have been filled with them over the past 30 years. The existence of POV and OR are in no sense legitimate reasons for deletion of an encyclopedic subject, and this is one. Also, this is pretty clearly a bad-faith nomination. Chubbles (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Chubbles' comments. Legitimate subject matter and a questionable nomination. Peter Fleet (talk) 11:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Lords of Thannhausen

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

Delete unsourced one-liner about a noble German family, no indication that this family is notable, whether this is some recognized peerage, a bunch of landowners, or a series of mayors, or what? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhh, dude. You're an admin. Can't you speedy delete this? Cuz this article definitely fits the criteria of speedy delete. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it does not meet the speedy criteria due to the fact that being a noble family asserts some sort of notability and the fact that sources have allegedly remained from 1100 which would suggest that there is something notable about a family whose records have (possibly) lasted nearly a thousand years. I'm not sure if sources exist and it is unlikely for there to be online sources, therefore I cannot judge on the notability of this article, as there may or may not be sources regarding this family in book form. (and my German is too poor to go through Google Books :) EJF (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• weak keep given that a related article Tannhausen says that the poet Tannhäuser (the basis for Wagner's opera) is assumed to have en a member of the family, the article can probably be expanded from suitable sources. I removed the speedy. DGG (talk) 22:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The name Thannhausen/Tannhausen/Tannhäuser is of enormous notability in Germany.
  It seems to me that the user who created this article, Barbados66, is a new editor. We should not WP:BITE him; he is also probably a member of the family in question, but that should not ipso facto preclude him from making a useful contribution (WP:COI: Conflict of interest is not a reason to delete an article). His corresponding article on the German Wikipedia is more expansive, and one would hope this would soon be transferred to the English version. Unfortunately, our German Wiki-friends don't put quite the same rigourous standards on citing in articles as the EN-wikipedians do, so I fear that even a complete translation of the German article will not be quite satisfactory here. The originating editor (Barbados66) should be so told, but he should be given a chance to improve the article at least to the standard of its German counterpart. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

R.... R.....

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

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and only primary sourcing. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per WP:CRYSTAL and plus notability concerns. AndreNatas (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - I can see the answer in my crystal ball. Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete

  Little is known about this album at the moment

  This article digs its own grave. No need to get out the crystal ball. EJF (talk) 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Official albums by notable bands are generally notable themselves, however, future album need to be corroborated in multiple reliable sources apart from the band's website. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not a crystal ball. Come back when it's released. JIP | Talk 06:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Why is this not closed yet? Where are admins when you need them? M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Old Forge-Taylor Football Rivalry

Proposed for deletion, proposal expired without comments, deleted by me. Author contacted me for undeletion (twice, on account of my sloppiness), so I undeleted it. I am nominating it for deletion purely out of procedure. I have no arguments either for or against its deletion. JIP | Talk 20:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- per nom and non-notable. AndreNatas (talk) 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This is the kind of chart I'd like to see floating around the internet somewhere if I really cared about it, but it's too local and minor to be justified on Wikipedia. There are tens or hundreds of Thanksgiving rivalries in American football. I prefer to reserve rivalry articles to major ones such as Red Sox-Yankees rivalry. (P. S. Go Sox!) :) Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - There are many local rivalries listed on Wikipedia and for those from each respective area, pages like this are very interesting and informative. Articles regarding major sports rivalries like the Yankees-Red Sox can be found anywhere on the internet, but there are few places to read hard-to-find local sports trivia. Lou72JG (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as prodder, local rivalrys aren't notable without the proper sources to meet WP:N Secret ^account 21:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I'm sure some people really really care about this article, but I don't think they'll care so much as to want to know all the details listed here. I think if they really wanted to know they would check the Scranton Times Archives, which is likely to be more reliable than this article. M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 23:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Monster Radio RX 93.1. I'm going to redirect the article, and if anyone feels content should be merged, feel free to do so. The people who are wanting to keep make no argument in defence of notability, backed up with reliable sources that the nominator made clear. I decided against an outright delete because many of the people who commented to outright delete held no prejudice to a merge. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Jumpstart (radio show)

Jumpstart (radio show) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about one radio program in Manila, doesn't appear to assert any notability, or at the very least a reason why it can't be merged into Monster Radio RX 93.1? Author has already claimed he or she will "report it" if it is speedied again (whatever that means). SGGH ^speak! 20:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — Tell me, why is "notability" so important? Really, the only question that is relevant is "Is the encyclopedia better off or worse off if this article is kept?" As far as I can tell, keeping factual, verifiable information in makes the encyclopedia better, and removing it makes it worse. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bzzt! False dichotomy! Ten-yard penalty. --Calton | Talk 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Not to mention the fact that Notability is one of the core values that Wikipedia runs on... -- JT^Holla! 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Like all so-called "policies" on Wikipedia, "Notability" is absolutely non-binding. We're expected to exercise our own judgment based on the given situation, not defer to a bunch of arbitrary and non-binding "rules" and "policies". Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Except there's absolutely nothing special about this situation that would warrant a special exception. -- JT^Holla! 22:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. Well, it's not "special", because it applies to every single subject, but, keeping it in would make the encyclopedia better. That is the fundamental criterion by which all actions must be judged. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yikes, I don't like your idea that "notability is one of the core values that Wikipedia runs on" - it's only a guideline. The likes of IAR, NPOV, NOR and V are far more important. Even so, this radio show is not notable and I would endorse either a merge or a delete, whichever there is more consensus for. EJF (talk) 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Eh...I would put Notability right up with any of those issues...except maybe NPOV. But whatever.  :) -- JT^Holla! 00:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Turning Wikipedia into a undifferentiated bulletin board, directory listing, spam host, or solid mass of crap does not in any way, shape, or form make the encyclopedia better. Time to haul out the Jorge Luis Borges:

...In that Empire, the craft of Cartography attained such Perfection that the Map of a Single province covered the space of an entire City, and the Map of the Empire itself an entire Province. In the course of Time, these Extensive maps were found somehow wanting, and so the College of Cartographers evolved a Map of the Empire that was of the same Scale as the Empire and that coincided with it point for point. Less attentive to the Study of Cartography, succeeding Generations came to judge a map of such Magnitude cumbersome, and, not without Irreverence, they abandoned it to the Rigours of sun and Rain. In the western Deserts, tattered Fragments of the Map are still to be found, Sheltering an occasional Beast or beggar; in the whole Nation, no other relic is left of the Discipline of Geography.

From Travels of Praiseworthy Men (1658) by J. A. Suarez Miranda --Calton | Talk 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-starter, with no sign of the slightest real-world impact or notice globally, nationally, regionally, or even locally. It's a directory listing, really, which Wikipedia is not. --Calton | Talk 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I nominated this for deletion yesterday. Then the author removed the Speedy tag, which was reverted, and must have been removed again. Delete on nominator's comments. -- JT^Holla! 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, my Speedy was upheld yesterday, hence why he remade it. I shall Speedy it again, I suppose. -- JT^Holla! 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• merge Merge anything of value into the main radio station article. I couldn't find anything specifically 3rd party as a source (but I admit I didn't look hard). Also, I can't find any notability policy about radio programs to use as guideline, so I'm at a loss to know what we should consider in weighing notability. The closest thing I could find was in WP:Notability (media) where it says about satellite radio channels "Generally, individual "channels" carried by cable or subscription satellite radio are not presumed notable, as they can be added and dropped at will by the service provider." I understand this isn't an article about such a channel, but I think that the principal is something to consider when discussing local radio shows.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If the show cannot be verified by a 3rd party source, it should be deleted. -- JT^Holla! 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my merge considering that no one is disputing the fact that the show exists and is part of the lineup of the radio station. I don't think I made the argument that this was a keep, but you don't need primary sources to prove the show is on the air with this particular station.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Nominator fails to show that he knows anything about radio in the Philippines. Eclecticology (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The responsibility for justifying inclusion of any content rests firmly with the editor seeking to include it.--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, it doesn't. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Of course it does: what do you think the ultimate pupose behind WP:RS is? "Because I said so" -- either as an argument for inclusion or your knee-jerk response -- doesn't work. So, Eclecticology, what is this missing knowledge about radio in the Philippines of which you speak? Do you have a citation from somewhere other than The International Journal of Because I Said So? --Calton | Talk 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete not notable--Hu12 (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This is one of the most popular and highest rated radio programs in Manila. I'm not really sure why people who don't know anything about the subject are arguing to delete it.MLBonTBS —Preceding comment was added at 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If so, reference it, and it's immediately notable, and verifiable, otherwise, not.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless 3rd party verifiable source appears.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge (with RD), per Torchwoodwho. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [11] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (or Merge, if anyone wants to) per Calton. From the sound of it, it's a perfectly ordinary radio station broadcast. Even if there are sources I would still think we shouldn't cover this as its own article, unless it has much more importance than is being described here. Mangojuice^talk 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Ghulam Rasool Dadda

Ghulam Rasool Dadda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Article is unsourced and unreferenced. I cannot find any sources anywhere. Notability not identified Dreamspy (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete Can't really dig up much, 18 unique ghits (google search, google scholar gives zero, google groups gives zero, well, I think that's the idea), all are wiki mirrors of one sort or another. I know ghits aren't normally a black-and-white test, but in this case, I think it works fine. And in all honesty, it sounds like a memorial a friend wrote. Yngvarr (c) 20:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Fanny Grace

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable duo in any way. Their only single didn't chart (shame, since it was a good song), and their only album was independently released; they seem to utterly fail WP:MUSIC. Page was apparently deleted before, given the history. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination.Quarterwit (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per nomination-their pet cat? I don't really care much.

[[dark.]][[arias.]] (talk) 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom- non-notable. Dreamspy (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Why is it necessary that subjects meet some arbitrary standard of "notability" to be included? Really, shouldn't the only thing we worry about be whether or not the encyclopedia is better off with coverage of this subject? If it's better off with it, then "rules" and "policies" (which are absolutely non-binding anyway) be damned, keep it in! So tell me, how would deleting this article make the encyclopedia better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You do make a good point about this, but we can't have every little thing be in an encyclopedia. I mean we can't have every local high school athlete or every small town band, it would just be too many articles. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 21:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Too many for what? Disk space? Not relevant. Deleted articles still take up disk space, and this AfD takes up even more disk space. Indexing limits? No. For someone's limited conception of what an "encyclopedia" is, a conception that contradicts Wikipedia advertising? Yes, perhaps. The advertising is "The sum of human knowledge." and "The encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Let me point out that if the fine print differs from what will be common, normal, human interpretation of this, it is going to cause continual trouble and resentment, not only among active editors, but among casual ones, who will simply go away with a very negative impression of Wikipedia. Once again, what is the actual harm of having a sourced, verifiable article on a topic of minor notability? If it is sufficiently notable to meet WP:V, then an article can exist based on what meets that policy. Notability, by the way, contrary to what has been said, is not a policy, it's a guideline. It is not a "core value." The advertising, in fact, reflects core values, adding only one that is also important: verifiability, and we can do a much better job with ensuring that articles are not only verifiable, but actually verified, and this is what will improve our reputation, not getting rid of the details of human knowledge. If you could take a drug that would do that with your knowledge, it would make you notably stupid. (Maybe this explains more than I might imagine!) Notability remains very important as a relative standard for what is placed within articles. There is no absolute standard of notability for human knowledge, except one that every article meets if created in good faith: a human knows it what that human put in the article. I personally gloss "notability" to require that the knowledge be shared, which is covered by WP:V.--Abd (talk) 18:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Why can't we have everything in here? Why would that be "too many"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Because there's already something with everything in it. It's called the universe. We're a little less ambitious here... Clarityfiend (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. We only aim to create an encyclopedia with "the sum of human knowledge," which is tiny compared to the universe. Truly tiny. Ambitious enough, I say, but some like to be much less ambitious: "the sum of what me and my friends think is important." To each his own, I suppose. But I'll turn around a comment that is often made against inclusionists: why don't they get their own wiki? They can strip it down as much as they like, no fuss. As to our response to that argument, why, what a great idea! It's one of the possible solutions to the disagreement over inclusionism/deletionism, but it is, necessarily, a rather cumbersome one, and could, in fact, threaten the stability of the project. I'm not sure it's the best way to go.--Abd (talk) 18:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The universe isn't searchable via software, only hardware. :) Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some parts are searchable that way, and google has no particular trouble finding them, but nothing really obviously stunning crops up when you do that.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete- another non-notable piece of rubbish on wikipedia. AndreNatas (talk) 21:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete nn, fails WP:BAND. KnightLago (talk) 21:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Claim of non-notability is arbitrary and capricious. Eclecticology (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• In what way? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete any claim of notability is arbitrary and carpricious. They're just two people making music. There's no evidence they've done anything worth being the wikipedia for. Article is completely unverifiable- no references.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, since Wikipedia will not be any better off without this article, and will not be any worse off with this article. They have a nationally-released album and small-but-enthusiastic support in at least a few media outlets (CMT among them). They are not just two people who make music by playing the guitar in their friends' living rooms. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [12] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the Country Music Television Bio. is a reliable source that allows us to write a stubby article - which can possibly be expanded later. Note: I disagree with many of the other reasons for keep given above. Abecedare (talk) 23:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• weal keep per Abecedare. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for reasons amply explained above by several editors, not only Kurt Weber and Obuibo Mbstpo, who do indeed have a generic policy on deletion. That just might be better than current practice. There are also errors in some delete votes above which I will indicate by specific comment.--Abd (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Jessica Utts

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

Inadequately sourced biography on one of the two people who conducted a review of the remote viewing program, after which it was terminated. There were two of them, and it will come as no surprise whatsoever to those who watch the walled garden of articles surrounding RV that only one has a biography, the one who came out as saying that RV exists (which the scientific mainstream say it doesn't). So: this biography, with its tiny few sources, appears to me to exist solely to boost, as with several other deleted biographies of similar lack of sourcing, the remote viewing nonsense. Guy (Help!) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Noted parapsychologist. Yes, parapsychology is nonsensical pseudo-science, but that does not make her non-notable.Quarterwit (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep article is sourced and referenced. Dreamspy (talk) 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, notable per WP:BIO. Utts has been subject of multiple independent reliable sources; Google news results, e.g. The Washington Post, etc. Dreadstar † 20:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep 28 refs is "inadequately sourced"? — Rlevse • Talk • 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Three, by my count, in that article. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

OOPS, wrong button, sorry...but I still vote keep due to other things mentioned here. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep award-winning prof at a major uni, with lots of press coverage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I've actually used her statistics textbook for a class, so there's an audience for this article beyond the Fortean community. Zagalejo^^^ 21:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — I have no interest in the whole pseudoscience debate, however she clearly meets WP:BIO with reliable sources a-plenty. EJF (talk) 23:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - even though RV is being POV-pushed, this still seems to clear the bar for me. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Lots of refs available, do a google search. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 06:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I never heard of remote viewing before I saw this AfD nomination, but I heard of Jessica Utts before that. So if we deleted everything about remote viewing from her article, she'd still be notable. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Notably enough for me. Paul August ☎ 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Shift (video games)

Shift (video games) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I feel that 1 this game is notable considering it won an award and its' sequel is to be entered in at least 3 major competitions. The page will be updated within a few days to note a more detailed description including screens, images, etc. currently one reputable source includes a link to the Michigan State University Webpage with a download of the game. - Page Creator—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ticktack718 (talk • contribs) 20:12, March 10, 2008

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 Will ^(talk) 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Does not meet A7, the criteria states that it does not cover "articles on books, albums, software". EJF (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, I'm sure it's a nice game and all, having won an award at Michigan State University, but Wikipedia is not really a place to promote your class project. --Pixelface (talk) 20:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• DeleteYeah sounds a bit like a class project. BigDunc (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per everybody else. If the game ever does become more notable as TickTack makes it sound, then it can get added back in. Until then... Blizzard Beast ^$ODIN$ 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per all. The article sounds like a advertisement. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources, no notability? I am afraid I cannot support keeping this. EJF (talk) 23:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Well, I added an Info box, more information and a few links to references such as the game engine, two of the competitions pages, etc. Trying my best to make this work- wasn't aware I would have so many negative comments about adding something. Ticktack718 (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I apologize. Articles for deletion can be a very hostile place at times. Many participants in AFDs follow the notability guideline quite strictly. The article looks better, but if you're one of the designers that may be considered a conflict of interest. The IGF.com page is a good source I think, but do you think there should be a Wikipedia article for each of those 125 entries? Is there something you think makes this game stand out? Has it been written about in a student newspaper or local newspaper? If you would like, an admin could move the article to a subpage in your userspace. You can read more about that at WP:USERFY. --Pixelface (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted as spam --Stephen 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Digital Arts and Sciences

Digital Arts and Sciences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

per talk page of article, seems to be a proposal for field of study for someone's school; just not workable as an article - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Reads like a badly-written blurb from some university's course catalog. I searched for places this might have been taken from; the University of Florida and Clarkson University both have programs by that name, but not quite fitting the description here. Given that it is the subject of more than one university program, there is probably scope for an article on the topic, but the present article is pointless. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing's any use here but the title. It's not even a stub. Quarterwit (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as spam. My next edit will be blocking the creator (for his username, not this). Daniel Case (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I won't ... he's requested a change. I told it would be easier to just start a new account. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as pure advertising. KnightLago (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Iowa Alliance for Reformation

Iowa Alliance for Reformation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

highly POV; needs serious reworking to identify notability and neutral facts; uncertain if it's worth it - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Evangelism - which is just another name for advertising. The organisation may be notable but even so the best thing to do is to delete this text and wait for someone capable of writing an article to come along. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 20:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Disagree. Evangelism, according to Merrium Webster is "1 : the winning or revival of personal commitments to Christ 2 : militant or crusading zeal" According to Dictionary.com "1. the preaching or promulgation of the gospel; the work of an evangelist. 2. evangelicalism. 3. missionary zeal, purpose, or activity." Rather the article in question is a group based on a 150 history of Iowa including creation of schools both here and in other states, some as large as the UNIVERSITY of NORTHERN IOWA (UNI.) Not only is the history of the "Iowa Band" (now "Iowa Alliance") described in depth, but the history of the group is well noted and sources are sited. Evangelism would be telling you about Jesus based on ONE book, The Holy Bible. This article isn't trying to win people to Christ as per the good Mr. Webster. It would appear, rather, that you are instead solely censoring this article because of a religious (relationship with God) tone carried within in spite of the historical significance and mention of the "Iowa Band" in other articles you have already published.- Robpricer (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable organization, but needs a complete rework. It's POV up the ying yang! (I'm an Atheist and a Brianist by the way, so no hidden agenda to keep.).Quarterwit (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Major copyright violation: large copy-paste sections. See article boiler plate. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: Copyright permission e-mailed to you as requested Thank you for your concern.- Robpricer (talk) 20:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The article needs some major rework to make it Wikified, but it is of natable interest especially if editors can tie it into the larger thread of Protestantism and evangelism in Iowa and the Midewest. Such religious movements had intermittent impact over Iowa history particularly in the matter of populist farming movements like the Grange. Recommend keep. Expressenvelope (talk) 01:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This is this user's only contribution to Wikipedia. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Noted, but I don't see that makes any difference. An article stand or falls on its merits, not who wrote it. Quarterwit (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: GFDL release confirmed via OTRS. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Zö Christien

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

Not notable per WP:BIO. Doesn't appear to meet the basic criteria of notability, and being the presenter of television programmes (especially in the cases of several of these programmes where there are multiple presenters) does not automatically confer notability in itself. Consequently doesn't appear to meet the basic criteria or additional criteria of notability per WP:BIO Fritzpoll (talk) 09:17, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom - haven't heard of this person or any of the programmes. Possible vanity article. Dreamspy (talk) 20:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I find it highly unlikely this is a vanity article; she has been a TV presenter on a bunch of gameshows in the UK and the editor who created the article doesn't seem to be her or connected to her. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 00:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Re. 'possible vanity article'- bar one other edit, the article's creator has only contributed to this article. There is no bio on the editor's user page and no talk on the talk page. How do we know who created the article? Dreamspy (talk) 11:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Reference number 3 seems to confirm a minimal level of notability. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The reference refers to her being on the Avago channel. SHe was one of many, many presenters - as such I'm not sure she qualifies as the main presenter of the programme, which diminishes her notability. Fritzpoll (talk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. I chose not to merge since there was nothing to merge (one sentence), chose not to redirect since I doubt this will actually be typed in ever. Wizardman 23:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Heriot-Watt University Students Association

Heriot-Watt University Students Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a non-notable Students' Union, that doesn't link to any external third-party sources to confirm notability. _TalkIslander 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — Why does notability matter? I fail to see how removing factual, verifiable information would make an encyclopedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Heh, never seen you out of RfA before - lucky this isn't a self-nom ;). Why does notability matter? Hmm, well, other than it being one of the core policies of Wikipedia, I suppose it doesn't really... _TalkIslander 21:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Yes, but policy is non-binding. It's merely a description of what has typically happened in the past. We're expected to use our own judgment to decide whether or not it's a good idea to do it again in any given present situation. Blindly following a bunch of non-binding "rules" and "policies" is hardly helpful. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • As per the rubrik at the top of that page: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception". What's your reason for exception here? Yes, it's a policy, and yes, it should not always be blindly followed, but in general it should be. It should only be ignored if there's good reason to, and here there is none, or at least you haven't stated any. Your argument strikes me as fairly WP:POINTy. It would appear that you have issues with WP:N, and so, instead of discussing it in the appropriate place, you are happy to just disregard it. _TalkIslander 21:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
        • My reason for exception is this: deleting this article would harm the encyclopedia. It's simple as that. Do what's best for the encyclopedia, non-binding "rules" and "policies" be damned. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Fair enough. You're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. _TalkIslander 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, notability is not a core policy and is not any sort of policy. I would have thought an admin would have knew this... Anyway, redirect to Heriot-Watt University. EJF (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I was using the word 'core' in it's literal sense, as in central to Wikipedia, not in the particular sense that Wikipedia uses. As for policy, you're quite right, I should have known that. _TalkIslander 08:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I can't complain really though, it's partly my own fault! EJF (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Heh, indeed :P. Well, don't forget my answer to question four of my RfA, though I would hope that this isn't concerning enough to go near that route, let alone down it... _TalkIslander 16:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • No, I don't think so — perhaps if you go on the rampage and randomly delete dozens of articles for not having notability and start claiming NOR and NPOV are not important I may be forced to! But it would be too much hassle collecting diffs and canvassing other people to support the recall for me to bother ;-) EJF (talk) 17:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the major student association of major universities are notable, and this one is in hat class.A good place to merge other articles. DGG (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What is it notable for though? Being a student union? A university with a student union? How is this notable, couldn't this be merged with the university? There's nothing in the article, it's completely empty.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Category that includes these has about 75 of them already. Why is this one less notable. Eclecticology (talk) 00:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That doesn't follow. An article has to be notable in itself.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Also, WP:OTHERSTUFF - not the best argument to use in a deletion discussion. _TalkIslander 08:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Notability is not a policy. It is a guideline. Student Unions in the UK are notable because of the size of their membership and budget and the many student societies that they sponsor. References can surely be found. They are independent of the university. I just do not understand this urge to delete these articles. --Bduke (talk) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• While I am not going back on this view, it is clear that this article has not been expanded to the level that many other student union articles have (including several that have been recently brought to AfD and kept). Unless this article is significantly expanded by the time this AfD is closed, I recommend merge to the university article, until such material is found and added there. I would have a go myself, but I am too busy and it would be more time consuming to do it from here in Australia than by someone who had access to libraries in Edinburgh. --Bduke (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge or Delete. The article is empty, and does not assert notability, and is completely unreferenced (not verifiable) by third party sources. I'm prepared to believe that a notable article can be written, but this isn't currently it.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 03:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails notability guideline, specifically related to organizations, on all accounts.—Noetic Sage 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep deleting this article would harm the entire info from being displayed here in encyclopedia . we are not comitted to any rules here but to keep wikipedia a reliable information provider and a better encyclopedia . deleting or editing its notability means a lack in info and our pledge to keep wikipedia a complete encyclopedia will be compromised .Бриллиантжемчуг (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) - banned sockpuppet, see their talk
• Merge The entire article consists of one sentence that basically says The Heriot-Watt University Students Association is the association of students at Heriot-Watt University and contains the inevitable logo and infobox. I have no objections to breaking this out into a separate article if it get too large to be included at Heriot-Watt University. ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 17:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge - no assertion of notability! Merge to the main Heriot-Watt article. 2nd choice: Delete--RedShiftPA (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with RD: a single statement on the existence of the topic doth not an article make. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge what little content there is to Heriot-Watt University, and then put a redirect to the relevant section. (If, and only if, in future the Heriot-Watt article has subsequently expanded to such an extent that a split is needed, then reconsider splitting at that time.) --RFBailey (talk) 20:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• There are no sources to indicate that this organization is notable. I support either deletion, or merging to the University page. seresin | wasn't he just...? 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [13] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or merge. Heriot-Watt has a student association? Who knew? Oh, wait, all universities have one. Guy (Help!) 23:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Heriot-Watt University. No independent verifiable source or claims of notability. Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• (Hmmm, I agree that notability criteria are a tad odd... they were formed at AFD in a sense, so I guess they can be undone by AFD too). I'm neutral on this one. If someone can point to one or preferably two good sources external to the association, I'd say we can keep. --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, else explain why everything in the universe does not deserve an article claiming existence: Jane Smith is a person named Smith. Or Jimmy's Bar and Grill is a bar owned by someone named Jimmy. And, uh, it has a grill. I don't even understand the Merge votes—there's little to merge. I suppose the Heriot-Watt article could include a sentence saying The university has an eponymous student association.—johndburger 15:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - nothing special about it. NN, WP:ORG... just like every other nn student union/gov/assn out there. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. If the article creator wants the information userfied to try and get it to establish notability, then I can do that. Wizardman 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Moslanka

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

Biased, no third-party sources to establish notability or verify facts. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 19:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep — If you believe the article is biased, that's not a reason to delete it--rather, it's a reason to fix it yourself or let someone else do it. You certainly shouldn't nuke someone else's hard work just because you can't be bothered to improve it yourself. As for notability, well, so what? How is that relevant? Remember, we're not bound to obey any "rules" or "policies"; we're simply obligated to make the encyclopedia better, and I fail to see how removing factual, verifiable information makes the encyclopedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)dear administrator : i really respect your concern that wikipedia must be a place free from spam and add based pages , and since my article has been added to those needed editing / deletion i have completely revised the article with respect to your concern and wikipedia policy , i moreover have removed infos that might look like a promotion or something of some sort of an add , me being a medico never wish to use wikipedia for any wrong intention or any , so i wish to hear from you if my article needs more editing or revision to bring it to encyclopedia standard , i would welcome any type of assistance / mail from you since the same would encourage me and assist me in creating great articles in future and would add boost to my wish to become an administrator in future .

regards pearllysunPearllysun (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Inexperienced contributor has shown himself willing to co-operate in dealing with bias. Heavy-handed approach is not warranted. Try negotiating directly first. Eclecticology (talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The 'inexperienced contributor' 'willing to co-operate' has been blocked for sockpuppet use, and others have provided evidence that the article was submitted before at different article name.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless 3rd party sources appear. This seems to be essentially an advert.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but trim and remove the contact details. JIP | Talk 06:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

*Keep doesn't seem to be an add support or a sock puppets work , but an inexperienced contributers work .moreover the inexperienced member has shown full support and willingness to if at all edition is needed try negotiating directly first . Heavy-handed approach is not warranted. Бриллиантжемчуг (talk) 15:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Note to closwing admin sockpuppetry? Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Sockpuppet confirmed see: (User_talk:Pearllysun)- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 08:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Sockpuppetry is about the person, not the article, and is being dealt with elsewhere. For this discussion the strikethrough of the comments should be sufficient. Eclecticology (talk) 22:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The contributor has expressed his willingness to improve the article. Removing the contact details in the article (phone number) and improving the article will be a more appropriate approach. BGM^{Talk | Work} 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as spam. It should be noted that this is almost letter-by-letter a recreation of the previously speedied TF Quasar International (apparently another name for the same company, or at least an affiliate/associate thereof). --Orange Mike | Talk 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Google cache caught it, see: [14] - (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In fact FWIW it's been deleted 3 times so far: [15]- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 22:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, but strip down and make it more factual. Also, a lot of information in the article is duplicated in the author's article on Medical Education in Russia and should be consolidated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kai a simon (talk • contribs) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - How do we know we aren't promoting a scam? I Googled and found some fishy sounding stuff and some people very unhappy with their association with this entity. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No sources? wp:corp therefore not met. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete since no third-party sources seem to be available, and because it is an almost word-for-word copy of this (user-page sandbox for banned sockpuppet). Per WAS 4.250 and others, I'm not convinced this isn't a scam, or some kind of blanket marketing campaign. Even if kept, the article would need some serious trimming. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [16] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. - Vague handwaving: always a winning rhetorical strategy. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Not even a hint of a suggestion of encyclopedic merit. --Calton | Talk 23:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as recreated spam (or even possibly hoax) and as per Orange Mike. Impossible to write an encyclopedic article without independent reliable sources. Abecedare (talk) 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and stub It seems there is a core of verifiable information in the article. I don't want to waste time fixing the article during an AfD, I've done this before and, in spite of taking the article down to a verifiable minimum, it was still deleted, so, as long as the article is immediately exposed to deletion, I'm not going to fix it. AfD prevents article improvement, or, more accurately, invites useless labor. Close as keep and I'll fix it, leaving all the History there for anyone else to work on. Close as delete, create more work for another administrator to recover a deleted article for someone to work on. Might or might not happen, and no net gain over keeping and stubbing. Efficiency. It really should be considered.--Abd (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sikkimese people

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

Delete unsourced one-liner that the Sikkimese people are those who inhabit the Indian state of Sikkim, not overly encyclopedic, but we can quickly geto 50 more articles by writing identical ones for each US state, and probably run to the next millionth article by doing this with each county's subdivision... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Redirect for now to Sikkim#Demographics. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I'm glad it got nominated, since, admittedly, there's plenty of room for improvement on this one. I've added some basic information from the cited source; Nepali people are 2/3rds of the population, followed by Bhutanese and original Lapta inhabitants. I encourage anyone else who wants to urge a keep to take time to contribute to the article. Mandsford (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep great fix by NickPenguin. EJF (talk) 23:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, excellent WP:HEY work by Mandsford and Nick Penguin especially. This could as easily have been brought to the attention of a WikiProject. --Dhartung | Talk 03:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• keep-encyclopedic topic, if only stub yet. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to Sikkim#Demographics whatever is not already there (and there isn't much) and then Redirect per Gtstricky. Michael Kinyon (talk) 08:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY I think this article has taken a turn in the right direction. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Yeah, that's what we're going for here, direction. This is something that other people can add to, and create a suitably detailed article about the people of Sikkim people. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:HEY and comments above by Dhartung. U$er (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G12. We don't mess around with copyvios folks. You speedy delete first and then bring to AFD if a real article resurfaces and it still doesn't pass muster. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Papadimitriou Dimitris

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

Certainly a fine musician, but too marginal to allow for the construction of a significant article. Current content is a copyvio of http://www.c-alanpublications.com/composers/papadimitriou-dimitris.html but deleting it through AfD rather than copyvio speedy deletion would prevent recreation. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Google shows 3890 hits. Copyrighted material needs to be removed and article cleaned up.

• Comment you know, I hate to say it but lol. Papadimitriou Dimitris is sort of Jack Johnson. Did you even bother checking the Google hits you linked to? There's this guy, that guy, that other guy, that other other guy, the author of this (and many other books and articles), and that's just looking through the first 20 or so. Pichpich (talk)

• Speedy Delete G12, the ghits are mostly this man with the same name. - Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then the article can be turned into an article about him. We don't need to use AfD for that. —BradV 20:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Virtues of Ultima

Delete due to lack of real-world notability and a lack of reliable third party sources about the subject. Wikipedia is not a game guide or a fan site for in-universe repetition. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Evidently notable.Colonel Warden (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The Google news search you reference returns many irrelevant matches. Were there any specific articles you had in mind? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• There are several each from the NYT and CGW which seem adequate. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Would you care to cite specifics, or are you going to keep us guessing. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak merge into the various Ultima articles. Xihr (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I wouldn't call myself a fan of Ultima, but according to what I remember from some of the old games of the series, the virtue system is quite a central aspect of them. The virtues largely define what the games are all about and how the world and story are constructed, so I think the existence of this topic is justified. (However, I also agree that this article has a lot of problems with sourcing etc, but that's another issue.) Viznut (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 14:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Something other than Delete. Although the article is a bit more detailed than I would care (Mandrake's pseudo-virtues seem... superfluous), much of its content should be kept and/or shuffled about to other pages, and that can be done using normal editorial techniques. Nifboy (talk) 20:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The virtue system transcend the games themselves, in that it had a depth of development that was not necessary to the needs of the games, and so can be justified as a separate topic. Yik Lin Khoo (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Colonel Warden. This is a notable topic with much coverage. --Pixelface (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The Virtues of the Ultima games constitute a comprehensive value philosophy, and are extremely significant in computer games development. The nominator's claim of "lacking real-world notability" is uninformed, and the nomination smells of deletionism. Miqademus (talk) 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Excuse me? I see a lot of hand waving here, yet the article continues to lack any sort of reliable third party sources, nor have any been specifically mentioned in this discussion. Rather than make baseless attacks I hope that you can provide such information otherwise I can guarantee we will be here again, with a second nomination, before you know it. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I have to agree. I see a lot of assertions of notability, but very little proof. Pointing to a random Google search does not prove notability, Colonel Warden, and most of the articles linked only mention the system as a game feature. We need to see actual sources, edited into the article to prove notability. -- RoninBK _{T C} 03:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mode magazine

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

Original research about fictional magazine. The first line of the article seems to indicate that there was at some point a magazine with that name, in which case this should be replaced by some stub on the subject. Otherwise, I don't really see why we would leave a redirect to Ugly Betty since this is an unlikely search term. Pichpich (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete is a fictional magazine on a TV show, doesn't seem encyclopedic to me and isn't notable. Hatmatbbat10Talk to me 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - anything relevant can be merged to Ugly Betty. Doesn't need an article on its own and wouldn't be useful as a redirect. JohnCD (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or I could buy a redirect to the TV show as someone might think it is real and search for it. By itself it is not notable. -Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Mode (Ugly Betty) already redirects to the series. The title here isn't even right; it should be Mode (magazine), and this just seems to be fan observation about how the magazine is run on the show. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete or merge to Ugly Betty. Does not deserve its own article. JIP | Talk 06:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Marvin Pierce

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

Father of Barbara Pierce, not sufficiently independently notable.--Michael White^T·C 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC) --Michael White^T·C 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep As the publisher of several major magazines, he is sufficiently notable in his own right, even without his connections to political families. Caerwine Caer’s whines 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment So? There are lots of living people in similar positions who we don't and wouldn't have articles on today.--Michael White^T·C 19:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment See WP:WAX. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I didn't mean it that way, I meant, were we to have this debate about someone of a similar level of importance today, I don't think there would be as much debate as to their notability - disagree? Would we have an article for every publisher of several magazines who is not covered by reliable sources (or at least I can't find any, on Google)? --Michael White^T·C 21:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Given when he lived, I wouldn't consider Google to be the likeliest place to find references on him. Building this article past its current stub status is likely going to take someone willing or interested in hitting the stacks in some library. We need to keep and expand this article to combat Recentism See WP:CSB. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete conflict of wiki policy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thright (talk • contribs)

What conflict are you alluding to? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, head of major publishing corporation during its heyday. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Publisher of McCall's is sufficient. DGG (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - I'd say he's independently notable, and surely he passes WP:V as well. -FrankTobia (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as above, I believe notability has been firmly established here. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 19:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. GRBerry 21:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Swingfly

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

Procedural nomination. This was previously tagged CSD but doesn't qualify as A7. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - seems to satisfy WP:MUSIC as far as I can see ("in passing" may be the sticky point). Charted 13th on Sweden Singles Top 60, and made music for a work of media that is notable (FIFA Street 2). But I do have to balk at the youtube stuff. Most of the Cites spaell the Name as 2 parts, so that might also need to change. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Appears to pass notability Bardcom (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep based on this reference meets WP:BAND #2. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Karrox technologies limited

Karrox technologies limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like Advertising, Wikipedia is not a directory and according to Wikipedia:Corp there are very little sources. Kingpomba (talk) 11:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, only 40 branches, there is a pet store in New Hampshire with no article and that has about 40 stores! I have also removed the duplicate AfD notice on the page. SGGH ^speak! 11:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Great then maybe you should be spending your time writing about the pet stores. Eclecticology (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've moved the article to Karrox Technologies Limitedand also created a redirect from Karrox, where it has been and has been deleted in the past. I also removed a speedy deletion tag, so that we can clarify this now for good. --Tikiwont (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• article should delete, it seems advertising- of karrox(18:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC))
• Keep - Deleting this kind of article reflects a serious anti-corporate attitude. If someone thinks it's "advertising" then become a contributor and make it more NPOV. Sure there are corporations that are just plain nasty, but getting them in perspective means that we need to also include the more routine information on them too. Eclecticology (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• To a certain extent, I agree with Eclecticology (talk · contribs) about making it more NPOV in order to keep it and not making it look like there is an anti-coprorate attitude on Wikipedia. However, I disagree with that particular point when an article has to be fundamentally rewritten to make it look like a proper Wikipedia article rather than a self-promotional blurb in an indiscriminate form of media that might result in more Google hits for the individuals with a financial interest in the company. This particular article would definitely have to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become a decent article. If someone does rewrite it, it might get my vote to stay. But until then, I see nothing worth salvaging in the article so I vote delete. SWik78 (talk) 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete although I cleaned it up a little I see no references to help claim notability. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Peter Myers

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

Autobiography/vani-spam for NN person running for Congress in a district in California. If he's elected he'll probably be notable but he hasn't been elected yet. Has done nothing yet that satisfies WP:BIO. A Google search reveals no hits for his name except a couple blog entries and his own website. Wikipedia is not a voter's informational pamphlet. Prod and Prod-2 were removed by an IP addy. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete agreed with above.Thright (talk) 19:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright

• Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians: "Just being... an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" - and for good reason, to avoid Wikipedia being turned into a campaign notice-board for every election. JohnCD (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't meet any of the inherent notability criteria for politicians, and there's no evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him, which would override the inherent criteria. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Might become notable if elected. SWik78 (talk) 22:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Mynheer

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

This article is just a definition of a word (a Dutch one that is not notable in English). It has also been transliterated here OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: Agree with Orangemarlin. It's not really significant. Maybe redirect to the Wiktionary page. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. Snthdiueoa (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe it was done. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it's already been transwikified. Nothing more needs to be done Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Since it's been transwikied, I'll agree with everyone here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merechriolus (talk • contribs) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per above •Jim62sch•^dissera! 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, transwiki is complete. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mr. in case anyone ever searches for it. --Pixelface (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to the Dutch Wikipedia and tag for translation. --Pixelface (talk) 18:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog)

Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is for a compleatly none notable character, using a dubious name!  Doktor  Wilhelm  17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Just a bunch of useless fancruft.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Sonic Adventure 2#Sonic Adventure 2 Battle. --Pixelface (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Merge we don't even know if this info is official.Fairfieldfencer (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge to the relevant parent article - doesn't necessitate/require a lone article - lacks the expected notability. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment We don't know if anything in this article is true, I've seen things related to this article, (Other char List of char) and it claims this "Rouge" was born in Baghdad or Iraq or something like that. Look for yourself if you don't believe me. 1Fairfieldfencer (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment as Fairfieldfencer states, the information given in the Rouge (Sonic The Hedgehog) article is wrong, the character has no name and was indeed listed as part of Other characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (games) as being from Baghdad [17]! I believe the character in the article in question is a fan creation!  Doktor  Wilhelm  19:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is about not-notable nameless character. Zero Kitsune (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Nonnotable minor character, that "appears once" in a game, as the article tells us. No reliable third party sources demonstrating notability, not notable enough to warrant merging. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 00:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:N and WP:FICT, and I don't think any form of rewriting could save it. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 14:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom--RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete too minor to mention, really. -- Ned Scott 06:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NOTE. Kimu 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This doesn't even seem like real information, and it's supported by the fact that there's no citations. There's no evidence of the fortune teller's name in any game or official source, not to mention even if there was, the character would fail WP:FICT anyway. This seems to me like an attempt at vandalism by creating an entire article, getting everyone looking up "Rouge", expecting to find Rouge the Bat. But that's just my opinion. Redphoenix526 (Talk) 03:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Florinda (TV series)

Florinda (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article about a Philippine television series that is about to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The information in this article is verifiable and I recommend that the article is kept. Catchpole (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BOT response. Read the article first please. Starczamora (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Pot meet kettle. Catchpole (talk) 17:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep for now; renominate in 2009 if the show doesn't actually air. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete for now; recreate in 2009 if the show airs. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 08:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - the citation says nothing that the show is in the filming stage already. --Howard the Duck 13:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The Wedding (TV series)

The Wedding (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a Philippine TV series that is about to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The information in this article is verifiable and I recommend that the article is kept. Catchpole (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BOT response. Read the article first please. Starczamora (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I disagree that the information is verifiable. One reference provided is to a blog/forum, the other one is to a news article in Filipino. From what I can gather, the news article is more about the actress renewing her contract with the network than about the show in question. No real outside proof given that this show will ever be made. SWik78 (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Danngarcia (talk) 01:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. It simply says that it's an upcoming series and little else. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Filming has begun. Photoshoot is already taken take a look on the ABS-CBN forums. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.2 (talk) 00:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My Girl (Philippine TV series)

My Girl (Philippine TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about a Philippine TV series that is yet to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The information in this article is verifiable and I recommend that the article is kept. Catchpole (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BOT response. Read the article first please. Starczamora (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• I Am sure that will be produce by ABS-CBN because there are so many sources about this

This should not be deleted also. Jennyandalizapurok4|Talk 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, if shooting has commenced this can be recreated; info about casting on future TV programs (such as this) are always released but they're not always picked up. --Howard the Duck 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Danngarcia (talk) 03:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Shooting of this TV series will start early April. Then why other GMA Network upcoming programs that has a late 2008 release are still here on Wikipedia? I smell network war —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.2 (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Amnesia (2008 film)

Amnesia (2008 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An article about an upcoming Philippine movie, that is yet to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. Starczamora (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Misapplication of WP:CRYSTAL, which states "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The information in this article is verifiable and I recommend that the article is kept. Catchpole (talk) 17:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

BOT response. Read the article first please. Starczamora (talk) 17:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't think that response is helpful. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, as the film fails to meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (films). Once the film is released, or at the very least when the release is imminent, an article on this film might be appropriate. I note, also, that the information in the article, sparse though it may be, is backed by a (non-english) source - my concern is not with verifiability, but with notability and WP:CRYSTAL. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This should not be Delete we have another source that this film will be produce earlier this 2008 --> click herehttp://www.pep.ph/news/16675/Marian-Rivera-gives-first-priority-to-movie-with-Dolphy-and-Vic-Sotto

.Tommie —Preceding comment was added at 02:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The source presented does not mainly talk about the movie and merely mentioned Amnesia in passing that the movie will not be produced as soon as possible, as shown in this translation...

Follow-up sa naisulat na report ng PEP (Philippine Entertainment Portal) tungkol sa pelikulang Amnesia starring Marian, Dingdong Dantes, and Iza Calzado. Sigurado pa ring matutuloy ito as one of the scheduled movies of GMA Films, but this will have to wait dahil mas una na palang natanguan ng manager ni Marian na si Popoy Caritativo ang first team-up ng Comedy Kings na sina Dolphy at Vic Sotto sa pelikula.

TRANSLATION... In a follow-up on what Philippine Entertainment Portal reported about the movie Amnesia featuring Marian (Rivera), Dingdong (Dantes), and Iza (Calzado), it is confirmed that it will be one of GMA Films scheduled movies, but this will have to wait because Marian's manager Popoy Caritativo has already nodded on his ward's first team-up movie with Comedy Kings Dolphy and Vic Sotto. Starczamora (talk) 04:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as per Wikipedia:Notability (films):

  Films which have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced shooting should not have their own articles. Until then discussion of the film may be included in articles about the film's subject material.

Sources need to confirm the start of shooting after shooting has begun. --Howard the Duck 03:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Culture Killers

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

Fails WP:MUSIC. This is a typical nn band. The references do not assert notability and are not from reliable sources. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 16:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Does not meet WP:MUSIC criteria. --Pmedema (talk) 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - non-notable band. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep — Who cares about notability? Who cares about WP:MUSIC? They're irrelevant criteria, and totally non-binding. Really, all we need to ask ourselves is this: does coverage of this subject make the encyclopedia better, or does it make it worse? As best as I can tell, the answer to that question is: it makes the encyclopedia better. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Encouraging the use of Wikipedia as a dumping ground/spam site for every half-baked musical act/garage band around does NOT make the encyclopedia better: just the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How does keeping information out make Wikipedia better? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 21:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By not turning Wikipedia into a site where any garage band can put unsupported crap about their upcoming high school gigs. Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 23:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What's wrong with having articles about garage bands and their gigs? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then how would we be any different than MySpace? Corvus cornix_talk 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

For one, because of our focus on NPOV rather than publicity-whoring. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 02:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

And how do we ensure NPOV if all of the references are to band-created websites? Corvus cornix_talk 18:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless reliable sources can be found. 62.136.34.82 (talk) 21:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Calton | Talk 21:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete A7 Will ^(talk) 21:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete or speedy delete notability not established. Possibly A7   jj137 (talk) 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a borderline case as they would pass criteria 12 if the "independent film" was broadcasted (I have no idea if it was or not). As for the tour, if their participation was covered by reliable sources then they could just about pass criteria 4. They're not going to pass #4, I've just searched for different combinations of words to find a review and found nothing, not even local coverage. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 23:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Article has only been here two days. Nominator has failed his responsibility to show that he has made any effort to negotiate a solution to the problems. Eclecticology (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's keep it friendly now, there's no need to comment on the nominator. The article has been looked at by all the editors who are discussing it in this debate. Secondly, I'm not sure I understand your vote. Are you saying you would like to see the article have more time to be worked on? If this does get deleted, I'm sure no one would be against userfying the content and allowing the creator or other interested editors to improve it. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Userfication is an anti-solution, as it goes against the whole concept of a wiki. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

But if consensus says it's not suitable for main space at present and there is a chance that it can be improved within months, isn't that better than outright deletion? Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Then consensus is totally ass-backwards. Suitability for mainspace is determined by the subject matter of the article, not the current state of the article. The right solution for a poorly-written article is to leave it in the mainspace so that people can actually find it and fix it! That's how wikis work--it's not really supposed to be one or a few people just work on an article in the skunkworks and then unleash it on the world; rather, it starts out as maybe one or two poorly-written sentences, then as people come along they add their own bits of information, maybe fix some of the prose so it reads better, and over time it grows and improves organically. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikis don't always work in that way. Take Binh Danh for instance - this article started in my sandbox and was not unleashed into the wiki until I knew it was up to a standard that would pass db-bio criteria. I can't speak for others but I didn't vote delete because of the current state, I voted because of the subject matter. It fails the relevant notability guideline (WP:MUSIC) and that is coupled with the fact that the information isn't verified against any reliable sources. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete completely without good references, and without references there's no evidence of notability, nor can we check NPOV.- (User) WolfKeeper (Talk) 02:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is claimed, so a speedy isn't called for. However without any third-party references, although they might in the near future they don't yet qualify as notable. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Kurt Weber. This AFD is absurd on its face. I'm not even going to go into details of why I believe it's so ridiculous, because it's self-evident. That such things could even be nominated for deletion on this, the greatest encyclopedia of the world, which aims to encompass all subjects notable (and this subject is clearly notable), and that others could embrace the suggestion that it's non-notable, as though marching lock-step behind the nominator, is beyond my ken. Please, we must be independent thinkers here; we must not simply go with the crowd and be taken in by such foolishness. I have nothing further to say about this. Obuibo Mbstpo (talk) 22:40, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Note The above user is currently involved in a debate regarding vote canvassing at AfD and has copied this same statement to multiple active AfDs. [18] --Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Klebs Junior

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

I've tried to find notability here, but this is nn. Kingturtle (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, fails WP:BIO. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I also made a brief effort to find referencing, but I couldn't find anything reliable.--Kubigula (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal

George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

the current editors do not want a Wikipedia entry Shannonez (talk) 16:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep; the wishes of the editors of a journal not to be in Wikipedia have little bearing on whether we document it. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it's possible that the nominator meant himself as the editor (editor of the article, rather than the editor of the journal). Seing that Shannonez (talk · contribs) is the only contributor to the article so far, he/she can request speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7. SWik78 (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Let the AfD run its course: do not speedy as a G7 -- the subject may possibly be notable. If no editors other than the author show any interest in the article by the time the AfD comes to an end, then it can be deleted under this criterion. Snthdiueoa (talk) 16:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep the journal appears notable and the article seems sound. I note that the article is primarily the work of one person who has declared a conflict of interest but those aren't reasons for deletion. Could benefit from some independent editing.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I've flagged it for rescue: the article does seem to have potential, and if sufficient third party sources can be found, it should be kept. Snthdiueoa (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete This is a hard one. Although it is not in conflict with wiki policy, it does open wiki up for liable as the content can be used to defame. Due to the nature of this article it will also hold some level of bias. I think the best measure here is to act with caution.Thright (talk) 19:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright

• Keep, Notable and verifiable. Just because the main author, who claims affiliation with the subject on the article's talk page, doesn't want it, is not a reason to delete. This is not in conflict with policy as noted above. As it is written now I don't see any defamation. The chance that some editor could use it to defame or put in bias is a risk inherent to all articles. We should just proceed as we normally do and enforce current policy. KnightLago (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, is the article title correct? The website from the article has university in the title. KnightLago (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Seems factual and content appropriate.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It seems to me that whether a law journal is notable can be determined simply by how often it's been cited in legal decisions, briefs, or in other law journals. Perhaps even one citation in a published decision would be enough to make it notable; many citations in briefs might do the same, even if none of them ever made it into a published decision; and citations in unrelated law journals, in articles by people unrelated to GMU, might also be enough. Anyone with a Lexis/Nexis account willing to do the search? -- Zsero (talk) 23:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply Google Scholar ( scholar.google.com ) has 6 hits for the journal. 2 aren't relevant and 2 are to articles in the journal. Two are citations (with links to further cites). That isn't very impressive for an academic journal but its enough. The journal is notable enough for occcasionally other people in other more notable journals to reference it.Nick Connolly (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Sources seem sufficient now. However, the article should be moved to George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal as that is the correct name of the journal (see the image on the article). Fosnez (talk) 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Clarification (1) I'm not an editor on the Journal-- though that may change at the month's end. (2) THe correct name of the journal is George Mason Civil Rights Law Journal; moving this article Foznez suggests will only add inaccuracy to the problem. (3) the current editors for the Journal do not wish to have a wikipedia page; (4) CRLJ has been cited by courts, including the Supreme Court, in decisions. In the legal world, these are considered more notable hits than google or google scholar.68.105.180.8 (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) You are affiliated with the journal in someway. (2) The journal's website has the name as George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal. (3) The editors of the journal are irrelevant as to whether or not this merits an article. (4) We agree with you that real legal citations are better than Google. If you read above, you will see that someone asked for a Lexis search. That has not been done yet, so someone quickly ran a Google search. KnightLago (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Merge/redirect to Dell XPS. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2/Dell XPS M170

Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 2/Dell XPS M170 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable commercial product. This article is up for merge, but the target article is already a wreck because of original research problems. This article has no references, and has been flagged for merger (for about three months) and for references (for about 10 months) with no substantive improvement. Since unreferenced material must be aggressively removed, the best solution seems to be to delete the article. Mikeblas (talk) 16:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Note that this article was previously nominated for deletion. I had expected the aft templates to pick this up, but they're quite broken when used on articles with strokes in their names. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep—Don't you mean that unreferenced material must be aggressively referenced? Have you actually tried referencing this page? There appears to be plenty of hits, including many favorable reviews. I think it's notable.—RJH (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. No, I mean that unreferenced information needs to be removed. This is because zero information is preferred to misleading or false information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • I believe you are using this quote out of context and have told you so before. Quite apart from the fact that policy and practice on Wikipedia are not decided by quoting Jimbo posts to mailing lists, Jimbo says "random speculative "I heard it somewhere" pseudo information" - which does not mean every single thing on Wikipedia that lacks a footnote. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The context I'm taking that quote from is Wikipedia:Verifiability itself. I've made no claims about any group of articles on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you're trying to broaden this AfD into the analysis of "every single thing on Wikipedia that lacks a footnote". I thought it was perfectly clear, but let me state it explicitly for you: I'm making a claim about this specific article: it very clearly contains random, speculative information. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I've not been involved in any of the discussions with this article, but I firmly believe it needs to be merged and not deleted. This is a notable product from a notable company. The improvements will come. Perhaps it needs to be re-tagged. I'll keep my eye on it. Carter | Talk to me 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge and Wiki into Dell XPS. Although Dell XPS as you say is a mess, it still is the most appropriate location for this article to be in. Instead of deleting it, be WP:BOLD and just do the merger and wikify... --Pmedema (talk) 16:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Quite right. Be bold and go merge it. EJF (talk) 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions. Why? Has Wikipedia changes its policy on publising original research? Or its policy against advertising? Or is it now a Dell sales catalog? -- Mikeblas (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • It's only original research if it cannot be referenced by reliable sources - all that's needed in a merged page with Dell XPS is 2 or 3 references and any notable sourcable information noted. I would hardly describe the article as a piece of advertising — you're seriously underestimating Dell's advertising team. The only thing I can say is WP:SOFIXIT. You are more than welcome to do a merge and redirect. If you don't want to, no doubt this will be kept. EJF (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Correction. I'm afraid lots of editors believe whe you're saying here, and that's bad for the encyclopedia. What you've gotten completely wrong is the assertion that if an article is OR only if it cannot be given reliable sources. An article with reliable sources might also be evidence of synthesis, which is a very important exception to your "only" claim. The article needs more than two or three notable assertions; it needs to have its extrordinary claims backed-up by extrodinary sources. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I'm game for a merge.I'm fairly certain that most of the information in this article can find a reference.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge. I'm deeply disturbed that something like this is being considered for deletion due to 'unreferenced material' as you put it. It's a commercial product well-known in gaming circles, and is extremely notable. It's specifications and statistics are easily researched. The google test gives 440,000 for "XPS M170". Out of those, pcMag[19], zdnet [20], cnet [21] and engadget [22] all give reference to most of the fairly obvious material presented in the article. It's not original research by any leap. Celarnor (talk) 10:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. While some of this commercial product's specifications are easily referenced, the article contains far more than just a list of specifications. This remaining material is not referenced. It only takes a quick glance at the article to observe that. -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge I see no reason why this model is notable enough for it's own article. It's just another Dell PC model.--AbJ32 (Drop me a line) 01:10, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete this version of the article, because of hoax content. Addhoc (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Forrest Peterman

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

Borderline notability (WP:N); requires immediate referencing or removal, per WP:BLP. Some references without in-line citations are shown, but it's unclear how they are related ("Mein Kampf"?!) Marasmusine (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

*Delete: as an unreferenced BLP. I had tagged it for speedy under A7, after being unsure if it really qualified for G10. Certainly BLP violation. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: not notable minor fictional character in Seinfeld, currently with false info Toddst1 (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Marginally notable at best, the article is basically a life story of the subject, makes no mention of what it is that he is notable for. Also, counting myself, there's now at least two people confused by the Mein Kampf reference. SWik78 (talk) 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Hoax? and the book on slaughterhouses refrenced, was written by 'a bullock'. hmmmmmmNick Connolly (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Nominative Determinism [23] ("the tendency of people to gravitate towards areas of work that fit their surname") :> Marasmusine (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Delete One of the other references, to which the author was kind enough to give an ISBN is by or about Hitler - see GBooks - and I likewise am considering the "Bullock" reference to be bollocks. I get zippo on that, both in GBooks and on the web as a whole. If this isn't a hoax, which is looking increasingly probable, it's a BLP vio and needs to go anyway. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment This edit by the author and the only editor of the article in question was added to the article Jacopo Peterman who is one of the recurring characters from Seinfeld. As you can see, it speaks of Forrest Peterman. Forrest Peterman, the subject of the article in question here, is listed as having a father named Jacopo Peterman in the article itself. Also, at least one of the quotes (I always want to learn, but I am sure on my dying day I will feel like I left something in the trough) is a quote from Tim McGraw and was stolen from here. This article is clearly a hoax. It should be speedied under WP:CSD#G3. SWik78 (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Add another quote from the article to the list of quotes from Tim McGraw. Everyone should have their own opinion and be able to voice it... is also taken from here. SWik78 (talk) 20:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - it's a hoax. References to Mein Kampf and The Psychopathic God: Adolf Hitler, and a book about slaughterhouses by "A. Bullock"; there's no trace of the alleged book on Peterman by J. Toland, but note that John Toland and Alan Bullock have both written books about Hitler. In the text, "He graduated in the top 80 percent of his class" and "...Brazil where he first discovered the fascinations of cows"; and just look at the paragraph about "waterboarding" cows! If not a hoax, it just might be an attack page on a real "Forrest Peterman"; either way, it should go, and speedily. JohnCD (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, hoax, nothing in article passes WP:V. --Dhartung | Talk 21:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete It's a hoax all right. On Feb. 25, the creator had edited Jacopo Peterman, a Seinfeld character, who appears as the grandfather of the subject of this article. Noroton (talk) 04:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

James H. Wear

James H. Wear (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ancestor of the Bush family whose only real claim to notability is being director of the St. Louis National Bank. Is that enough? I am neutral. --Michael White^T·C 15:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep diffently enough! There are many articles that should go before this one.Thright (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright

*Delete, The St. Louis National Bank isn't notable, and there are thousands of banks and therefore thousands of bank directors. I also don't think every distant member of the Bush family deserves an article simply for being a Bush. KnightLago (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, knowing that certainly changes things, nice find. KnightLago (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, founder of J.H. Wear, Boogher & Co., a major wholesaler in St. Louis, which in 1870 was the 4th largest city in the US and a mercantile center for the entire American West. (Company profile in here) --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I'd say he's independently notable, though WP:V is a little weak without sources. -FrankTobia (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Swedish auction

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

The article describes a type of auction, invented by a Swedish real estate broker, see promotional material http://www.swedeauction.se (for example see here). The only active use of this type of auction appears to be via swedeauction.se. No reference shows that this type of auction is in active use in Sweden. No reference is given to some material in English. The only credible reference is to a Swedish handbook, where this method is described as a experimental method worth trying; Zacharias, Claude (2001). Some references are given to newspaper articles - probably created as a result of promotional efforts by the inventor.

The similar page Swedeauction has already been deleted, see [24] Ulner (talk) 15:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - Admin help requested How similar is similar? If this is a virtual copy of the old article, this can be speedied under G4. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete quite promotional, and the sources don't help with verification. Note also that the Swedish article appears to be up for deletion (here) as well, assuming their amboxes follow the same color scheme and their AfD's follow roughly the same format. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 00:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Bura-Chaty

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

No reason given for notability. Citation of WP:NPT in favour however no criteria in it passed. Suggest deletion under WP:N and WP:NOT BigHairRef | Talk 00:04, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

See also discussion on mine and another's talk page for an opposed view. BigHairRef | Talk 00:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep All populated settlements have some claim to notability. Given the few articles that exist on large Central Asian countries such as this any expansion really is a step in the right direction. These countries are huge, and to only have 10-15 articles on places within it shows how unbalanced this encyclopedia is. I think you;d be surprised that this is actually resembles a town not the hamlet of two houses you seem to be imagining here. Personally I think it is much needed to add articles like Karakol on here and try to see some development world wide ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:12, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It is likely that most reasonably sized settlements in the world would have recieved some reliable independant coverage, and would therefore pass the WP:N criteria. If no significant sources have yet been found, it doesn't mean they don't exist. There are tens of thousands of settlement articles with even less info and sources than this one. Cxz111 (talk) 18:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strongest and speediest keep possible as per Blofeld and Cxz111. Just another example of how systemic bias brings down the project with excessive afds. Editorofthewiki 10:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - location is referenced in any number of google sites as per here, although I acknowledge lack of population data. Give the article a chance to expand a bit and if necessarily revisit again in several months if notability concerns still exist then. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep & Update This article just needs some TLC while more data comes in.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As per all of the above. SWik78 (talk) 16:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep As per...everybody. (Late to the party, as usual.) --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 17:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep No questionThright (talk) 19:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Dictionary of Words in the Wild

Dictionary of Words in the Wild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not quite notable, and not cited. Basketball110 _{what famous people say} ♣ 23:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. Unreferenced and no claim to notability provided. -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. It's definitely WP:INTERESTING, but the project is only a year old[25] and has received no significant coverage in secondary sources to date (per Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News Archive). --Dhartung | Talk 21:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

EC (programming language)

EC (programming language) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of notability. Creator(s) apparently sock-puppets based on November 18 edit history (not confirmed). Apparent advertising or vanity article. Foggy Morning (talk) 03:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; no sign of notability, no reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:45, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. No evidence of notability from independent reliable sources. Several mins of googling failed to find any. Qwfp (talk) 11:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Cloudz679 (talk) 21:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Existing web references are non-notable and puppetish. ~ Jafet (spam) 12:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Carter | Talk to me 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Need More info I think the page may have merit, but it needs to be examined in more detail. Computer language is usually not undstood by people and thus when something lacks understanding it is easier to delete it. I am not against deleting it, but rather we should not act first then question later.Thright (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright
• Delete, no evidence of notability. JIP | Talk 06:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete if the information is already covered there is no merge to do. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Malaysia Airlines destinations from Kuching International Airport

Malaysia Airlines destinations from Kuching International Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Squarely goes against WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Info is covered already in Malaysia Airlines destinations and Kuching International Airport articles. Russavia (talk) 20:21, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as duplicated information as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:04, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge Into Malaysia Airlines Carter | Talk to me 16:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Malaysia Airlines destinations. I say this without having read the article, but just as a categorical way to handle airline destinations, which survived their own AFD a while back. Let's not compartmentalize too much. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Unlikely search term. The coverage for this type of material is already covered in the article on the airport. (Airline destination lists usually list the destinations, but not the connections since that information tends to expire too quickly). Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merge is not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Stowic poetry

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

Concerns a non-notable poet (all refs found are self published on lulu.com); the actual article is unreferenced, most likely original research, and either it's a hoax or the quotations are a copyright violation. PROD removed by the author without explanation. Ros0709 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete I can't see a reason to keep it I think it's a joke or hoax..--Doug Weller (talk) 15:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as it's not funny and a joke page —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 20:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Essentially spam for the guy's book of poems. - RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 12:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonicflame (talk • contribs) 10:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

John James Holliday

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

• Delete Not notable per WP:BIO and no sources to indicate notability. Veritas (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TheProf | Talk 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete Ha, a Bush family ancestor I missed. Insufficient independent notability. But he did found Holliday, Missouri.--Michael White^T·C

• Delete I'm dating a Bush family descendant. Doesn't make him notable Carter | Talk to me 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Nice, is it Lauren Bush? ;-P --Michael White^T·C 16:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• That would be a "her", then, not a "him", yes? Powers ^T 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Hmm, I guess I didn't parse what Carter was saying well enough, you know how that happens? --Michael White^T·C 22:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak delete. Notability borderline, but on the wrong side of the border. Powers ^T 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:BIO and no sources to indicate notability.Paste (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Scott Draves

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW non-admin close - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Articles for deletion/Scott Draves

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

The article raises notability concerns due to the irrelevant subject matter and is blatant self promotion, vanity and hawking of wares. There are violations of NPOV and COI since Scott Draves wrote the article about himself. Linking to his own websites draves.org and scottdraves.com is gross abuse of Wikipedia.--Editor5435 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Linking to his own websites..." No, it is not gross abuse, nor is it reason to delete an article. If you think there's been a problem that hasn't already been resolved, report it at WT:WPSPAM. --Ronz (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How strange it is that you apply the opposite to other articles you involve yourself in. You recently trashed an entire article over an issue with a single link. I feel like restoring the link I voluntarily removed. If you delete I again I will make a complaint. You should be unbiased in your editing activities.--Editor5435 (talk) 23:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• keep My work and I have received plenty of press and blog coverage: Wired Magazine (May 2001), Discover (twice), The New Yorker (July 2004), Valleywag, BoingBoing, etc etc. My artwork appears on the cover of Leonardo and is permanently hosted on MoMA.org. Siggraph has chosen my artwork as the conference-wide graphic identity for 2008. See my bio and resume which lists some of the important awards I've won, including from the Prix Ars Electronica and VIDA. I would appreciate it if someone would add this evidence of notability to the page. I did not write the article (although I have made some simple corrections). Indeed, this deletion request is retribution by Editor5435 against me as a result of the edit war we've had over Fractal Compression. This has resulted in Editor5435 being banned once so far... Spot (talk) 16:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please help list the individual references in Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable? so they can be reviewed by others for possible inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ronz, I made a list of about 20 good sources. If anyone is not convinced please let me know what you need to hear and maybe I can find it. It would be great if the bio page could be expanded to include them, of course I can't do it. Spot (talk) 07:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• delete Shameless self promotion and vanity as indicated by the above comments. Users should not be posting or editing articles about themselves, in gross violation of Wikipedia's policies.--Editor5435 (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A conflict of interest by an editor is not reason to delete an article. --Ronz (talk) 17:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article lacks notability, its irrelevant, there is no reason for it to exist in Wikipedia.--Editor5435 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Scott_Draves#Notable?, because we are quickly coming up with enough sources to show notability per WP:BIO. --Ronz (talk) 18:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Uhhhhhh, Editor5435, you don't get a vote. You nominated it for deletion. OF COURSE you want it deleted. So, without your vote, nobody else thinks it should be deleted. I think that unless you can find somebody else you agrees with you, we should write this one off to sour grapes and resolve this to a speedy keep. RussNelson (talk) 04:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge to somewhere, I think. We have vastly more on this subject and his endeavours than would seem to be warranted by the limited depth and quality of coverage. Guy (Help!) 18:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I heard of the guy totally independent from wikipedia. fractals right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 20:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I'm always surprised to see a well-known person's page being nominated for deletion. Smacks of jealousy. RussNelson (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It looks like Editor5435 has nominated the Draves entry for deletion in revenge for a previous event where his own entry was called into question by Draves. I've added references to the Draves article which back up the statements made. The article does not appear to meet the criteria for being deleted due to lack of neutrality, since it doesn't take a point of view on Draves and only states referenceable facts. The subject's notability should not in question due to web searches that find him covered on sites like O'Reilly, Siggraph, the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA), the Leonardo Journal of Art, The Harmony Channel, the Austin Museum of Digital Art - and that's only page one of a google search for "scott draves".

- isabelwh

• Keep It seems quite obvious that the nomination to delete the Scott Draves entry is motivated by personal issues, not by Wikipedia standards. It seems equally obvious that, considering the favorable coverage he has received in respected publications and institutions, that Scott Draves is a notable artist and software developer in his field. Also, the entry is quite concise and well, rather small and reserved. All of that considered, I petition the court to dismiss that case. Hopefully very soon!

-kenny s —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.172.80 (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It looks to me that the page is both in keeping with wikipedia standards and a useful contribution to the public good. - Bob J —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.230.230 (talk) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Wow, I'm actually surprised that the article is so short and understated. Spot is quite well known in the SF artist scene & programmers community. Maybe I am biased as a fan of his work, but one of the things that I value in wikipedia is the ability to search on someone/something & find external links to more information should I be inclined to learn more. - Wanda K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.28.10 (talk) 17:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Anyone who has seen Mr. Draves' work (and that's a LOT of people by now) knows that it's something unique and original. What is the motivation of Mr. Editor5435, I wonder? Why no real name? - Christopher Schardt —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.90.116 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Karjala

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

This article looks like it just restates info available on a personal website. I can't really see why this person is notable. Also, it looks like every paragraph starts with "he claims", without listing any secondary sources. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no independent sources to establish notability. Powers ^T 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Brian Karjala is a whisleblower who reported fraud inside the mega-ministry Focus on the Family. You can verify Karjala's employment by contacting the human resources department at Focus. You can verify that he was not fired. By contacting Focus you can also verify that the organization has doubts about the Tom Papania audio testimony it once sold. This Wikepedia article is relaying disinformation and takes Karjala out of context and doesn't accurately portray the real reporting and ministry of Karjala, nor does it cite the sources for information Karjala quotes on his web pages. Examine the Tom Papania Wikepedia article to find the source of the disinformation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthteller0717 (talk • contribs)

Do you have any sources that don't involve conducting original research? Powers ^T 12:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The sources are weak. The content of the article fails to establish that this person has done anything notable other than to make a few allegations of fraud and conspiracy, which is nothing special. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone has slandered Karjala by claiming he was fired from Focus on the Family. Why is that unverified claim not yet removed? Reporting fraud within a major "evangelical" organization is not notable? This from the Wikepedia folks who give space to trivial celebrity figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk) 01:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Being reported as having been fired from Focus on the Family is hardly slander. As for notability, if you can find reliable, independent sources that indicate notability, please provide them. Powers ^T 02:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Writing that someone was fired for behavioral issues is slander when it is not true. I guess truth is irrelevant to Wikepedia. Just delete the article. It was created by an enemy of Brian Karjala. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.187.232 (talk) 02:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, if you're really concerned about possible slander, drop a note at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. This isn't the best forum for such concerns. This is here just to decide if we need an article on this person. If you feel we do, then just provide some reliable sources that indicate notability. That's all you have to do. Powers ^T 13:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Videoecology

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

The study of "interactions of human and visual environment". To judge by the references, only Vasiliy Filin uses this term. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete. This is an interesting article but all of the sources are from one person, and I don't know if that's okay according to Wiki rules for notability? I did a Google News search, a Google regular search, and then I logged on to a university library system and searched ProQuest and WilsonSelectPlus (which searches academic manuscripts) and there was nothing, nada. Renee (talk) 00:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Per above Carter | Talk to me 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The fact that all of the "literature" on this topic (except for one entry which may not be closely related anyway) is from one person is telling. Powers ^T 19:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete If all literature comes frome the same author, this is an ad-hoc concept without any useful meaning. Gorgonzola (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nom. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Rugrats characters

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

All information is already included in the main Rugrats article. So my vote is: Delete TheProf | Talk 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Do Not Delete Garr1984 (talk) 02:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a sub-article of Rugrats (and it also may come in handy when someone eventually nominates the individual character articles for deletion). --Pixelface (talk) 14:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a merge target for all the characters, who are probably not notable enough for their own articles. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a merge target for all the characters, per the slowly growing consensus that this is the best way to deal with fictional characters who do not have independent notability outside of being part of the ensemble. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - If this article is not deleted, another editor is going to remove the character section of the main Rugrats article. Without it, that article is going to look terrible! Because basically, it will have very little notable content left. Thanks TheProf | Talk 14:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The content in the Rugrats article not currently in this article can be merged here. A {{main}} template can be left in the Rugrats article pointing to this one, like the one seen here: The Simpsons#Characters. And I have to disagree with Quasirandom's idea of the "growing consensus." --Pixelface (talk) 16:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if this article survives the AfD vote, which it looks like it will! I will edit the character section in Rugrats in the same style as The Simpson. Thanks TheProf | Talk 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You can, if you want to, withdraw this AfD nomination, and start reworking the character section in the main article right now. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to this. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to withdraw this Afd. However, i don't know how! Maybe an admin should now close this vote. TheProf | Talk 19:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It would make more sense to summarize the characters in the Rugrats article and link to this, than to delete this article and rely on the list in Rugrats. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's nonsense to remove it. Why would you?-DANO- (talk) 16:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep Per all above Carter | Talk to me 16:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per ArbCom injunction. Powers ^T 19:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I just EC'd with someone, and that answered my question of whether or not this falls under the arbcom injunction about TV episodes and characters, so the discussion should probably be tagged (I don't know the template for it), even though it looks like it may start snowing soon. However, I don't think that the injunction is really supposed to be used as an argument for keeping, as otherwise there'd be an injunction against bringing the articles to AfD altogether. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was moved to userspace by author, and blanked. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dario de Judicibus

Dario de Judicibus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Dear Sir,

since it looks like several people think that the article at issue should not be in this Wikipedia, I removed the page myself. I moved it in my personal user page and I removed also the automatic redirection from the original article so that it cannot be indexed or searched anymore in Wikipedia.en. I assume this is absolutely correct according to Wikipedia rules.

I do not want to debate about the existence of that page in Wikipedia nor to criticize the opinion of people here, but I was really disappointed by the fact that someone said that I was not a writer or that I never published the books I wrote. I do not think it is correct.

So I took this decision. Thank you everybody. Regards --Dejudicibus (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's really time to delete ALL the post about M. de judicibus (in french, english and italian). please do it to ensure the full credibility to our favorite encyclopedia 90.33.77.151 (talk) 13:44, 9 March 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, apparent vanity entry. Maybe some of his works might be determined to be notable, but even if that occurs, it doesn't automatically confer notability upon him. Powers ^T 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; page history confirms that User:Dejudicibus wrote much or all of this article, and had the audacity to link to his Wikipedia user page in the article itself. If that's not vanity, I don't know what is. (Note that biographies of real Wikipedians, such as Elonka Dunin and Doug Bell, don't link to userspace.) Fails WP:AUTO. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

First, the original article in Italian was NOT written by me, but by a reader of my books. Then, it was completely changed by other wikipedians. I translated the resulting Italian page to English only. As far as linking the article may concern, since the articles exist, I see no reason why I should not link them. For the same reason I link my LinkedIn profile. I am often interviewed by journalists and I found simpler to tell them to look at Wikipedia when they ask for details about me. Vanity is to say that I am the best writer of the world, or that I am a great journalist. I never said that. I do my honest job and that's all. In any case, before you judge me, you should at least read my works.--Dejudicibus (talk) 17:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, for sure vanity entry. Moreover, de judicibus seems to use aliases now to restore his content ! (see italian pages + discussions)--195.68.44.206 (talk) 10:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Here are some aliases : User:Dejudicibus = User:Fragola70... --Jbw2 (talk) 17:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, Thats right. Here is another international spam of Mr Judicibus on the german Wikipedia :

Version vom 18:58, 30. Nov. 2007 (Bearbeiten) (rückgängig) Logograph (Diskussion | Beiträge) K (hat „Dario de Judicibus“ nach „Benutzer:Fragola70/DdJ“ verschoben: zur Überarbeitung) http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer:Fragola70/Dario_de_Judicibus&diff=39547921&oldid=39547917 --82.120.58.56 (talk) 07:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Dear sir,

I received just now a request to reply to a request of deletion in this page. I read what you wrote and it is absolutely false. Here is the list of my publications:

BOOKS
Dario de Judicibus: La Lama Nera, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2006, ISBN 88-344-1882-4
Dario de Judicibus: Le 10 Regole per Vivere Sereni, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2005, ISBN 88-344-1803-4
Dario de Judicibus: Le 10 Regole dei Buoni Genitori, Gruppo Editoriale Armenia, 2003, ISBN 88-344-1505-1
Dario de Judicibus: TCP/IP in Pillole 2a Edizione, Tecniche Nuove, 2002, ISBN 88-481-1441-5
Dario de Judicibus: XML in 6 ore, Tecniche Nuove, 2000, ISBN 88-481-1098-3
Dario de Judicibus: TCP/IP in pillole, Tecniche Nuove, 1999, ISBN 88-481-0798-2

ARTICLES ON MAGAZINES
Dario de Judicibus: 9 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: Internet.Pro, 2005-2006, ISSN 1824-8403
Dario de Judicibus: 136 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: Internet News, 1996-2003, ISSN 1123-6027
Dario de Judicibus: 5 articoli, Tecniche Nuove, in: e-business News, 2000-2002, ISSN 1590-0355
Dario de Judicibus: 45 articoli, MC, in: MC Microcomputer, 1988-1992, ISSN 1123-2714

OTHER ARTICLES (NEWSPAPER AND TECHNICAL)
Dario de Judicibus, Paolo Gerosa: Il valore della gestione elettronica dei documenti, 
FileNET, in: iged.it, 2007, ISSN 1720-6618
Dario de Judicibus: La riforma dell'affido, Avvenire S.p.A., in: Avvenire, 2003
Dario de Judicibus: Knowledge Extended Framework, IBM Technical Bulletin, in: FR8-2002-0119, 2003
Dario de Judicibus: Il ruolo della tecnologia nella gestione della risorsa più preziosa: il tempo,
Edizioni Ritman, in: Logistica Management, 2003, ISSN 1120-3587
Dario de Judicibus: Quando le comunità si fondono: il caso Nextra, IBM, in: OL3, 2002
Dario de Judicibus: La gestione della conoscenza, FileNET, in: iged.it, 2002, ISSN 1720-6618
Dario de Judicibus: Deep-flat Connectors (DFCs), IBM Technical Bulletin, in: GB8-2000-0150, 2001
Dario de Judicibus: Vivilmare 2000, IschiaPrint S.r.l., in: Il Golfo, 2000
Dario de Judicibus: Intellectual Capital Management, IBM, in: Read.me Magazine, 1998
Dario de Judicibus: Reuse Overview, Reuse Technology Support Center, in: Z325-0700-01, 1994
Dario de Judicibus, Susan Henshaw: Expanding a field to fill in more information or clarify its content,
IBM Technical Bulletin, in: RA8-92-0194, 1993
Dario de Judicibus: Re-engineering the Software Development Process, 
IBM Reuse Technology Support Center paper, 1993
Dario de Judicibus: Stacked shells, a multiple workplace shell environment, 
IBM Technical Bulletin, in: IT8-93-0006, 1993
Dario de Judicibus: Reuse: A Cultural Change, School of Computing and Mathematical Sciences, 
in: International Workshop on Systematic Reuse, 1993
Dario de Judicibus: Hypercode: an hypertext approach to programming, IBM, in: SOFT-HYCD-04, 1993
Dario de Judicibus: Lo sviluppo industriale del software., IBM Foundation, 
in: I seminari organizzati, 1989
Dario de Judicibus: Object-Oriented Cookbook: The organization of OO in IBM, IBM, in: OOPS-9005-01, 1990 
R. Nernst, Dario de Judicibus, et al.: OBSERVATION OF THREE P STATES IN THE RADIATIVE DECAY 
OF UPSILON (2S)
American Physics Society, in: Phys.Rev.Lett.54:2195,1985, 1985, ISSN SLAC-PUB-3571
D.P. Barber, Dario de Judicibus, et al.: A PRECISION MEASUREMENT OF THE UPSILON-PRIME MESON MASS, 
American Physics Society, in: Phys.Lett.135B:498,1984, 1983, ISSN DESY 83-067

As you can see I wrote about 200 articles on monthly magazines, so I am a journalist. I also published five books (not self-publishing!) with very well known publishers in Italy (not minor ones) and I am going to publish a sixth one and writing a seventh one (for one of the major publishers in Italy). So I am a writer. I work for IBM since 1986 and I have a reputation of expert in knowledge management and social networking.

Now, I do not care if you decide to keep me in Wikipedia or not. It is up to wikipedians to decide. I am a wikipedian just to contribute for what I know (articles on Italy and on KM, Web 2.0, semantic web, and so forth) and because I believe in Free Internet. But for NO REASON I will accept that someone may say that I am an usurpator. I hope I was very clear. --Dejudicibus (talk) 17:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

You probably used one of the many search engines for ISBN which are based on Amazon. Amazon is providing this service to many sites. However Amazon does not exist in Italy (but it exists in Germany and in France) and you will hardly find ISBN which begins by 88. You have to search in the equivalent of Amazon in Italy like BOL or IBS. You will surely find at least the most recent titles. The XML book is no mor ein catalog since was written many years ago and XML evolved since them. I was writing a new essay but I got a contact with the biggest publisher in Italy and I have a chance to publish a book with it, so I changed my priorities. You can find the covers of my book in one of the social network I attend, NING Publishe Authors. The problem of non English authors is that Internet is more and more the favorite choice of everybody to find info, and most Internet is in English. English is killing the other languages, especially those like Italian are not spoken in many other countries. In few dozens of years only few languages will survive, surely English and Chinese, probably Spanish and French. Even German and Russian are in danger. If you do not write books or articles in English, or sing in English, you risk to disappear. There are a lot of great singers in Italy, France, German, and other European countries that are mostly unknown in the rest of world because they sing in their own language. Wikipedia was great because is one of the few multilanguage initiatives in the web, but it is not only important to have encyclopedias in various languages, but to have multicultural content. If Wikipedia will use as a criteria how much is "famous" somebody in world, soon or later all artists which do not express themselves in English (but the historical ones) will disappear. It is a problem that is not very well known in the English blogsphere, but it is really critical. Just think that if a book writer in Italy sell 100.000 copies is a success like an American author to sell 10.000.000 copies. You can easily understand why more and more Italian singers are singing in English today. The problem for book authors is that if English is not your native language you cannot compete with native writers. But this is a long story and it is not the right place to speak about. In any case, if you still have problem to find my books, I am available to provide links to bookshop catalogs, but privately because this is not the right place to put links to commercial sites.--Dejudicibus (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This person is simply an usurpator : he is neither a journalist (cf. hte previous posts), nor a real author (absolutely not published, no books, no ibsn,...), just a self proclaimed so called web expert ! a blogger beyon millions of other public bloggers !

1. Every expert can (and usually have to) publish articles in magazines and journal (ISSN). That does not mean the expert is a journalist
2. You mention your five books. I've made many search on IBSN databases and well-known libraries unsuccessfully. That's the reason of the doubt I've raised about the work may be not published or self published
3. Should you have written published books, that's not enough to be considered as a relevant wikipedia entry. If all the authors with well know IBSN works, even reference books for famed universities and libraries should be mentioned as well-known authors, considered as major event of their birth year and birth date, we would have a proliferation of wikipedia information and thereby a less relevant quality of the information. As an expert of KM you should understand what I mean....--195.68.44.206 (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Again, I do not want to debate about the fact that my name should be or not in Wikipedia. This is something that has to be decided by Wikipedians. It is not suitable that I speak to defend that page. This is not the way Wikipedia works. Everybody should judge independently. The only criteria is consistency. For example, if someone decides that you must have at least 4 published paper books to be here, that criterion should apply to everybody. But I suppose that good criteria cannot be simply based only on number of publications. As you correctly said, every expert writes many articles in technical journal. However the magazines where I wrote were not technical journals but magazines like BYTE or PC Professional. 200 articles on monthly magazines are a lot of years of collaboration with national-wide publications. I undestand, not so famous as BYTE, but they are Italian one only. Sorry. Not my fault. About ISBN I already replied to you in the previous section. I am honestly worried by what you said, because it is a signal of what's happening. Not your fault of course. You rely on Internet and site like Amazon. Amazon and other reliable sites do not index most of Italian books, you do not find the book, so the book does not exist. So, simply because they are not interested to Italian market establish if a book exists or not. I understand how difficult is to let English people how discouraging is that. Thank's God Italian Wikipedia ha a lot of contributes, but what will happen if we slow down to maintain it? What will happen if Italian wikipedians will stop adding contributes. Today it is that which tell you if your culture exists or not. The day an Italian Wikipedia will disappear, the only Italian people you'll find in the English one will be Dante or Pavarotti, probably. Still today, if you ask an America person the name of an Italian modern singer, they will mention Modugno!!! No mention of De André, De Gregori, Dalla, Guccini, Britti, Povia, and many others. If we disappear from search engines, we will disappear from history. Funny :( --Dejudicibus (talk) 22:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Patrick Joseph Meehan

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Delete Contested prod. Google search shows only 7 ghits outside wikipedia [26]. No significant coverage in secondary or third party reliable source. Fails WP:RS and WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep According to Wikipedia guidelines on notability, the following persons are generally notable: "Politicians who have held international, national or sub-national (statewide/provincewide) office, and members and former members of a national, state or provincial legislature." So, given the importance of the UK, I would argue that all members of the UK House of Commons, at least within the 20th and 21st centuries, are inherently notable. Ghits are not always a useful guide. PatGallacher (talk) 13:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep per PatGallacher. However, it does need some references: at the very least there must be a link to something about him somewhere on the UK Parliament website. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Notable per WP:BIO (service in national elected body). Google Book source. --Michael White^T·C 15:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I am withdrawing my nom per the above arguments. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Mondo Cane (album)

Mondo Cane (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed under the (mistaken) assumption that an album by a notable artist is automatically notable. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep WP:MUSIC says "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia. Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage. Articles and information about albums with confirmed release dates in the near future must be confirmed by reliable sources and should use the {{future-album}} tag."

We have most of that I think. I'll find some more sources if you like, what specifically should I look for? Pwrong (talk) 15:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment In the one reference given, the album in question receives a proportionately small amount of coverage (compared to the entire interview). In fact, it reads to me that he plans on calling the project Mondo Cane but is unsure if he'll use it for the album title as well ("I'm not quite sure what I'm going to call the album, but that's the name of the project and I think I'm going to stick with it."). To show notability there needs to be significant (non-trivial) coverage in independent sources. While the interview given as a references helps establish verifiability, it's not enough for notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Mike Patton is a well-known musician. The crystal ball claim is misleading. WP:CRYSTAL states ""Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation." The information in this article is verifiable. Catchpole (talk) 17:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Mike Patton said in an interview that he's recording an album of covers of '50s and '60s Italian pop songs. That does not mean the album will see release (the crystal ball part) and it does not mean the album has gotten significant coverage (the WP:MUSIC part). At this point in time there is neither enough verifiable information nor independent coverage for the album to have its own article. A brief mention in Mike Patton, sure, but not its own article. When the album comes out or it garners more media attention, the article can easily be re-created. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 17:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete until more concrete information is available. Powers ^T 19:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon (subculture)

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

Notability problem? - Face 12:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as the creator. One source from China Daily and two sources from TVN, Chile's public broadcaster. I do not know Spanish well, so I wish to ask anyone who does to translate those news reports and use the information in them to improve this article. Esn (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - no assertion of notability, no evidence this is a subculture. We don't create articles for every new teenage hairstyle. User forked this content from the real Pokemon article when this argument was used to exclude this unverifiable use of the term "Pokemon" from that article (since it is unrelated to the Nintendo franchise anyway). User is citing Spanish language sources he does not understand, and this article provides little to no context as to what on earth this thing is talking about. WP:NEO may also apply. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I understand those Spanish sources enough to see that the kids are being described as the "pokemones" rather than the Nintendo characters. However, yes, I created the article without fully understanding this thing. I do not live in Chile, I just have a friend who does. I would really like someone to try and improve this article by using those video sources from TVN. As far as "notability" goes, wouldn't that be determined by the mention in several reliable, notable, third-party sources? Esn (talk) 12:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the news. We do not repeat every Chilean 2-minute "OMG look how kids are dressing these days" news clips. --Cheeser1 (talk) 12:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes we do, if it meets the notablity guidelines.. and for someone that doesn't speak spanish to be given bearly two hours to track down sources is ridiculous. Fosnez (talk) 12:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Procedural Keep the article was only 2 hours old when it was nominated for deletion. The sources included seem reliable, and I think the article should be allowed to grow for a few weeks before the next AfD. Fosnez (talk) 12:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: actually, Cheeser1 nominated it for speedy deletion only 23 minutes after its creation. The AFD nomination came later. Esn (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That's what people do when articles fail our criteria for inclusion. There is no grace period for new articles. Either they are acceptable or they aren't. Furthermore, Fosnez missed the fact that this was in discussion long before this article was created because this is a fork of some unencyclopedic content from the main Pokemon article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: When it was on the main Pokemon page, only the China Daily article had been found. I found the TVN reports just before I created the article. However, I'd say that even the China Daily article has some relevant sections. Esn (talk) 13:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sections??? It's six pictures and no news story. What sections are you talking about?? The captions are virtually identical, and at most they establish one thing: kids in Chile dress crazy (gosh, don't kids everywhere do that?) and have goofy names for their cliques (also ubiquitous). --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a short article, but it goes like this (along with captions for individual pictures): Pokemon, the popular Japanese series of cartoon characters whose name comes from the combination of the words "pocket" and "monster", is the most popular new wave among the Chilean youth, who dress and make up their hair accordingly and gather at afternoon reggaeton dance parties. 1) A Chilean girl dressed in a style known as Pokemon poses at a public square in Santiago. 2) A member of a group known as Pokemon combs his friend's hair outside a subway station in Santiago 3) Youths following a style known as Pokemon dance in a discotheque in Santiago 4) Members of a group known as Pokemon gather outside a discotheque in Santiago Esn (talk) 13:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some of the pictures showed quite large groups of people. Obviously it is very short, but it comes from a very notable source. I thought that this would be enough to hold the article over until more sources came along. Then I found the TVN sources, which seemed to confirm it. Esn (talk) 13:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've already explained to you once that you are completely misunderstanding notability, which has nothing to do with sources. Please familiarize yourself with policy before citing it. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Significant coverage in two TV news reports found so far and an article in China Daily. Isn't that enough for now? And besides, notability alone should never be the sole reason for deleting an article; it is a guideline, not a policy. Especially when some reliable third-party sources do consider this notable. Esn (talk) 13:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

notability alone should never be the sole reason for deleting an article - clearly you are unfamiliar with the AfD process. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the creator of an article doesn't fully understand the AfD process (due to being away from the wiki for a couple of months and forgetting some basic rules) is irrelevant to the AfD process in question, because the wealth of sources which were recently found already indicate notability. Esn (talk) 01:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I just found the discussion on the Pokémon talk page. I'm gonna watch this before !voting again.Fosnez (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Bloody hell I have walked into the middle of a shitfight here havn't I! Fosnez (talk) 13:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment (edit conflict) Well, that's exactly why I made this nomination: to have others take a (neutral) look at it. We need some calm water here. - Face 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Chester1 Cheeser1 has already accused me of it on that talk page, so I'll defend myself here: It was not my intention to disrupt wikipedia to illustrate a point. The reason I created this article (and abandoned trying to add it to the main Pokemon article) was because Chester1 Cheeser1 said that the notability guidelines apply only to articles, not to portions of articles. I assumed he meant that he did not want this in the Pokemon article because it was unrelated to the Nintendo characters, which is why I decided to start a new article and not attempt to add this information to the existing article. I had a fairly good notion that he would try to delete it as soon as he saw it, but I figured that AFD would be a great way to improve this article; to get many different people to look at it (functionally, this is often the best use of AFD; it gets many people to look at an article who would otherwise not have bothered). So, if anything, I was trying to improve wikipedia, not disrupt it. Esn (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The AfD process is not the place for you to seek help in improving this "article." Also, please take the time to spell my name correctly. If you don't want to look like you're disrupting Wikipedia, don't take obviously hypothetical suggestions like "you may as well create a Pokemon subculture article" as your opportunity to say Ok, you win. I'll just quietly disappear now... From this article, anyway. (Ellipses added since you added the second part later.) That's plenty more than I had to say on this matter. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

With all do respect Cheeser, but I do think you could use a small break. You sound pretty frustrated. - Face 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit frustrating when the consensus on the Pokemon article was that this was unsubstantiated, non-notable, unencyclopedic musings, but when it gets forked away from that consensus and I bother to try to fix the situation, I get the run around as if I'm persecuting this poor subculture. This "article" is nonsense, it has on content, no context, no verifiability, no encyclopedic merit and was created when somebody decided to fork out nonsense content from the original Pokemon article when consensus determined that not only was it not Wiki-worthy, it had nothing to do with that article. If that's not a reason to delete an article, I don't know what is. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

There was no consensus, Cheeser1. You were against including it, I was for, and two other people weren't sure. Esn (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm sorry about the name - this was not intentional. Keep in mind that I may well have found a different way to improve this article had you not immediately nominated it for CSD. I would have called in some editors who understood Spanish and asked for their help. I honestly thought that the article, stubbish as it was, had enough reliable sources to survive until that time. I didn't think that your suggestion was hypothetical; I realized that you were being sarcastic, but I also thought that it could be a good idea. I did briefly decide to just forget about this, but I changed my mind a bit later. I do stand by the other part of what I said, though: I won't attempt to edit the main Pokemon article. Esn (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I do live in Chile, and can corroborate that this is in fact a relevant phenomenon in youth culture, social branding, stereotyping and marketing oriented identity construction in Chilean contemporary society. Unlike other youth trends, in Chile or anywhere, "pokemones" has the particularity that, as a historical phenomenon, is one of the most interesting cases of labeling and social branding i (as a sociologist) have witnessed. I don't have the time to explain further here, but i just wanted to let you people know that the fact that you don't spaek english is no reasson to determine that some topic is gibberish. This is a respectable local phenomenon, and just as well as we have articles about different cultural trends and their impact, there's no reasson to delete this article, apart from (US, english speaking) etnocentricity. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"I can back this up with anecdotes because I live there" is not a valid keep rationale. --Cheeser1 (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you tell us what they're saying in those two sources from TVN, Gorgonzola? Esn (talk) 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think we have to wait for that translation, as Gorgonzola/Bukharin said that he/she hasn't got the time now. - Face 13:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to direct all participants to Gorgonzola's recent comments on the talk page (13:56, 10 March 2008). Esn (talk) 14:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Found another source by googling "pokemones" and "pelolais". This one is from Canal 13 (Chile). It describes them as one of Chile's "urban tribes": "The Pokemones dress very similar to those Emos. Pants fallen very, very produced hairstyles and haircuts that seem tijereteados, chaquillas chuecas and much gel, but unlike the Emos are not depressive enjoy the holidays and reggaeton." Esn (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

A great source. Emos are depressive and They call themselves Emos because they are very connected to their emotions, on the verge of depression. That's obviously a highly reliable source. Those are the kinds of sources that were summarily rejected when Emo (subculture) was not only consensus-backed as "do not create" but Emo (slang) was deleted entirely. And at least that one had more sources. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted? Hmm, ok. Well, although this is apparently Chile's 2nd largest TV station, it does look a lot like MTV (that is, very "pop" and not very reliable). Well, I'll try to find something else Esn (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge the one sentence this article contains into the "Cultural influence" section of the Pokémon article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  What does it have to do with Pokemon though? --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  You caught me in an edit conflict. --Pixelface (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, after looking at the China Daily "source", I am convinced this has nothing whatsoever to do with Pokemon. --Pixelface (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

And who ever said that it did? This is not an article about the Nintendo franchise.Esn (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Read his first comment. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because one topic has the same name as another one else does not mean that an article shouldn't exist about it. Pixelface, I don't think that this is enough justification. Esn (talk) 14:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This page at chinadaily.com say "Youths following a style known as Pokemon dance in a discotheque in Santiago January 16, 2008. Pokemon, the popular Japanese series of cartoon characters whose name comes from the combination of the words "pocket" and "monster", is the most popular new wave among the Chilean youth, who dress and make up their hair accordingly and gather at afternoon reggaeton dance parties." Is the name of this subculture pronounced differently? I have to say I'm a bit confused here. What is this article talking about and where does the information come from? --Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Here, I just found this article. That should clear it up a little. It's, according to that article, currently the most widespread of Chile's urban tribes. Esn (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It has been determined time and again that journalists are poor sociologists. "Most widespread" requires more than speculation. How did they determine that? When? Compared to what? Urban tribe, subculture, and who is this person writing the article? Do they have the authority to make claims about sociology? Is this the same person who's going to tell us that emos worship death? Because I'll find you a newspaper article for that one if you want. --Cheeser1 (talk) 14:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try and correct that. I also found a Reuters article. Esn (talk) 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I've struck out my merge and delete comments for now. The translated Reuters article is somewhat helpful, but more English-language sources would be appreciated. --Pixelface (talk) 15:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment, I don't think we'll find many English sources, for the simple reason that this is an important yet local phenomenon within a small country whose main language is not English. Google does an OK job of translating the Spanish articles, though. Esn (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Seems like a good article to me. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment OK folks, I'm taking a break. Hopefully this article can survive for the next 24 hours or so without me. :) Esn (talk) 15:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. Wow, from reading various talk pages, a lot of people have strong opinions on this one. I'm not one of them, so I'll just remain neutral. Useight (talk) 15:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Ok, sorry folks, last comment for a while... I found a few more potential noteworthy articles (I'm not sure yet which of them would actually be considered notable): [27], [28], [29]. (that last one looks rather ominous...) Esn (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: some sources, two minutes googling in chilean media:

• Column about discrimation an violence against "pokemones", with comments by Claudio Duarte, Director, Sociology Departament, Universidad de Chile.

http://www.universia.cl/portada/actualidad/noticia_actualidad.jsp?noticia=127020

• News report, Pokemones beaten by Skinheads and Nazi-punks

http://www.lun.com/modulos/catalogo/paginas/2008/01/28/LUCSTDI02LU2801.htm

• "Plan anti poke-eva", a "plan" for the abolition of pokemones, thru direct attacks at "El Diario de Eva", a popular ptv-show very popular among pokemones.

http://www.wikipediars.com/wiki/Plan_anti_poke-eva

• Video form the tv-show "en boca de todos", of the conservative catholic station (canal 13) criticizing the lax morals of pokemones. This has been a sharp point of debate, because of the pokemon practice of "ponceo", which is, roughly, to got out and make out with as much people as you can. In the views if Chile's very conservative stablishment, this is moral outrage.

http://enbocadetodos.wordpress.com/2008/01/10/pokemones/

Now, from my "personal experience"... This is not just "another teen trend". believe me, chilean teens love fashion trends, and every year theres is a new one (sk8ers, raperos, hardcores, capoeiristas, lanas, etc), but i had never seen a teen trend that 1.- is so clearly the result of media pushed stereotyping, 2.- has incited such a deep and heated moral debate about the sexual habits of our youth 3.- has sparked concerted campaigns to take violent action *purely* on the basis of style and fashion reassons, as opposed to political reassons, like the traditional beatings of punks and neonazis. I can translate the above if necessary, and if i find the time. Gorgonzola (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Kids get beat up for how they dress. That's new? --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I will again reiterate that this reeks of Emo (slang), which was deleted by consensus as a nonsense WP:OR/WP:SYNTH-fest. I'm so bothered by how this article should have been nipped in the bud when somebody said "hey, let's not put this nonsense into the Pokemon article" and instead we've got a big, growing pile of "this is a subculture, look at how many news articles about it we can find" nevermind how reliable or sociologically sound those journalists / bloggers happen to be. --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

so your argument for deletion is? this is a chilean subculture. How is that in itself reason enough to delete it? there are plenty of good and pertinent articles about subcultures, like casuals, chav,gamer,hipster, juggalo (!), lad culture, lolitas, otakus, pachuco, preppy, teddy boy, teenybopper, wigger, etc. THIS IS GOOD! Subcultures are part of human knowledge, and having entries for them in an encyclopedia does not make such encyclopedia a database.

even although i believe that as a subculture it has enough notability, i also think that this particular subculture is even more interesting because of the impact it has had in chilean media and society in general.

all the above has been supported with sources that prove that this is not my personal experience only, although i believe that, as a chilean, my personal experience can be of help to put the article together and look for further references.

so please, what are the reassons that make this particular subculture article a suitable candidate for deletion?

Gorgonzola (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

In response to Cheeser1: Has the U.S. government started a campaign to stop discrimination against emos? If so, you'd have a comparison. Second of all, I'll note that the person who said "hey, let's not put this nonsense into the Pokemon article" was you, and the emo article still has a section about the recent usage of the word, despite, I'm assuming, your best efforts. You still haven't said how this differs from other subculture articles which Gorgonzola mentioned above. Esn (talk) 17:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for the time being the article appears to have adequate references but not easy to check. However, in principle I don't see a problem with a having an article on a Chilean youth fashion even if it turns out to be short lived. Also I don't want to be attacked by Chilean Pikachus.Nick Connolly (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Looks notable enough to me. The Reuters article alone would be enough for me to recommend a provisional keep. Powers ^T 18:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I don't get it - they don't look like Pokemon. Is China Daily confused and mixing them up with emos? Anyway, the article already has better sources than most maths articles so that's a keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not directly related to the Nintendo characters. The word just somehow ended up getting applied to them, apparently first as an insult and then as an accepted description. Esn (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Very weak keep based on the sources, and rename to Pokemones. --Pixelface (talk) 16:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Naming is a bit tricky. The only English-language source says "a style known as Pokemon" (yes, the accent on the "e" will have to go in any case). "Pokemones" is used only in Spanish so far, so we'd be creating a new English word if we were to call it that. We could possibly make clear in the article that they are called "Pokemones" in Spanish. Question for Spanish-speakers: is the normal plural for "Pokemon" in Spanish also "Pokemon"? Esn (talk) 03:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment with reagrds to the japanese anime, at least in chile, they are pronounced with an emphasis in the last sylable, wich would normally be written with an accent, according to the spanish rules af written accentuation (acute word ending in N). Since this is a proper name, normal rules wouldn't apply, so the name of the series is written however the producers want to write it in romaji, i guess. I don't know anything about the plural, i think i have never heard of it, but i can find out. NOTE: i'm no language expert. I'm no pokemon (anime) expert either.

With regards to the chilean subculture, in wich the word has lost its semantic relation to the original meaning, and we would be in presence of a neologism, the correct spealling would be "Pokemón", plural "Pokemones", because being that this is a generic term and no longer a proper noun, normal rules of accentuation should come into effect.

Finally, i am not sure if the article should be titled "pokemón (subculture)" or "pokemones (subculture)". A thik the first is correct, in keeping consistency with other subculture articles.

Coincidentally, i happen to know a chilean linguist specialized in phonetics. i'll see if i can get him to take a look at this. ps: should we talk this here or in the article talk page?. Gorgonzola (talk) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue for the talk page. This discussion is just for keeping or removing the content. Powers ^T 14:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - the references are sufficient to show notability. U$er (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep references appear to meet WP:N. I've no objection to a name change but don't know to what. Hobit (talk) 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Non-notable on its own, and the information is already available at Grayson Space Navy; no-one is going to be typing in this article name as a search. What I have done, though, is to alter the High Admiral dab page to direct the reader to the above. Black Kite 18:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

High Admiral (Honorverse)

High Admiral (Honorverse) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A fictional rank whose definition is apparent from name, unsourced, non-notable plot summary. No independent notability (WP:N), does not follow WP:WAF. Written from a in universe perspective. (Was a prod, but has previously been deleted via prod.) Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 12:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; non-notable. FWIW, I prod-2'd this. I had not seen the prior article or looked at the log. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Grayson Space Navy or related article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (or Merge) - I loved the books, and I'm pleased to see the series well represented here, but this seems too much like cruft for my tastes. It would work better as a line or two as per Slideshow Bob's suggestion. - Bilby (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - I hadn't noticed the age of the article, which was foolish of me: I should have checked. I would normally recommend more time for an article. My problem is that while the position is a central one to the novels (the various High Admirals play significant roles in many of the books), and thus having a mention of the role makes sense, I would have thought that it was the characters who held the role that were really significant. Given this I can see a merge making sense, but I can't see this article growing into much beyond a paragraph or two, unless it cannibalizes (or duplicates) material which would be better placed in the discussions of the characters. And if it can't grow, then maybe it should be part of Grayson Space Navy. - Bilby (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge into Grayson Space Navy or related article. Great books.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per notability and verfiability and consistency with a specialized encyclopedia on Honorverse. Delete "rationales" seem to be Wikipedia:ITSCRUFT and Wikipedia:PERNOM. Also, the article is only TWO DAYS old and has been improved since then. We should allow editors more than just two days to build an article, especially because Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The entire article says, "High Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander of the Grayson Space Navy." Well duh, an Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander in navies. The rest of the article talks about Wesley Matthews who could have his own page that could say the same thing. Therefore it is "[a] fictional rank whose definition is apparent from name[.]" Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is a mere two days old. We should not expect it to have to be more than a stub but two days after its creation. Look at how this article looked when first created versus its Mario current version. It usually takes time for editors to write and revise good articles. Two days is not a reasonable amount of time to allow readers for something that does not have a deadline. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

How are we to find articles that should be deleted if not new page patrol? Random article patrol is to random to be effective and many of the articles that need to be deleted are orphaned, uncategorized, and not marked for clean up. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 18:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

New page patrol is for hoaxes, personal attacks, and copy vios, or otherwise nonsense articles. An article that is a stub and is not an obvious hoax, not a copy vio, not a personal attack deserves time to possible expand. There is no "need" to delete this particular article. We are here to write a comprehensive encyclopedia, not find articles to delete. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's see. On March 8th, the same person created new pages for six different classes of ships from the Honorverse. And with comments such as 'We can assume', and '(Note: At this time, the SLN should be considered 2nd class. They don't have anywhere near the firepower represented by a pod-laying ship. This could be subject to change if the SLN woke up and smelled the proverbial coffee.)' I can't recall, but I think there are some more classes. And all the planets. Etc. I think I have every book, but this is getting ridiculous.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That reads more like a case of Wikipedia:SOFIXIT than AfD, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

They are all already covered in various other articles. If this isn't, it should be.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Then, that would mean that we would merge and redirect the article without deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No, then, the article has no usable information and should be deleted. Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 20:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I see no rationale for an outright deletion in this case, i.e. a decsive decision that could benefit the project. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

What article would we redirect to? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Honorverse, List of Rankings, or something. I'm sure we could come up with something reasonable, but again, the young age of the article still strikes me as we should give editors some time to definitively indicate that no sources are to be found before just writing it off. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

If an article should not be on Wikipedia why do it matter that that it has only been degrading Wikipedia or a few days instead of years? Zginder ^{(talk) (Contrib)} 00:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I really don't think stubs actually degrade Wikipedia. We humans have reached a stage in our development where just about anything has some kind of sources on it and as our population continues to grow, so does the segments of the population that finds any random topic or aspect of a larger topic notable. Even if the article never improved, its existence does not somehow detract from an article on say Basset hounds or Napoleon. Because Wikipedia is paperless, we don't have to worry about the same presentational issues that face a book. But even then, you take a printed encyclopedia (say The Harper Encyclopedia of Military Biography) and you'll have maybe a page on Alexander or Caesar and only one sentence on some less well-known general, but that doesn't mean that the guy who gets one sentence is necessarily "unencyclopedic" or that the overall quality of that book is rendered less than it would be without that sentence. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I do not think that stubs degrade Wikipedia rather that articles that only state the obvious, that can be easy derived from other articles by using common sense, degrade Wikipedia. I can see it now: "Do you know why Wikipedia has over 2.5 million articles?" "No, why" "Because they have articles that only say: 'High Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander of the Grayson Space Navy.'" "Well duh, an Admiral is the rank of the Military Commander in navies. Wikipedia the fraud!"

I'm not too worried about anyone who wants to criticize WIkipedia for having such articles. I'm far more concerned that we do not discourage editors from contributing by deleting their good faith contributions or diminish our ability to catalog human knowledge. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this isn't even notable within the book series. It's just a fictional job description and doesn't further our understanding. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Does it differ from other kinds of admirals? If so, it furthers our undertsnading. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

No, it does not. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Even then the decision would be to merge/redirect without deleting. There is absolutely no compelling reason to delete and certainly no benefit to our project by doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This line of argumentation you are using it part of your larger agenda to save all fiction-related articles. As such, it violates the spirit of the arbcom ruling. Blast Ulna (talk) 02:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

So are you saying that you have a larger agenda to delete all fiction-related articles in violation of the arbcom ruling? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Blast Ulna is clearly not saying that, and I am sure you know it. This argument is ridiculous. The it about the High Admiral should be in the Grayson Space Navy article. It fits there logically and rounds it out and as far as I am concerned, as an Honorverse fan, that works better for me. Now I may have just transgressed against protocal and if so I'll undo it, but Wikipedia:SOFIXIT was mentioned, and so in that spirit (I think)--Doug Weller (talk) 08:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) I have incorporated the bit about the High Admiral into the Grayson Space Navy article, something which I think it should have included anyway.

Comments he made in the ArbCom case suggest such ideology on his part. If you believe that this information can be successfully merged and the article redirected without deletion, I would support such efforts as a fair and reasonable compromise. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I think it is worth noting that I have a mix of delete, merge and keep comments at AfD, whereas Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles consistently argues to keep every article that he has ever seen, and (worse) argues endlessly, as can be seen here. This behavior must stop, as it is disruptive. Blast Ulna (talk) 12:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Your dishonestly and misrepresentation of facts needs to stop immediately as do your weak arguments. For the record, I actually argue to delete a good deal of articles, consider yesterday alone: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], etc., i.e. at least five delete arguments I made in a row. I prefer spending my time improving articles and spreading Wiki-love by welcoming new users and making other positive contributions, which has netted me a good deal of nice feedback and support (see here and here). As far as discussing thoroughly in AfDs, well, there's a reason we no longer call it "Votes" for Deletion. We are encouraged to discuss the articles' merits. Spirited disucssion is perfectly acceptable and should not be squashed. There's plenty of times I may disagree with someone, even strongly, as others do with me, but that doesn't mean at the end of the day we aren't "cool" with each and ultimately respectful. In any event, I urge you to stick to the topic at hand and not distract from it with inaccurate Ad hominem mistatements. If you wish to discuss the article constructively, then that's what we do in AfD, or at least are suspposed to do. If you wish to make mean and dishonest comments about others, refrain from doing so. And on one last note, if you ever want help improving, referencing, and expanding an article, let me know as that's why we're here, not to diminish our collection of human knowledge, but to catalog it in the most effective means possible. Anyway, to get back on focus, I still think the article can be either saved or merged into an article on Honorverse rankings. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Update: Apparently the above post I made has borne fruit! Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete as lacking evidence of notability vie reliable sourcing. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't see any evidence that it isn't notable or that sources don't exist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Please show us that you aren't really trolling by providing sources that show that it is notable. If that isn't what you meant, then you really are trolling.--Doug Weller (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
      • I urge you to remember to assume good faith. As I say on my user page, I do not feed the trolls. Anyway, check here. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The High Admiral information is now where it should be, part of the Grayson Space Navy article, it doesn't need an article of its own.--Doug Weller (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Then if we merged it, we need to redirect this article without deleting it per the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. and Blast Ulna. Given that the information is in Grayson Space Navy I can't see the need for a redirect: someone anxious to know about Honorverse High Admirals will surely be able to find the information. JohnCD (talk) 10:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Just as a minor procedural point, the article was merged with Grayson Space Navy during the AfD debate. I'm not sure if that was wise, nor what it means for the AfD process. Thus there may still be a case for redirect (or even keep), although, as you say, people will find it there either way. - Bilby (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  I admitted doing that above somewhere, probably twice. Many apologies if that broke protocol. I do think it belongs there no matter what else happens, but if you aren't supposed to touch an article related to an AfD debate, I made a mistake and would be happy to undo it if no one else wants to.--Doug Weller (talk) 12:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment If I understand things correctly, the guidelines don't specifically prohibit duplicating the content during the AfD process - so long as you mention that you did so (you did) and that you are ready to delete it from the new location, should consensus decide to delete. My only concern here is the "it duplicates existing material" argument, when it didn't duplicate existing material when the AfD was started. :) I'm happy with merge, and would rather it was left in Grayson Space Navy, as per JohnCD and others. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  This is hardly a minor point as it undermines this whole process. If this article is deleted, I will be sure to remove the copy per this discussion. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Since I said I would, I don't see the problem. If it is not prohibted and I publicly said I did it, I don't really see how it could have undermined the whole process. Which is a real tempest in a teapot (IMHO of course) which is why I did what I did.--Doug Weller (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• • The need for the redirect is, due to the merge, the GFDL. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete — no reliable sources produced to demonstrate notability of the subject. Indeed, many arguments were made that sources cannot be found for conlangs — however, this was disputed by the demonstration that sources do exist for some, notable ones. As such, the argument that guidelines should be ignored is not compelling. --Haemo (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Verdurian language

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language
• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Verdurian language (3rd nomination)

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

This constructed language claims to be quite well known in the conlang community but I have failed to find any coverage whatsoever in reliable secondary sources. All Ghits [35] are personal web pages, wikis and the like. Although this article survived a previous AfD, it did not address this issue. Snthdiueoa (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The article doesn't cite sources, and if the nominator can't find any, then we're left with original research. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Ptcamn (talk) 21:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I would like to contradict the statement made by the originator of this AfD. Because I see a whole lot of google hits [36] for Verdurian that are not wikis, personal web pages, or "the like". I can state with a reasonable degree of confidence that many of these sites are not run by people who are just friends of Mark Rosenfelder. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Please could you provide us with a specific selection of such hits that meet Wikipedia's criteria on reliable sources? As far as I can see, none of them do. Being unrelated to Mark Rosenfelder is not good enough: they need to be sources that have a reputation for fact checking and accuracy (e.g. scholarly journals etc.) Snthdiueoa (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well of course you arent going to find anything like that on a conlang. Not even the big ones like Klingon get much mention in linguistics journals. But if youre going to use that strict of an interpretation of WP:RS, that effectively bars not just Verdurian, and not just all conlangs, but all non-academic content from Wikipedia. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, I just gave scholarly journals as one example of reliable sources. Newspaper articles, books by publishing houses that have some form of editorial control (ie not vanity publishers), and so on, can also help establish notability. 62.136.34.82 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you pick a source criterion and stick to it. It was mentioned in Le Monde, among others. Slac speak up! 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

My source criteria are WP:RS and have not changed. Please can you provide us with references to where it was mentioned so that we can verify that these mentions are non-trivial. 213.208.81.149 (talk) 08:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Pthag (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, as notable, or else delete all reference to internet conlangs, furries, etc. Slac speak up! 06:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The issue at stake is not whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but whether there are any reliable third party sources for Verdurian in particular. Any Internet conlangs that can satisfy WP:WEB in their own right can stay. So far, however, no reliable sources whatsoever have been forthcoming for Verdurian. Snthdiueoa (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. As I've said before, you can't judge conlangs by the same standards as for example pop music. It's not something newspapers, scientific journals and other media talk about a lot. Especially when the language in question is a work of art. Yet, from time to time it happens. If it's true that Le Monde wrote about it, that's an excellent reason to keep the article. Even if not, that still doesn't change the fact that Verdurian is a well-respected and well-known conlang; and one of the bigger and older ones to that. Besides, 8940 ghits is a lot! Has nom. really gone through all of these to establish that not a single one directs to anything else but the author's website, mailing lists, wikis or blogs? —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No but these are the standards that Wikipedia requires in order to fulfil the criteria of no original research and verifiability. If Le Monde really has written about it, someone will be able to give us a link to the article concerned. It's certainly not true that other conlangs don't get written about: Esperanto and Klingon are most definitely the subject of non-trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources all over the place. And as for the number of Google hits, that is one of the arguments listed in WP:ATA as invalid arguments in deletion debates. All we need are non-trivial references in reliable secondary sources, and it doesn't take many to carry the day -- it seems that two or three often suffice -- but so far the number that we have is zero. Snthdiueoa (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the Le Monde article mentioned is this. As you can see, it's just a brief mention, not something that could be used as a source. --Ptcamn (talk) 18:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Just one sentence? Clearly trivial and insufficient. Snthdiueoa (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Verdurian is among the most well-known conlangs and is notable in the conlang community. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 21:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but going by Wikipedia's notability criteria -- coverage in reliable secondary sources -- this is simply not true. A search of Google News will give you some comparison with other conlangs. Esperanto: about 13,300 [37], Klingon: about 6,020 [38], Lojban: about 23 [39], Quenya: about 185 [40], Verdurian: zero. [41]. The assertion that Verdurian is among the most well known conlangs simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Snthdiueoa (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --Haemo (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Howling Creek

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

Crystal ballery about a non-notable horror movie. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Needs fleshing out, but could a good article. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find anything connecting this director to this film or anything about this film being in production. Also, I can't seem to find anything of note about the book series. WP:N WP:RS WP:CRYSTAL--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, no evidence this film exists or will ever exist. --Pixelface (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• And Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising, nor a place for speculation. --Pixelface (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per lack of notability, essentially. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

InfoCepts

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

This article has already been speedy deleted twice as blatant spam. The latest incarnation is a lot less overtly promotional, but I still think that there are significant WP:CORP issues here that need to be addressed. 149 Ghits which is pretty low for an IT Consulting firm, especially when most of thise hits seem to just be various job vacancy advertisments placed by the company.

The most recent speedy tag placed on the article was removed without comment by User:Abhose, but to their credit they have at least trimmed most of the blatant advertising out of it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please let us know the point where you think we are violating the wikipedia criteria so that it will be easy for us to edit the content as required- abhose

please highlight the content, you think is not coming in wikipedia's criteria, thanks... abhose

Delete as advertising: Wikipedia is not the place to promote your company. It needs coverage in reliable secondary sources (ie that are independent of the subject) in order to meet Wikipedia's criteria for verifiability and no original research. Snthdiueoa (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

InfoCepts is doing notably good in the field of Datawarehousing and BI field. One thing people should know about infocepts is that while working at remote location at Nagpur in Maharashtra(India) where not much significant companies are presents still this organization is doing good and providing the boost to the local environment to highlight this region on the global map.We are considering the revison, Thanks.... abhose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 13:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep The article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Sсοττ5834^talk 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Delete WP:RS WP:N All I can find is this from the Washington Business Journal [42] and although they mention infocepts in the article it's just a passing quote from one of the key personnel. I've also found this video about their HR strategy from B-Eye [43] although I don't know enough about B-Eye to claim them as reliable.Maybe someone can shed some light on that.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete WP:RS. If the company's as successful and growing as they claim someone will eventually write an article about them. Until then it's spam. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We have revised the content to make it mere informative. Please dont consider it's spam. As infocepts has become a favourite destination of younge talent pool in this region which is the good remark for its work in this region. Though infoepts doesnt highlightd much in informative sources, still we think you should consider the visionary efforts of the InfoCepts....Thanks Abhose —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Revised or not there is still a sourcing issue with this article, if you can find sources that meet WP:N and WP:RS I would gladly change my mind to support you.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 12:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration…. InfoCepts works on the Business Intelligence (BI) Technology which is a niche field. By the Technology profile, we are the only company of Central India which works in this field. More importantly InfoCepts is a consulting and education partner of MicroStrategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MicroStrategy) which is a respected name and a global leader in Business Intelligence. (http://www.microstrategy.com/Partners/Directory/detail.asp?id=161).

Also InfoCepts is the only Authorized Training centre of MicroStrategy in India. InfoCepts is also proud to be a part of the Micro Strategy’s major international events every year (please refer http://www.microstrategy.com/Events/MicroStrategyWorld2008/index.asp?CID=2604b0 ).

We agree that InfoCepts currently does not have as many secondary sources as other organizations. This is primarily because the company is less than 4 years old and works on a niche field which everyone does not know about. If you still think that not having a lot of secondary sources is an issue, we would be happy to withdraw the listing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhose (talk • contribs) 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually up to me to ask you to withdraw, but Wikipedia REQUIRES secondary and sources to establish notability (the bar that wikipedians have set to decide what should be covered and what shouldn't). Please read WP:CORP and if you feel your company can satisfy the guidelines there should be no reason not to include it. That said, I think there is going to be a big issue of finding what wikipedia considers reliable sources, please read WP:RS. You've said that your company is young and I'm sure if the work you're doing is as cutting edge as you assert you can always reopen the article at a later date when more sources become available, provided it's not a WP:COI.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was deleted by User:Haemo per WP:CSD#G6. Non-admin procedural close. --jonny-mt 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

FlyArmenia

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

No evidence exists that such a company exists. No orders exist with any of the aircraft manufacturers mentioned. It is a hoax pure and simple; an airline founded in 2008, but expecting its first aircraft in June 2007? Russavia (talk) 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 11:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any verifying sources, the article does not meet WP:V. Slideshow Bob (talk) 15:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment They have an official cite, but thats all that I found. http://flyarmenia.com VartanM (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Even the aviation enthusiasts are doubting in this airline's existence [44]. Website is showing a very ambitious flight schedule for an upstart airline. Since the only source is the airline's website, and well-founded doubts have called that source into question, the article fails to meet WP:V. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Avitya in the talkpage[45] VartanM (talk) 17:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Young Democrats of North Carolina

Young Democrats of North Carolina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable state federation of Young Democrats of America--RedShiftPA (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Merge into a List of state Democrat organisations.-- TreasuryTag talkcontribs 19:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:ORG as has been done for similar state federations. After deletion, consider a redirect to Young Democrats of America to discourage re-creation of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The Young Democrats of North Carolina was the founding chapter of the Young Democrats of America, they are an historic chapter with 80 years of history with notable state leaders such at Governor Jim Hunt and U.S. Senator Terry Sanford as past Young Democrats of North Carolina presidents. This historic value of this organization alone is enough of a reason not to delete it. --Kalliope O'Donnell (talk) 21:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep It's clearly properly referenced. We should encourage them for all states and all parties. Deleting this for one of the two major parties in the US is absurd. Eclecticology (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/Redirect with/to North Carolina Democratic Party - this isn't particularly notable in and of itself. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 11:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:ORG. We don't need articles on every state caucus of the Young Democrats of America. --Dhartung | Talk 22:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The Young Democrats of North Carolina predates the Young Democrats of America. Does wikipedia have some policy that bigger is better? See discussion on the page for verification of this standard: "An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Ncperspective (talk) 02:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS. There was no need for all this relisting; it is plain that there is no settled opinion on what to do with the article. Note also that the injunction is now lifted with the closure of the case in question. -Splash - tk 00:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

List of Shortland Street episodes

List of Shortland Street episodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is about episodes of a soap opera that is slow moving and airs daily. The page is already very out of date and I don't think it's fesable or nessecery to have an article about every single episode of a daily sopera opera. Perhaps an article for a few notable episodes yes, but not every single episode that has aired. As far as I know, no other soaps do that. IvanKnight69 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep for now, per above notice. shoy 01:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Well, with the injunction in place, might I suggest an alternative option, which would be to consider the purpose of the page, and how to best do it. I certainly agree that a list of all episodes would be problematic (I've said so about Soaps before), but it would not be unfitting to have some sort of article on the episodes of the shows, such as has been done for other series. I recommend looking for a better way to do things instead of deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 01:42, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I first encountered this page about three months ago and asked at Wikipedia_talk:Television_episodes/Archive_4#List_of_episodes_of_daily_soaps what should happen with it, and got the reply that a story arc summary or year arc summary would work better. I think this is the best solution. I also think an episode list like this is unverifiable, so I am more in favor of deletion/redirection instead of keeping (consider this a vague recommendation). – sgeureka ^t•c 02:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete (once the injunction is lifted). This list is incomplete (there are around 4,000 episodes from 1992-2006 which aren't listed and probably never will be, and the list hasn't been updated since September 2007). Where they exist, the descriptions in this article are brief to the point of uselessness: "Craig sees the bully within. Hunter makes a sacrifice. Claire takes a tumble." (episode 3769) is a fortune cookie, not an episode summary. Finally, the events of the soap are already covered much more thoroughly in Storylines of Shortland Street and subarticles, so we aren't even losing anything by deleting this. Zetawoof_(ζ) 22:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
• Reorganize once the injunction is lifted, in the manner suggested by Sgeureka. Articles on the seasons would be much more useful. DGG (talk) 11:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • They already exist. See Storylines of Shortland Street, as I mentioned above. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:09, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as per Zetawoof. The info here is a poor poor cousin to what already exists.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 01:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete because of reasons already listed above.Adabow (talk) 07:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 14:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
• Refit per User:sgeureka above. An episode listing like this is clearly not appropriate for a slow-moving soap opera such as this. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep - despite unquestionable sincerity and good faith of nomination, knowingly nominating in the face of an arbcom injunction shows jawdroppingly defective judgement, such as to question value of any nomination from this nominator - David Gerard (talk) 15:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Do you think it's possible that not every single person on Wikipedia is aware of the arbcom case? Metros (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Or that not everyone considers the injunction as a request to ignore problematic articles. The injunction only says that the articles should not be deleted, not that they should not be discussed - and, given that the case is one vote away from closing, it hopefully won't be long until it's no longer a concern at all. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • This is untrue and unfair. The injunction only prevents deletion, not discussion. So far, discussion is all that has occured, and there is an informal consensus that we can discuss these things on AfD so long as they're not deleted in accordance with the injunction. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
        • Slow down - we're in agreement here. :) My point is exactly that the injunction only prevents the discussion from being closed - until it's lifted (which shouldn't be long), we can discuss it all we want. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Reply, as noted on your talk page, my comment was directed to User:David Gerard, not to you =). Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
• Keep. Any TV series which deserves an article deserves a list of episodes. It needs expansion to include all episodes (if possible), and should probably be broken up per season (or some other division). Whether further information can be found (or is available) about the earlier episodes shouldn't determine whether we keep or delete this. --Oldak Quill 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) PS. There are independent sources available which list episodes per season (e.g. IMDb, TV.com, tvnz.co.nz). --Oldak Quill 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. The missing episodes only show how fragile information can be. New Zealand is a small country, and it's not up to us foreigners to tell New Zealanders what's notable for them. Eclecticology (talk) 08:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - agree with Oldak. Cleanup isn't what AfD is for, and deletion isn't for poor content (BLP excepted, but that's not here). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, pending finalisation of relevant Arbcom injunction--VS ^talk 10:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per above. I object to the continual re-listing, closing discussions as no-consensus is not a problem. Catchpole (talk) 17:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Uno de Juno

Uno de Juno (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I suspect this to be a hoax. I've never heard of this holiday, the text never explains what it's about, the references don't say anything about this holiday and even more important: the first of June is Primero de Junio in Spanish, not Uno de Juno Mixcoatl (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Strong delete. Important but little known? Yeah, right. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 10:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Obvious hoax and, as Mixcoatl pointed out, utter gibberish in Spanish. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it, and fast. Non-notable, probably a hoax, and some of it reads almost like a joke article (ie. references to shots etc). SMC (talk) 13:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. hoax, nothing found on it anywhere, none of the sources say a thing about it (yes, even the ones that are oh so helpfully listed as "general information"), proclaims it's "important but little known" (I don't know how that can happen) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Radio Wave Signals from Alpha Centauri 13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Potential military conflict between the United States and China

Potential military conflict between the United States and China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Previously nominated under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sino-American War about a year ago, this article hasn't improved much since. Original research (via synthesis), crystal balling, should be merged, etc etc. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 10:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as crystal ballery and OR of the highest order. This may warrant a one or two sentence mention in some related article (which one, I don't know), but certainly not its own article, which lends itself entirely too much to original synthesis of information on the region. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete interesting thisis paper proposal for undergrad...but definatly not an article. Coffeepusher (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete What??!! It just gave me great ideas for Wiki Entries - Potential military conflict between the US & the Russian Federation, Potential military conflict between the US & The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Potential military conflict between the US & the Islamic Republic of Iran, Potential military conflict between the US & Cloverfield Monster, Potential military conflict between the US & the Aliens of Outer Space. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete At least merge it with the article on Sino-American Relations, or just delete it. Having it as it is now is rediculous. Borg Sphere (talk) 13:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge any mergeable info into Sino-American relations. --Pixelface (talk) 17:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Noor Aalam (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge Merge with Sino-American Relations. "potential conflict"? come on. This is a possible (and rather improbable) outcome, that has all its relevance only as and in the measure that impacts on diplomacy so it should be covered there. (or redirected, if the title in itself could be used as a reference for lookup, but it doesn't). Gorgonzola (talk) 14:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All speculation. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. -- Longhair\^talk 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Rock Chikz

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

According to the article this is a major series shown on multiple networks. But there are no third-party references to substantiate this and in fact it appears the reality is that a single pilot has been made, there is no sign of any commissioning of a series, and there is no major third-party coverage of the show. Currently this article fails WP:V, WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL and is demonstrably misleading. It was speedily deleted on its initial creation and was recreated by an author knowing this was the case. Ros0709 (talk) 10:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for failing WP:V. Somewhat ballsy. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable pilot on public access channel. Also EmmaButton could be a sockpuppet of banned user Nede - see [46] for evidence - Ttwaring (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Longhair\^talk 22:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable at this time. —Moondyne click! 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per Moondyne - a challenge to find anything for WP:V or WP:N SatuSuro 06:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by User:^demon. Deli nk (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

AdultMerchantPay

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

Non-notable merchant account provider. Google Search has a few hits, ([47]), but they all appear to be copies of press releases and the like issued by the company. No third-party comment or coverage that would indicate notability, as far as I can see. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete and merge all content into Emerchantpay. Seems to not be too notable, with hardly any reliable, independent sources except for one trivial mention. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The usual practise for merging content from one page to another is to redirect the source title to the target page, in order to preserve authorship information as required by the GFDL. If you think a redirect from this title to Emerchantpay should not exist, then an administrator can also do a history merge, but you should give an explicit justification as to why having a redirect would be harmful, per Wikipedia:Redirect#When should we delete a redirect?. cab (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, no merge to Emerchantpay as I see no evidence either one is notable (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). cab (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Page was redirected to AdultmerchantPay, which I nominated for CSD before I realized there was already an AfD for this equivalent page. Clear CSD G11 anyway. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Debate essentially over AdultmerchantPay was CSD#G7'd (original author blanked page) so this article is now a CSD#R1. So tagged, goodbye. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Institute for Middle East Understanding

Institute for Middle East Understanding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to meet WP:ORG. While being quoted by many news outlets, the IMEU has not been the subject of coverage in any reliable, independent secondary source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 08:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. It does meet WP:ORG: it has coverage in WP:RS [48]. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as per Littleteddy. Also WP:Point, I think this AfD seems to be a bit of spillover from hummus and related food articles. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you both joking or what? The referenced nigelparry site is the web designer of the IMEU web site. It does not attest to its reliability (nor is IMEU a reliable source, speaking of hummus) or its notability. It is not a notable web site; no one has ever wrote about IMEU (either positive or negative reviews). Well, no one except for its web designer. -- Gabi S. (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The article is not about a website, it is about the organization. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While their coverage is light and the org is only a couple of years old, this unscientific Google text string search hints that their press releases do get some coverage by many third-party outlets. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

This does not make them notable. Wikipedia policies are clear: the site should be the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Not "quoted by many sites with similar agenda".

• Keep As this organisation is used as a source in several Wikipedia articles, it is valuable to include information on the organisation itself so that users know where it is coming from. With the link now added to its beliefs page, it is clear that this is a pro-Palestinian organisation, but not an "extremist" one as claimed elsewhere in Wikipedia talk pages.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if it were an "extremist" site it could have its own article, as Al-Manar, for example, does - because Al-Manar was the subject of numerous articles on CNN and elsewhere, thus it's notable. IMEU are just not notable.
  • Comment: If this organization is used as a source in other Wikipedia articles, it doesn't make it notable. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It's a small organization, but that doesn't preclude it having a Wikipedia entry, per WP:ORG. It's mentioned in this journal as a good resource on Palestine. There is some information about the organization's founder, Lena Khalaf Tuffaha in this article by the ADL, specifically on her praise for Jimmy Carter's book Peace Not Apartheid. It's also listed in the 2008 Arab-American Media Directory, attesting to its importance to the Arab-American community. It was founded in 2005, and received a grant from the Jerusalem Fund in 2006 to highlight the accomplishments of Palestinian-Americans in the arts. literature, academia, community service, etc.. In short, I think there is enough coverage and information to put together a decent entry for the organization. No doubt as time goes on, more and more people will be looking for information on the organization and its background. I see no reason to delete the entry, though it definitely should be expanded and improved using some of the sources provided here, among others that can certainly be located. Tiamut^talk 16:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Another bad joke. The Borderlands Journal quote is negligible, and the 2008 Arab American Media Directory includes 76 pages full of institutes and web sites, in which IMEU is a drop in the sea. Not notable. -- Gabi S. (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete - all the sources presented until now are very weak proofs of notability. I tried googling for more, and found this: http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article8980.shtml - a review of a book written by someone from this institute. Apparently both the book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy and the author John Mearsheimer have articles, and appear eligible. Does it make his current employer notable? I'm not so sure. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as it is indeed covered in independent sources. // Liftarn (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Newspeak is fun. It is not covered by any reliable, independent secondary source. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, meets WP:ORG per Littleteddy and Tiamut. --MPerel 06:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Newspeak is fun indeed. It does not meet WP:ORG. -- Gabi S. (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm wondering if those suggesting it meets WP:ORG actually looked at the sources used to establish notability. Littleteddy has offered up Nigleperry.net , which is not a WP:RS, and is not independent of the article's subject - being merely a listing of the web sites designed by the source. Another source - is a blog, again not WP:RS. Tiamut's and Amir E. Aharoni's sources where founder Lena Khalaf Tuffaha is mentioned may be used to establish her notability, but as numerous editors have pointed out, notability is not transferable - the founder may be notable while the organization is not. Sources that merely replicate an organizations press release are similarly not an indication of notability. I have yet to see even a single mention that would meet the requirements of WP:ORG Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article, written well and according to our policies is obviously a positive addition to the encyclopedia. That's the only reason we should have anything at all at Wikipedia. Littleteddy, Tiamut et al have done some work establishing its satisfaction of some guidelines. For another cite, it was the "non-profit spotlight" for the week of July 10, 2007 at The CulturalConnect Mideast emagazine.[49]John Z (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

WolfTeam

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

Was listed for speedy as "advertisement consisting of game guide material only" or words to that effect. After declining the speedy I re-read the article and it does have severe problems with notability - no independent reliable sources are cited. The references section and even the talk page freely admit that since the game is in beta, coverage from external sources is lacking and the info comes from playing the game itself - in other words, original research. Strong delete. Pegasus «C¦T» 08:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It does seem to be a game guide and therefore fails WP:WWIN. It is also written in bad tone in some areas. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with Pegasus that it can't be speedied, but this needs to go for the reasons above. Note also that the images all appear to be listed as public domain, which they most certainly are not. I'm going to tag all of those for deletion now. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources as pointed out in nom, fails notability. I looked at the MMOsite link and got one of those XPantivirus pop-ups (aren't they malware?) and to boot there's nothing there of any use. Did find an interview on MMOsite separately through google [50], but that's it. Someoneanother 12:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Just finished helping clean out all of the copyvio'd images and linkspam. Still not worthy of inclusion. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 12:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete ditto SGGH ^speak! 12:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 15:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete I can't find any reliable sources that talk about this, and this article could be interpreted as recreation of previously deleted material. --Pixelface (talk) 15:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Softnyx until coverage is available. Struck out my previous comment. --Pixelface (talk) 15:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I'm curious about the hits though Google News - while I suspect a lot are press releases, they're in Korean, so I can't judge. It may be the case that this game is notable, just not through English language sources. Perhaps someone else knows what they're about? - Bilby (talk) 15:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Redirect to Wolf Team unless something compelling comes up (Softnyx was speedy A7). Nifboy (talk) 00:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The page is quite outdated, it does not include a few guns such as "SCAL-WT" and the words contradict the game, besides the game isn't explained within itself, there is no real tutorial, all the numbers are unexplained etc etc etc. There shouldn't be a page because there's simply no source, not even original, all Self-thought THEORIES in words.(I see a monkey-like creature, I say it's an ape, without any contextual knowledge or anything which clearly shows it is an ape) 165.21.155.117 (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete G1 Patent nonsense by Jmlk17 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Non-admin closure. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 10:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The Starships of Bru na Boinne

The Starships of Bru na Boinne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not your personal webspace - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 07:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete db-nonsense. JuJube (talk) 07:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gary Chapman (construction)

Gary Chapman (construction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sources. Can find no mention of this person anywhere. See hoax tag previously applied. Talk page admits that the article was written by "An individual covered by or significantly related to this article". The Talking Sock talk contribs 06:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Appears to be a hoax - a search on Gary Chapman construction yields no clear results. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The {{Notable Wikipedian}} talkpage note and the hoax tag were added by me, not the article's creator, and so should not be taken as "admitting" anything. скоморохъ 11:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. I find a bunch of "Chapman Construction"s, but none that were founded by a Gary Chapman, and for that matter, none in Australia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough and probable WP:COI page (creator is Gerc1971 which are the initials and birth year, this article is the user's only edits) - Dumelow (talk) 14:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per inabability to source article. Sincerley, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Christian Wierzbicki

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

Contested prod. Non-notable actor. Highly probable that the show itself is a hoax.seresin | wasn't he just...? 06:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete The only claim to notability is the single show The Millionaires and that hasn't aired yet. Ros0709 (talk) 08:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Show seems to be a hoax - Google search returns nothing. Littleteddy (roar!) 10:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. There's no indication of any form of importance here at all. This is in addition to the problems of WP:V and that its probably all a hoax anyway as I checked every single Australian television website (at least the main ones of 1, 2, 7, 9, 10, etc) and came up with ZIPPO on this. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 10:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete, A7 Can't find the slightest bit of evidence that this show exists, and so he's got no assertion of notability. If the show is real, make him an article when it debuts at the end of this year. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 12:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, as I cannot confirm anything from this article for lack of sources and Google results. I note, too, that the single line of this article is an assertion of notability - the subject is known for something, and the fact that he is known is a presumption of notability. Whether this is true or not is secondary to the fact that there is an assertion, so the article doesn't meet the Criteria for Speedy Deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. While I honestly thought this would be fairly straight-forward based on my past experience, the discussion below presents undeniable consensus in favor of keeping the articles and brings up a number of good points that I cannot refute. As such, I am withdrawing the nomination. --jonny-mt 08:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

2007 in Costa Rica

2007 in Costa Rica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Large bundled nomination of this and similar articles created by the same editor. Despite the overall high quality of each article, Wikipedia is not a news source.

Although I named this discussion after the most recent article, I am including the following articles in the nomination as well:

• 2007 in China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Chile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Burma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Burkina Faso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Bolivia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Brazil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Bosnia and Herzegovina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Bhutan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Belarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Azerbaijan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Austria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Armenia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Antigua and Barbuda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Antarctica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Algeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2007 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2006 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2005 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2004 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2003 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2002 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2001 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 2000 in Argentina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hopefully I haven't missed any. --jonny-mt 03:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep -- I'm not sure I see the rationale behind deleting all of these, since Wikipedia has both lots of articles about current events and lots of articles about years. And these articles aren't reporting on the news -- they're recaps of things that happened. If the articles themselves are high quality, as you say, then why not keep them? They seem to all be produced by the same author, but if they aren't copyvios and are cited they seem like fine examples of lists. Not what I would spend my time doing, perhaps, but definitely within the almanac-side of the encyclopedia. -- phoebe/(talk) 05:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(ec) To be honest, I did the whole nomination by hand, and so it's entirely possible that I was simply too tired to fully elaborate on my reasons. Basically, the WP:NOT#NEWS rationale applies to their status as indiscriminate lists--rather than focusing on a specific event, such as a timeline of World War II, they are simply reporting on events that, with a couple of exceptions, are not necessarily notable. This falls under the above policy, which notes that "News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." As these are simply collections of news stories that are not notable in and of themselves (despite the fact that they involve notable topics), I consider them as falling under this heading.

Additional background for this nomination can be found in Articles for deletion/Current events in Hong Kong. Although the scale is a little different (given months in a single city vs. given years in a single country), I believe these two nominations are the same in substance. It is also worth noting that current and historical news is typically covered by a country or region's portal, which means that these articles are redundant to Portal:Antarctica, Portal:Brazil, Portal:China, etc. --jonny-mt 06:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep all. Established encyclopedias like Encarta have articles like these: [51], [52], etc. Zagalejo^^^ 06:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all. How is 2007 news? Seems to me it's history. We do history, right? --Dhartung | Talk 07:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Bad faith from nom. Lugnuts (talk) 08:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep all The difference between these and the current events articles is that these are listing truly notable regional historical events not "news", as well as listing births deaths and incumbent leaders. There's nothing wrong with lists and as others have stated, encyclopedias often contain almanac style lists such as these. There are year-based articles for every year in Australia from 1788 to 2008, it would be a shame to see these deleted based on what I see as a very dubious interpretation of WP:NOT#NEWS. What is the difference between these and the regular year articles such as 2008 based on the nominator's rationale? --Canley (talk) 08:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete all three. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Miss Cosmos 1951

Miss Cosmos 1951 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I'm also nominating the newly created articles List of Miss Cosmos titleholders and Miss Cosmos Special Awards. I hope its okay to tack onto this, otherwise I'll create a new entry. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 05:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Non-notable pageant instance. Perhaps there might be sufficient grounds for notability for a Miss Cosmos article (although I honestly have no idea) but I think that individual year articles on an obscure pageant (compared to the much more notable pageants such as Miss Universe and Miss World) is wrong.

I just want to add that obviously finding news sources for 1951 on the internet is pretty much an exercise in futility, but I did check the Google News archive for "miss cosmos 1951" and there were no hits.PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Adding another note. The more I look at the "delegate names" the more I wonder whether this could be a joke? I checked Pageantopolis which has a wealth of information on historical and obscure pageants, and that site doesn't mention it. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete (unless sources are provided) - The AfD notice was placed on this article while I was in the middle of posting a proposed deletion (prod). Here's the "reason" I was going to list in the prod: "Article is orphaned and totally unsourced, meaning that there is no verification of the validity of its contents. Additionally, I did not find any verification in a quick Google search." I have no idea if this pageant is real. If there are sources, then it could be considered for retention. --Orlady (talk) 04:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The same reasoning applies equally to List of Miss Cosmos titleholders and Miss Cosmos Special Awards. Unless there is some documentation that Miss Cosmos is real, they also should be deleted. --Orlady (talk) 13:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Miss Cosmos 1951 as apparent hoax based on the implausible contestant names. The List of Miss Cosmos titleholders and Miss Cosmos Special Awards have no useful content and should be deleted as well. In fact, the latter appears to be a hard-coded template placed in article space. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree that the contestant names give the impression that this is fake. Delete unless it can be shown to exist. JIP | Talk 06:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment The Google News archives have several hits for "miss cosmos". Hits that may be relevant include the Independent Press-Telegram from December 27, 1959, The Marion Star from July 30, 1954, and The Capital from April 19, 1980[53]. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's two hits and without subscriptions to see the useage in context we don't even know if they were properly describing a pageant or using the term in jest. PageantUpdater talk • contribs 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Most of the Google hits on "Miss Cosmos" are to science fiction (or parodies of sci-fi). --Orlady (talk) 18:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Please, stop adding this sort of non-articles to Wikipedia. / Mats Halldin (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - as noted above, it seems to be a hoax. If not, then add references. U$er (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nom withdrawn per notability clarification. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

FC Knyazha Schaslyve

:FC Knyazha Schaslyve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD) Apparently not eligible for speedy but appears to fail guidelines as it's not the top league, it's 2nd division. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn, see below

• Question Doesn't the guideline refer to players, and not teams? I don't know a thing about Ukrainian football, but most fully professional football teams get an article, even if they're in a lower division. Zagalejo^^^ 04:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment if that's the case I'll withdraw in the morning when I get back online, but there have been a number of non-professional teams here, at least two of which have been deleted. I believe there's some precedent for this. In addition this one has no evidence of RS coverage and paltry ghits in any language so I'm not sure it passes WP:ORG TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Well, I imagine the name would be more commonly written in the Ukrainian alphabet, so that's not so surprising. I'll wait for a subject-expert to chime in. Zagalejo^^^ 04:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Not necessarily if there were international coverage. But we'll see what happens. I'll bee offline for the next bit TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep Third level clubs in a strong football nation such as Ukraine are definitely notable. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep. According to Ukrainian Second League, the club plays in a professional league, and deserves its own article therefore, unless they get relegated to amateur league soon.  ARTYOM  09:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per Number57. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Withdrawn as I promised I would once someone confirmed inherent notability.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have redirected to Wheeling, West Virginia; knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant and verified information. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Wheeling Police Department

Wheeling Police Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is a specific police department notable? Doesn't look like it in this case, wails WP:N and WP:RS. Wizardman 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Are we to have an article for every single city and town's police force? I should think not and absent any indication that this particular police force is especially notable, or, indeed, any references at all, I should also think we can do without this superfluous article. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:ORG for local orgs as it lacks independent reliable source coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge the first paragraph (and probably some more) with Wheeling, West Virginia. A police force is a major public service which I would expect to see mentioned in an article on the locality, but it is only of local interest. However, most of the article just says that this police force does what all police forces do. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep if reliable sources are produced, otherwise merge to Wheeling, West Virginia. I would think that there would be several reliable, independent sources about any significant police department. I am surprised nominator didn't think merging the content was a good idea as per WP:BEFORE and WP:N#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. With 83 officers this is a large department. There are also sources and mentions in the news here, here, here, here, and even a mention from America's Most Wanted here. This department also appears to be old. There is a mention here of one of their officers being killed in 1868. KnightLago (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unless thee is really some substantial events to write about, i think the bar for police departments should be rather high, perhaps cities of a half-million or so, certainly not 30,000. Even for mayors, we want someshere between 50,,0000 and 100,000. DGG (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

While that is something to be discussed, that is not the current bar. The current bar is notability through reliable sources. Sources which I have provided above. And since this department is so old, I am sure I could find more sources if needed. KnightLago (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Most of the article seems to be lifted from the official website. Compare Wheeling Police Department#SWAT Team with http://www.wheelingpd.com/swat.htm. —BradV 22:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed those sections as copyvios. KnightLago (talk) 22:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Most departments will be the subject of reliable source coverage. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was KEEP. Orlady (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Diaper bag

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

Prod removed with a note from the creator and while I understand it was a requested article, I don't see any encyclopedic notability for a diaper bag and its contents. The contents are pure OR and vary from one bag to another. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. I have seen some strange topics for articles before but for sheer quirkiness this is pretty high up there. Why should it be deleted? Well, for starters there are no references at all. This is hardly surprising, though, since the whole article appears to be original research if not pure conjecture; the repeated use of the word "perhaps" points to the conclusion that even the author might admit that he was just pulling this stuff off the top of his head. (Note: juvenile poop joke witheld for reasons of good taste.) OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Upon looking over my previous comments I note that they might be unduly harsh so I would like to clarify that I agree with Ten Pound Hammer (below) that this article was created in good faith and so am not disparaging the author, just commenting on the Wikiworthiness of this specific article. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment I've added a few references I found @ my local GP. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Most certainly created in good faith, but I have my doubts that this article could be done any justice. I just don't see this being expanded beyond basically a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary - This is a definition of a term (not a joke). Reference support is needed, but the substance is OK for a dictionary def. --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Struck out my earlier comment. Article is dramatically improved; it no longer resembles a dictionary entry. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep I actually think there is some potential for expansion here. Diaper bags are widely discussed in books, and there are some interesting facts we could throw in (a Gucci diaper bag?) Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I think it's notable enough and there is definitely room for expansion. Littleteddy (roar!) 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The below note is from the original author, me. You may delete it if necessary. I will post it on my discussion page, just in case. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

On a semantic note, I wrote, "An average full bag 'might contain". I don't know if that's weasel wording, but at least it makes the sentence true.

On to notability, people that haven't taken part in infant rearing are often unaware of what the term "diaper bag" means, what a diaper bag is meant to be, and what a diaper is meant to contain. A sum-of-parts analysis would yield that it is a bag for diapers alone and I have seen people making that mistake, fetching a bag of diapers instead, come to dire consequences.

How to care for children does not come naturally; it must be taught. Teaching is what Wikipedia does. I believe many people have tried to look up diaper bags on search engines or Wikipedia before and there was a person desperate enough to explain its need on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Fashion. I don't know if that person posted the original request or not.

I just googled "diaper bag" and found many sites selling them under that name as well as under "baby bag" and "nappy bag". Somehow, we don't have a page for any of those terms. "Baby bag" at least should have a page and maybe the others should link to it. A baby bag is neither a bag a baby can play with, a bag a baby owns, nor a bag full of baby / babies. Now, while you may view the idea of not knowing what a baby bag, diaper bag, or nappy bag is as laughable, please remember that we do have an article for hat.

At King Eddie's (King Edward Memorial Hospital http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/ ), the public hospital for maternity in Perth, Western Australia, there are several posters designed to help new mothers and other carers of infants. They detail how to breastfeed a baby, how to hold it, how to blanket it, how to lay it down, how to respond to it, how to bathe it, how to change its nappy and so forth. Some of these things are public health announcements necessary to prevent cot death (SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Perth has some of the highest literacy rates in the world and the world's most vast rural network for a megacity, besides deep ties with Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and the rest of Oceania, so the potential readers are neither idiots nor far from reality.

Babies are very delicate, and people can become carers of infants without passing omniscience tests. This situation is why infant mortality rates are so high in the world. The health and hygiene (mental included) of both the infant and carer are therefore notable topics. Diaper bags have played an important part of infant hygiene for millenia. Giving no information to genuine seekers of it on this topic is hard to believe for me..

As far as OR goes, this is a topic most well-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) know by heart and I think most of them would not see it as OR. It's one of those funny things that still manages to be notable because non-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) don't know any of it.

As far as NPOV goes, I tried to be very balanced in what I put in, favouring neither disposable nor reusable culture, favouring neither breastfeeding nor bottle-feeding, being careful to not specify with "parents" but to generalize with "infant carers", as well as specifically attaching "perhaps" to things that are vital to some people but not to all. I should probably attach it to keys and wallet as well.

I'm not trying to dominate other cultures with my own. I'm trying to help guide carers of infants so that both they and the infants can survive at least until the baby attains the age of 5. This is part of the UN millenium development goals designed to decrease infant mortality and systemic difficulties faced by women. I would like you and anyone else who can to edit the article to improve it, but I disagree with questioning its notability and proposing deletion. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, it's OR because it's wholly uncited and what one person puts in a bag could be totally different from another. A diaper bag could be explained with a dictionary definition at wiktionary. People aren't going to look in an encyclopedia for what to put in a diaper bag, that's a google/parent website question. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that someone did come to Wikipedia to look it up contradicts "People aren't going to look in an encyclopedia for what to put in a diaper bag". http://www.google.com/parent/ yields a 404, so I don't see where you're going with that. Besides, Google usually ends up linking here anyway. Yahoo has a nice directory over search engine feature though that just gave me a new reference but keep in mind that many people don't understand search engines and directories as well as you do. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep, needs sources and rewrite. At present it's excessively how-to. I don't see in principle, as the nomination asserts, how this is unencyclopedic. It's an essential piece of equipment for parenting just as a backpack is for hiking or a go bag for emergency responders. Certainly there are sources in parenting or women's magazines or newspaper lifestyle sections, discussing not just what goes in it but its social and cultural impacts, e.g. the diaper bag grants parents mobility and convenience. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - WP might not be a "how to guide", but we explain Childbirth, Parenting & Category:Parenting, so why not actually be encyclopedic and encompass an explanation of the tools as well. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, and just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists doesn't mean this should. FWIW, Childbirth is actually sourced, Parenting is a mess and already tagged accordingly. For whatever reason, Category:Parenting isn't loading for me. But none of that matters here. It's not encyclopedic, it's Dr. Spock whereas someone going to an encyclopedia could be researching childbirth. Note, not associated with any of these articles except for the PROD/AfD here. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep but reduce description of its contents to a brief summary of the kind of things carried, for, not a "how to" list. Perhaps add external links to authoritative childcare site(s) which go into that level of detail. More content needed about history, styles, materials, uses, sociology, celebrity extravaganzas, etc. The bags seem an encyclopedic topic, but not the instruction list on how to use. PamD (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. An encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. Powers ^T 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And now it is. Keep. Powers ^T 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite. Poor article, good topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep but clean up. There are certainly some OR issues, but there is certainly more content than a dicdef that could lend itself to a nice article that is verifiable, if only through about a bajillion parenting books and magazines out there, and just as many patents for diaper bag designs. I'm sure that there are also some scholarly publications that discuss the diaper bag in a sociological context. In the case where there are certainly reliable sources regarding a topic, OR concerns are a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a child-rearing manual. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. There is room for this article, but major changes needed as suggested by PamD. KnightLago (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• strong keep there are plenty of reliable sources about this.[54] The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong keep + tidy/rewrite. I'll have a go at fixing it up myself but no, it's not a simple dicdef - Alison ^❤ 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep with a prayer for clean-up. Sources could be drawn from patents on this item: [55], books on proper usage [56]. Seems comparable to Baby bottle. Canuckle (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- the article needs to more clearly express notability and have a stronger lead, but in an everyday context, diaper bags are quite notable -- ask any parent. The accoutrements of everyday life -- bags, bottles, blankets -- have a place in the encyclopedia as well (remember, wikipedia includes all encyclopedias in one, including a hypothetical encyclopedia of childcare), and deserve a good description. I'm curious what the history of such bags are, the origins of the term, if known, and the current market for them (it's quite large). -- phoebe/(talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- we have articles on the purse and the briefcase. I don't see why the diaper bag is different. It does need a rewrite though.--66.245.217.168 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- largely rewritten and referenced now. — Catherine\^talk 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep This article is in pretty good shape now, properly referenced and encyclopedic. -- Atama^chat 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I just want everyone to know I appreciate their hard work. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - And no transwiki. As stated above, we have Purse and Briefcase and they weren't transwikied. This is probably the most short sighted nomination for deletion I've ever seen. pschemp | talk 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: And don't forget Manbag... Canuckle (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  Yeah, well the article was nothing more than a dictionary definition before. That wasn't short-sightedness, it was just reality. Powers ^T 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  I wouldn't use the word short-sighted myself, but I wouldn't disagree with it either. Not only did the WP:AFD break WP:EQ as propounded in the 2nd - 4th points of WP:Guide to deletion#Nomination, as well as its subpoints, but it did so literally within 33 minutes of the article's creation. Especially when one takes into account the WP:PROD chatter, the tag response delay, and the initial shock, that's precious little time to respond by looking up and listing appropriate citations. I'm glad though that the process has given the article a shot in the arm and made me a better Wikipedian. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:HEY. Nice job. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Looks much better now. Wizardman 16:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheah Thien Soong

Cheah Thien Soong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Semi-procedural nom, as it's been tagged as lacking notability/context since April. Also fails WP:V and WP:RS as it stands. Wizardman 03:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, seems to be a couple of good articles here. Zagalejo^^^ 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, expanded and referenced based on sources pointed to by Zagalejo. cab (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep better now. Johnbod (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Cold scale

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

Orphaned stub on a scale whose existence I can't verify. I haven't encountered it in any book I've seen on music theory or scales. No relevant ghits (particularly damning since guitar learning sites will frequently list nearly every scale known to man, from the common to the vanishingly obscure). And, on the face of it, it makes no sense: the article claims that the scale is a six-note scale that skips two steps of the major scale...which is a seven-note scale. It also says that it's a combination of pentatonic and blues scale, but there are several pentatonic scales. Article creator (and the only editor of the article who wasn't simply adding stub notices and the like) is Coldscale (talk · contribs). I have a sneaking suspicion that Wikipedia is not for things made up one day applies here. — Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —— Gwalla | Talk 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The scale in question does not appear in either of my books of scales, and the article offers no references to verify its existence, much less notability. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Merenta (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Not only not real, but it's impossible to construct the thing from the description. It's kind of gibberish. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, though I have no problem determining what is meant: starting on C: CEFGBC. Powers ^T 18:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete no context. Redirect to Impossible Creatures could be made. Pegasus «C¦T» 01:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Frownodon

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

Non notable video game character. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge with Impossible Creatures. Not notable enough to have an article of its own. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, db-context. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as A3, A1, and A7: Wikipedia is not GameFAQ's. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Per all. Zero Kitsune (talk) 14:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete For all of the reasons above. YoungWebProgrammer ^msg 18:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per A1 - so tagged. Ale_Jrb^talk 22:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 08:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

No Strings Attached Tour

No Strings Attached Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sole sentence of article: "No Strings Attached Tour was 'N Sync's 2000 world tour in support of the album No Strings Attached." The article then lists the setlist and where they went. No sources are provided. Paddy Simcox (talk) 02:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete original research, no sources. Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 18:01, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Save one of the biggest tours, sources were added. Had its own TV special, along with 2 DVd releases to go along with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.242.45.169 (talk) 03:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KrakatoaKatie 02:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep seems to have decent sources now, even if it does need cleanup. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Nomination withdrawn. Paddy Simcox (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Nissae Isen

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

Non-notable voice actress. Searching yields IMBD, flimsy/empty TV.com etc..etc.. [57] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:N. Neither the article nor a Google search provide any evidence of notability. There are a number of ghits but only to state that she has done voice work for this or that production. I could locate no sources that meet WP:RS criteria. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Independent, usable sources available for this subject. --Oldak Quill 10:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Has two confirmed credits to her name, and neither are notable. -- ShinmaWa^(talk) 11:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: A working actor or actress is not automatically encyclopedic. It takes achieving note to be notable, and this actress has not at this time. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Watsonslip

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

Apparent hoax, no such place, 3 ghits directly associated with article Grahame (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced nonsense and a definite hoax. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete G3 as utter hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. Google search shows no indication that this location exists. Google maps also shows no such location. The juvenile quasi-humour in the page confirms that this is a pure hoax. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 02:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speed on nice try, but too obvious of a hoax. Beeblbrox (talk) 02:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment Page's author has been indef blocked. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Like Alexis Kelly, this article should spontaneously combust. --Oakshade (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D

Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The horribly obscenely long title aside, this film doesn't meet notability standards. It mentions a review in the New York Times, but that is the only reliable review I am able to find on Google (where, by the way, it gets less than 400 hits, and you can be sure they're all relevant with that many search terms). In short: fails WP:NOTFILM and WP:RS.

Included in nomination:

• Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Hellbound, Flesh-Eating Subhumanoid Zombified Living Dead, Part 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sequel to this film, it suffers from the same problems - except the Times didn't review that one. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Independent, reliable sources are available (e.g. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230575/combined). Google indicates this film is significant (or is given significance by lists of superlatives) as having the longest film name. --Oldak Quill 02:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - IMDB isn't the most reliable of sources, and WP:NOTFILM specifically states that an entry there does not confirm notability. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't make any claims about notability. You've already mentioned a reliable source that, with IMDb and others, has implications for the Notability guideline and this article: http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/332506/Night-of-the-Day-of-the-Dawn-of-the-Son-of-the-Bride-of-the-Return-of-the-Revenge-of-the-Terror-of-th/overview . --Oldak Quill 02:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep The one NYTimes source is good enough, and given this film's mega-title I'm sure there's more to be found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete per lack of coverage. One of the above users seems to claim that this had the longest film title, which might make it notable if verified. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• TPH, did you search? This search string: Night of the Day of the Dawn of the Son of the Bride of the Return of the Revenge of the Terror of the Attack of the Evil, Mutant, Alien, Flesh Eating, Hellbound, Zombified Living Dead Part 2: In Shocking 2-D -imdb -wikipedia gets only 165 hits on Google, and I'm not finding anything that's really reliable among them. Of those that do look promising, it's a passing mention (if that's even possible with this title) in an article that mainly focuses on a film festival that included the film, and isn't a proper review. WP:N requires multiple reliable sources, just as WP:NOTFILM requires multiple full-length reviews from nationally-known critics. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, this video completly lacks notability. A video produced by a few college students, even if it does have an incredibly long title, is not any where near notable unless it has done something extrodinary, which this has not. -Icewedge (talk) 05:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Delete, the NY Times source is good, but another is required to really assert notability to my mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
• Strong Keep In this particular instance I'm going to address where this movie meets WP:NOTFILM in specific parts.

1. "The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." It meets half of this by being available for purchase at several retailers and video rental outlets and obviously the Times article.

2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following" this particular film holds two claims to notability under this guideline... Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release: Yahoo Movies, New York times , and VH1.com... "The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release." This is also true in 2005, 14 years after release it screened at Microcinefest and The Pioneer Film Series.

In addition to those sources directly addressing the notability standard there are sources like The Guardian: Unlikely But True Movie Titles and the DVD review at Mutant Reviewers From Hell (a surprisingly respected genre commentary site) which clearly illustrate the cult status of the film in the popular culture. Beyond those sources there are blog entries and directory listings like those at All Film Guide and IMDB.

Lastly, based upon the cult status of this movie the director has been interviewed in sources like this [58] and gained significant coverage like this [59]. Additonally he may be a notable person (adding to the case that this film easily meets the standard due to his involvement) because he authored this [60] popular book six years after the making of this film. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete: When, in ten years, this is a guilty pleasure or ten best worst films or weird films list, then it will be a "cult" film. At present, this is gimmickry. It's fine to have something on The Tingler, because it's documenting a widespread and national campaign. This is just a guy trying to get promotion, a film that doesn't have an audience. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a note, the film IS 16 years old at this point and is consistently shown at art house theaters and colleges, online evidence of which has been provided.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Weak delete (see below). No real assertation of notability, and despite Torchwoodwho's lengthy comment above I don't see an awful lot that passes WP:NOTFILM. The Yahoo!, NY Times and VH1 links don't really cut it as "non-trivial articles" (the latter two are just mirrors of AMG). The DVD review falls well short of "full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics". The Guardian article gives no comment on the film whatsoever, blog and directory listings don't carry much weight, and notability of the director is not inherited by the film. Perhaps the festival screenings, but the festivals themselves don't appear to be particuarly noteworthy. If better sources can be found that demonstate notability then I'll gladly change to a keep, but I suspect we've already scaped the bottom of the barrell in that regard. PC78 (talk) 17:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to where 2 of the sources are data scrapes? I checked to make sure they didn't match each other and I want to make sure I'm not mistaken.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Both sources clearly have identical text and are credited to "Jeremy Wheeler, All Movie Guide". Original AMG source is here. PC78 (talk) 17:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't check the Times link, I thought you mean yahoo and Vh1 were the same. But I still think there's something to be said for the notability of the filmmaker per WP:NOTFILM section 3.1 and the festival interest.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I had a look on google and managed to find a few things. This article in the Daily Record names it as the longest film title, while this article states that the film was shown at the New York City Horror Film Festival. Also found another review via Rotten Tomatoes, and this review for the second film. PC78 (talk) 18:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Weak keep. Because of the film's title (verified as the longest film title in the source I provided above), the festival screenings, and the (possible) notability of the director (for whom this would be a significant work), I'm inclined to think that this does just about pass WP:NOTFILM. Note that my change of heart only applies to the first of these films. For the sequel I say delete or perhaps merge, because with the exception of a single review, all of the sources so far provided relate exclusively to the first film. PC78 (talk) 23:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• KEEP This films a Five star cult film, equal to that of Monty Python. --HungryJacks (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Notable cult film, if not then just notable for the long title. The Dominator (talk) 22:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment on Multiple Nomination

• I assert that this is not a good case to have a bundled AfD on. I think all of the sequels could be bundled together. There is a good case of notability for the first film so the sequels might be better looked at on their own or maybe even prod'd since there's very little of a case to be about them.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand you - are you saying that these should have been prodded, or not brought in a joint AfD, or something else? There doesn't appear to be an article for the first film, unless the link in the infobox for #2 is wrong. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually part 2 is the first movie, 3 is a sequel. I'm saying that they shouldn't be in the same AfD because 3 and subsequently (if it existed here) 4 would better be served with a prod.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's brilliantly confusing. Ok, thanks for clarifying. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree about the dual nomination; these two films would be better judged on their own merits. The majority of the sources provided, and indeed the comments made in this AfD, seem to relate to the first of these films only. PC78 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Paul Burton

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

Not really notable, references are to minor stories of no significance. No evidence to back up some claims, and even if they were backed up doesn't make him notable anyway. I had to do a minor edit and it still seems like some of the page is actually a kind of personal attack page. Canterbury Tail talk 02:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:N. Writing for a credible secondary source is not the same as being the subject of such a reference. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per User:OlenWhitaker above. Writing a lot doesn't make you notable, having people write about you is what does it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete: A working journalist. No indication that he stands out in the field. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 01:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Fund Raising Instructions

Fund Raising Instructions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod and prod2. Nothing in this article but instructions on how to make a fundraising successful. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual.

Also nominating:

Fund Raising Guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (one of the numerous redirects to the long maze of redirects created by this user).

Fund raising process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (another one).

• Delete as nom. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The creator of this page has been quite busy moving this page around, and even his user page and user talk page are quite hard to find. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 01:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete completely unencyclopedic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per all above. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 02:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO; completely unencyclopedic. JJL (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete All, Wikipedia is not a fundraising manual. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete WP:NOT#HOWTO.  Esradekan Gibb  ^"Talk" 12:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• The person who created the page (Aloharick3) should be asked to move these instructions to wikiHow/equivalent (if that's what he/she wants) and then delete this page. If Aloharick3 doesn't comply, stricter action needs to be taken. Waqqasd (talk) 12:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Delete -- per the above. Would have been speedied if there had been an appropriate category. – ukexpat (talk) 14:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was No consensus (default to keep). Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Irene Hirano

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

Someone posted a tag on Daniel Inouye's article that this should be merged into it. There's really nothing to merge because the article is almost nonexistent. Unless there's other information to add to this article to make it substantial, I recommend deletion. Enigma ^msg! 01:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Associated with significant museum, spouse of significant public official. Stubs are there to be expanded, not deleted. --Oldak Quill 02:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect to Japanese American National Museum. Notability is not inherited. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. There are not many sources in depth that I could find online, but she has a fairly significant role as a leader in the Japanese-American community. Led a delegation to Japan. Served on a Toyota diversity panel. Chair of Kresge Foundation. She was also on the President's Committee on the Arts and Humanities for a time. There are numerous Google Books citations indicating her career as an academic and advocate. There is a profile in The Encyclopedia of Minorities in American Politics.

--Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep She notable but not famous. That is the criteria for inclusion. She is a significant historical figure and an accomplished person in philanthropy and the Japanese-American culture. Expand the stub, don't delete it. See he bio here. --DHeyward (talk) 04:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: She herself may have done the sorts of things that make for an encyclopedic profile, but what the article tells us is that she's engaged and heads a museum. Well, museum head is not encyclopedic. Engaged to a famous person is transitive fame. Let's look at the article, not the lady, and let's ask whether this article should stay or not. It's darned near an A7 speedy delete, so I'd say not. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's why it's listed as a stub. Add to it. --DHeyward (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • That's not a stub. A stub is an adequate article that begs for expansion. This is a sub-stub, which is an inadequate article that needs substantial expansion to be permissible. "The Guggenheim is a museum in New York City. It's on 5th Street" is a substub. Substubs are covered in A3 in the speedy deletion criteria. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • False. For one thing, that obviously provides useful information as per WP:STUB. For another, WP:SUBSTUB is an inactive definition and there is no consensus on what differentiates one from the other (probably the main reason it's inactive). In any case, the length is not really the problem here, as if the information contained in the same length spoke more obviously to notability we would not be having this discussion. But Let's look at the article, not the lady is also clearly a wrong approach, and essentially the WP:UGLY argument. --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as nominator. I don't see anything noteworthy. Enigma ^msg! 17:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment What, did you worry nobody read your nomination? --Dhartung | Talk 19:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Traditionally, the nominator votes as well. Enigma ^msg! 19:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Traditionally, the nominator's rationale is considered as part of the WP:CONSENSUS. AFD is not a vote. --Dhartung | Talk 02:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep, but the sources found should be included. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Joanna Eden

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

Notability, per WP:MUSIC ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Independent, reliable sources available (e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/essex/content/articles/2007/09/07/joanna_eden_feature.shtml , http://www.jazzcds.co.uk/artist_id_575 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/03/2007_20_thu.shtml). --Oldak Quill 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, subject has coverage in reliable secondary sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC).
• Delete: Those sources are not present in the article, and the article gives us no way of assessing whether her recordings have verifiable measures of success. In fact, it says "2007 will see" her next record. As it is, it shouldn't be kept. If Oldak Quill rewrites it to be 1) NPOV and not a press release, 2) An objective assessment, 3) An article about an act rather than a feigned biography of a person, then consider my objections gone. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Sources have been provided that are enough to show that the article needs improvement, not deletion. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 00:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• I added two references, and there is much information that could be added from the sources that OldakQuill provided above. It's enough to pass WP:N. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was snowball keep, non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dude

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

The article is a dictionary definition; it is all about the word dude - its usage, pronunciation and origin. But Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. "Dude" is as much an idea and recurring social trope as it is a word. And even if it is just a word, we have plenty of articles about important words. That said, this is a pretty lousy article. But a rewrite would help more than deletion would.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Sorry dude, but WP:DICT as per nom Bardcom (talk) 00:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep article is more than just a dicdef, and word has historical and cultural significance. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I do concede that much of the "in popular culture" should be trimmed to include only verified and truly notable occurences. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment It may be useful to compare the treatment of similar words such as guy, bloke and hombre. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I would think that this would be terrible, but it is very well written. I'm a middle schooler (I use dude often), but this was very informative.Mm40 (talk) 00:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep and pattern after Dandy --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• WP:DICDEF prohibits articles on words that are just dictionary-like definitions. This article is not. It is an important word. It seems notable, and even if it wasn't, I would still probably support keeping it. IAR and all that. seresin | wasn't he just...? 01:09, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I struggle to think of what non-dictionary information could be relevant to this article without being a list of pop culture references. What prose is there to write? Remy B (talk) 01:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, the difference is that this word is notable. We do have articles about words, after all; see User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words <eleland/talkedits> 01:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep the current article is not well written, but I contend it is possible to build a reasonable article about the word "dude" from proper soucres. For example this article from Random House would seem to be a promising starting point for an editor interested in creating a good article on the subject, particularly how the term has evolved and its impact on society and culture. Or how about this interesting article on the "dude vote" which may also warrant inclusion? Here is a book on dude ranches, another rich source of material and here is another. I'm sure with a bit of digging a plethora of books and articles could be found to write a really interesting and well researched article here. The fact that the current article is below standard should encourage us to improve it, not delete it, as long as we can find good sources to work from, which I think we can here. Gwernol 01:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Some more: this article from the journal American Speech, Deborah Hick's book "Discourse, Learning, and Schooling" and this paper also from American Speech. Gwernol 01:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• We already have proper articles on concepts like Youth vote and Dude ranch. All that's left is discussion of the word as a word and that is dictionary material. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The word's cultural relevance and linguistical impact is more than sufficient to keep its place. If the article isn't great quality, it can always be restructured or improved upon. - Experimental Hobo Infiltration Droid (talk) 01:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep dude, no. BJ^Talk 01:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per Above, Dude. Dadude3320 01:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment this user has clear conflict of interest issues =). cab (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This is considerably more than a dicdef. I'm not sure it'll get much longer, but we don't delete stubs for being stubs. Only reason I'm not WP:SNOWing this is because there seem to be some questions about inclusion, but I'm sure this is snowable. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. More than a dicdef - history, culture, significance, &c. --Oldak Quill 01:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Per above. JNW (talk) 02:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Per Gwernol's arguments and links demonstrating that something beyond a dictdef can be written. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Weak keep. This is more than just a dicdef and offers the promise of possible further improvement (e.g. more/better references.) OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep - If the article was defining the word, then delete. If it was an obscure protologism with no background or widespread usage, then delete. However, clearly the word possess notability. It's an example of vernacular with culture significance. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to improve. —Kenyon (t·c) 02:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• comment - Probably should wait a day or two, but I'm guessing this discussion should be closed per WP:SNOW. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep clearly notable term. Articles come and go, but The Dude abides. JJL (talk)
• Keep I'm all for deleting pure one-line dictionary definitions, but any articles about a word or term which go into this much detail are actual articles. --Canley (talk) 04:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Clearly a notable term and a reasonable article subject. Maxamegalon2000 05:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Chill, dude.Andycjp (talk) 05:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, dude! If my students are anything to go by, duuuuuuude is one of the most important words in English. Besides, we have a whole article on valspeak, of which dude is a righteous part. phoebe/(talk) 06:11, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Articles shouldn't be written by citing the dictionary, but the journal article in American Speech [61] listed in the external links section strongly suggests this is an encyclopedic topic, even if not presently a very good article. cab (talk) 06:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per above, plenty of room to expand this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC).

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Bencherlite^Talk 20:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Giant Monster

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Giant Monster (4th nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters
• Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan!
• Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Giant Monsters Attack Japan! (3rd nomination)

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

• Delete Pure Nonsense. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy delete WP:CSD#G1 - so tagged. Why bother with an AfD? JohnCD (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy keep per bad-faith nomination. Barrier, mate (talk · contribs) has been flooding the AfD with various degrading comments, and masking as other editors.. seicer | talk | contribs 02:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Prussian Blue (duo)

Non-notable, unimportant. No one cares about it, espeiclaly not by now.Barrier, mate (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep I would say being featured on ABC's Primetime and on VH1 constitutes notability. Sources are also present. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You misspelled sources! I don't like that. Just keep inmind; I'm only a grammar nazi, not a skinheads nazi, and I'd like to see this deleted. And the articles about Prussian Blue's albums and singles are even more non-notable. Barrier, mate (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It was featured on ABC a long time ago. Even if they were notable at one point, that was not now. Prussian Blue were totally ephemeral and by now they're 15 minutes seem to be over. Barrier, mate (talk) 01:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Notability is not temporary. This article undoubtedly meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. May I ask why you would like to see it deleted? --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 01:55, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per On the other side. --Oldak Quill 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Barrier, mate (talk) 01:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • "per nom" means "for the reasons stated by the nominator". It is generally presumed you agree with your own arguments for deletion in the nomination statement (unless that statement spelled out explicitly that you're taking a neutral position), so there's no need to put a "Delete" down in the middle of the debate. cab (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment there are plenty of other racist groups and individuals more notable than PB who don't have pages here. For example, websites like Metapedia or Vanguard News Network. Barrier, mate (talk) 02:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • See WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST. Whether or not other topics have pages has nothing to do with whether this topic meets the inclusion criteria: notability, verifiability, reliable, intellectually independent sources. cab (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Well sourced article on notable topic. No reason to delete just because they are in poor taste. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • How does being a racist bitch, a bad singer, or someone who is mostly out of the news by now, make you notable? Barrier, mate (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Read WP:NOTE and also WP:POINT you are starting to cross the line. I wont defend the actions of the subjects of the article, but it doesn't matter whether we like what they do or not. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Musically they may be towards the edges of notability but sociologically they have been widely noted, as is supported by the sources cited in the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite, notable, helpful to our Cause etc. but the article's tone is non-neutral and not good for our Cause. If they were black pride singers, it would be fine. I think these girls are great in standing up for their race, and they don't hate other races; just love their own. But I don't know why anyone would want they're article deleted. Trialeagh (talk) 02:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Even if I were a racist idiot like you, I would'nt see how this helpful, since they can't sing at all. Barrier, mate (talk) 02:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• comment Even if this is kept now, it will probably be deleted in a year when no one will rember they ever existed. Barrier, mate (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Like I said above, notability is not temporary. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:SNOW? Gwen Gale (talk) 02:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This easily meets WP:BIO and was discussed/settled before at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prussian Blue (American duo). Let's toast this discussion before anybody else makes a single-purpose account to debate it. --Rob (talk) 02:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Curps —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barrier, mate (talk • contribs) 02:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Signature possibly fradulent as Curps has not edited since July 2006. Nate • (chatter) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Vote was faked by nom. I've put a note at WP:ANI. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Though I don't agree with their views at all (an understatement), a six-page article in Blender Magazine was printed about them in July 2006 which also adds to the notability and the sourcing of the article. No matter how offensive they might be to someone, they have established the notability for an article, and I assume you don't have the judging credentials of Simon Cowell to say their singing is bad. Obviously someone's buying their records. We might not like it, but the world isn't all blue skies and rainbows. Nate • (chatter) 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Easily passes the general notability guidelines based on the multiple references. As for the nobody will care in N years, historians will, and others researching the history of white separatism. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Prussian Blue are an ephemeral pop culture entity, they will not be given any attention by historians, ever. Neither will, say, Britney Spears. But Britney Spears is much more notable than these ------. Barrier, mate (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

(personal attack edited) Nate • (chatter) 06:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - Easily. Meets WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO, WP:RS and WP:V. I'm ignoring all of the accusations of racism above that does not belong in this discussion at all. Please be civil. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 01:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

History of For Better or For Worse

History of For Better or For Worse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

One of the many things Wikipedia is not is a plot summary. This article, on the other hand, is one, and nothing more. I clicked on it expecting to find a real-world history of the development of the comic strip For Better or For Worse, but instead it's a synopsis of the major plot elements of the strip from 1979 to the present. Please delete as unencyclopedic. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete A serious real-world history page would certainly be acceptable. This overly detailed, in-universe plot summary is not. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Neutral The page, in its current state, is fan cruft, but heck, I trimmed the FoxTrot article from over 25K of cruft, so it can be done. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Um, this isn't the main For Better or For Worse article. This is an article containing absolutely nothing but plot summary. If the cruft were to be trimmed from this, it would be empty. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Oh, so it's cruft? --Pixelface (talk) 18:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • That's what User:TenPoundHammer said. What I say is it's a violation of WP:NOT#PLOT. Notice how WP:ITSCRUFT says, "Arguments that the nature of the subject is unencyclopedic (for example individual songs or episodes of a TV show) should also be avoided in the absence of clear policies or guidelines against articles on such subjects" (emphasis added). In this case, there is a clear policy against articles of this type. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • WP:NOT#PLOT is disputed and I fail to see how this article turns Wikipedia into an indiscriminate collection of information. You expected to find "a real-world history of the development of the comic strip" so why don't you make it one? --Pixelface (talk) 21:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep good arguments for enriching the article, not for deleting it. DGG (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • And what are those "good arguments"? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep I think it could do with some cleanup and possibly merge back into the parent article, but a summary of major plot points that took place over the 26 years the characters have aged/changed seems relevant and useful. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 23:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• KeepThe article was originally split from the main article due to its length. As Sxeptomaniac mentions, a summary of major plot points is useful. Cleanup would be a good idea, but I do not think it can be merged back into the original article.Vgranucci (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Cleanup how? Since there's no encyclopedic information anywhere in this article, there's nothing to clean up. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:PLOT by design. Not only does the article contain nothing but plot with no real world context, that's all it could ever do. WP:SS is not an excuse to make an article that does not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Sometimes when articles grow long it's because there's material that shouldn't be there. Jay32183 (talk) 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, storylines are not unencyclopedic and this could actually be merged into the For Better or For Worse article per the editing policy. I think this is a fine sub-article of For Better or For Worse. --Pixelface (talk) 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • If kept (and it's starting to look like it will be), this will pretty much have to merged into the main article, since as a standalone article, it's a blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. And yes, storylines are supremely unencyclopedic. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
    • No, storylines are not unencyclopedic. If this is too long to merge into the main article per size constraints, it's fine to keep this as a sub-article. If the article needs something extra (like development information), put some cleanup tags on the article. --Pixelface (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
      • It doesn't need cleanup. It needs deletion. It is not "fine to keep this as sub-article". There is nothing in the article that even remotely approaches encyclopedia-worthiness, although it may come close to being a copyright violation. Adding real-world development information would be fine, as long as everything that is currently in the article is removed first. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 01:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
        • What makes you think this article may come close to being a copyright violation? --Pixelface (talk) 02:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • The fact that everything in it is the intellectual property of Lynn Johnston. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 08:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
            • Dude, this brief of a summary is so far inside of fair use it isn't worth discussing as even a theoretic problem. Hobit (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
              • If you're going to claim fair use, where's the fair use rationale? Does this article comply with the entirety of Wikipedia's fair use guidelines and policy? —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Are you Lynn Johnston? Are you a lawyer? Plot summaries don't need a fair use rationale. WP:FAIR says "Copyright law only governs creative expressions that are "fixed in a tangible medium of expression," not the ideas or information behind the works. It is legal to reformulate ideas based on written texts, or create images or recordings inspired by others, as long as there is no copying (see plagiarism for how much reformulation is necessary)." And Mike Godwin, general counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation, said "plot summaries, in general, are not taken to be copyright infringement so long as they do not include any great degree of the original creative expression."[62] --Pixelface (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:PLOT: "Wikipedia articles on published works (such as fictional stories) should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's development and historical significance, not solely a detailed summary of that work's plot." Just because the topic is notable does not mean that it's appropriate to write in-universe information at length in an encyclopedia with no secondary sources to analyze such a history. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:SIZE. This comes back to "can a page rely on its parent for notability?". And my reading of WP:SIZE is yes, but the notability of the topic as a whole better justify it. This clearly is well past that justification as this comic is hugely notable. Hobit (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • WP:SIZE actually says not to do this. When a plot section grows trivially long, you trim it, you don't split it. Neither WP:SIZE nor WP:SS encourage ignoring WP:NOT or WP:N. Jay32183 (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Partly correct. So the base article meets all WP standards and the split article is viewed as a part of the whole. Neither NOT nor N is violated. Is the plot section of something that has been running daily for ~30 years likely to _need_ to be that long? Is it "concise"? I'd say yes (the last 2 years probably not actually). Taking the articles as a whole they meet WP:PLOT easily. Hobit (talk) 11:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • No, the split article is not "viewed as a part of the whole". The split article is an article unto itself and must meet WP:NOT and WP:N independently. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 12:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
        • And there we disagree. The organization of the topic (For Better or for Worse in this case) may break into many different pages, but logically one article. The first goal should be to break the article up as makes sense editorially. If that is into sections or even different pages, that is what we should do. Trying to meet different standards for each part is a secondary goal no matter if the parts are on separate pages or just different sections. Hobit (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Well, editorially it makes no sense to put all of the non-encyclopedic plot summary into a separate article. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
            • It does make sense if article size is a concern — or you can try to cram nearly 30 years of events into the main article. --Pixelface (talk) 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
              • Better yet, you omit the 30 years of fictional events from an encyclopedia whose focus is the real world. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
                • Those fictional events were published in the real world so I don't see what you mean. Do you want to know what Lynn Johnston ate for breakfast before she drew the strip every day? --Pixelface (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete this trivia per WP:PLOT. We already have For_Better_or_For_Worse#Key_storylines for the important stories. This trivia ("Lawrence breaks his leg in a bicycle accident ... Farley goes to obedience classes") can go. --Dragonfiend (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This is actually a sub-article of the #Key storylines section in that article. It got too long and was spunout per summary style. --Pixelface (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Stop trying to game WP:SS against the inclusion criteria. The guidelines you're trying to use do not suggest ignoring other policies just to maintain a certain article length. WP:SIZE says not to do this. Try actually reading the part of WP:PLOT that says Wikipedia articles should not consist only of plot. This is an article consisting entirely of plot. There is absolutely no one to logically claim this article doesn't fail that policy. Maybe what you need to read is Wikipedia:What is an article?. The part that says "a page" not "a series of pages" may be of particular interest to you. Jay32183 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
      • The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability. If you took the time to look through the history of this article, you'd see it was created on October 12, 2006 by JenKilmer[63], who spun it out from the main article.[64] I don't care what WP:PLOT says. If this article needs something more than plot, add it yourself. Maybe you need to read WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY and WP:IAR. --Pixelface (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. and clean-up per AfD. Useful information that would be trimmed down for the main article which seems HUGE so a spin-off article seems fine and can be improved to wikipedia standards. If plot-only is an issue then fix it; numerous ways to do so and suggestions on how to do so would be most helpful. One suggest is delete which doesn't seem to have consensus, any other ideas? Benjiboi 23:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I think this section from the manual of style speaks to spun-off plot summarizes and other suggestions for writing this article. Benjiboi 23:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

1 Night in Paris

1 Night in Paris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Without encyclopedic relevance. Camachista 22:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Camachista's concerns are valid but in this case, given the huge amount of press coverage, I believe this article should be expanded rather than deleted. --Yamla (talk) 22:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The fame is not in the video, but in Paris Hilton. Where it is the encyclopedic relevance? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camachista (talk • contribs) 22:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment Nominator appears to have inadvertently voted for own nomination. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep Received a lot of media coverage, which does make it notable. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep there are enough sources. To the extent things like this are notable, we have the articles.DGG (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep -- received wide coverage in mainstream media. - Longhair\^talk 23:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There is often editor pressure to include more about this video in the article about Paris Hilton. Because Wikipedia has this article about the video, the other article can refer here for readers who want the details. Sans this article, I would expect great pressure to include much more about the video in the Hilton article, to the detriment of that article. Wanderer57 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Or merge with Paris Hilton. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

'KEEP' Now more important then ever. Seriously, it was the most watched film of that year. --HungryJacks (talk) 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep This was a huge press sensation, and has become a legendary video. Of course it's with encyclopedic relevance! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.226.239 (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep This is easily one of the most famous things Paris Hilton is known. All the media coverage... Reverend X (talk) 21:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

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