Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 10 March 12 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Twilight[edit]

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

Non-notable band, no sources provided. Blast Ulna (talk) 09:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 00:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete A7 I see no assertation of notability at all. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No assertion of notability. I'd tend to disagree with a speedy, but only because the article is well over six months old. Speedy should be a bit speedier, methinks. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not found any sources in my own searching, and there is not otherwise an indication that this band passes WP:MUSIC so I will say delete. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Synthetic philosophy[edit]

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

Non-notable philosophy, seemingly taken from one website; no mention in reliable sources independent of the subject. скоморохъ 11:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —скоморохъ 11:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; OR. —TreasuryTag talkcontribs 17:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, without prejudice. This article seems to be about someone's personal project, and is referenced entirely to one website. An article under this title might be plausible. Google Scholar reports 1,140 hits on the phrase, a fairly substantial number. A lot of those seem to have to do with Herbert Spencer and his system, whose major publications were part of a grand scheme he called A System of Synthetic Philosophy. Redirection to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy is one option. If someone wants to write a real article about what makes Spencer's philosophy synthetic, and what other sorts of philosophy is aimed at synthesis, there may be a plausible article for this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is true that Herbert Spencer did develop something he called synthetic philosophy. He dedicated much of his life to it and published his findings in a series of books: A System of Synthetic Philosophy, First Principles, Principles of Biology, Principles of Sociology and Principles of Ethics. His project was very broad in scope and contains much that is of interest, but it would be hard to show that it was philosophically successful. It didn’t deliver any kind of philosophical resolution, it didn’t have much of an impact on the wider philosophical community, and it isn’t included on many of today’s philosophy syllabuses. It proved a philosophical dead end. Arguably this is because the components needed to construct a satisfactory philosophical synthesis weren’t available in his time, after all he was working in the 19th century environment of pre-Einsteinian physics, pre-genetics biology and pre-Wittgensteinian conceptions of philosophy. Perhaps there should be a disambiguation page with Synthetic philosophy (Herbert Spencer) and Synthetic philosophy (contemporary).
  • Synthetic philosophy does seem to be both innovative and scholarly. Perhaps it does provide the viable alternative to analytic philosophy that it says it does. If this is the case, then it is definitely notable and Wikipedia would be doing its users a disservice if it deleted the page. I recommend not deleting it, and perhaps adding a disambiguation page and an article on Herbert Spencer’s synthetic philosophy or a link to Herbert Spencer#The System of Synthetic Philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.103.38.118 (talk) 17:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 00:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Pure original research, and largely here, apparently, as a way to propagate links to and publicize a single web site. Kill it with fire. Nandesuka (talk) 04:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Arguably this could have (and should have) been speedied under CSD A3. There may be a valid discussion here somewhere, but it should probably be part of the Quran article. Nandesuka (talk) 04:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Final testament[edit]

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

Seems to be a WP:OR essay, not contributing to the encyclopedia. Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arabic bible for the AfD on another article by the same user which is link to in this one. SGGH speak! 12:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment There do appear to be sources that say this is an established cognomen for the Qur'an. Indeed, the disambiguation page on Testament includes the Qur'an for that reason. I'm inclined towards a redirect if there are no other articles which could also use this title; otherwise, it could be turned into a disambiguation page for the articles. --Sturm 15:45, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The google book search revealed atleast one other book than the one mentioned below[1]. So we may have a disamb page here. Weltanschaunng 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Final Testament does seem to refer to the Quran according to this book [2]. As for the content of the article, it seems to be telling nothing more than Qur'an. Redirect to Qur'an. Weltanschaunng 16:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially OR. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all OR. It is a well known argument in Islamic thought that the Quran is the final testament. See for example the book referenced above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 12:13, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article has been modified since the last comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logifix (talk • contribs) 01:25, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess[edit]

List of minor characters in Xena: Warrior Princess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

An list of unnotable characters that all fail WP:FICT on their own, and that fail the basic guidelines for mentioning about the show. Being minor characters who mostly appear in single episodes, this list is nothing but trivia and an indiscriminate collection of characters that aren't important enough to cover in the main character list. Per the TV MOS, we do NOT mention or list every last character to make a 1-2 episode list appearance in a television series. This is not the Xenaverse wiki and such Xena cruft needs to be deleted (with transwiki, as I'm sure there really is a Xena wiki). Collectonian (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to List of Hercules and Xena characters and trim greatly. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 04:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable sub-article. "Xena cruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 13:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being unnotable is. This is not the Xena directory. Collectonian (talk) 15:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Five pillars of what Wikipedia is, i.e. not paper and specialized. Thus, this encyclopedic article of notable and verifiable characters is consistent with a specialized enycclopedia on Xena. No benefit to our project or the collection of human knowledge to lose this article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 15:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A specialised encyclopedia would still contain sourced real-world analysis, not excessive plot detail. This article isn't consistent with that. The benefit to our project of losing this information is explained at WP:IINFO. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no secondary sources and no sourced assertion of notability; fails WP:N. The characters are, by the article title, 'minor' - so this isn't a valid spinout, even if that section of WP:FICT were undisputed. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Weak because I am not able to see that each of these characters is in fact discussed in the book about the series which Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles pointed out, "Xena Warrior Princess: Complete Illustrated Companion" by K. Stoddard Hayes. In its 240 pages such a book probably discusses major and many minor characters, so it is a secondary published source for those minor characters it in fact discusses. This supplements the actual episodes which are primary sources and less convincing. A list is far, far preferable to having a stub article about each minor character, and merging the list into the main Xena article would probably tend to make it too long. The WP:N requirement for substantial coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources does not prevent less notable things or characters being included in articles, as long as the articles themselves are about notable things. Edison (talk) 17:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is notable about the minor, one time appearance of a person in Xena? The notability of the series is not inherited by its sub-articles. Collectively the major characters of the series are notable. Collectively, the episodes are notable. Collectively, a bunch of one-time, minor characters are not notable. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Minor characters in a major series should be handled in a list fashion such as this, so long as the content is verifiable. Notability is established with reference to the series, because this is effectively a break-out article from the main article on Xena. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite. To be a break-out article, the content would have to be acceptable in the main content except for size issues. The TV MOS specifically notes that only major characters should be listed. So this list would never have been acceptable in the main article, even without the size issues, so it is not a break-out article. Collectonian (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, "minor characters in Xena" is not established; you'd need sources for that. If you want to claim this is exempt from notability under the spinouts clause, then I'd point out that (a) that's hotly disputed, and (b) as Collectonian points out, it would be unacceptable in the main article, so it's unacceptable here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That so many believe the article should be kept demonstrates that there is some notability here. Spinout clauses are not the only policies or guidelines lacking consensus. If nothing else, removing the article that is clearly notable to a respectable segment of good faith contributors does not in any way benefit our project, but only alienates those contributors and readers. We are a comprehensive paperless encyclopedia. We should only be picky about deleting hoaxes, how-to-guides, personal attacks, and copywright violations. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a vote. Keep votes don't establish notability, sources do. You may have your own opinions about what we should delete, but consensus is with WP:N, WP:IINFO and WP:DEL. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're confusing consensus and your own opinion again. Lists of minor characters don't have consensus support. There's currently some debate about the extent to which lists of major characters do; but that's not relevant here. Your amazon link only serves to list books about Xena. In order to establish that "minor characters in Xena" is a notable topic, you need to add references to the article which point to coverage specifically of minor characters. Until you do, the article fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to confuse as consensus is clearly that this article is relevant. Obviously minor characters in Xena appear in both books and the show and thus the articles passes WP:N. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep good organization of less notable Xena characters. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although a merge discussion may be appropriate, this list contains important information that is necessary to understand the series. Ursasapien (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether or not it's useful isn't a reason to keep it. There's no coverage here. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's not reason to delete it, though. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the contrary, the fact that it fails WP:N is ample reason; the nominator provides several more. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I've seen far more compelling reasons to keep, though. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Care to point them out? Given that usefulness isn't one, I haven't seen any yet. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have seen no compelling reasons to delete. Compelling reasons to keep: verifiable, per five pillars (consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Xena, satisfies List guideline, discriminate list, organized list, interesting to readers and therefore potential contributors and donators to our project, helps fulfill the goal of cataloging the sum total of human knowledges, does not fail any policies, Wikipedia does not have a deadline, Wikipedia is not clean up, etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Verifiability is a necessary but not sufficient. A specialised encyclopedia is still not indiscriminate. The list guidelines are about content, not deletion. Interest is not a readon. Helpful is not a reason. "does not fail any policies" is just plain false (WP:N), the other two aren't reasons. WP:N is a reason, per WP:DEL#REASON. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yes, and this list is discriminate. A mis or limited interpretation of N is NOT a sufficient reason. Plus, if all else fails, we have Ignore All Rules, as deleting this article does not benefit our project in any way and if anything would only be a detriment to Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • The article contradicts you in its title; it's a list of "minor characters" - how much more indiscriminate can you get? WP:N is pretty straightforward, and comes out of WP:V and WP:IINFO. Either you have sources, or you fail WP:N. That's not interpretation, it's literal reading. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The article passes all of these guidelines as it has already been proven that sufficient sources exist. It is a list of a specific class of characters for a specific franchise. How much discriminate can you get? Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; verifiable. Yes, I know that an encyclopedia should just be about how people kill each other because actually having articles on culture just encourages those damn dirty hippies, but Wikipedia isn't paper, and we actually do have room for articles on verifiable subjects that have large fandoms.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Verifiable, perhaps, but not notable. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, and sourced real-world analysis is required. It's utterly absent from this article.
      • The article is notable and is a discriminate list. If we have sources, then we should be able to add additional analysis over time. We do not have a deadline and we've only been around for a few years. There's no urgency. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's non-notable because there's no sourced coverage. That's what is required for notability; please read WP:N instead of making up your own rules. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually it is notable because of the existence of widespread sourced coverage. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • So add that coverage to the article now, or ask for it to be userified and add it after the deletion. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • You are welcome to help out and sources to the article rather than just tell others to do so. The article is not going to be deleted as no logical reason for doing so has been presented. I cannot imagine these books in particularl] containing information that could not be used to improve this article. Because we know published sources do indeed exist, let's give editors a reasonable amount of time to locate or purchases these books to in fact mine them for what they can. We do not have a deadline here; once we've established that an article can be made and published sources do exist, we then can take our time making the best article we can. There is no rush. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That isn't how it works. You are the only one claiming that those books clearly establish notability. That has been questioned. You, the claimer, must prove it, not the people questioning it. If you want to say the minor characters in Xena are "clearly notable" then YOU must prove it. Right now, there is not a shread of evidence and pointing to a bunch of books on Xena as a whole does not prove the notability of THIS list. It only speaks to the show's notability as a whole, not the show's minor and one-episode characters. You need to point to SIGNIFICANT coverage of the minor characters in reliable sources that are not produced by the show itself to establish the topic as notable. Collectonian (talk) 17:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Yes, it is how it works. We are a colloborative enterprise attempting to catalog the sum total of human knowledge. The books unquestionably establish notability. I can hold a bananna in front of someone and say "here's a bannana" and if someone continues to question that it exists, there's not much more than needs to be done to prove it to them. The article is a subarticle of a larger topic with coverage in significant reliable sources. It takes time to go through these sources to finish building an article, but Wikipedia 1) is a work in progress and 2) does not have a deadline. Because we know sources exist that can be built to finish fleshing in the article, there is no reason why the article should not continue to exist so that editors can easily continue to build it up. Wikipedia gains absolutely nothing from removing the article. We could however insult editors and readers and donors by deleting it. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this fancruft. It's bad enough we have 35 other articles on Xena, but this indiscriminate list should go first. Biruitorul (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy Delete G3/G12 --JForget 01:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadillac Bus[edit]

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

Clear hoax. A copy and paste job of Cadillac Escalade with "Escalade" replaced with "Bus". Prod removed by anon (most likely author). JuJube (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloog[edit]

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

Minor detail (namely, one monster) from Commander Keen games. Would better belong to a devoted wiki (the article lists two). Delete. If I were really generous, I might have suggested creation of a page like "Creatures in Commander Keen series". (Contested WP:PROD.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:28, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Maxim(talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete holy crap this is gamecruft to the extreme. I'm a Keen fan, but this is ridiculous. JuJube (talk) 00:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Young Hercules Awards and Nominations[edit]

Xena: Warrior Princess, Hercules: The Legendary Journeys and Young Hercules Awards and Nominations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Inappropriate attempt to split out the award sections from Xena and adding in two additional television series into a single, messy awards. No consensus for such a split from Xena, and no attempt was ever made to add the awards to the others. The awards won by the shows are not notable on their own and should be covered in the respective main articles for each show. None of those show articles have legitimate size issues to justify a split. Collectonian (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • One doesn't need a merge, the awards were already in the Xena article. Hercules and Young Hercules don't appear to have had such sections, but I don't work in those two often, so may just be another copy paste. Collectonian (talk) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The awards for each respective show should be in the show's own article. Combining all three shows' awards into one article appears to be misguided. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the award information belongs with each individual show and not as a conglomeration -- Whpq (talk) 13:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into their respective articles. If an article can be merged, it should not be nominated for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Both series had great participation in the awards, and had notable awards, as Emmys -- Tarja Lawless (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Merge into relevant articles or at least delete nominations, these are not notable, only awards won are notable.--NeilEvans (talk) 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as awards and nominations are consistent with the Five pillars, i.e. that Wikipedia contains elements of almanacs. My almanacs list awards and nominations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:N - really, this sort of thing tarnishes the encyclopedia's reputation for scholarliness, such as it is. Biruitorul (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures[edit]

List of Avatar: The Last Airbender creatures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article is just a list of creatures that appear every once in a while. There are a few notable creatures that are even considered main characters, but those are limited to a number of about five out of more than forty. In addition, all the information in the article is basically a recap from what happened in the show and the article has no references at all, even for in-universe information. Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) 23:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as nominator. May I also point out that names for some of the animals are not even confirmed and the article points this out.
  • Delete These bizarre combos have me seriously interested in A:TLA now, but unfortunately it seems that most of these are just one shot jobs that don't deserve to be in such an indiscrimiante list. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with the nominator. Important creatures can be discussed on relevant pages, most of these aren't all that important or notable. So merge appropriate ones. seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Same as above. Rau's talk 23:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is no one going to contest this? And if not, then do we have to wait? Rau's talk 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's roughly two days left for the AfD. Something could very well change in that time, so it's best to leave these open the full five days. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I've worked on this page, but I've always thought that there are way too many articles on parts of television shows that are simply not notable. Millancad (talk) 05:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liverpool Students' Union[edit]

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

For a simple reason, this article serves a purpose to promote the student union and nothing else. Also, god knows if individual student unions are notable in its own right, hence not notable at all, therefore fails WP:N, this is why this is nominated. Also I wish people don't come here and write as if they are writing a holiday brochure. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not notable. Basketball110 what famous people say ♣ 23:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SUs are not inheritently notable, and this one fails to assert notability through external sources etc. TalkIslander 23:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Liverpool John Moores University else Delete per nom & discussion. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Almost all colleges have a student union. Unless it has some kind of special history or architecture or something, it is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep major functional division of universities. almost qall colleges have one, and the ones at the more important colleges and universities are separately notable. DGG (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, how can this SU be notable when all universities have a SU and does that make every SU notable. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 23:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. GreenJoe 14:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge any relevant content to the university's page, student unions are not inherently notable and it's the rare one (not this one) that has any external notability. See also WP:CORP's Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources can be found. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into existing university article. SMC (talk) 21:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - winner of 'Best Bar None Awards'. And as in the previous AfD, the argument that a University serves a purly local group is false and compleatly ignores the notable topic of Student exchange programs in most (if not all) Universities. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 10:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, are you attempting to say that every bar thart won this award should get their own article, my reply is no, not at all as it will clutter this article. Also this student exchange thing only applies to universities, not SUs. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Bar did not win this award, The SU did. That is notable. Are Exchange students barred from joining the SU? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 03:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this what I call international fame, ha ha ha, don't make me laugh! Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 11:31, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why must it be international? Where is that stipulated? Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 07:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Knock-Off. Mr McLovin (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG TorstenGuise (talk) 19:27, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG - needs work but then most articles do. Keith D (talk) 20:28, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ongoing discussion on notability of student unions/student governments on TF:SA and WP:UNI. This article should not be deleted (along with all the other student union articles on AfD at the moment until clear guidelines on student unions may be reached. WP:NOT#Wikipedia does not have a deadline. Also note possible proposal of WikiProject Students' Unions, which is in the WPCouncil at the moment. The supporters of the project believes that all students unions have inherit notability regardless of sufficient coverage using standard WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai talk ♦ contribs 11:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reasons as Loughborough. I suspect that the reference to Liverpool John Moores University is to the wrong institution and is certainly wrong. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG and nom. By the way, the reference to Liverpool John Moores University is correct. The union of the University of Liverpool is the Liverpool Guild of Students. Andy (talk) 02:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DGG. Also British Student Unions are bound to be notable just by the size of their membership, the range of other clubs and societies they sponsor and the total size of their budget. They just need references to be found. --Bduke (talk) 10:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ORG. Thousands of members for dozens of years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 07:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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...? 05:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incisive Media[edit]

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Incisive Media. Was speedied under WP:CSD#G11. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Rewrite though. Over 92 Financial Times hits [3] Computerjoe's talk 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notable company, enough sources are available. Article needs to be rewritten though. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 22:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or redirect to Apax Partners. There's not much actual content here, so a merge or redirect to the parent company seems to be the right editorial course. If someone adds enough verifiable content justifying a separate article, it can always be spun out later.--Kubigula (talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finnimore[edit]

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

Previously tagged for speedy so I don't think it's prod-eligible. No evidence of notability for this surname. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 15:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mimosa Train[edit]

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

Unverified article about an event that is not notable. I had placed a PROD on the article, but an IP removed it. So where we are. seresin | wasn't he just...? 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as unverified and maybe nn. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. "2 to 10 people" participate in this event? Charlottetown has a population of 32,174. It is definately non-notable. Especially when it is not verified. Billscottbob (talk) 23:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a "tradition" that has lasted for only 5 months and consists of people drinking at brunch in a restaurant. No relevant Google hits other than Wikipedia and mirrors. No relevant sources provided. Also, the article is poorly written. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a "tradition" that only recently (Nov 2007) came about having absolutely no sources whatsoever. Wikipedia is not for things made up in a bar one day. -- Whpq (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no references=no proof of notability. Johntex\talk 17:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

James Semisi[edit]

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

No references, no evidence of notability and I couldn't find anything about him elsewhere. American Football has a very low profile in New Zealand - only a handful of clubs. dramatic (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not notable - Mitico (talk) 12:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, ditto - --Helenalex (talk) 04:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ravichandar 12:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This does appear to hve never been released. Moving this to Born to Try (album) to preserve history, then redirecting that to Delta Goodrem. Moving Born to Try (song) to this name. Black Kite 22:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born to Try[edit]

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

Unreleased album with minimal media coverage that appears to have been canceled—I was unable to find any indication that this album is still scheduled for release. Fails WP:MUSIC. Previous AfD resulted in no consensus. Rather than redirect, I think moving Born to Try (song) to Born to Try makes more sense. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - merge info into Delta Goodrem article.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 00:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and Redirect to Born to Try. This article plainly hasn't been touched in a while, and since the album has vanished off the landscape ...  Ravenswing  15:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). Keilana|Parlez ici 02:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avariel[edit]

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

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons race/monster. No evidence of third party coverage, though they have appeared in Dungeons & Dragons video/computer games, and are an elven subrace often mentioned. As such, they deserve a mention on the main elf article, which they already have. As such, no merge is needed (unless someone wants to expand the avriel mention in the main article). Worth mentioning I removed a huge copyvio from this article just before nominating it. Probably not worth mentioning that this is my favourite race from my favourite supplement. J Milburn (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per BOZ. shadzar-talk 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable article with no out-of-universe coverage. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per BOZ. Makes sense to list subraces/variants of otherwise notable race in one article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Merge and redirect to Elf (Dungeons & Dragons)#Avariel in the Forgotten Realms. There's sufficient coverage to support inclusion in that page, but not in an article of their own. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Plus, referenced article, so passes Notability and Verifiability guidelines. Even if we were to merge, we would still need to keep this article and redirect it per the GFDL. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Appearance in major franchise supplies both notability and reliable sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it doesn't. Where are these reliable sources of which you speak? J Milburn (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually it does. The game and various D&D encyclopedias are reliable sources and have already been linked to from Amazon.com. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not in terms of determining notability. From that point of view, reliable sources have to be third party. First party sources may be used sparingly to reference certain information, but are unrelated to notability. J Milburn (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In terms of encyclopedic notability for a sub-article, primary sources are perfectly acceptable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • I agree that lists of characters are good, that's what the project is working on at the moment. However, I do not agree that individual articles for characters (or, in this case, monsters/races) are good, unless they have displayed independent notability. That is what this article is- a race from a game, worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia, but not worthy of its own article. We're effectively doing what was done with Pokémon articles- the notable ones can stay, but the masses that have no real significance can all be merged into lists. J Milburn (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • If a list is being made, though, with mergers in mind, then we should redirect the article to that list and if we ever do redirect something, I see no reason why the edit history should not be included. Part of what I don't like about removing edit histories also has to do with RfAs. It is incredibly frustrating when looking at a candidate's edit history, not being able to see deleted contribs which could tell one a good deal more about the candidate's edit history. Thus, if there's even a minor justification for redirecting an article, I think it best that we do so as there are others positives to be gained for the community at large for doing so. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ravichandar 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)-Ravichandar 13:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears in multiple texts from multiple media - not easily merged in, and if all similar articles were merged in it would be a train wreck. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging all of it in is a bad idea, obviously. But the avariel is already mentioned at the elf article. It is undeniable that it has appeared in multiple places, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no third party sources. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I fail to see that as a major problem. Phil Sandifer (talk) 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • You fail to see how the lack of third party sources is a problem? So we should have an article on every fictional character, race, monster, planet, spaceship, everything, ever? And if not, why do you believe we should treat this one any differently? J Milburn (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • All of the ones that appear in multiple media and series, yes. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
all i see is D&D books where they are nmentioned. even the other media section is D&D games. winged elves are a neat idea, but but this name Avariel they are nothing special. just a different type of elf and even the article contains nothing more to suggest otherwise. they could easily be included in the elf article without crowding it. these subraces are still just an offshoot. a rose is a rose by any other name... shadzar-talk 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
D&D casts a pretty wide net. Certainly they have appeared in numerous D&D-related media. Phil Sandifer (talk) 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Forgit[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate in an election, no other claim to notability. Blueboy96 22:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP:Candidate in an election is notable. Fbdave (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable candidate Chris! ct 03:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO#Politicians "Just being . . . an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability. Article does not assert any other notability. Mitico (talk) 12:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if he wins the nomination, he might be notable. If he wins the election, he'll definitely be notable. Until then, or until he does something that makes him the subject of substantial coverage in reliable third party sources, he's not. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kruthik[edit]

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

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons. Apparently appeared only in one supplement. Article contains original research and is mostly just in-universe information. No evidence of third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reggae rock[edit]

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

There are no sources which establish the existence of this genre; it seems to be defined as a fusion of reggae and something else, which would make it a collection of more specific genres. In addition, the article has no useful content. EAE (Holla!) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for the same reason. The article is basicly just original research, and was even worse before I tried to make it more encyclopedic. Spylab (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, with no preference/prejudice as to whether this should be merged or where. Merging is a non-AfD procedure that can be done with discussion on relevant talkpages of the articles. Doesn't seem to be a consensus as to where to merge, but there is certainly a consensus to not delete this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortis (Doctor Who)[edit]

Vortis (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable planet- only appeared in one episode and a novel. We don't have articles on every planet to have ever appeared in Doctor Who. --OZOO 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Histachii[edit]

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

Dungeons & Dragons monster that has apparently only appeared in a single first party magazine article, nearly twenty years ago. No evidence of third party coverage or significance. May warrant a mention at Yuan Ti, but, if this is its only appearance, probably doesn't. J Milburn (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Yuan-ti. FYI, first appeared in Dragon mag, then in the Kara-Tur Monstrous Compendium, and most recently in the 3E Faerun Monstrous Compendium. BOZ (talk) 22:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eurgh, should have realised about the Faerun Monstrous Compendium, think I have that somewhere... J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just realised I don't, and the book doesn't actually exist... Anyway, that's irrelevent. J Milburn (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Doesn't exist? [4] :) BOZ (talk) 23:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I see. I thought that was just called Monsters of Faerun. J Milburn (talk) 23:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable. everything cited, here too, is all in-universe. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)-Ravichandar 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely in-universe with no possibility of independent reliable sources - Peripitus (Talk) 11:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The News (band)[edit]

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

"Article is entirely unsourced. Many claims but searching Google web and books I cannot find a single site even mentioning this band other than their Myspace page, much less a reliable source which verifies the subject exists."

Those aren't my words. That's what User:Fuhgetaboutit wrote last year in his PROD notice, which was declined with a recommendation to give it more time. More time has indeed passed, and still the only reference is a myspace page. I have nothing more to say. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. Undeath (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I meant to AfD this ages ago and actually started writing a nomination and then got sidetracked and subsequently forgot. I have located some of the research I did at the time in a wordpad file where I dump things in progress showing that there are no results for any of the band members but for Wikipedia mirrors, using a targeted Google search to avoid false positives: [5] [6] [7] [8]. Appears unverifiable.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unverifiable band that fails WP:MUSIC quite thouroughly. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "The News" may be nn and deletable, but there is at least one band of this name that is not. As such, delete this, and use the title as a redirect to Huey Lewis & The News. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is no consensus to delete this article, and, while there is strong consensus that it does not warrant stand-alone status, there is not clear consensus to support a merge. There is also insufficient unique content to warrant a merge, given that the information is now duplicated without GFDL infringement at Qilin already. The target of the redirect may, of course, be altered at a future point if a more appropriate D&D specific location is designated. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

Ki-rin (Dungeons & Dragons) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Pretty standard Dungeons & Dragons monster, there are a few very similar to this. No evidence of any significance or third party coverage. J Milburn (talk) 21:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment We were discussing what to do with the monster articles at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons; not sure why you're not letting that process work itself out first? Anyway, redirect to Creature type (Dungeons & Dragons)#Magical beast for the moment. BOZ (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We are working on a better destination to redirect articles like this, but I don't know if it will be ready before this AFD is over. BOZ (talk) 19:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Qilin which is the main article on this beast. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as is always preferred. WP policy is that merging is preferable to deletion. And this can be closed right now, for a suggested merge doesnt belong in Afd in the first place. DGG (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I knew no where this could appropriately be merged to, and do not support the merge proposed above. From experience, the editors of mythology related articles do not appreciate piles of 'the monster in every fantasy universe ever' type sections, and rightly so- they are useless sections. If we are not going to have the huge sections with trivial information from first party sources, why should we allow the D&D mention specifically. I personally support an outright delete, no merge. J Milburn (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The editors of that article evidently do appreciate such material. Please see Qilin#Contemporary media references which includes much similar material but is currently missing coverage of D&D. Mythology is not an ancient lost art. Modern storytelling such as RPGs and movies uses the same tropes in such cases and so it is appropriate to cover the topic in a unified way. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, perhaps in this case a mention (not a full on merge) is appropriate, but I know in many other cases when the trivial information about the monster's appearance in a load of fantasy games was not appreciated and certainly did not improve the article. However, as this is a useless search term for a redirect, I still support deletion once a mention has been made in the main article. J Milburn (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not a useless search term - it can be used to redirect to the appropriate section of the Qilin article. Moreover there seems no danger of confusion within article namespace. Confusion mainly arises because of the different transliterations and usages and so we should have many redirects to cover all of these. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, strange how that article mentions all those other versions, but not the D&D one? BOZ (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with them either, but adding the D&D version won't help. J Milburn (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Qilin#Contemporary media references needs further trimming (than I did); you can help. Nice link, thanks. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. That section entirely inappropriate per WP:TRIVIA Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and add a section regarding it's existence in D&D and copy the sources over. Celarnor (talk) 12:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — non-notable fictional critter with no out-of-universe sources. Specifically, do not merge this to Qilin; that whole Contemporary media references section is an unencyclopaedic blight on that article — a puffed-up trivia section. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In what way is it unencyclopedic? It lists references in contemporary media, which is commonly encountered with mythological figures. References are what make encyclopedia encyclopedic. If anything, not merging it would make it a less complete encyclopedic entry. Celarnor (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm with Jack on this one. If there are third party sources documenting those creatures in those specific fictional universes, then yes, they are notable as a reincarnation of the mythic creature. However, if they don't, then including them is a bad idea. On our article on socks, would we list every fictional character who wears them? Perhaps those who are famous for wearing them ('famous' meaning that third party sources have mentioned it) but not every one that does. See where I am coming from? J Milburn (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You seem to be confusing two meanings of the word reference. Encyclopaedic references are citations of sources. Hannah Montana saying she has a white cat she named Ki-rin in some episode of a tv show is a trivial reference.
    My concern here — and I know that a proper place to take this at some point is a policy or guideline page — is that a merge of a non-notable pop-culture article has been proposed to a real article without anyone at or associated with the target article having been given a heads-up about the debate. I feel that no such merge result can be viewed as legitimate without parties interested in the target article being involved in the debate
    This D&D dragon amounts to one of thousands of critters for D&D; it warrants no more than a mention in a list.
    Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:59, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no non-trivial secondary coverage; fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Possibly a candidate for merging to a D&D list; not suitable for merging into a real-world mythology article as it would essentially form a pop-culture trivia section. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. Agree that a merge would simply create trivia and should be avoided. Eusebeus (talk) 13:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wikipedia:First pillar, i.e. consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Dungeons & Dragons. Plus, referenced article, so passes Notability and Verifiability guidelines. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't pass our notability guidelines, they're primary sources, not reliable ones. J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Encyclopedias use both primary and secondary sources. Encyclopedias in the early years (look at the first editions of the Enlightenment Encyclopedie, for example, had articles composed entirely of primary sources. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If you have an issue with our reliable source or notability policies, you should raise it on the talk pages or at the village pump. But, before you do, think about what you're saying. From where I am, it looks as if you are saying that anything with primary sources is notable, which means that every publication, ever, is notable. I don't think you actually believe that. J Milburn (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I don't think I would say that "everything with a primary source is notable," but I do think that WIkipedia is not like any encyclopedia (the First pillar even says as much) and thus we should not merely be a Britannica clone, but that we should catalog as much of human knowledge as possible and I do take the bit about containing elements of specialized enycclopedias quite literally, i.e. any article on a topic that appears in any published specialized encyclopedia should be fair game for inclusion on Wikipedia. Because there are indeed multiple D&D encyclopedias, whatever in them is literally consistent with "encyclopedic content" and can be verified. So, a report card or something of mine may be a primary source and yet it doesn't mean that I'm notable enough to have an article (yet, at least :)), but a character that is reasonably familiar to large numbers of people who are not just from one particular locale and to large numbers of people over time, I think is justifiably notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. Disagree that it's trivial per se. Jclemens (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why? J Milburn (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I find the Merge arguments others have made compelling, and believe that due to the number of mythological references and the length of time this creature has appeared in D&D set it apart from the rest of the D&D monster AFD's. To put it bluntly, this is the only monster listed that I had any idea what it is. That's an admittedly subjective gauge of triviality, of course. Jclemens (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, seeing what you've added to the Qilin article, I'll switch my opinion to Merge--adding that brings the article in line with what we'd expect from, say, stormbringer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jclemens (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is just one of thousands of non-notable stock characters with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside D&D canon. --Gavin Collins (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this recent obituary which specifically highlights the Kirin as an example of the way in which D&D embraces much culture and folklore. The Kirin is notable and the connection with D&D is notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Upon seeing the reference, I agree. I recommend you add a mention, along with the reference, to the article on the mythical creature. J Milburn (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that Colonel Warden hadn't done so yet, so I made a tentative insertion of the article he referenced into the article. I hope that helps. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I have added it to the article on the mythological creature- with a third party source, it's worth including. J Milburn (talk) 00:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Really, that reference speaks to Gygax's notability, not to that of a D&D Ki-rin or the Sphinx (anyone going to cite it there?); it is a trivial reference; two examples out of thousands. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I don't think that changes the notability for the D&D monster- it still isn't notable. However, I feel that mention means it warrants a mention in the article on the mythological creature. I added it in this case, I didn't add for the others. J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The main thing is that if we have agreed that the Ki-rin and the reference are worth including in the other article, then we need to redirect this article to that article without deleting it. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This can be redirected there for now, but it will later be redirected to the monster lists that we at the WikiProject are working on at the moment. J Milburn (talk) 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Please just keep in mind that if anything is merged, that we need to keep the contrib history from this article public, so it would need to be a redirect sans deletion. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't merged- I took the source and added something to the main article, I didn't take anything from the monster article. There is no reason to keep the article history, and it is a poor redirect anyway. J Milburn (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good redirect since it's a valid search term. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good search term for someone seeking information on the monster, but anyone typing this in would be uninterested in the mythological creature. J Milburn (talk) 18:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure I completely buy that. Certainly some, perhaps even most, would be uninterested in the mythological creature, but if someone is looking to find the mythological source of the D&D creature, the Qilin article would be a good result. Jclemens (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm also going to have to disagree that someone looking for info on a D&D monster would not be interested in its mythological roots. I certainly became a lot more interested in mythology because of D&D and comics, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. :) BOZ (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Debbi[edit]

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

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing primarily in a rather obscure campaign setting. Very little in-game information is known about it according to the article. No evidence of secondary sources. J Milburn (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete no evidence of extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources: game cruft. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this creature was detailed in MC13 and then appeared in 'Cities of Bone' and 'Assassin Mountain' only in my knowledge. neither had any information about it other than its name which required referencing the Monstrous Compendium for Al-Qadim to find anything out about it. very obscure monster with doubtful possibility of having ANY outside sources other than the setting it was created for, let alone real world references. and doubtful to have any information outside of the original text in the Monstrous Compendium that would be able to supply an article with. shadzar-talk 01:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable; mention in a list. Do not redirect, as this title has far more real-world potential. (Hi, Pete) Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Maxim(talk) 00:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The argument that this utterly fails WP:V and is probably a hoax is much stronger than the argument which says it's only a reference problem thus no need for deletion

Neofuturism[edit]

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

Get rid of this article. It is primarily the work of a single editor, who has only two edits (the other edit was an upload of a photograph of, supposedly, himself). Merge it, delete it, I don't think it matters. But as it stands, this article is very much below Wikipedia's standards. 75.111.18.26 (talk · contribs) Copied from article talk page. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question - Specifically what is of concern to the nominator? Does he/she mean to say this article lacks notability? Or just that it is not well sourced and could have COI? AtaruMoroboshi (talk) 14:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a rewrite, but it shouldn't be deleted. --Belinrahs (talk) 14:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Afd is not the forum to submit articles that have WP:PROBLEMS. Google Books/Scholar verify this is a notable topic. скоморохъ 18:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmmmm.... This article seems to be a hoax. It's hard to wade through all the buzzword noise, but google suggests that that neofuturism is actually an artistic movement, rather than philosophical. So I say, Delete. Mangoe (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ➨ REDVEЯS dreamt about you last night 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: agree that it needs a re-write but a google search shows that this is notable. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but with {{unreferenced}} tag. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Mangoe and the nominator that, once you sort through the sesquipedelian bullshit, the article does not square with the traditional definitions of neofuturism in art and architecture. The author appears to be having fun with this as an intellectual movement, a literary movement, an aid to "the impoverished field of future studies" (it provided "greatly needed neologisms and paleologisms", thank you). And there's now an intellectual divide in the school, which (naturally) makes adequate deconstruction impossible. Naturally. Mandsford (talk) 22:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An article might be written on one (or more) of the several movements or trends that the word has been used to denote—in particular, the Russian artistic movement—but there's nothing to do with this particular article except to jettison it. Obfuscatory goobledegook intended to disguise a complete lack of meaning. (And, by the way, it fails WP:V, since you'll not find any sources to support the "information" contained in this mess.) Deor (talk) 22:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article reads like someone's pet Sokal hoax, in the total absence of WP:RS sources this completely fails WP:V and has to go. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --JForget 23:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mormonism and violence[edit]

Mormonism and violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Utter nonsensical POV-ridden hodge podge. Anything worthy to mention should be mention in Mormonism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - well documented and sourced, but utterly unfitting for an entry in itself, as well as POV. As said above, if there is anything relevant, it should be included in the main article. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are hundreds of Mormonism-related articles, and everything can't fit in the article Mormonism. This particular article is a reposatory for many subjects that do not fit in other articles. There is a great deal of literature on the intersection of Mormonism and violence. In particular, there has been a great deal of violence against Mormons in the 19th century, and Mormons have distinctive doctrines relating to violence, much of which is found in the Book of Mormon. There is plenty of unique material here for an article. The remedy for any NPOV problems is to fix them, not delete the article. COGDEN 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not seeing the nonsensical POV. The nomination appears to be frivolous. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While I will admit there are POV concerns over this article, it is a valid topic in terms of addressing the role of violence in the LDS movement and in particular its impact upon the LDS Church. This is not something that ought to be shoved into one subsection of the Mormonism article, but deserves its own independent article. Due to the sheer volume of citeable references for this topic alone, fail to see why this was even raised as an AfD candidate. Even topics that merit their own separate articles like Mountain Meadows Massacre, Utah War, Danites, can and mostly are addressed as mere sub-sections to this article. I agree that some cleanup ought to occur, but does that justify deletion just because it is poorly written? --Robert Horning (talk) 12:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Robert Horning. I also see Kristjan Wager's point though, but think those issues can be fixed with some rephrasing (particularly in the lede) and minor structural reorganization. -- Fullstop (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Robert Horning. Edison (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with History of Mormonism and cleanup re NPOV Plutonium27 (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article documents a subject that is very notable, and needs coverage in a proper orderly fashion. If merged into "History of mormonism", the relation mormon doctrine has with violence, and the relation this doctrines have to their history, is lost and produces an (involuntary?) POV. Article is very useful, of interst to a large audience, and there are tons of sources to improve it. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sectarian violence in Pakistan[edit]

Sectarian violence in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Strange article. Strange information. More mysterious than Marfa lights. There is nothing notable in this article, not one single notable incident. If anything worthy to mention, should be merged into Religion in Pakistan. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I said this article has no single notable incident. If anything worthy to mention, can be merged into main article. As it stands, the entire article depends on only two or three sources. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
several major incidents addressed --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as it stands, the info can be merged into Islam in Pakistan. Do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic entry. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
previously not, but now it deserves --TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Could use more sources, but this is a good start. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Strange nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article looks good, I don't understand why it should be deleted Chris! ct 03:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, could use a broader variety of sources but this is clearly a notable problem in Pakistan. The lack of "incidents" which the nom decries may be fixed by expansion. Baffling nomination (and yes, I looked at the stub). --Dhartung | Talk 04:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination because the article have been improved later. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Antisemitism in the United States[edit]

Antisemitism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete: Full of original research. The information, which are properly sourced, can be merged in the article Antisemitism. This region based article is not notable and do not deserve for a separate encyclopedic entry. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep The article is amply sourced. Sources can be readily found for any unsourced statements. The reason this article was spun off from Antisemitism is because that article was overly long. Merging it would just recreate that problem. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it can be properly sourced, it might be worth keeping. As it stands, I concur with Otolemur crassicaudatus that it's full of original research. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, put a tag rather than asking AfD--TheFEARgod (Ч) 21:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:OR is a WP:PROBLEM requiring cleanup, not deletion. While this article is not heavily sourced, much of this article links to other articles which seem to have sources for antisemitism, so this looks largely verifiable. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The topic is notable, but lacks good sources and borderline WP:OR. However, deletion isn't a good way to deal with this. Cleanup is. Chris! ct 03:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly sourced (References section); what it lacks are inline citations. Editors must understand that Wikipedia enhancements commonly used in 2008 were not available several years ago. Before 2006 or so there were Featured Articles that didn't have a single inline citation. --Dhartung | Talk 04:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Certainly a notable topic. Needs some cleanup. Maxamegalon2000 05:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. Speedy keep per Dhartung. It's a well-referenced article, it just likes ref tags. Celarnor (talk) 12:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Antisemitism in the U.S. has a long scholarly history. It is different from antisemitism in Eastern Europe. Perfectly appropriate topic for a stand-alone article. POV or OR problems? Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so go and fix it. Edison (talk) 17:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete as vandalism. (Performed by Gb.) J Milburn (talk) 22:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel schmitz[edit]

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

This is a hoax. Google has plenty of Daniel Schmitz, but not this one. He "used the vast resources of his organization to support the return of Constantinople to Greece" - yeah, right. "ScamCo LLC" - just the name I would have chosen myself. Not surprisingly, no references from independent sources. JohnCD (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as it appears to be spam. The article links to an external website, run by a Daniel Schmitz. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: It is not a hoax, these are all actual accomplishments by the person responsible for YouAnnoyMe.org, a website that has recieved 10,000+ hits to date. His many books are unverifiable as of now because they are still in the final editing process before publication. ScamCo was so named because it identifies holes in security that could be exploited by scam artists— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.161.34.112 (talk • contribs) 21:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 10,000+ hits? You gotta be kidding me. My blog has received more hits than that, and I certainly won't claim that neither it nor I am worthy of a wiki entry. Unpublished books are certainly not noteworthy. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - his books are dated 2001 and 2002 - final editing is taking a long time! JohnCD (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aly Kassam-Remtulla[edit]

Aly Kassam-Remtulla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This individual does not appear to pass the notability guidelines: WP:BIO. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is one business week article (external link in article), but it is him writing about himself. Aside from that, I can only find press releases. Insufficient reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NN administrator Plutonium27 (talk) 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Problems (cleanup, possible rename, ...) can be adressed at article talk page. Fram (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

United States journalism scandals[edit]

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

Delete: Pointless article. The notable incidents, for which there are separate articles, should be categorized. The other incidents are present in the respective articles on the newspapers or media outlet. Particular any scandal involving any particular media outlet should be mentioned in the article on that media. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:(USA) The point of this article is that (as a part of the "Journalism project"), this is the only place where a journalism perspective can be represented and a broad historical and demographical overview can exist. That said, the article DOES need to be stripped of non-notable scandals. Also, subsequent commenters, as this is an article on United States journalism scandals, please state here whether you reside in the United States or elsewhere. All POV's from all over the world are important and welcome, but too many international perspectives I have encountered here are uninformed as to the weight of US journalism perspectives. WNDL42 (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a fork for POV worriors imo - articles like this should be discouraged, especially as they get linked-to on the main articles, and are often a bug-blanket of POV extensions! It's easier for people to force through arguments that can't cut it on the main articles, as only a relatively small amount of people watch these pages. They then become "See also" links on other articles, even when locked. The Insight section alone should be reason enough to delete this - I've wasted hours here now trying to (unsuccessfully) maintain what I feel is simply standard Wikipedia practice.--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Excellent summary article, I have referred to it twice to remember that guy at that paper, you know the one... the scandal thing. Its an excellent way to find the exact story if you only have inexact information. The rpoblem with having ONLY a category and no list is that you have already know what your looking for to find an article that has been categorized, then you can follow the category into other articles. Here you can follow the link to this article from the "see also" section of the article on journalism. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But was it "excellent" yesterday or today? It's seen a few changes lately! --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conditional keep (probably as list) - I created this article as part of the cleanup of the main "journalistic scandals" article, which at that time was a list of scandals rather than an article on journalistic scandalism per se. The cleanup and continuation was left in the hands of those who had asked for the help. I see in fact little or nothing was done; even the main article still contains the untouched place-holders where sourced encyclopedic content was needed. This article might be better in a different format - for example refactored into a list with brief notes (and links if any), or in some other format. List of United States journalism scandals is probably viable. A sprawling mess of an article is not. I would have to say "subject matter encyclopedic but needs a concerted cleanup and perhaps a move to list format". FT2 (Talk | email) 23:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the problem with a simple list is when the section title itself is contentious!! (like with the Insight story). And how will only the one Talk page cope if the article gets popular?? the Insight row is surely the tip of the iceberg given how broad the title is. It could easily fill with subjective controversial stuff - and it's always harder to 'summarise' something controversial, anyway. At the moment hardly anyone knows about the article - if you look at the Talk page it doesn't even have any archives - and what is there is 90% to do with one story (the Insight story) - which is surely the tip of the iceberg in terms of potential problems. HOW CAN IT BE SO GREAT WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO TALK??--Matt Lewis (talk) 23:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The title can be discussed if needed. A problematic title (if it is) does not render a topic as a deletion.
  2. Talk pages cope at George Bush, Global warming, and hundreds of other articles more popular.
  3. It could have poor quality material added by some users, but the issue here is notability not cleanup. We don't delete for cleanup issues. We do cleanup for that problem.
  4. Size of talk page comes from editorial work done, when editorial work is done then there will be discussion as needed.
  5. "Delete - no talk page comments" is a novel idea. FT2 (Talk | email) 18:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one has suggested that the article title, or the lack of Talk, are reasons for deletion in themselves!!! Reasons are: POV forking, it being a non-Wikipedia type "article" (we just can't maintain a Wikipedia with these type of hybird forks along with all the main articles too), it being far too-broad a list (and so will become far far too big), and that only one Talk page has to cover all the guaranteed debate about what is and isn't scandalous!!! (both as suitable stories, and within the contentious details too). One Talk page needs to cover each "scandal" - it's ridiculous! This list/article is simply not a 'standard' WP article - probably for all the solid reasons popping up here. The lack of Talk-page discussion in the last 6 months needed pointing out as it shows that SO FAR this is not a popular article. The argument that editors are simple "there at hand" when needed is a lazy one, and simply untrue imo. And I have to stress that Notability is NOT the main issue here! (though it is for many AfD's, it's just a secondary argument for this one).--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, although I agree that the "scandals" title should be moved to something else. Like any other profession, journalism has departures from the acceptable. Well-sourced, detailed, and an excellent topic. Mandsford (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean it needs to be made just a simple list? --Matt Lewis (talk) 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep but needs major cleanup The article seems good and is well sourced. But last time I looked, it contains too much non notable incidents involving journalism in general and looks very messy. A major cleanup is needed. Chris! ct 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It could be useful for someone wanting to know the history of journalism mistakes and misdeeds. However it might be just as well if each item was only a sentence or so to explain what it was about with a link to the main article.Redddogg (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We just did this two weeks ago. I'm finding little beyond disruption in the nominator's string of AFDs. --Dhartung | Talk 04:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The list of "scandals" seems kind of spotty. One was an incident at a college newspaper. There are also some more important incidents that have been left out. How can we decide if something is a "scandal" or not? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • .....all good reasons to hit the button labelled edit this page. As others have pointed out, "scandals" is a ridiculous name, and there's a button labelled move. People who aren't sure about whether a change is appropriate can click on discuss; those who are concerned about maintaining--Matt Lewis (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) the page can click on watch; those who want to investigate a questionable change and the who and when can click history. In my opinion, even incidents at a college newspaper (in this case, the reporter was the victim of a hoax) are instructive to persons who are making journalism their career, but other editors might disagree. It's the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Mandsford (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not quite the encyclopedia that everyone can edit. What about those who get banned? We have all been given policies to adhere to. It's my opinion that this article will become a bug-blanket for the type of people who are potentially bannees, the often-suspended, sockpuppets, extreme-POV-pushers and general consensus/policy/admin-ignorers. Can one single Talk page deal with all of those people, over an ever-increasing amount of often-controversial scandals (50...100...200?). A whole shed-load of problems will be avoided by acting now, imo. A simple list linking to worthy articles - surely is the very max here. --Matt Lewis (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepJournalists love to write about the failings of other journalists, so there will be no shortage of reliable sources. I strongly disagree with Matt Lewis's view that we should delete an article because it might attract vandals, loons, crackpots, and editors who will violate policies and require blocking or banning. That is what the little button is for on the editing screens of admins. Edison (talk) 18:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have misreported me - I didn't say "imo, might become" - I said "imo, WILL become"! (a big difference there, even as an opinion). I think some people give AfD's all of 2 seconds to make a judgement on. What about my 'single Talk page' argument - no-one has addressed it? And shouldn't these stories at least have their own articles for this page to be policy/guideline-friendly? I just don't see it as a fitting Wikipedia page at all. Aside from the content, it's far too broad as a list - and concise summaries of contentious subjects are fraught with danger. Wikipedia is essentially about ARTICLES!!! Forks and lists must be carefully looked at, not casually accepted. --Matt Lewis (talk) 19:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You have a healthy concern for Wikipedia, which is good. I think that some of the things you worry about can happen to any article. A lot of us are of the opinion that the "free market" takes care of a lot of problems, such that if an article is popular enough to attract troublemakers, it's also popular enough to attract people who police it for additions that don't belong. I think most of us agree with you that the title of the article is "contentious". I find it kind of ironic that we're defending journalists from being associated with that sell-papers word, "scandal", but there's nothing lurid or subversive that I see in these lapses of good judgment. Assuming that this is not going to be deleted, would you be willing to suggest a better title that we can move this to? Further rebuttal is cool too, but any suggestions for improvement would be welcome. Mandsford (talk) 23:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is coming to mind - and I think it's because of the flaws. As Steve Dufour and yourself point out, we have current problems on deciding what is a "scandal" - as it is so often a subjective POV (and therefore intrinsically un-WP). So what do we change it to? Honestly, nothing comes to mind - obviously we can't make it potentially even bigger! It's a broad enough list as it is! Do you have any ideas yourself? I'm still worried about the single Talk-page issue if it ever gets popular - and how big can an article be anyway? This one is theoretically enormous, surely? Regarding the surely over-simplistic argument that editors are always here to police it - well, where have they been? I must say I actually resent the time I've spent on this, because I've already spent the same time on four other articles now on the Insight story (including one that lost an AfD). This article was by far the toughest to work on properly: ultimately I feel because it lacks weight, respect and, frankly, editors. Is it fair to make people have to Watch so many articles about the same story? Other articles have suffered regarding my own Wiki-time (imho). And as I said at the other AfD, Wikipedia would become completely unmanageable if these type of forks became commonly accepted. How could we all focus? --Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The talk page of this article shows intense debate about a few scandals. I have not seen intense debate over all the entries. It really seems pretty tame. I have seen a general consensus in the media that many of the things listed are notable cases of journalistsc wrongdoing. Most of the discussion page battles will get settled, there will be a consensus, otr it will go through some dispute resolution, then life will go on. The article should be expanded to include scandals of Pulitzer, Hearst, and other predecessors of today's journalists. Yellow journalism, coverups, plaigarism, fraud, and other reportorial misconduct did not start in the 1930's. Edison (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But where does it end? Since this version of the article was created in August 2007 there has only ever been 2 debates in Talk! (CBS News and Insight - not much in over 6 months). The preceding article was called "Journalistiic scandals", but no-one moved the original Talk over. I notice the first major editor on this article is now fully banned! (User:Bmedley Sutler, a sock of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All!!) A suitably sleazy start methinks!!--Matt Lewis (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but significantly revamp. Yes, the subject is notable, but as is often the case on Wikipedia, the article suffers from blatant recentism. 37 scandals in the 2000s, 7 in the 1990s, and just three from previous decades. Nothing on John Peter Zenger, the Alien and Sedition Acts, Hearst and the Maine, etc, etc. Really, journalism was a lot more vitriolic and contentious in the late 18th and 19th centuries, so including every plagiarist from the past couple of years but saying nothing about the more distant past indicates big-time sloppiness. So I would suggest dramatic pruning from the top and generous additions at the bottom. Biruitorul (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not actually the main argument for deletion, in this case. (although which "scandals" are notable will always be a debatable issue if it the article stays and actually becomes popular). Who will do the pruning? You can put the 18C and 19C scandals in - put who takes the other stuff out to make it manageable? And how can a single Talk page deal with any resultant discussion? --Matt Lewis (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the article survives, which seems likely, let's take the matter to the talk page and, well, talk about it. Biruitorul (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you have to say, though? Maybe it will survive - but this isn't supposed to be a simple head-count: somebody ultimately reads the list/article, and this AfD, and then makes a decision (hopefully leaving a reason). I just want to put the case across - and show all readers that this isn't just the basic-level "Notability" AfD (as some people quickly dropping by could easily think) - it's about article-acceptability and manageability on a number of other levels. I feel certain there would be a lot more 'deletes' left here if the article was better known! I don't see any reason why a judging admin couldn't take that possibility into account too, though the simple facts (and arguments) are supposed to mean more than the count.--Matt Lewis (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't know, how about we limit it to scandals at major national newspapers/magazines/television outlets that have had a lasting impact? That would cut a lot out, and make the list easier to manage. Biruitorul (talk) 15:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It will cut it down - but "lasting impact" is so subjective. If someone has an agenda to get a story in, they will find endless blogs etc to prove their story's Notability. The maintenance of this article is potentially higher than any other "article" I've seen - you can multiply Notability (and Weight and POV issues) times each non-obvious scandal. Each new "scandal" added (or attempted to be removed) could cause problems. And this is neither a standard article, nor a standard list - it's clearly a "List of forked mini-articles"! Perhaps we should set up a new Wikipedia Category if this lives on?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two quick points. First: yes it's subjective and maintenance will be a headache, but the reality is this will be kept, for better or worse. Second: we might make a new category, but for now we have Category:Journalistic hoaxes, Category:Journalism ethics and Category:Media bias controversies - maybe one of these works too. Biruitorul (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and a speedy keep, for this was just kept by a strong consensus at AfD on Feb 28. Re-nominating it this soon is in my opinion disruptive. DGG (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD only had 9 responses - and at least 3 of them were editing it. It wasn't long ago, granted, but what is this AfD disrupting? (apart from clearly all of 2 whole seconds of some peoples time). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Lewis (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the same reasons as I mentioned a couple weeks ago. This is a valuable article. There has been some edit-warring recently but most of its history this has not been the case. Even the edit-warring is over small sections. Jmcnamera (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And what happens when people other than the select few actually realise this article is here?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful summary of the range of events that constitute journalistic scandal. While there could be articles about each with a tag of some sort, this is a better idea. htom (talk) 13:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A better idea than Wikipedia's standard guideline on article creation?--Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prune ruthlessly. I find it hard to believe that scandals are so much more prevalent now than they wer ein the 30s or the 50s, this is recentism extended to whatever story the bloggers happen to make most noise about. Guy (Help!) 18:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting user page: RETIRED - "I am here for some very limited purposes, because some people have asked me to help in some specific cases." I wonder if anyone here clicked on your "help!"? This list is such POV bunker I help can't being totally cynical! I can't find any reason not to be - whatever people say about AGF. Who does the "ruthless pruning" (etc) anyway? Who are the "they" in this case? So much here reads like a kind of 'weekend service' social advice - it's got no bearing on reality, imo. All the evidence seen in the history of this article points far more to the opposite happening (ie the issued I've detailed above). It's like suggesting to a malcontent existing outside of legal-categorisation that he "behaves" himself - where's the back-up? And have we seen any evidence that he can change? --Matt Lewis (talk) 20:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now read for comprehension. It says RETIRED of silly drama. Including people who fight tooth and nail to include the story that nails their pet hate in every single conceivable place where it might be even tangentially relevant. This article should be for things which are widely identified by reliable sources as significant media scandals, otherwise it should be nuked. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"people who fight tooth and nail to include the story that nails their pet hate in every single conceivable place where it might be even tangentially relevant" - couldn't have put that better. This list is a free ride for them, imo - it's intrinsically a place for them to go. It's why so many are (or a least I thought they were) anti these kind of lists. --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Valuable and relevant. Dance With The Devil (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be any logic to which "scandals" are chosen to include and which not. I will work on removing some of the minor ones. Borock (talk) 12:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a little spotty in places and probably needs a change of name, but that's why there's an edit button. Dookama (talk) 23:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does every AfD get repeatedly hit with this cliche? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering that we have articles about accounting scandals, major league baseball scandals, Christian evangelist scandals, etc., maybe we're making too much of a deal out of the word scandal. Besides, we might observe that the persons who happen to label these as scandals tend to work in a particular profession... However, would anyone support a renaming of the article to "Ethical controversies in American journalism"? Or, for that matter, simply, "Controversies in American journalism". Thoughts, anyone? Mandsford (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't those make it an even broader list, though? --Matt Lewis (talk) 02:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Not all of these involve an intent to commit a breach of ethics; some are simply carelessness. In the sense that the act or omission of one person causes embarrassment for the innocent and guilty alike, I guess that scandal is an appropriate word. Mandsford (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am now removing the less notable "scandals." A lot of them are about one reporter being fired. The article seems like a place to park this kind of thing when another article is deleted as non-notable. There are also some notable scandals however. Borock (talk) 15:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would point out to everyone that Borock is doing this in the right way, which is to "be bold" and to alert people (on the discussion page) about what was removed. Ultimately, things that have been taken off by Borock might be put back; things that have been left by Borock might be taken off later. I encourage everyone here to follow Borock's example, which is to let the "community" know what you've changed. And folks, please, if you disagree with someone else's edit, stay civil about it. Mandsford (talk) 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you put "community" in quotes, because I still find that ideal theoretical here as things have stood - and simply unmanageable in what things can/will be. Guidelines on article creation are more important here imo than championing the ideal of community spirit. Where there are no main articles, why not? (and yes, we can delete them). But - where there are main (or obvious "home") articles, clear content forking issues arise. If it's a simple list, the difficulties with title choice (which can be very difficult with often complicated contentious issues scandals) and of inclusiveness will still stand. I think all the issues need to be kept in focus here, rather than focusing selectively on individual ones (like simple item removal).--Matt Lewis (talk) 17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that I did vote for deletion, as well as removed some of the problem items from the article. Borock (talk) 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holidaylettings[edit]

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

The deletion of MyHoliday.com led me to this article. It barely asserts notability, and it does not cite any references other than its own website. It has existed for several months -- enough time for references to be added, none have been. ukexpat (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 19:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk)
  • Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doing a quick google news search, (as well as a general google search), everything is either a press release, homepage/mirror, or in the case of the news search, an article "brought to you by Holidaylettings" and not actually about "Holidaylettings.". In other words, no reliable, independent sources that assert the notability of this company. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reads like an ads. Chris! ct 03:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom.Paste (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom --Enric Naval (talk) 17:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W2wlink[edit]

W2wlink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company. Searching yields nothing independent/reliable. [9] [10] Wisdom89 (T / C) 19:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as spam, so nominated.  – ukexpat (talk) 20:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I concur, Speedy delete, since it appears to be spam. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:20, 11
  • Delete. I doubt it's spam (removed the tag; should really only be speedied through here anyways), given that there's a lot there that doesn't boil down to "Come join our website!". However, a decent-sized chunk is kinda' a vanity spot for the owner of the company that owns the site, and it doesn't appear that it's been around long enough to have a lot of published articles about it. Lack of good sources means fails WP:N, so delete. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

March 2008 (UTC)

  • Not technically spam, but delete anyway. There's no proof of the company's notability, and the article is lacking any reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like some references have been added, and it is in the same type of article as appears for hundreds of other web ventures to serve as a factual background on a new company. It doesnt appear to be targeted as spam or advertising. user; cptx3

March 2008 (UTC)

  • Do we include links that are to prove notability in the document? What constitutes a reliable source? We want to play nice here, and we believe this needs a definition. w2wlink 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Glad to hear you are willing to make adjustments. Instead of explaining, I'll direct you to WP:V and WP:RS, as well as WP:ORG. These links should help you and others establish the notability of the article. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of shopping malls in the United States[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of shopping malls in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This particular list has been AfD twice, both times with no consensus. It is intended to be a list of all of the shopping malls in the US that have articles. As per its own intro, there are almost 50,000 such malls, and more and more are getting some kind of article, which is the only criteria for inclusion here. Having stumbled on this list while working on a mall article, and having been the only person to really bother watching and maintaining it for almost two months, I feel this list should be deleted. Despite the claimed restriction of notability in its intro, nothing was ever done to actually enforce such a limit, despite arguments that it would be dealt with in both previous AfDs. Most states already have an existing List of malls in STATE list that better covers those states, while more specific lists, like List of largest shopping malls in the United States already better cover notable malls. Category:Shopping malls in the United States also better handles this topic. This list is really no better than a directory. Collectonian (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The intent seems to be a list of malls in the US which have a Wikipedia article about them, but that's better handled by a category then by a list. A list would be appropriate if we wanted an actual list of all malls in the US (regardless of whether they have WP articles about them or not), but the list itself admits that that would be impractical. Chuck (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. This would be a highly unmanageable list if it tried to contain all the malls in the US, past and present -- not to mention that some inclusions might be debatable. Would a power centre count? A strip mall with an enclosed wing? A mall that's still open but almost entirely vacant? Etc. This is definitely a directory of loosely associated topics. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.
    1. By the article's own admission, a mall has to be notable to be listed in it. But it has to be notable to have an article about it to begin with.
    2. For other malls (the non-notable ones, I presume), the article invites the reader to consult the category (duh, that's where I would have thought of looking first). But if they are not notable, they won't be found in the category either. Or maybe in an AfD of their own (and we've had many of those lately).
I think the above two points defeat the very purpose of this article. --Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 21:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    1. It has been nominated twice for deletion. Why nominated it a 3rd time? What has changed since the second time since now that it needs to be nominated again? What has changed since the first time and now that it had to be nominated twice more? What is the difference from this list and the "list of Wikis"? They have to be notable to be in the List of wikis. Any wiki added that doesn't already have a page is quickly deleted from the list. --Mjrmtg (talk) 22:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there's precious little extra here over a category, most entries have no additional content, the ones that do have things like "The Mall at Turtle Creek - Jonesboro - only enclosed mall [in Arkensas, I presume] to open in 2006". Arbitrary collection, mall cruft, plus agree with TenPoundHammer's concerns. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NEUTRAL After consdierable thought I cannot argue either for or against the removal of this list. However I STRONGLY URGE that if this article is to be deleted, each state listed in theList of largest shopping malls in the United States list should be compared and missing information should be consolodated. I've personally worked on this article and added malls that are not listed in theList of largest shopping malls in the United States list. Kcuello (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a perfectly acceptable topic for a list. WP:CLN says "Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away." The nominator gives no convincing reason for deletion. The nominator says "Most states already have an existing List of malls in STATE list that better covers those states" and there's no reason why those lists cannot be linked to from this list. --Pixelface (talk) 16:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and should any state sections get too long, move to their own list articles as per Appropriate topics for lists. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or permanently semi-protect. In the past, I previously made major contributions to this article, regularly cleaned out the less notable malls, and defended it against both vandals and prior deletion nominations. But with the benefit of experience, I now believe that its purpose is better met by Wikipedia's category system as well as state-specific lists. If it is to remain, it should be semi-protected so it will be easier to defend against vandals. --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Create a CatagoryCreate a catagory such as malls in the United States. We have categories for a reason, people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallic95 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Obviously people use this page or none of us would have been compelled to come here to leave a comment on weather or not it should be deleted. As for upkeep, allow it to be kept up like every other article in Wikipedia. When someone gets a hair up their butt to make a new shopping center or mall page, they will stumble upon this page and add the article they just created. I think it is a great resource seeing as searching for a comprehensive list of all the malls in the US on Google brings you here. If you still think that it has the ability to become too large, then maybe it can be broken up by the state, with this page being a re-direct to each state's own pages of shopping malls. It is obviously a long page and gets a lot of attention, so it shouldn't be deleted... Chexmix53 (talk) 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no different than a category since it doesn't mention non-existing articles. Article requests should be brought up to WP:MALLS and WP:RETAIL anyways. Tuxide (talk) of WikiProject Retailing 23:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or change to category. I don't know what the near-50K figure from the Dallas Morning News was in reference to, but it must have been shopping centers of _any_ kind. This list seems to be limited to major enclosed shopping malls, and from looking at locations I'm familiar with, it is consistent with what I would consider "malls". Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a great, comprehensive resource to have that isn't easily found in too many other places, and adds great value to Wikipedia and the Internet for those interested in researching shopping centers. It's great to look and compare and see all the different malls we have in the U.S. If the issue is mantaining the article, than we should maintain it, not delete it. Abog (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Wp:List and per the arguments to avoid bit about repeated nominations. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quan (rapper)[edit]

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

Non-notable rapper. 1 guest spot on a Nas single (with most of his verse edited out of the single version of the song) is about as far as his notability goes. No significant media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 19:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources while searching for the previous AfD on the album. (Note: I did the redirect from the album to the artist with no added input on talk pages. Consider me biased, thus no !vote.) - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This guy is Nas' main protege. He is signed to notable label and on a Nas singleCosprings (talk) 17:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—The only third-party source I could find was this. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cut-down guest spot 4 years ago. Nothing claimed or sourced else/since. Fails Notable. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is pretty old, but I'd rather add my voice than close. This guy seems pretty notable; he's actually been on two other notable rappers' albums, not just one. There seem to be some sources available on the article already, and while it needs a cleanup, I'd say there's potential. GlassCobra 08:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Logos Lab School[edit]

Logos Lab School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete-A non-notable middle school program for "gifted and talented" students. There are no sources and none could be found except at the school website. The school has no article to redirect to. Does not meet WP:N or the purposed guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (schools) GtstrickyTalk or C 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- I disagree, I think it's moderately notable and important, atleast to Richmond Community Schools, and others that want to know about Logos. Plus, what do you expect from a Middle School program? Apparently it exists...I don't think that it has to have 10 references about it, but I will look to find atleast one more reliable source of information. Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.- The Richmond Community Schools site for some reason has deleted the Logos Lab School page, there used to be a summary and dedicated page to it, and I will work to put it back on as a source of information.

We are not talking about the notability of the contents but of the article itself. What you referred to explains that not all the content of the article needs to be notable but the article subject itself does. GtstrickyTalk or C 23:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Letter 7 has been known to vandalise! So i have to point out that fact he/she might not have the best interests of wikipedia at heart. TheProf | Talk 13:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it may be of local interest, but I can find no coverage of the school. Not even in local papers. No reliable soources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- I think that you're claim that I'm a "known vandalist" is biast and promotes bad wikietteness...just because I used to vandalise doesn't mean I am a vandal now...so please grow up and learn the Wikipedia:Vandalism policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letter 7 (talk • contribs)
What would you call this edit from earlier today? Or does "now" mean in the past 2 1/2 hours? --Onorem♠Dil 15:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
okay, #1-- I don't speak french....#2 I made a mistake, there was a sandbox on the Mark David Chapman that I accidentally hit save page...if you don't believe me then check the page I was on before I accidentally made the edit...Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I don't see which sandbox page you were talking about, but your recent contributions definitely don't look like vandalism...and it wouldn't be a reason to delete this page if they were, so I'll stop now as this is off topic. --Onorem♠Dil 15:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP! - We should totally keep the Logos Lab School article. It's a one of a kind program and it's different from other programs. Logos has their own Speech Team! It should DEFINITELY NOT be deleted. Logos is really great. Such a great thing should definitely be on Wikipedia. Waterairfirearth (talk) 15:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
there has been coverage of the school. the Logos Pull-Outs did some presentations at the Wayne County Historical Museum. That was covered in the newspaper. Logos also hosts its own Speech Team. I once found some stuff online about some of the Logos Speech winners. The Logos Speech Team is really good.Waterairfirearth (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please add citations for those sources of coverage to the article. -- Whpq (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.boarddocs.com/in/rcs/Board.nsf/22f7cdda355d88ae85256d73006c3d49/4f25bd12d694d652852571b0004b5182/$FILE/Minutes%2001-24-07.pdf] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterairfirearth (talk • contribs)

Comment meetings of a school board don't establish notability. You were indicating coverage in a newspaper. -- Whpq (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Yes, I think we understand that this is not a majority vote, I don't really know why you would imply that I was telling people to "vote"...but sure...Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 16:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No one implied you were but this conversation warrants the tag. GtstrickyTalk or C 16:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- What is the difference between other "non-notable" middle schools like E. M. Cope Middle School? I think that that should be proposed to the deleted...>.< Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - That other stuff exists has no bearing as the discussion on the merits of this article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply- Touché, point taken...but still- take the importance of Richmond and other neighboring cities...I still would like this article to exist for the purposes of educating what this program means to Richmond and such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Letter 7 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article itself indicates how little there is to say about it.DGG (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear notable per policy. Assertions or desires as to the importance or otherwise of programs or establishments to a specific community are irrelevant. Plutonium27 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Another note:Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be for the purpose of giving information, not restricting it? Just because the whole world may not care about Logos doesn't mean that nobody at all does. RandomDoom —Preceding comment was added at 18:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — RandomDoom (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment- Yes, and ironicly...the reason that this page was set up for deletion is because I asked for help of expanding it...I almost guarantee that if I wouldn't have asked for any help, everything would be just fine, and those who want to view the article can...Thanks-Letter 7/Caleb (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, notability is also established - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ann Dunham[edit]

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

Not notable enough. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Keep - "Not notable enough" is not a very enthusiastic afd. WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. At this writing I see 22 third party references in the article itself. She helped her son write a bestselling book and she is discussed in the book. You have to be living under a rock to think that she is not being discussed almost daily given Obama's mixed parentage.Americasroof (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The immediate parents of major political figures often have sufficient notability. Dunham has seen significant coverage, and is not an exception. Jfire (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Jfire's argument. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Sli723 (talk) 22:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jfire. JJL (talk) 23:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) as per general consensus.-Ravichandar 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Madelyn Dunham[edit]

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

Not notable enough. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- seems to be establishing notability through reliable sources, "not notable enough" is not a rationale I am fond of. AndreNatas (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Seems like a likely search, multiple press coverages helps; I'm not fond of "she might make more news in the future" but it's likely. She's no Roger Clinton, but it's notable enough for me. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO#Invalid criteria. The sources are either about Obama himself, Obama's mother and only one i directly about Madelyn. There is a "distance" between a notable individual and a non-notable individual that should be observed, and in this case as a person she is non-notable. It probably should redirect to her daughter or her grandson where the sources support notability outside of "this is a relative of X". –– Lid(Talk) 01:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - She raised Obama from age 10 on while his mother was running around the world and is discussed in Obama's best selling book. She is Obama's only living ancestor and thus subject of numerous articles (and thus subject of numerous articles -- particularly those delving into his white background including the claim that Obama facial appearance is similar to his maternal grandparents). WP:BIO says A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. At this writing I see at least six sources. A book and numerous sources is more than enough to meet the criteria. Americasroof (talk) 03:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the sources emphasise notability, but rather the peripheral relationship to the other members of her family. Notability is not inherited is a well known notability criterion, the same should be retroactive in that people can not become notable from what their descendants do. –– Lid(Talk) 03:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an article about the woman who raised the first serious black American candidate for President. This is of obvious interest and should be kept. FarleyKatz (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your keep reasoning seems to reference both WP:INTERESTING and WP:ITSA. Many people raised Obama in his life given his multiple homes, from Hawaii to Indonesia to back to hawaii and philosphically to Kenya. We do not need an article for every one of those who guided or raised him. –– Lid(Talk) 06:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep probably we do indeed need an article on the various people this significant in his life. DGG (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • On what basis? –– Lid(Talk) 22:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ann Dunham. Notable enough to include in his mother's article. --YUL89YYZ (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though I would not object to a merge. GlassCobra 18:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Are you guys crazy? Wikipedia lacks any information on Obama's family members: a serious shortcoming. This seems like a sneaky coverup coming from the Obama campaign (look at the histories of the Delete advocates)! After all, isn't this the woman who've they ensured hasn't spoken with the press in two years? What has she got to say, to hide? She's incredibly important. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.180.10.84 (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, She is the only living full blood relative of the man who, polls show, is most likely to be America's next President, and you think she's not notable? She RAISED this man from the age of 10. She has more insight into Obama's character than any living person on earth. Think about it. Now if Obama's mother were alive, she might not be notable. But Lilian Carter has an entry, as does John McCain's mother and Hillary Clinton's mother (who are both living). I think if you delete Madelyn Dunn, it is only fair that you delete Dorothy Emma Howell Rodman and Roberta Wright McCain. Therefore if this article is deleted, I will be posting "requests for deletion" on both of those pages. (I will concede that if Madelyn Dunham should die, she may no longer be notable.) Finally, a recent article quoted Madelyn Dunham (though not by name) in the New York Times. I have added that citation to the article. If you don't like the article, edit it. But please don't delete it. GreekParadise (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Onyango Obama[edit]

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

Not notable enough. --Philip Stevens (talk) 19:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you interested in deleting the whole Obama family? (see below) What about deleting Hillary's husband. :) --Weißer Reiher (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Let me tell you: Even as a non-American, I know Sarah Obama - there's been a report about the Obama family in German TV. There, Sarah Obama told us that she's very disappointed about the way people try to harm her grandson. So there's international media interest. Keep. --Weißer Reiher (talk) 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or possibly redirect to Barack Obama). Insufficient notability to support a standalone article. Immediate parents of major political figures are notable, step-grandmothers notable for no other reasons are not. Jfire (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to move to and expand at Kenyan relatives of Barack Obama. Sources have been added to the article since I first looked at it that do cover Obama's relatives (Sarah, his paternal uncle Said, and others) significantly. I agree with GreekParadise that the fact that a leading presidential candidate has relatives living in a small village in Africa is significant, and we can report on that significance in line with our notability policies and based on what reliable sources have said. However, the point still stands that the coverage is only because of and in relation to Obama's presidential hopes -- none of these individuals are notable as individuals, but rather for their situation and their connection with Obama, and we should cover them in the light of that fact. Jfire (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done a rewrite along these lines at User:Jfire/Kenyan_relatives_of_Barack_Obama. In addition to adhering to the notability guidelines, it provides additional facts and replaces YouTube links that violate Wikipedia's policy on linking to copyright violations with non-violating links to the same material. Jfire (talk) 19:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the fact that she made some comment on german tv does not make her notable, nor does her being a member of Obama's family. Fails WP:BIO. --Asmodeus Samael (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to my same reasons as at the deletion discussion at Madelyn Dunham. –– Lid(Talk) 01:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just like Madelyn Dunham. GlassCobra 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not notable; no need for her own article. Tvoz |talk 07:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - For the first time in American history, we may have a President who has a woman he considers his grandmother not only living in a foreign country but in a small village in Africa with no television set. This is not just notable; it's mind-boggling. Imagine a United States President visiting a tiny village in Africa to see his "grandmother." This is the kind of thing that can dramatically change perceptions of the United States of America worldwide. And you folks want to delete it? There is no mention of Sarah Obama on Barack Obama's wikipedia entry whatsoever. So by deleting this article, you would wipe out of wiki-existence not only an important person in his life but the most significant living tie of a likely US President to a third-world country in all of US history. At the very least, she should be merged into the Barack Obama article, but I think she more properly has her own article. That way, when she is mentioned throughout the world as one reason why people in third-world countries trust America more if Obama became President, people at least will understand who she is. This sounds like a POV but it is not. It is a fact that there is a striking and dramatic difference between a President who is the son of President and grandson of a US Senator and a Presidential aspirant who is the grandson of a poor family in Africa. Sarah Obama is the living embodiment of that difference. GreekParadise (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Considering that George W. Bush's great-great grandfather has an article of his own, I believe that Barack Obama's step-grandmother, who is still alive and giving interviews to the press, is notable enough to warrant an article. --Tocino 05:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sarah_Obama") —Preceding unsigned comment added by GreekParadise (talk • contribs)
  • That was a talk page comment; please don't synthesize !votes from other editors. If User:Tocino wants to !vote, he/she needs to come here to do so. Jfire (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see the problem. He/She voted to keep the article before there was a vote to delete it. I don't see why we need to bother him/her, but since you insist, I will ask him/her to come here and RE-vote. GreekParadise (talk)17:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge into an article on Barack Obama's Kenyan family. Either alternative is acceptable, but there are clearly enough notability-establishing sources for this material. I don't think it much matters whether it is in an article titled Sarah Obama or Kenyan relatives of Barack Obama or something else, as long as the material is kept. --Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 04:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technology of Macross[edit]

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

This article asserts no notability through reliable sourcing, and as such is just a repetition of plot elements from the anime Macross. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep- its best to keep notable articles, improve/merge them, rather than just nominate them for fun like you. AndreNatas (talk) 19:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for a completely pointless comment. Why would we keep an article that has no notability? If there is no notability, there is no way to "improve" it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable, it must be to be on wikipedia on the first place. Your attitude stinks and it shows. AndreNatas (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is notable, it must be to be on wikipedia in the first place"... Wow, that just might be the most wrong thing ever said in the history of the Internet. JuJube (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a sockpuppet, and an AFD isn't a vote.
  • Delete fancruft. No real world relevance. JuJube (talk) 21:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - technology from fiction with no indication of notability -- Whpq (talk) 13:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per established consensus, the technology of an anime series rarely to never meets WP:N and WP:FICT requirements for notability and inclusion. This article is completely unsourced and provides no evidence that the items listed are notable. The topic of "technology of Macross" does not have any significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Collectonian (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Even though this is not Gundam, WP:GUNDAM notes that WP:FICT's real world significance and notability can be established by "appearance[s] in another series, not dedicated to the original series." The Macross Destroid mechanical designs were reused, almost unchanged, into FASA's BattleTech strategy tabletop games, computer games, and novels (as well as three different remakes of each original design). They were also used in Testors' R.O.B.O.T. model series and of course, Harmony Gold's Robotech remake, which used both the original designs with a changed story and evolved versions in Robotech II: The Sentinels production designs. The use by different companies of the same designs led to a lawsuit, and that lawsuit eventually led to these designs being removed from BattleTech almost a decade after their introduction. Three non-Macross franchises with dramatically different stories have used these designs, and that caused a lawsuit in the United States. This is more than enough to establish notability. The article needs to be rewritten to reflect a real-world context with sources and to cite the lawsuit involving two of the non-Macross franchises, but it should be kept. 1-54-24 (talk) 17:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All that stuff needs to be added with reliable sources to the article, otherwise the article hasn't demonstrated any notability. Can't just take peoples word for it. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge if anyone feels there's any prose worth keeping in another article. I have to admit, the concept might not be a bad idea, an article about technology in the Macross series, but.. this article isn't what I expected it would be (from the title, that is). -- Ned Scott 08:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to recreation if the allegations by the article's creator, 1-54-24, can be properly supported by reliable sources. Article in its current form does not verify real-world notability and assertions above of notability are likewise not verified. From WP:N, "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability." From WP:V, "Burden of Evidence" section, "If no reliable, third-party (in relation to the subject) sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." This should be userfied if 1-54-24 would like to work on it further, I believe. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 1-54-24. --User:Iceberg3k (lost my password) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.214.42.68 (talk) 14:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gottsch[edit]

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

Non-notable coach. Fails WP:Bio StudierMalMarburg (talk) 18:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject College football considers all head college football coaches (past and present) notable. Mike Gottsch is the current head coach of Tabor College (Kansas), a member of the National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics and more than meets the notability qualifications. However, I have added a bit more to the article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if every small-time coach with a losing record is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry, then why not every faculty member at those same colleges? Certainly their contributions to society are far more notable than a coach who teaches students to play with a ball? Yet we don't consider them notable unless they've published significantly. Whether WikiProject football considers this coach significant or not, the bottom line is that he's done nothing other than get a job at a small-time college. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Wow, those are really harsh words. But remember, you brought it up... so here's the answer.
  1. For starters, the "small-time faculty member" is not the head of the department, so it's not even a fair comparison. As a parallel, the college football program does not automatically consider assistant coaches to be notable.
  2. In any given year, even a small college will have maybe 30 to 50 faculty members, but only one head football coach. So just saying "faculty member" isn't enough.
  3. For most schools, even small ones, the head football or basketball coach is often times the most well-known (and highest paid) member of the faculty of that school--more than the college president, athletic director, dean of students, or head of the math department.
  4. If someone wanted to make a Wikipedia:WikiProject College Professors or even a more detailed Wikipedia:WikiProject College Physics Professors then they could sure do that--wouldn't bug me. And maybe that's a good idea--but I'll stick with my interests on a well-established project for now.
  5. For just about any college (large or small), a significant amount of the media coverage is about the major sports program (football, basketball, etc).
  6. Not every sports head coach is considered notable... for example, there's a volleyball project that decided head volleyball coaches don't automatically qualify for notability.
  7. Just having a "losing record" does not disqualify for notability--in fact, notability requirements on Wikipedia specifically state that notability can come from an especially poor performance (such as Vinko Bogataj)
  8. The phrase "small-time" coach is inappropriate here, because there really isn't a "definition" of "small time" -- it's an opinion-based phrase.
  9. The "size" of the school (which you appear to be alluding to in your comment about "small time") does not disqualify for notability. Many small colleges are proving grounds for coaches that go on to great fame. Jerry Kill, Bobby Ross, John Outland, and Dennis Franchione are just a few of many examples.
  10. People who do research on college football find it helpful to view what a peer coach had done in the same school, conference, or league.
  11. By saying "the bottom line is that he's done nothing other than get a job at a small-time college" reflects an attitude that you may personally have against college sports, and it's also not a completely accurate statement. What this particular coach has done is to be named to the head coaching position at a National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics member school, coached the school's football team for an entire season, and by all accounts will be the head coach for the next season. While it is obvious that you don't think that's worth much based on your comments, other people do have interest in this material.
  12. You state "why not every faculty member at those same colleges? Certainly their contributions to society are far more notable than a coach who teaches students to play with a ball?" There are lots of poitns in this statement:
    • I believe that most college faculty members actually don't make significant contributions to society--if they did, then they would publish more.
    • Although many college professors are indeed great people and very hardworking, teaching "English Composition I" just like pretty much every other Comp I instructor nationwide is certainly not a noteworthy act.
    • College professors that do indeed bring significant contributions to society do so through the publication of papers, books, and acknowledgement from their peers. Then they get an article in Wikipedia (if someone writes it, that is)
    • Your phrase "teaches students to play with a ball" shows a bias toward sports programs at the college and university level. The beneifts of leadership and self-development skills of college sports is well-documented.
    • It seems that your entire argument is biased -- something like "academic study is way more important than sports, and all things sports should be removed from Wikipedia." While I agree that more students go into academics and even most college athletes do not go into professional sports, it does not negate the validity and notability of college sports.
Those are just some of the reasons. Perhaps you should visit Wikipedia:WikiProject College football--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it stands right now, the article might as well be deleted, but it would be better if it could be expanded. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Paul McDonald explanation above. PGPirate 22:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Paul McDonald. At first glance, the argument against seems to be based mostly in WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but it is a rather stubby article. Still, that's no reason to delete, particularly considering the fact that WP:CFB has already defined collegiate football coaches as notable by default. There are literally hundreds of other college football head coach articles out there, and to delete one in particular is absurd. Yes, it should be expanded as soon as possible, but that's no reason to delete it. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, head college football coach -> notable and deserves article. Being a stub is not grounds for deletion. Perhaps the nominator should learn from their own words about being involved in things they don't know about. MECU≈talk 13:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never nominated this article because it is a stub, nor did I nominate because I do not like it. Quite frankly, I'm indifferent to it altogether. I nominated it because he's an indistinguished coach who has done nothing of note, and I don't consider being a newly-hired football coach at a small college enough to be notable. If he's made a significant contribution to the sport, then yes he's notable. But if he's simply "a department head," then that does not make him any more notable than any of the academic department heads at Tabor College, regardless of whether they've published or not. That's it. StudierMalMarburg (talk) 15:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response Ah, but he has done something of note--he's coached an entire season of college football at a NAIA institution and likely will coach for at least another season. And the consensus has always been that this is a noteworthy achievement. If you want to argue that small college head football coaches in general are not notable, then please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and make your case. While you're doing that, can you please respond to the twelve points I listed above?--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a school this small, it doesnt make sense to consider the head coach notable. About 700 students. DGG (talk) 18:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Response why should the number of students enrolled have any bearing on the notability of the coach? At one time, Notre Dame University was a very small school with a little-known football coach by the name of Knute Rockne, who was one of the most influential coaches of all time. Still, I'll entertain the idea of creating a "cut-off" point based on enrollment if you like, and even make it a guideline instead of a rule. Here's a link to the USDOE lsting on post-secondary education based on enrollment count. A quick review shows it to be an incomplete list, but that said--exactly where should the cutoff be, and why?--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a clearly notable subject; the article is short so far but stubs are meant to be kept so they can grow. It has sufficient sourcing already to prove notability. Also, the 12 point explanation above is well-reasoned and very persuasive. Johntex\talk 17:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


UPDATE Right now, it's looking that four are in favor of keep, two are in favor of delete, and one that says keep if expanded (done) or delete as-is (and I'm not counting my POV).

Just as a note, the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion states: 

"The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, 
are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't 
find, any independent sources of sufficient depth."

With that, here's the google search] for "Mike Gottsch", "Tabor", and "football".... any objections to removing the AFD tag?--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Icmus Sounds[edit]

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

Blatant crystal ball violation. The record company does not yet exist outside of paper; it has no bands and no releases. Aside from Wikipedia, Google lists 3 unique hits for "Icmus Sounds," which seems indicate lack of notability as well. Delete. Fightindaman (talk) 18:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. GtstrickyTalk or C 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In-project pilot releases insufficient to established working existence or notability. Try again when active Plutonium27 (talk) 18:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solbus[edit]

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

Delete unsourced article about a nn company, fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asas Daily[edit]

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

Delete nothing indicating that this newspaper is notable. "asas daily" generates 31 ghits Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. completely notable, and WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr.[edit]

Barack Obama, Sr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

His estranged son may be notable enough, but he is not. --Philip Stevens (talk) 18:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Considering Obama's popularity in the US and the interest in his family/background, I know there is a huge audience for this information. Barack Obama, Sr. has already been to AFD and was converted into a redirect, but the current version of the article contains much more information than the old one. Zagalejo^^^ 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please unbundle this - Please nominate each of the articles individually. We have historically had problems and confusion when attempts have been made to delete en masse relatives of politicians. Some may be notable and some may not. Each relative should be judged individually. Americasroof (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for unbundling Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ann Dunham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madelyn Dunham and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Onyango Obama Americasroof (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The immediate parents of major political figures often have sufficient notability. As the subject of Obama's memoir, Obama Sr. is not an exception. Jfire (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--Sli723 (talk) 22:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Even if he didn't raise him, the subject of Barack Obama, Sr. is too important not to have in the encyclopedia. If this violates a Wikipedia guideline like WP:BIO, and I don't think it does, we need to overturn that guideline here for the good of the encyclopedia. Noroton (talk) 23:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, considering the contents of Dreams From my Father, Obama Sr. was a notable economist in the Kenyan government ignoring his relationship to Obama. –– Lid(Talk) 01:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 00:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry S. Miller Company[edit]

Henry S. Miller Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
  • Delete local real estate company, nn, fails WP:CORP Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the largest real estate companies for Dalls / Fort Worth that's existed since 1919 seems notable. There are several sources in the article too. JoeD80 (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Definitely notable. A major commercial real estate firm throughout Texas. The article needs some help, but I think we should give it some time. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the search term "Henry S. Miller" Company gets 18 Google news results, a strong indicator of notability. -Icewedge (talk) 05:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Deleted as an exact cut-and-paste from Zinedine Zidane#Discipline. —Travistalk 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zidane Confrontation With Matterazi[edit]

Zidane Confrontation With Matterazi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Given that lack of context leaves room for doubt, article appears to be about a confrontation on a football field with no assertion of significance Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator. -Djsasso (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ritch Winter[edit]

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

Fails the notability guideline. The article is also orphaned and unreferenced. It's also non-neutral, and is written in Winter's favour PeterSymonds | talk 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep, needs rewrite & sources, but Google News search indicates he is a well-known NHL figure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hockey-related deletion discussions. —Resolute 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A patently obvious case of WP:COI as well as created by User:Tschockey, however Winter is a notable figure in the hockey world. I'll see if I can clean it up and remove the obvious bias from it. Resolute 18:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hockey is obviously an interest of the user, but Tsc means nothing, and no conflict of interest should be assumed. Ask User:UWMSports. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment TSC stands for the name of the company the subject started. -Djsasso (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending cleanup by Resolute. -Djsasso (talk) 18:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which I have just done. It should now be a servicable, referenced and linked stub. Resolute 19:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to speedy keep (as nominator). Resolute (talk · contribs) has rewritten the article, establishing notability and removing POV. Great work! PeterSymonds | talk 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenneth Tam[edit]

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

I am completing the AFD nomination on behalf of IP editor User:87.194.210.172. The stated reason for the nomination is "Non-notable author, article doesn't pass WP:BIO." Whpq (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete - although I would have preferred to give the article a bit more time to find reliable sources, my own cursory search indicates there is a likelihood that none will be found, and thus fails WP:RS. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The reference provided by Paul Erik that is availabel as full text is more of a mention in what appears to be an events and happenings column. The others have insufficient information to make a judgement. But these results do indicate a possibility that other references exist and some additional time to find them would be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 13:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the main contributor to the article also created many other articles related to his books, and others from Iceberg publishing. These have now been deleted. Kenneth Tam is basically self published as the Iceberg publishing website describes him as 'A founding partner in Iceberg Publishing' so I don't think multiple reliable 3rd party sources that establish his notability exist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no good sources on google. Cxz111 (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - apparently he is a name within the Canadian science fiction community, because several of the cons refer to him coming. However, that is not enough to include him in wikipedia. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—There are multiple articles about him in The Telegram, enough likely to pass WP:N. I only have full-text access to the one that I added just now to the article, but the other ones are as follows:
    • "Geeks... and proud of it". Tara Mullowney. Telegram. St. John's, Nfld.: Apr 2, 2007. p. A1
    • "Newfoundland-born writer making the Trek". Telegram. St. John's, Nfld.: Jul 15, 2005. p. B4
    • "Young writer on a mission to motivate". Porter, Marcia. Telegram. St. John's, Nfld.: May 9, 2005. p. A3 --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete per consensus below. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RushCon[edit]

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

A fan convention that fails to establish notability. A google news search doesn't turn up any third party sources, therefore failing WP:RS. Wizardman 19:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"RushCon is the biggest convention in North America of fans of the rock band Rush.' is an assertion of notability. A google news archive search does find third-party sources as does a google search. 75.177.84.51 (talk) 23:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fails any measure of notability by a lot. When one actually tracks down the handful of sources, one finds quotes like this from a website mentioning the con: "The event attracted just 200 or so diehard fans ... 'The lack of enthusiasm was not a total loss,' smiled fan Ken Hoffman, from Walnut Creek, California. Rush, also among the no-shows, were unavailable for comment." The Toronto Star blog entry just mentions the con, and the other cites are all trivial mentions. Is there so much as a single reliable source about the convention?  RGTraynor  15:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no substantial coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, compassionately, as this would embarrass me if I were a Rush fan. --Dhartung | Talk 18:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm a Rush fan myself, but the article just doesn't appear to be notable. scetoaux (talk) (My contributions.) 20:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What About Everything[edit]

What About Everything (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Speedy A7 was correctly declined. However, the article does not cite references, so it does not make a credible assertion of notability for a single per WP:MUSIC. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fictography[edit]

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

Appears to be a neologism. Most Ghits are blogs not reliable sources. WP is not a dictionary. ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not a widely used term yet -- Whpq (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's actually some very limited usage, but most references seem to be connected to either Robert R. McCammon[13] or Billy Marshall Stoneking. And this is AFTER A Million Little Pieces and several others that would ostensibly require the term. --Dhartung | Talk 18:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above - moreover, the author has got it wrong: the article says it is "a biography written about a fictional character" such as Gulliver, which would cover so wide a range of fiction as to be almost meaningless. What the reference describes, though without using the word, is the writing of a "fictionalised" biography of a real person, such as Tracy Chevalier's Girl with a Pearl Earring about Vermeer, or Mary Renault's Fire from Heaven about Alexander the Great. That is a useful category about which something could be said, but there's not enough evidence for the use of this neologism. JohnCD (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a frequently used neologism JuJube (talk) 21:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --JForget 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jay d rodgers[edit]

Jay d rodgers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested speedy. I've rejected the A7 as there's assertion of notability, but whether it is sufficient or verifiable is something to be settled in debate here. Docg 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hittmanic Verses[edit]

Hittmanic Verses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Hittman (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have been unable to establish notability for this album. Google turned up a good number of hits, but only one reliable source. That source, allmusic, lists the album name, artist, release date and label, but nothing else.

The album does not turn up at all on metacritic, rollingstone, popmatters, artistdirect, blender, ew, nme, pitchforkmedia, altpress, slantmagazine, sputnikmusic, buy.com, robertchristgau, scaroffi, canoe.ca or iq451.

PROD was declined. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep both. Or maybe remove the album, but not the rapper's page. He has an ALL MUSIC GUIDE page with content like biography which could have been cited as source. He has appeared in 2001, an multi-platinum album that have topped the Hot R&B chart. I will provide more to keep it. --Flesh-n-Bone 19:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you Flesh-n-Bone. I will conditionally withdraw my motion to delete once a citation is given for the platinum album. Thank you, RFerreira (talk) 20:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Here is a source and "2001" sold 6x platinum. --Flesh-n-Bone 15:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the rapper's article as notability has been established, Merge the album's content (what little there is) into the rapper's article. --Closedmouth (talk) 07:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Flesh-n-Bone, Closedmouth. tomasz. 10:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upon closer inspection I am still failing to find any non-trivial third party references about this person. So he made an "appearance" on a 2001 album which is actually credited to Dr. Dre, not this guy. [14] Is that all we have to go on? It isn't enough to sustain a biographical article on Wikipedia, that's for damn sure. RFerreira (talk) 18:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, unless something can be provided to demonstrate that Hittman is anything more notable than a back-up singer on the Dr. Dre album. I note that in the AMG credits, he's listed as Hitman and not mentioned in the album overview. I've read the following reviews of 2001, and found no reference to him at all: sputnikmusic, pop matters, NME & EW. WP:MUSIC says a musician is notable if "Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country." The certifying record is not his, and I have so far not been able to locate any evidence that he is regarded as any more significant in its production than a session musician. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Crayn[edit]

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

Borderline notability with only myspace as an external ref. Article has been deleted three times, but never with any associated discussion (once prod, once userfied, once speedied). The user is complaining about wrongful deletion in their edit summaries, I nominate this now with the best intention of making sure they get an answer once and for all. Roleplayer (talk) 16:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems a lot of you have missed the point re labels, artists like to take control these days and with downloading taking over this artist (as you can check if you follow the links) has an album released on iTunes and a single on HMV and is also a graduate of the London College of Music, something else you keep deleting.

The albums title track was featured not in any old TV Ad but a worldwide campaign featuring the most famous or infamous supermodel on the planet Kate Moss advertising for the biggest cosmetic company on the planet Rimmel, made by the fourth largest Ad Agency in the world which is also the UK's oldest Ad Agency JWT

I'm sorry if I appeared rude but the deletions so far reflect a bias on your part against this artist which is unfair and as someone who rates his music has annoyed me.

I stand by my Wikepedia entries and you would be wrong to remove them as it is not a press release, this is an artist worthy of mention in the digital music age. —Preceding unsigned comment added by This is my truth (talk • contribs) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like you are some sort of power trip Roleplayer with your quote "best intention of making sure they get an answer once and for all" sounds like some sort of witchfinder general!
Isn't a musician with an album out on iTunes and a song featured in a TV Ad Campaign featuring the worlds most famous supermodel ie Kate Moss worthy of a page? or are some of Wikepedia gestapo users on a mission to get rid of free speeech?
As for only one external ref I could have put on one to iTunes but the increasing complexity of what you can and cannot put on Wikipedia meant i left it off as you Americans are so paranoid when it comes to some imagined court case!
Wikepedia often states "Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes".
Seems some of you like Roleplayer and others think you are above reproach and can delete things at will which makes you look foolish!
User:This Is My Truth 5.15pm GMT March 11 2008 London,England
  • Note: Trust me nominating it this way is the nice approach. I could've done it without discussion via WP:PROD or WP:CSD and then you don't get a definitive answer as to why it's being deleted. We can't delete things at will, which is why we have this process that we're going through now. Please bear in mind our policy on personal attacks when leaving messages for people in the future, and also bear in mind that while the Wikipedia owners may be American, its users come from all over the world. -- Roleplayer (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC) (about 40 miles from London, England)[reply]
  • Delete. The only source I found is this, but I think it's a press release. It indicates that this artist is not signed to a label, and it seems that the fact that a television ad uses one of his songs is the only claim to notability, which doesn't meet the notability standard. No prejudice against recreation if this artist becomes notable in the future. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. After looking on Google he doesn't seem to be notable. Cxz111 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No attribution of notability to independent sources; fails WP:MUSIC. Lack of an iTunes link ... really has no bearing on whether we keep this material or not. --Dhartung | Talk 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as to WP:N: This search indicates that there are two articles written about him in the Grimsby Evening Telegraph. Unfortunately I am not able to access the full text of the articles to better assess how in-depth the coverage is (they both talk about the Kate Moss ad), but perhaps someone else could? --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:57, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment are two articles in a local paper going to be enough? -- Roleplayer (talk) 19:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun[edit]

Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fails WP:N Camaeron (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep - rename if you have to, but this individual is extremely notable in genealogical circles, aside from the documentary. -- Roleplayer (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I'd say the documentary makes him notable. --Pixelface (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - he was a member of the House of Lords and entitled to attend until 1999, making him automatically notable as a politician in the UK's Upper house of Parliament!! --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 17:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, he succeeded after 1999. Still notable though. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 18:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Members of the highest legislature of a country are de facto notable per WP:BIO. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except he wasnt he suceeded his mother in 2002, after the reform...--Camaeron (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But he can stand in the elections to be one the 90. --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops -- missed that about the succession date and the reform. I maintain Keep though, on general notability grounds. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, Earls are good enough for me. --Dhartung | Talk 18:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; Earls are rare enough that we can document the set and there's normally enough to write at least a small biography. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 19:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Part of the problem is the nominator seems to have cherry-picked one aspect of this subject's bio (he's a rice researcher), decided that rice researchers are inherently non-notable (regardless of numerous other factors), and ignored a major reliable source (in which it is claimed he is only in for "five minutes" - Loudon appears in Britain's Real Monarch for about five minutes, but in fact the whole programme is about his bloodline and the reasons for his obvious notability). --Canley (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete --JForget 23:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilentSleeper OS[edit]

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

Non-notable desktop OS. No claim of notability. No coverage from reliable sources mentioning it by name in the article. Google doesn't turn up much more. Declined speedy with comment that db-web didn't apply. This is the author's second attempt to create this article. The first was speedied under A7 (here). -- Swerdnaneb 16:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shows up in both yahoo and google when typing : SilentSleeper OS, and silentsleeper. Some of the other webOS also did not have notability, they're still in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeofadaydreamer (talk • contribs) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the SilentSleeper page was deleted already. You can leave that deleted. But i just started this silentsleeper os page yesterday, i would really love it that it stay on wikipedai a bit longert and see how many page views it gets. the desktop web OS is still in beta form. And what harm will this cause Wikipedia if this article was kept on?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeofadaydreamer (talk • contribs) 19:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are a whole mess of arguments to be avoided during deletion discussions. "What about this other..." is one (WP:WAX). "What harm..." is another one(WP:NOHARM). The argument to make is to prove notability. -- Swerdnaneb 19:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation of deleted material RogueNinjatalk 19:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable. and how is it an operating system if it requires windows to run? It seems to be just an SWF which contains a calculator.
Also, blatant spam and COI as the sole contributor is Gabriel Lam, Co.Founder of SilentSleeper Co. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 20:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SilentSleeper old webOS(old version from last year) - still in University and still trying to figure out the notability part. It runs on both windows and mac. as i said in the article, it's a web OS to be run on the user's native desktop. it will contain many programs later when it is out of it's beta stage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeofadaydreamer (talk • contribs) 20:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's just a flash file that doesn't do anything! My favourite bit is in the site's blog where it says[15]:

"Using flash format to play media files is considered legal"

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.210.172 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's certainly a format where users can't download or get good quality media out of it. If thats what you mean. And I'm pretty sure I won't end up like TV Links, which you do have an article of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeofadaydreamer (talk • contribs) 11 March 2008

And the recreation of deleted material I believe had nothing much and was deleted before i could even edit it. Some articles in Wikipedia had some serious work done to it while learning the Wikipedia programming language and get deleted way too fast.

You can think of part of the function of the new SilentSleeper OS as TV Links but build with Flash. Is this SilentSleeper OS article that bad?--SilentSleeper Co. (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 G11. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Rulz! Anymore[edit]

No Rulz! Anymore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

NN. (For the newcomers: non-notable). Also, beyond repair in terms of WP:MOS. Two One Six Five Five τ ʃ 16:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete- non-notable music garbage... again! AndreNatas (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete as non-notable. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tadeusz Pasternak[edit]

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

Borderline speedy, the roles listed for this actor don't seem notable - bit parts in TV shows and a stage appearance. Only one named role is listed. Delete as non-notable. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP is not IMDb (which this article doesn't bother to cite). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete as failing WP:BLP. Bearian (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Burns[edit]

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

    Self-promotion. No sources independent of subject. Google search reveals web pages by Mr Burns but I didn't find any that were about him, but independent of him. Nearly all substantive content in the article was contributed by User:Alexburnsdisinfo, raising conflict of interest concerns. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 close, wrong venue. Will take to WP:RFD instead. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    National Black Conference of State Legislators[edit]

    National Black Conference of State Legislators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    The National Black Conference of State Legislators doesn't exist. It's called the National Black Caucus of State Legislators, for which a page has been created. This page should be deleted as it contains incorrect information and an incorrect title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Info1977 (talk • contribs)

    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Malsomnusera[edit]

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

    Contested prod, removed by anon IP. WP:HOAX. 0 ghits, 0 news articles, 0 book hits. Fails WP:RS, WP:V. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was Delete --JForget 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Dogs Life Info[edit]

    Dogs Life Info (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Wikipedia is not a compendium of miscellaneous facts. If this information is useful, it should be in the Dogs Life article. —Bkell (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom Mayalld (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I'd have suggested Merge but I'm not sure there's anything there worth merging; it's game-guide info and unsubstantiated. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 15:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom YoungWebProgrammer msg 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 18:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. All the noteworthy content here already exists in Dogs Life - all that's lacking are the details, and those those are utterly trivial. Zetawoof(ζ) 09:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. --MCB (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    David R. Cortez[edit]

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

    Local official notable for one criminal event, which seems to be the article's exclusive focus. WP:ONEEVENT Bellhalla (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Of the 5 references provided in the article the first one can't be verified on the web (which is fine), the second one is nothing more than a link to a website that documents the history of federal inmates, the third one is to an ancestry tree website, the fourth one is to the website of the current Webb County commissioner (Sergio "Keko" Martinez ) that only displays the office's location and phone number, and the fifth one, if copied and pasted into the address bar, produces a 404 - file not found error. We have nothing to confirm anything about this subject, let alone any notability. With over 7 million people in US jails or on parole or probation, he needs to be notable for something more than just going to jail. SWik78 (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per above. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 20:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete lets not forget how many County Commissioners are out there, hardly notable.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Redirect (non-admin closure), There are no arguments for keeping this duplicate subject article and it seems that all of the important information exists in the more established counterpart. Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Tibia Game[edit]

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

    Game is already featured under Tibia (computer game). Cant really find a catagory for speedy, so here it goes. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete While this isn't a case of duplicate content per se it is a case of two articles on the same exact subject. After reading the article's talk page it is clear that this article's primary editor feels very strongly about the validity of the information in this article. I'm going to urge that editor to help the project by expanding the Tibia (computer game) article. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge any mergeable info into Tibia (computer game) and then redirect it there. --Pixelface (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Pixelface (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, nothing worth salvaging. Optionally redirect to Tibia (computer game), but doesn't add any new search terms so isn't really worth it. --Dhartung | Talk 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Redirect, redirects are cheap and this article's existence is proof someone tried to search for it as such. Nifboy (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect - I concur 100% with Nifboy. The fact that the article exists indicates that it is a valid search term -- Whpq (talk) 13:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Anything stopping me from creating the redirect now? Because it would honestly be 5 seconds of my time. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 14:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete. This is obviously a borderline close because there's little discussion, but the notability and spam concerns are enough to make this a clear-cut case. GlassCobra 08:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Network Advertising Initiative[edit]

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

    Article fails WP:NOTABILITY,and WP:SPAM. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete. Yet another web-based promotional business. The unreferenced article contains no showing that its subject meets either the business or web notability guidelines. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 by User:Mr Senseless ,non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The fantastic six[edit]

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

    Non-notable amateur football club. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Speedy. If this didn't have an AFD I would have speedy deleted it. Stuff like this just needs the speedy delete tag. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete NN club. Dekisugi (talk) 13:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy delete - I have put a speedy A7 tag on it - I don't think we need to wait 5 days. JohnCD (talk) 13:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Isle of Marguth[edit]

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

    Probable hoax. Might even qualify for CSD G3 (My AGF meter is set to maximum at the moment). No google hits or any notability that I can find. "In fact, deaths occurred due to the consumption of rubber bands" - seals it for me. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy delete as hoax, so tagged. I'm pretty familiar with the Great Lakes, and I can assure you that there is no such island in Lake Michigan. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete as hoax. If the United States has another neighbouring country to the north, I know a lot of geography teachers who were very wrong in telling their students there's only one country to the north. Redfarmer (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy DELETE Its a hoax. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 for failing notability guidelines and lacking reliable sources. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Tour[edit]

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

    Non-notable music documentary that appears to be self-promotional in nature. Only one secondary reference (to the Montreal Mirror) is provided, and that doesn't check out when I visit the Mirror's website. Contested prod -- tag was removed without giving a reason to keep. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 13:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Added Brian Banks to this AFD; created by same author, connected only to this film. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment the Brian Banks article was vandalized last month, it was originally about a baseball player. I've reverted it back to the correct version. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. Four of the documentary's subjects are notable. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: notability is not automatically inherited. Adolf Hitler is notable, but if I make a "documentary" about him on my home video camera my film is not necessarily notable. The film needs to stand on its own merits, not those of its subjects. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it fails notablility qualification for film and I even tried to qualify it for music, and although it would be used to prove that those bands are notable by the guidelines (as a secondary source) it in of itself dosn't have notablility. The only hits I got from a copernic search were this article and the homepage, no secondary sources avalible from what I can find.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - for lack of reliable sources. the film is due out some time in 2008 which would indicate it hasn't really had any chance to garner attention. As an indie film, there is not likely a lot of anticipation that would have generated significant coverage before release. The only coverage that is claimed is from the Montreal Mirror (an alternative weekly). There is a claimed quote for the March 6 edition. The online edition does not appear to have any article on the film. -- Whpq (talk) 13:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Delete --JForget 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Arthur Reginald Green[edit]

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

      No assertion of notability. Several requests for demonstration of notability have not been heeded. From info. looks like a memorial page for a private soldier as no notable decoration or notability outwith his military service. Zero non-mirror ghits Kernel Saunters (talk) 13:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Died of the Spanish Flu in 1918. Non-combat death. This information would be appropriate on a genealogical site such as Ancestry.com, but does not meet the guidelines for a Wikipedia biographical article. Edison (talk) 14:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No assertion of notability. SWik78 (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No major sources on google. Cxz111 (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete utterly non-notable, and the page creator has had more than enough time to explain why this soldier belongs in an encyclopedia. The fact that s/he said on the talk page that s/he created the page to commemorate an individual says it all.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 15:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Does not belong on Wikipedia. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Corey Franklin[edit]

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

      artist fails WP:MUSIC; label "Bestes Music"([16]) redirects to a MySpace account - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      James Simmonds[edit]

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

      Originally a PROD that was contested by an IP user with no reason given; has not made an appearance in a fully professional league, so fails WP:ATHLETE. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 deleted. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ancient fear[edit]

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

      NN unreleased independent (homemade?) Youtube film, no references, no release date. Violates WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N. I would list for speedy deletion, but A7 doesn't cover films. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete --JForget 23:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Emerchantpay[edit]

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

      This name or variants of this name (e.g. Emerchantpay) have gone through at least two CSD#G11 deletions over the past week, and despite being briefly blocked for spamming, the author continues to recreate. Let's get a consensus. Appears to be totally non-notable corp. Jaysweet (talk) 12:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Do Not Delete 'ITransact' article or 'PSBill' are the same like Emerchantpay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiberlain (talk • contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi there ! I would like to know why you put Emerchantpay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emerchantpay. EmerchantPay is a EU based payment gateway and merchant account provider with business and support units located all over the world. I do believe the current article meets the requirements, article contains just facts, NOT an advertisement. there's a reference and press release on the bottom . thank you ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiberlain (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2008
      • Comment ITransact is very notable because they were the first company to offer a service of that type. The PSBill article is problematic and may have notability problems too, but please read WP:OSE. Just because another article (inappropriately) exists doesn't mean this one should. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Update: Upon further review, I also nominated the PSBill article for deletion. Heh, thanks Kiberlain, good call! :) ITransact appears to be legitimately notable, though, so I have no intentions of nominating it. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: Spam. Article lists primary sources (company website and press releases) only. G-search shows only commercial directories/placement. Nothing to indicate the company has any WP:Notability. Toddst1 (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, yet another web-based business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Charles River Center[edit]

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

      Doesn't seem to be a notable shopping center. Was previously AfD'd in November with a result of no consensus. Only source tells of the plaza's owner fixing a wetland problem -- props to the owner, but I don't think that qualifies as substantial third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "G" Is for Gumshoe[edit]

      "G" Is for Gumshoe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Does not assert notability for book. Only the author links there. Prod removed with little improvement Reywas92Talk 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep a best-selling novel key in the career of a major US mystery novelist. Easily referenced and expanded. While I admit the article is not ideal, improvement and expansion are reasons to tag or edit the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - also expand don't delete. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Dravecky; I would think that Sue Grafton is notable enough for all of her alphabet books to be notable. Just about any book that was a best seller could probably be expanded beyond a stub. (By the way, is there an echo in here?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • By the way, is there an echo in here? So far. K is for Keep per TenPound, Dumbot, and Dravecky. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep An article being orphaned is not a reason for deletion, and the article was improved after removal of the PROD tag, but it doesn't have to be. --Canley (talk) 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Any bestselling novel, and Sue Grafton's pretty much all have been, can find mutliple book reviews discussing the work in itself, usually extensively. Can easily be shown to be notable, even if the article itself does not yet demonstrate it. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Now it is much better, but the book itself does not count as a reference. Reywas92Talk 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not be confused by similar titles. "G" Is for Grafton, a critical review of the works of Sue Grafton, is not the same as the mystery novel "G" Is for Gumshoe. - Dravecky (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And in any case, yes, the book would count as a reference. It is only for WP:N that we discount primary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 18:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      "H" Is for Homicide[edit]

      "H" Is for Homicide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Does not assert notability for book. Only the author links there. Prod removed with little improvement Reywas92Talk 19:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep a best-selling novel key in the career of a major US mystery novelist. Easily referenced and expanded. While I admit the article is not ideal, improvement and expansion are reasons to tag or edit the article, not delete it. - Dravecky (talk) 04:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - also expand don't delete. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 09:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Dravecky; I would think that Sue Grafton is notable enough for all of her alphabet books to be notable. Just about any book that was a best seller could probably be expanded beyond a stub. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per Dravecky.--66.252.146.130 (talk) 12:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge with Kinsey Millhone, the protagonist of the series. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Any bestselling novel can find mutliple book reviews discussing the work in itself, and just about all the Kinsey Millone books have been bestsellers. Can easily be shown to be notable. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Now it is much better, but the book itself does not count as a reference. Reywas92Talk 15:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Do not be confused by similar titles. "G" Is for Grafton, a critical review of the works of Sue Grafton, is not the same as the mystery novel "G" Is for Gumshoe. - Dravecky (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Alex Randolph[edit]

      Alex Randolph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

      I have some questions as to the notability of this article's subject. Without significant expansion, I fail to see the subject's importance to the encylopedia. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep The subject is notable enough to be mentioned in Academic Gaming Review and Connection Games: Variations On A Theme (Browne, 2005). Twixt is a notable game, the subject of a world tournament. AFD is not cleanup and should not be used to force significant expansion of an article. --Canley (talk) 13:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, he's a Spiel des Jahres award winner. --Pixelface (talk) 16:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      So you're telling me that a seven sentence article that has existed for eighteen months is sufficient for the encyclopedia? I've seen articles on more notable subjects deleted for this very same thing. I still feel the article should be deleted. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Note this part from WP:BIO: "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards."...if "The person has received significant recognized awards or honors." The Spiel des Jahres award is one of the highest a board game designer can achieve. If the article is short, it needs to be expanded, not deleted. --Pixelface (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I withdraw my nomination, as it appears that I have misinterpreted established Wikipedia policy. My apologies for any inconveniences. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 18:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SPAs aside, there seems to be no real justification for keeping an admittedly borderline notable figure. GlassCobra 08:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Martin Greiter[edit]

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

      A smart, studied man, but probably not notable. No published books, but only a handful of works in journals and publications etc. Was PROD deleted recently by myself, but restored and sent to AfD per an emailed request. Jmlk17 21:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The paper that the article describes as his most widely read article has only been cited 4 times, according to web of knowledge and other online databases. He is a good solid physicist but it is hard to see him as notable. Dark Formal (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep per the Google Scholar listing cited above which shows a 1991 publication which has been cited 161 times and numerous other widely cited papers. Edison (talk) 15:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete based on the Google Scholar listing cited above. His h-index is 7 which is low-normal for an assistant professor (see h-index, first para says h=12 is expected for tenure at a decent university). Two papers with over 100 citations is not at all exceptional in physics. He is simply a good solid physicist, not exceptional or notable. If wikipedia has a bio page for him then it should have one for every professor in a decent research university. Dark Formal (talk) 15:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      DF, are you citing established criteria, or is this your opinion that an H index of 7 is low, and that two papers with over 100 citations is not abnormal? I'll assume good faith on your part, but it does seem that these are matters of opinion and not specific criteria established through normal processes at WP. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No independant sources. Cxz111 (talk) 18:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The paper quoted as the "probably most widely read article" is one of the for students most useful review articles in the field of condensed matter physics. I just googled "electromagnetic gauge invariance" and it showed up as the third entry. The paper is just not cited a lot because the students don't cite the papers they learn fundamental physics from. If it shows up so prominently in google this should count as an independent source. Bettina1959 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      — Bettina1959 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The review paper "electromagnetic gauge invariance" is the first paper I would think of if I need to know the gauge invariance in superconductors. As a graduate student, this review article is definitely very useful, and I learn some basic concepts there. Although such article probably will not be cited a lot, it is one of the most widely read article. There should be a reason that it shows up in the first few entries when you google. Albert1003 (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      — Albert1003 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Greiter has published two very well cited articles on the QHE, and many other interesting results on related subjects. His review on superconductivity is just excellent, and one can hardly overestimate the importance of this article for young physicists. I think that Greiter deserves to be notable, although the current entry on Greiter may need some improvements. Dave.Johnson 09:30, 14 March 2008 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.247.214 (talk)
      • Comment Two 100+cited papers and a very useful review article are par for the course for an assistant prof at a decent research university. Are we going to have a wikipedia bio for everyone who is good at their job? The three votes above, from "users" who appear out of nowhere and are never seen again, are just blatant vote stacking. I hope we can get some real votes from editors with a visible wikipedia track record. Dark Formal (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete. Actually, I think it's only one 100+cited paper; the other is his thesis which contains the same material. It seems premature in his career to asses the significance of his work, and WP:BIO1E seems relevant. The sockpuppetry on show in this AfD isn't helping, but I hope we can just ignore that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      David, you say: "It seems premature in his career to assess the significance of his work..." But is it up to wikipedians to "assess" at AfD or should we be trying to apply semi-objective predefined criteria from WP:N, BIO or PROF? --Kevin Murray (talk) 05:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't believe that those criteria are, can be, nor should be reducible to mechanical calculation. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      That being said, then specific criteria are useless if not objective. To have successful AfD in this field, we will need specialized closers, otherwise it's just who sounded the best. We have the same weakeness in the US jury system, where successful expert witnesses are the better showman, not the more informed. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I am not happy about Dark Formal referring to my entry as "blatant vote stacking". It is true that I am a novice to Wiki but everyone starts at some point, and I think it is legitimate to start with an entry I have an opinion on. Dark Formal proposed deletion reasoning that the review mentioned is cited only four times, and hence that the entry was ridiculous. To students of condensed matter physics, however, it is as useful as any textbook is. Why can't I point out that it googles up so prominently without being accused of "vote stacking"? I think is is absolutely reasonable if my vote as a novice doesn't count for much, but I don't think I should be discouraged from having an opinion. Bettina1959 (talk) 15:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Dark Formal & David Eppstein (FWIW, I calculate his h-index as 8, using ISI rather than GS, not that I'm advocating any particular number as a criterion for notability...) Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete There appears to be either one or two highly cited publication from early 1990s containing actual original research, namely his thesis. The h-index is quite low, especially for a physisist. I looked up his web page [17] and did not see there any additional biographical material that could qualify as notable (no mention of prizes, honors, fellowships, etc). He appears to be a good, but at the moment not particularly active physisist. Unless some new significant information is brought to light, I think his entry should be deleted for the time being. Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. No independent secondary sources to show that anybody has written about the subject. If the publications are outstanding, write an article about the publications. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Per SJ, who is one of the few who cite a valid reason for deleting an article at WP. The rest seems to be opinion based. --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 close as wrong venue. Will take to Redirects for Deletion. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Spoiled milk[edit]

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

        I request that this faulty redirect and misleading page be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sv23 (talk • contribs) 2008/03/10 21:42:18

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Let's give it a chance; I'm sure it could be developed. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom[edit]

        AfDs for this article:
        Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
        Unsolved murders in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


        Delete Unsourced article. The fact "Unsolved" here is vague, it do not prove whether the murders are still unsolved, or solved. The article is a candidate of snowball deletion. There is no point of this article. In this way numerous such articles can be created for each and every country. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep Valid topic, full of information to make it more than an indiscriminate list, well organized format... but there's NO excuse for not having sources, especially given the plethora of true crime books out there. Unsourced contributions might have been winked at back in 2005 when the article was created, but it doesn't go now. It's unlikely that any of these have been solved in the last three years, but there are enough clues here for any sleuth wannabe (and I don't wanna be) to follow in that department. Mandsford (talk) 13:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Indiscriminate listing. The "recentism" in selection of murders is such that there are lots of unsolved recent murders from the last few years but relatively few from older times. Highly selective in an arbitrary way. Clearly a vanishingly small sample of all the "unsolved" murders which have occurred in the UK. Edison (talk) 15:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The rest of the objections notwithstanding, please note that WP:LIST defines what an "indiscriminate list" is; whatever other problems there are with this list, "indiscriminate" isn't one of them... Mandsford (talk) 18:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete agree with Edison, focuses entirely on recent times. Also, if a list of this type is allowed for the UK, what stops such lists for every other country in the world. In the US alone there would be hundreds of thousands of people to add. KnightLago (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Who decides who's important enough to put on this list, or is every one of the unsolved murders going to be on this list, verified and deemed notable?... And that hits the nail on the head KnightLago... Not just the US... how 'bout India, China, etc.... I don't think this is a road that Wikipedia needs to go down.--Pmedema (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete — I cannot see how this is encyclopedic. This list could contain hundreds or thousands of people not connected in any way, except by being murdered. Most of the people will not be notable. This does not have the notability of, for example, List of massacres; which is a list of notable events. This is a list of tragic deaths but nonetheless non-notable people. EJF (talk) 16:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep The article is adequately sourced for purposes of this discussion. The blue-linked murders such as Suzy Lamplugh and Carl Bridgewater are very notable and thousands of sources could be cited. The basis for inclusion seems obvious and any borderline cases are just a matter for normal content editing. The fact that similar articles could be written for other countries is irrelevant as is the incoherent comment about snowball deletion. The nomination seems to be quite without merit and is worse than the article into which some good editing effort has gone. Furthermore the suggestion that this topic is not encyclopedic is false. See many other encyclopedias. 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Delete wholly indiscriminate and arbitrary list of people with nothing in common. Unmaintainable. Resolute 20:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. It has been pointed out already that this list is not indiscriminate by any means, but I think it bears repeating. It is incomplete, it has a bit of a recentist bent, and it lacks sourcing, but these are all surmountable problems that are not reasons for deletion. The list needs improvement, yes, but it does seem to be off to a good start. A word of caution to the article's core editors, however: you may want to come to a consensus on what constitutes a notable unsolved murder, so as to prevent the list from veering into "indiscriminate" territory. This may involve removing some of the entries currently on the list. If you would like some help in devising criteria, I'm more than willing to help; just drop me a note on my talk page. LaMenta3 (talk) 00:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This article has previously been nominated for deletion under another title and was kept. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unsolved English murders. (PS- What is the template for the box thingy that shows previous AfDs?) LaMenta3 (talk) 00:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          Comment Glad you noticed that. I've put in the box now. Proper practice is to check the history (and this one has a long history) to see if there have been any deletion tags before, and then to alert everyone that the topic has been discussed. The title of the article was moved to its current name, with "murders in the UK" in between. Mandsford (talk) 11:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep The nom's argument is that " numerous such articles can be created for each and every country." That's really getting it wrong--because we can make other similar articles, we shouldnt have this one? OtherStuffdoestnExist -- a new way of putting it. "This is the first article of the type we've done--delete it so we dont have to do others".? A good way to destroy the encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 02:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Both arguments presented for deletion are fallacious reassons for deletion but problems to be solved, or irrelevant, as stated by Lamenta3 and DGG. I think that the outcome of previous nominations shed enough light on this. Criteria for inclusion in the list should be clarified, but that's talk page stuff, no argument fo rdeletion (or an AfD for that matter). Gorgonzola (talk) 14:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Inclusion criteria needs to be determined but the article should stay. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep While article is in need of improvement and sourcing, it is a discrete abd valid topic. Edward321 (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep and Move to 'Notable unsolved murders in the United Kingdom' and source heavily. +Hexagon1 (t) 22:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge to List of unsolved murders and deaths and reformat to make it look less like a complete list. The Dominator (talk) 22:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong Delete. This stretches the boundaries of what can be realistically sourced - period - which means it will always violate - always - core policy and we therefore should not have an article on it. Classic example of unfettered listcruft that is populated and maintained by caprice. I don't see a single argument in favour of retention that addresses the RS question, which is rather more serious than the drive-by "source but keep" arguments would imply. Eusebeus (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're right, I think we should add a separate column for "Source" and only accept sourced ones. If this proves impossible, there could always be another AfD on which I would be happy to vote delete, I still have faith that it can be sourced. The Dominator (talk) 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, you are not right. Arguments for keep have been exposed that are more than just a drive-by "source but keep". My argument at least is: this is a list. notoriety of lists is given by the noteriety of the criteria for collection. if this criteria is factual and potentially relevant to a significant audience, the article is notorious. Care should be taken to ensure that the elements in the list conform to the criteria, wich is why we should source profusely, but this is not a valid objection to the pertinence of the article, or, to put it differently, an argument for deletion. if elements in the list appear to violate WP:OR then you are free and encouraged to remove them and comment in the talk page. That some elements present problems is of no relevance to the question on the pertinence of the set of said elements. This is not only my argument, this is only a formalization of what Lamenta3 and DGG said before me. Gorgonzola (talk) 15:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm sure that the article could be sourced and I think that it most definitely should be. The Dominator (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 closure. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Yangi-Dzhol[edit]

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

        Completely non-notable page that does not belong in an enclclopedia. Bowsy (review me!) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Speedy keep Villages are inherently notable; not much more to say there. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy keep Named geographical location, of course it's notable. Why would someone want to delete an article like this? --Canley (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. The body text of the article ("Yangi-Dzhol is a village in the Naryn Province of Kyrgyzstan.") is underdeveloped, but with a map and coordinates in the infobox, the article as a whole is better than nothing. Settlements are the kind of topics which encyclopedias traditionally cover, and Wikipedia should therefore follow a lenient standard to notability for such subjects. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy keep — as a village, inherent notability. Also, the reason for deletion was not backed up by any evidence. EJF (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kyrgyzstan-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, pages don't have to be notable. But villages *are* considered notable. --Pixelface (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        Moonlander[edit]

        The result was Merge with Yuri_Landman#Moonlander (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 19:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

        Previously AfDd and kept. This is an experimental instrument by Yuri Landman. It was linked to many articles of dubious or zero relevance by single purpose accounts, though it's not clear whether this promotion was by Landman, an associate, or a fan. There are precisely two of these instruments in existence: one made for Lee Ranaldo and one kept by Landman. Wikipedia is not Landman's house magazine, but we seem to be the place where his products are most featured. There are very few reliable independent sources on these instruments. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Announcement of Yuri Landman[edit]

        Hello, before everybody starts to vote, please take a look at the contributor who nominated these articles and who erases every info about my instruments without thinking the info might be interesting to read for other contributors. I think he's a bit overreacting against my COI. For instance this edit, which is not constructive for the topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Third_bridge_guitar&diff=197457192&oldid=197139508

        About the merging: This might look a good idea, but I don't think it is. The info is about the experimental instruments and not about me, so it is not as easy as it might look. One main topic will become more confusing, because different inventions maintain different systems. About the OR, I think user Guy is just wrong. I've derived all theory from other topics, but some simple calculations point out my theory isn't wrong. It is just following the same principles as guitar harmonics for instance. So I assume this person doesn't know enough about frequencies, string divisions, resonance, etc. and is not familiar with the screwdriver technique.

        As with the first nomination: There is a list of about ten reliable internet articles about my instruments among which for instance:

        Currently more publications are in proces and will be released upcoming months. (a doc and an interview for an airline magazine, maybe a lecture in Spain on a very big festival) I can come back in a few months when the list of publications is longer to point out the relevance of the work, but that will take more work then just leave this as it is. The topics are probably interesting for experimental musicians, fans of the bands, are not harming anything and with Sonic Youth, Blonde Redhead and all the other bands mentioned in the pitchfork article my work will only become more relevant at each interview, release of every new instrument or recording with the instruments.

        Next month the guitar for Jad Fair will be released. I don't think it is worth discussing the instrument-topics every time about their relevance.

        It is not forbidden to write about your own work on wikipedia. If we can make decent appointments, we can work together. I'm bringing in solid neutral information and no commercial subjective opinion about how good the instruments work. Only how they work. Best wishes and thanks for your contributions. YuriLandman (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Pedagoogling[edit]

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

        Neologism with zero Google hits: references cited do not mention the term either, but just establish use of the terms "pedagogy" or "Googling" respectively. Delete for failing to meet notability/verifiability criteria. The Anome (talk) 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        The result was Delete The article on Mocha (rapper) himself has been deleted, so basically this article is automatically deleted --JForget 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Mocha discography[edit]

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

        All this information already exists at the artist page; unnecessary duplication to have it at a separate page. Cloudz679 (talk) 11:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete redundant, unsourced, excessive detail, rapper is not obviously notable himself so the discography is clearly excessive detail. Guy (Help!) 11:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete as redundant info for a rapper who isn't notable anyway. And to the above: I believe that's herself. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - Unsourced daughter article for a non-notable artist. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        Moodswinger[edit]

        The result was Merge with Yuri_Landman#Moodswinger (non-admin closure). SilkTork *YES! 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

        Tricky one, this. It's an interesting but little-used instrument, and the article is almost entirely OR - much of it apparently by the instrument's inventor. There do not appear to be any substantial independent sources that we can use to tone the article down or assess its neutrality and accuracy. Possible merge to Yuri Landman? Guy (Help!) 11:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Message from Yuri Landman

        My COI-contributions have been nominated or tagged several times POV, OR since I started contributing from ± january 2007. I totally agree on the COI claim. At first I used wikipedia to raise more attention for my work for Liars. Currently this is not longer necessarry, so you are free to erase all info about me.

        About the OR: Also wikipedia has been one of my main sources to understand more about what really happened especcially on the Moodswinger (and less about the Moonlander, because this instrument contains less theory in its design). When I built it, I had no idea what it all contained in a harmonic way. So what actually happened: To get more fundament for not being deleted while I was working the theory out, I created a HOAX called Third bridge guitar, which is now on wikipedia for ± 1,5 year. This term is made up by me. Third bridge guitars don't excist. All info on this topic is derived from other topics like harmonic series. Although the term is made up by me, the mechanism isn't. Bluthner Piano, I discovered later, used it in ±1880. Harry Partch notices the stringdivisions in his Genesis (but didn't work it out like I did on the Moodswinger, because he worked completely acoustic). The Guqin has similarity in scaling system. Branca made more primitive versions with only octavedivision, Neptune made some drum stick systems, Bradford made an instrument, but no one of these people works with the scale on the Moodswinger as far as I know. Lee Ranaldo told me Branca's instruments work the same but have a lot less mathmetics in it. All the relations I've put in on wikipedia are discovered and composed by me on your site for my own learning proces and telling/teaching other people more about string resonance, which is also a HOAX-topic I made up to raise more fundament for my work as a microtonal instrument builder.

        So currently you have:

        which all contain a large amount of OR. They are all true, but I cannot prove this to you.

        I've explained my theory to quiet some musicologists among which Kyle Gann and prepared guitarist Peter Yates (of Elgart/Yates who wrote Prepared guitar techniques). They understood exactly what I was claiming and agreed on what I was telling, but this still is OR because the theory is nowhere being published.

        Best wishes, YuriLandman (talk) 13:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Moratorium on deletion: As the nominator said, a tricky one. How about allowing some time to find some source material (besides Mr. Landman's own) on this? Surely there must be something somewhere. Perhaps Mr. Landman can suggest, or find, some sources. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Comment Can't offer anything more here but a feeble WP:ILIKEIT. I certainly can't find any policy to support not deleting this article other than WP:IAR but if you will allow me to opine: I would rather see 10 to 20 more articles about obscure, overlooked delights like this than another dozen featured articles about Pokémon. I believe articles about such treasures improve and do not harm the encyclopedia. I find the "promotion" claim a bit incredible--who on Earth would buy one of these abominations? It's just fun to read about.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Well, yes, so would I. But the problem is the same as for most of the fiction cruft: lack of decent sources. Maybe a merger? Guy (Help!) 09:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Delete/Merge I agree, this is a well-made article on something (at least to me) very interesting. But then, this is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia with certain inclusion standards for topics, like WP:N. And my impression after reading the external links provided below is that this is not notable enough. Therefore a cut-down mention in Experimental musical instrument or Yuri Landman or Liars (band) or some other appropriate place, and as sources permit, is all I can currently see about it here. If the outcome of the discussion indeed will be merge, then hopefully a better place can be found for the full article and linked to from one of those places. (wasn't sure if i should vote here or below.. feel free to move it for editorial purposes) --Minimaki (talk) 15:09, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Advise[edit]

        I can help you out a bit. Branca was on of the first who used the third bridge mechanism of playing indirect. (so pluck the string on the left side and the mathmetical related counterpart on the right starts to resonate in related overtone + it's own stringlengthfrequency. This duotone sounds like a clock (listen to the intro of Good Morning, Captain of Slint's Spiderland for instance or Confusion is Sex). The term 3rd bridge is from this site : http://www.nonoctave.com/heroes/buzz/harmonic.html. So the term as a description does exist to explain the construction of the instrument. I think for that reason it is quiet useless to erase Third bridge guitar as a topic, as just has happened, but that's something I leave up to other people. The phenomenon excist (Branca, Sonic Y, Pencilina, Moodswinger, Fred Frith, Prepared guitar, prepaired piano, aliquot stringing, lutheal). I am the one who calls this officially Third Bridge, not only on wikipedia but also here:

        and here in Dutch (3e brug) in a video-interview

        and in almost every other interview I've done.

        Since I started promoting this technique in 2007 the term is also taken over by other people, on for instance:

        Currently I'm giving lectures about the theory (as I already did on the Output Festival), so people are more and more aware of what I'm telling about the technique. Wikipedia was my first way to promote the Moodswinger. (when I started I didn't know this site was so strict in rules about OR, POV and COI). After wikipedia all the other interviews and articles appeared in the media.

        So you can use the term. I cannot because of the NPOV, but if you consider me as an artist/builder you can refer to, the term third bridge excists. That's up to you. Not to me. I was the one who decided to give the main technique a suitable name. Also outside wikipedia currently, so there are sources for the term.

        User Guy wants to have decent sources, which is off course good. About the sources:

        • Oddmusic is a very reliable source for experimental musical instruments (there is no bigger site than this one about this topic.) So anyone on this site has some relevance involved experimental experimentalism. You cannot spam on this site and you certainly have to make something odd/new to get on this site.

        If you want to dive more into the theory of the moodswinger I just suggest you calculate the stringlenghts. For instance: When the fundamental is 100 Hz, the 4/5 is 125 Hz and the 1/5 is 500 Hz. So 1/5 related to 4/5 gives a tone two octaves higher then 4/5. This tone is happening on the knotposition of the third bridge. (otherwise the resonation is fading and not giving a resonating sound) When the bridge is slightly next to 1/5, you get Beat (acoustics), which can be very usefull in some way, because it is more natural then a wave-pedal, but that's an opinion. The clean harmonic optimum is on the dotted positions.

        So what exactly are you still missing as a source? I can understand the topic is difficult, but it is just a very accurate calculation. You don't need a source for calculating stringratio's.

        I can imagine you doubt if the instrument does have a proper sound as claimed in the table. Note that the table is about the theory of the scale, how the scale is constructed, why it is constructed like this. I wasn't the one who invented the scale. The scale is almost similar to the Guqin, who works with flageolets, which is a different technique, but works on the same physics.

        Finishing: I understand the OR issue (although it is just calculation) and it was a problem in jan 2007, but currently you are dealing with a different situation. I'm giving lectures, articles have appeared, Leather Prowler is made with it. Pitchfork is a very reliable source for taking my work serious enough as an artist I assume. What exactly do you need for sources?

        There are no other people working on third bridge guitars like I do as far as I know. So for the scale-problem, if this is the problem, you just have to check accurately and compare it for instance with the tables at harmonic series, guitar harmonics, overtone. The Moodswinger-scale is derived from those tables. The harmonic tables must be also in books about the Guqin, Pythagoras, Hemholtz and all the other musical scientists from the past. It's not very hard to find those. Any musicologist can probably tell you about this.

        If you need more info just ask a concrete question about what you are missing where. Then I'm willing to answer them. Every fact is quiet easy to prove I assume, so we can work this out, I'm sure.

        Best regards, YuriLandman (talk) 11:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete non-notable self-promotion. Additionally, the filibustering of the AfD by the article's creator is highly inappropriate and disruptive. Dlabtot (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think he's doing anything evil, he seems quite keen on Wikipedia and just needs some guidance I think. Guy (Help!) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        (reply to comment two above this one) WTF?!?!?! The guy has been completely up-front, not to mention courteous, about what he's done here, and you come down on him like a ton of bricks? Sheesh. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        It's pretty clear from the sources provided that it is highly unlikely for anyone to have heard about this really cool-looking but completely non-notable instrument other than by reading Wikipedia. I give the editor the credit he is due for effectively using Wikipedia for self-promotion. I agree that he has been upfront and courteous about it. Dlabtot (talk) 01:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Thanks for understanding my conflicting situation. Like I said: In jan 2007 it was definatelly self promotion, raising more attention to prepared guitar, third bridging and the most mathmetical 3rd bridge instrument, the moodswinger. But in march 2008 this is not necessary anymore, because attention for my work raises enough, due to the donations to Sonic Youth + Liars, the pitchfork article and addition in the oddmusic.com-gallery. These 4 notable sources are generating the most publicity currently, not wikipedia as assumed above by Dlabtot. After the first rush of promotion I became more familiar with the 'rules' on wikipedia (no selfpromotion, OR, COI, NPOV etc.). So I also did other edits, to change my behaviour and something strange happened. At the time I built the moodswinger, I was only aware of the appearing resonating overtone. I started explaining more, because some contributors weren't familiar with common prepared guitar techniques, like the screwdriver technique. Suddenly the moodswinger became an article which was explaining the chord coherence between the attack tone, the overtone and the complementary tone. Almost all 3 tone chords are derived from these 3 tones which are harmonically related to eachother. That is why the article is so difficult to understand for some people. This accidental rediscovery is done by me in 2007 on my own instrument, but most probably also by the ancient Chinese on the Guqin (same scale) and pythagoras in 600 bf.Chr.. I cannot imagine they didn't notice this. Kyle Gann en Peter Yates (of Elgart&Yates guitar duo + UCLA) also confirmed my chord related results when I explained it to them. So you could call it OR, but I really doubt if it is. When you are not familiar with the topic it soon looks like it, but if you dive a little deeper you will notice the moodswinger article is just retelling an old story in a new situation where electricity excists. If you feel the object is non-notable, because only 3 models excist, I probably cannot confince you otherwise than telling you the art science object (try consider it art or science instead of just a musical instrument) receives attention in ± 15 articles, interviews and video-interviews, the lectures I'm giving at international festivals and currently in a documentary. I didn't mention the chord relation, because this would definately raise OR situations. I only gave the calculated pitches. In my opinion people who don't understand these calculations should not be involved in judging if this is OR or not, but they are allowed to judge if it is promotion. That's all I can offer you. Best regards, YuriLandman (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. AGK § 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        List of zithers[edit]

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

        This list is essentially OR or a miscategorisation. For example, the cymbalom is a form of hammer dulcimer, not a zither as such, unless you choose to take the broadest conceivable definition of zither in which case it would be better to talk about a much more generic term such as "multi-stringed instruments with sound board" - but I don't know of a correct academic term for this. The creator seems to be promoting the moodswinger, so I suspect it's enthusiasm for that which motivated this list's creation. Guy (Help!) 11:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There was a clear consensus for deletion. In addition, the article has severe problems; it is unsourced and lacks the necessary context to understand what it is about. However, all is not lost because the content is already at Sijil Tinggi Persekolahan Malaysia. I am not adopting the suggestion of a redirect because it does not seem a likely search term. TerriersFan (talk) 04:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Stpm cut-off university[edit]

        My prod was deleted, so.. yeah, this article seems to me to be very unencyclopedic, it doesn't actually explain what 'stpm' is and the external links are all to freewebs. It just seems to be a list of grade boundaries, which isn't really something that we need an article on. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete and maybe even WP:CSD#A1 as lacking sufficient context. The article does not give sufficient information to establish what it's about. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Un-Encyclopedic... trying to think of something else to say but.... un-encyclopedic is the only thing that comes to mind really.... (scratching head)... --Pmedema (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sometimes there is no policy to cite, sometimes things just blatantly don't belong here :P -- Naerii · plz create stuff 17:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - the AFD is malformed. There is no AFD notice on the article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Bah, I could have sworn twinkle did that ! :( -- Naerii · plz create stuff 13:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 08:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Oppression51[edit]

        Oppression51 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Non-notable, no sources. Beach drifter (talk) 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete as non-notable, probably even when sourced. tomasz. 11:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - per nom. --Komrade Kiev (talk) 12:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • DO NOT DELETE notability is present. Just because the following people don't know who oppression51 is doesn't make them not notable. Sources are being gathered to prove notability. Is it required that oppression51 is known world wide? Because I can show you many articles on Wikipedia that are of local/state wide notability and still remain; such as high school, etc. Teajay1013 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. See here for what is generally required for a subject to class as notable: it's not to do with whether we've heard of it. As far as i can see, the article as it stands doesn't even say how the group might be notable by these criteria, never mind showing it with reliable sources. tomasz. 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        oppression51 is not as popular as David Hyde Pierce but one cannot argue from the content of this article that it is an established comedy group, and possibly more humorous than Mr. Pierce--(Having a certain ambiguous amount of 3rd party sources aside). College radio station WGLZ has been cited as various members of oppression51 appear on a radio show there from time to time. Without comparing to other articles that have much fewer information than this one, what is the minimum amount of sources needed for this one to remain afloat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.50.130.228 (talk) 00:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete - Fails WP:NOTE and WP:BIO for comedic entertainers. Sources are trivial - myspace, personal website, and a college radio station. No evidence of second or third party coverage. Wisdom89 (T / C) 17:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Patrick Combs[edit]

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

        This person's noteworthiness is temporary: Wikipedia article seems to only be an advertisement for his DVD and book. Applekid (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Layer by layer rubiks cube solution[edit]

        Layer by layer rubiks cube solution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        I'd prefer CSD if there is a category of speedy deletion because this article is an instruction manual. So here the debate for deletion per WP:NOT#MANUAL. Dekisugi (talk) 10:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • I could be wrong, but it looks as though the current Wikibooks howto is the same information, and written better. Delete is my vote. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete ASAP. Deb (talk) 12:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Agreed... the Wikibook version is very comprehensive compaired to this 'How To' guide and should not be here. --Pmedema (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete, Wikipedia is not a HOW-TO. JIP | Talk 18:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Move to Wikibooks and merge into the How to solve the Rubik's Cube#Layer by Layer methods section. --Pixelface (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Violates NOT, and already exists in a better format at WikiBooks. Hersfold (t/a/c) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Photostax[edit]

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

        Non-notable software application. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Edgar Calabia Samar[edit]

        Edgar Calabia Samar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Poet and fictionist from the Philippines. Authorship by user:Ecsamar suggests self-promotion. Is he notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

        The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Amaurophilia[edit]

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

        Another inadequately sourced paraphilia article; both sources look to be vulnerable to protologisms. No hits for this term on Google Scholar or Factiva, and only around 7,000 (~230 unique) on Google as a whole, so this does not appear to be a widely used term, but rather a thing made up in a paper one day. Guy (Help!) 09:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Delete No sources for any of the statements made in the article. Beach drifter (talk) 10:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Personally, I think we should retain it for now, and find the sources, if possible. If there can be no other sources found, after a period of two or so weeks, then re-nominate it. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Three years not long enough, then? ;-) Guy (Help!) 16:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete The only published source seems to be the "Encyclopedia of Unusual Sex Practices"; it's the only Google Books hit, and an academic search through my university library produces absolutely nothing. Online hits seem to largely be regurgitations of either our text or the EUSP's text. Unless better sources can be found, I'd consider this a term invented by the EUSP and not documented anywhere else; it does not appear to have found wide currency and thus I feel this article should be deleted. Re-creation should be allowed IF the re-creator finds better sources, but not otherwise. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Maryam Behmard[edit]

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

        Possible hoax?? For the life of me I am unable to establish WP:RS for any of the information presented on this person. References are either dead end or go to Wiki style Bio pages. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 08:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Not a hoax: I found a column she wrote for the Toronto Star, "In the trenches at Jane-Finch", 2005-10-25, page A26. And Linda Diebel wrote an article, also in the Star, that quoted Behmard (2005-11-20, page A8). Is that, along with her (uncited) television work enough to pass WP:BIO? I doubt it. Weak delete. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Keep working on WP:BIO sourcing... — Scientizzle 16:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Darren M Jackson[edit]

        Darren M Jackson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        To the closing administrator - please be sure to account for the fact that User:Diamonddannyboy has voted keep multiple times

        Delete nn bare knuckle boxer, already speedied twice, and recreated Mayalld (talk) 08:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep Recreated due to it being put up for speedy deletion, now added web content, went up for speedy deletion twice due to not being able to verify notable, now added web content, please look at why it was deleted first tim.. keep page Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 11:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The single source that has been added doesn't appear to meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N, and I haven't been able to find other sources that do meet the requirements. If other sources exist that do meet the requirements, then they need to be added. Mayalld (talk) 11:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The original author has put up further sources. None of them IMO meet WP:V, WP:RS or WP:N. I have reformatted them into proper citations, not because I believe that they are adequate sources, but because I don't believe that the debate should hinge on the users inexperience in editing. Mayalld (talk) 14:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Its a no brainer, It meets notabilty Quote wikipedia criteria.
        From WP:ATHLETE:
        • Competitors and coaches who have competed in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
        • Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them).[1]
        As Jackson has competed in a fully professional league, proven notable, even if full under amateur sport, Jackson has competed in prestigious events like United kingdom mixed martial art championship ukmmac, see reference of pro record and prestigious events. So notabilty cannot be contested, so article just needs a generl clean up. Diamonddannyboy (talk)
        • Keep Afd is not cleanup, this subject appears to meet WP:BIO as the article references non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. скоморохъ 09:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It doesn't appear to me that the sources quoted are in fact reliable sources Mayalld (talk) 13:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Mayalld Knows that the sources quoted are in fact reliable due to him seeing the newpaper articles that were downlaoded as images. He swifty put them up for deletion under a copy right issue, however they were free, and continues to discredit the author and its work, meets notablity under WP:ATHLETE and WP:BIO maybe Mayalld could explain fully which sources he believes not to be reliable.Then we can agree or disagree Diamonddannyboy (talk) 13:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 90.208.51.69 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The scans were deleted because the they WERE copyright violations. The claim that they were OK, because lots of people have read the paper simply shows an incorrect understanding of copyright law. I would contend that a piece in a minor local free newspaper does not constitute a reliable source that might establish notability.Mayalld (talk) 13:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment What about a main stream Martial Art Magazine 'Fighter Magazine' which is available across the UK would you contend that Jackson is one of the top UK Instructors in the uk!!! They just dont feature any Tom dick or Harry in that Mag, also the debate with MP Dr Howard Stoate, why would Dr Stoate have a debate with a know body. This what the article showed and if was left as proof could show that 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diamonddannyboy (talk • contribs)
        • Weak Conditional Keep, I'm honestly on the fence as I was one of the editors that tagged it for speedy before, but I can see the possibility for notability under WP:ATHLETE. The only conditional I would have is that the creator establish some notability and establish it fast or I would recommend it be nominated again. Redfarmer (talk) 16:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very weak delete I do not think there is quite enough there to establish WP:BIO notability, and as the sport is illegal I can not see this falling under WP:ATHLETE. That is the way I see it policywise. If this one survives, I do not think I will be disappointed. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • keep and ignore RogueNinja this person has been blocked from editing vandlises work.Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That is news to me! RogueNinjatalk 22:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Diamonddannyboy has now said "Keep" or "Hang on" no less than 4 times! Whilst his enthusiasm is admirable, I have advised him that whilst he can comment as many times as he wants, he must not attempt to skew the AfD in this way and must desist from personal attacks Mayalld (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • comment sorry guys new to all this, thank mayalld you have been a great help. sorry RogueNinja, just jumped the gun a bit I did. Diamonddannyboy (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No problem. It is good to be enthusastic, but make sure you review some wikipedia policy. RogueNinjatalk 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It is notable under WP:ATHLETE due to Jackson competeing in a 'fully professional' league. These are the guide lines set out for basic criteria by wikipedia. mixed Martial Arts is not illegal it is sactioned by International Sport Combat Federation WP:ATHLETE competed in a fully professional league Jackson is a pro fighter see pro record by sherdog, also if it fulls under amateur sports, must have competed in prestigious events, I think Dave Couryneys Fight night in tribute to Joey pyll at caesars palace is very prestigigous.Diamonddannyboy (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment also meets WP:ATHLETE criteria under amateur who competes at a prestigious event, see reference to Mark Epsteins world title fight and win, Jackson was on the Bill, I would say that a world title event is pretty prestigious. There in no case to delete or speedy delete, if deleted this would be to go against guide lines set out in the basic wikipedia criteria for notability WP:ATHLETE end off . 90.208.51.74 (talk) 08:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak Keep I've tidied it up a bit, so the article should be cleaner, but it is still needs a lot of work. My problem is that I'm unable to confirm the references - I don't know if they are sufficiently notable or not, because I can't get access to any of the better ones within the time constraints, and the weaker references are insufficient to establish notability. I'm also unable to source any references of my own, but that could be due to the nature of bare-knuckle fighting - it isn't a world which I have much insight into. From what I can tell, if the Fighters Magazine articles do cover him, then, in conjunction with the other material, he's probably notable enough to warrant keeping. This, of course, is assuming good faith on the part of the editor, which I see no reason to doubt, in spite of some problems (he's certainly enthusiastic). I should add that the weaker references, while by no means proving notability, do support the claim that he is a genuine fighter, and that he has fought at some sort of professional level - whether he fought at a level high enough to meet WP:ATHLETE is for those who know the field better than I to determine. Anyway, I agree with Redfarmer and some others - keep it for now, but keep a close watch on the article in case notability can't be properly established. - Bilby (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak keep. I know a bit about the sport and, frankly, am not keen on finding out more. However, my understanding is this is a more underground sport/culture so this article will likely need the help of not only someone versed in what information wikipedia is looking for but also where to find it. This seems to be bordering on a promising article that needs work and the main contributor has been a newby editor who I'd rather encourage. Please note that if this AfD passes the article can and likely will be nominated again so will have to jump up in explaining the subjects notability so next time around it's more clear to those looking for such things. In general you need to get to the point right away who this person is and why anyone would care. The lede needs to be a stand alone summary of what the article is about as well as being an enticing read. Benjiboi 01:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I forgot to mention there may also be cultural aspects at play in addition with the Romani who may have a history that similar to other cultures is oral based and thus culturally predisposed to not documenting their own history. Benjiboi 01:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep I put one of the original speedy tags on the article. It seems to me that an unfortunate combination of an underground sport and a long-repressed ethnic group requires sketchy sources. In fact, information from this secretive people is so rare that Mr Jackson must be notable for even courting attention this far into the mainstream. Heavy Seltzer (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Delete poorly referenced negative article on a living individual, per WP:BLP, plus POV issue noted. Guy (Help!) 11:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Justin Fisher (convicted criminal)[edit]

        Justin Fisher (convicted criminal) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Total POV fork, violates WP:BLP#1E. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 07:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Project Fate[edit]

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

        Seems to be about a nonnotable (or at least very minor) fictional element. Also, most of this document is unverifiable or original research. Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 06:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete per non-notability. Cougar Draven (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not finding much that supports the independent notability of the organization: just passing mentions of it as part of the plot machinery. Merge very selectively to Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha as a plausible search term on an element of the story (and that section needs expansion). —Quasirandom (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge with Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha - article doesn't justify/warrant its own article per WP:FICTION. Wisdom89 (T / C) 15:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge into Magical Girl Lyrical Nanoha. --Pixelface (talk) 18:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge, though it's likely this can be summarized without the content of this article, and the full content shouldn't be merged. I would not be opposed to deletion. A good candidate for a transwiki. Too much detail without real world context. -- Ned Scott 06:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Charmed family and friends. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Dan and Jenny Gordon[edit]

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

        The last nomination was closed as "no decision" only because of an arbcom injunction. The article is about a fictional subject and does not have the required secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context. Jay32183 (talk) 06:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete or merge, lack of independent sources, the only sources cited are Wikipedia articles on episodes. Guy (Help!) 11:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge if possible, delete if not. Same reasons as above. Cougar Draven (talk) 12:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure merging is really an option. There aren't season articles for Charmed and the character list is already a mess. If there are sources for single season articles, I haven't checked, season two would be the target for this info. Since all the information comes from the show itself, recreating information on the characters from scratch wouldn't be an issue if sources turned up later. Jay32183 (talk) 22:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm still in favor of merge or delete. As Neil has said below, there is an article for Charmed family and friends. (I wouldn't know, I don't watch the show.) The information for these characters can go there just as easily as it can have its own article. And honestly, even if this did have real-world sources, is it notable? The subject of two characters from a TV show? Perhaps if they were main characters, yes, but I gather they are not. Cougar Draven (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • That's the article I referred to as a mess. Attempting to merge without cleaning up that article first would create an unnecessary burden. These characters only matter during season 2 and not to the overall story of Charmed, so having them in the character list may not be appropriate for that. There are characters who appeared in fewer episodes but had a larger impact on Charmed. I did watch every episode of the show in order, by the way. Jay32183 (talk) 06:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge into List of Charmed family and friends.--NeilEvans (talk) 22:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge somewhere or delete because they still haven't established any kind of notability since the last nom. I had List of characters in Charmed in mind as a merge target (where all the other nonnotable Charmed characters can be merged), but obviously this article would have to be created first. – sgeureka t•c 23:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge the preference is always for merging rather than deletion. If a merge is refused by consensus there, only then would there be reason to bother AfD about it. How extensive the merge should be can be discussed on the talk pages. DGG (talk) 04:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge per NeilEvans. --Pixelface (talk) 12:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Computer cooling#Liquid submersion cooling. GlassCobra 08:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Oil cooled pc[edit]

        Oil cooled pc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        This is less an article and more a pros-and-cons of running a computer that uses oil to cool it instead of air, as far as I can tell. Of the six references provided, only three are valid and only one of them that I could access is on point. If someone familiar with the subject can produce an encyclopedic article about the topic in question, I'd reconsider. But this textdump isn't it. My prod, which was reaffirmed by another editor, was removed by the author. JuJube (talk) 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete as 2nd PRODder. It's a copy paste, of that I'm sure, but the horrendous spelling makes it hard to find the source. It's a poorly written HOWTO with scant evidence that the process is notable. I'd support a redirect somewhere, but I wouldn't have a clue where. I'm not sure this could be an article, but I don't know enough about the field to say for sure. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • original author just want to say I'm willing to merge or edit this article in any way to make it acceptable, but I have read over the section Computer_cooling#Liquid_submersion_cooling and it it is lacking. and I justify my deletion of the prod by quoting..."this is not an article". I saw this as insufficient and my inexperience on this site saw that as baseless and lacking in possible advice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donhoraldo (talk • contribs) 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dreadstar † 05:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Kitti Todd[edit]

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

        That claim would make her notable, if it were verifiable. Neither imdb nor Google have heard of her. IMDb doesn't even show a character with that name. I'm calling HOAX. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The Phoenix Lectures[edit]

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

        This is an article, completely composed of WP:OR, about an out of print book that is not actually itself written by L. Ron Hubbard, but is a compilation of a series of lectures. I searched through multiple databases, and I could not find a single, secondary WP:RS/WP:V source that independently analyzes, reviews, and gives significant discussion of the The Phoenix Lectures. In a search of other books that mention "The Phoenix Lectures", I was unable to find any significant discussion, beyond a passing reference. If there is indeed enough significant coverage in secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources, I was unable to find that in a search of multiple databases and book indices. At present, the article itself contains zero independent, secondary sources, and only references the book itself. The external links section contains 2 links to self-promotional Church of Scientology affiliated websites, and both links are not working or are inactive. Cirt (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete as par nomination. to expand the nomination it dosn't give any information about the book outside of the form it was delivered in, no referances on how scientology uses the book or what its significance to the orgonization is. Fails notibility standards since Hubbard didn't write it (it is an edited version of his lectures...).Coffeepusher (talk) 04:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete per Cirt and Coffeepusher. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Unreferenced and unimportant in itself, and adds nothing to other Scientology articles. (Unless someone finds something of note by rooting around in old issues of The Aberree.) AndroidCat (talk) 09:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Knapp's[edit]

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

        Doesn't seem to be a notable chain, despite having been part of two larger conglomerations of stores at one point. Regardless of the fact that this store was defunct way before the Internet was mainstream, I still don't see much -- if anything -- in the way of notability here; just a small six- or seven-store chain that, for a small local chain, sure had a lot of mall based locations. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn A couple of decent sources have been dug up. This is clearly not an easy store to Google, so that made searching very difficult. Thanks to whoever added the sources! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 12:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep. A news search brings up at least 12 reliable references to the chain in the New York Times, dating to the 20s and 30s, and given the lack of local sources online, I'd say there's going to be a fair amount more of both direct and incidental coverage. It's also worth remembering that department stores were a 'big thing' in the first half of the 20th C, with much more social importance than a Target or K-Mart has today. It seems to be a corporation that declined in notability, particularly in its latter years. Mostlyharmless (talk) 06:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep A google news search does bring back quite a number of sources ([19]) that should easilly let this pass WP:N and WP:RS]] I don't have time to go hunting at the moment, but I will try later tonight... I have flagged it for rescue. Fosnez (talk) 07:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Wurzburg's[edit]

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

        Local store that doesn't seem to establish notability. Wizardman 15:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Weak delete The chain went under in the 1970s, and it only comprised six or seven stores, so I doubt that there will be much about it on the 'Net. However, I wouldn't entirely rule out the possibility of some good sources being found in a newspaper archive search. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 15:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete as above. Not notable per WP:CORP. Eusebeus (talk) 16:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak delete, remnant of an era when every mid-sized city had its own native department store, sometimes with regional branches. namecheck here About the only online RS in any depth is this obit of the onetime owner. I'd advocate a merge if I could find the chain it merged with, but I can't find a trace of it after the 1970s. --Dhartung | Talk 20:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very weak delete, needs WP:HEY. Close cal here, additional sources would change my vote. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep "notability is not teporary" cant remember where it says that, but it does somewhere....--Camaeron (talk) 21:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
        Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Marysville Mall[edit]

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

        Not a notable mall in any way; doesn't seem to be the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Weak Keep I am familiar with this mall. While every other mall listed in the index at the bottom of the article has its own article, this is possibly the smallest of those malls. Brian Waterman, MS, CDP (talk) 05:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. I'm not seeing a claim of notability. "The Marysville Mall or Marysville Towne Center is a shopping center in Downtown Marysville, Washington," doesn't really cut it for me. -- Kéiryn talk 05:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. No assertion of notability and just another small US mall. Inclusion in the template does not create notability. In fact, there are several other malls listed in that template that are also lacking in notability and needing deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 from the debate. A lack of sourcing is not an adequate reasoning for deletion, and Ms. Lane does appear to be known in more than one area. GlassCobra 08:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Alycia Lane[edit]

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

        Clear WP:BLP1E situation. Only notable for a lone news event, and it's repercussions. Lawrence § t/e 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep. Consensus was reached the first time to keep this article; I see no reason to go through this process again when the community has already spoken and has voted to keep the article. Furthermore, subject is better known and more notable than a lot of subjects of articles in this encyclopedia. Jonneroo (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That first time was in 2006 when we had vastly different standards. Lawrence § t/e 03:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Apparently, in the Philadelphia metropolitan area, Ms. Lane is pretty well-known. She is known for more than her arrest and termination, and she is known for more than the bikini pix. I wouldn't say that she is only known for one news event; she was known and recognized by Philadelphia residents (and the residents of other cities where she has been a local TV newsperson) well before her arrest. Jonneroo (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then someone should be able to produce sources to that effect and post them here or the article. Failing that, it's clear BLP1E/notability deletion. Lawrence § t/e 04:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, as per Jonneroo's comments. Rollosmokes (talk) 04:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep An anchor on a major-market newscast for four years who took that notability and instead of using it for good, sent cheesecake bikini pictures that got the wife of whom she sent it to very rightfully mad, then after that assualted a police officer (and called her a gross slur) and blew any goodwill she had left in Philly television. The sourcing is more than there (amazing to me that the article is well-sourced after all of her content and her bio was pulled from KYW's site), and this case will drag on for years; likely someone will hire her for this notoriety in the future. Notability is not lost easily, and neither is noteriety. Nate • (chatter) 08:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        You have a right to be angry at her. However that tends to argue against keeping the article. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I wasn't being angry at her, I was stating the facts of her career. Frankly I'd rather not have ever heard of her but what happened happened, and she brought herself to notability. Nate • (chatter) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - as per nomination, an explicit example of WP:BLP1E. Generally, local news anchors are only considered notable if they've won notable awards (such as the Emmy) or have been pioneers in the industry (like Sharon Dahlonega Raiford Bush, for example). Lane has done neither, so her notability isn't independently established away from the bikini photo/arrest mess. The bikini/arrest thing is what has given her some degree of notability, although this is a clear case of WP:BLP1E. BWH76 (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep It's hardly the case that she's only known for one event. Many local news personnel are considered sufficiently notable to have Wikipedia entries, and she's been notable in more than one market. JTRH (talk) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment - If she's "notable in more than one market," it should be listed in the article why this is so. Otherwise, I'm not sure if I agree with your opinion as it seems to be based upon the premise that other stuff exists. If her notability, aside from the bikini/arrest debacle, is documented in the article, I'd be happy to withdraw my opinion for delete. BWH76 (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please provide the sources to this effect then. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete per WP:BLP1E and general failure to satisfy WP:BIO. Edison (talk) 15:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note AFD is not a vote. If you say "Keep" for notability reasons, you need to provide sourcing to that effect. Lawrence § t/e 15:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: Let me take this another way, then. If this needs to be AfD as non-notable, do these as well? Ernie Anastos, Roz Abrams, Diana Williams, Larry Kane, Larry Mendte. All of these people are primarily known as local news anchors associated with one major market. I'm offering these not as a defense of this article on the grounds that "other stuff exists," but rather in support of the idea that there's a clear consensus on Wikipedia that major-market local news anchors (such as Alycia Lane) are sufficiently notable per se to have articles associated with them. If you're going to AfD this, you should AfD those as well. And I'm going to have to decline the request to source the notability - I'm not going to have the time to devote to this before the AfD closes, and I'm only a minor contributor to this page as it is. JTRH (talk) 16:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'd be for deleting all of them except Larry Mendte, since he was the first host of Access Hollywood. I am going to go nominate them all now! --Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If they're notable, they will have multiple independent sources about them. In fact, I will be checking and AFDing those which do not. Being on TV is not inherently notable. Lawrence § t/e 16:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: OK with me.JTRH (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Those all appear to have multiple independent coverage. One is a published author, another is a filmographer as well. They're fine. This one is a BLP coatrack mess. Lawrence § t/e 16:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. I'd rather see this article improved/better sourced than deleted, but I don't have the time nor do I feel that strongly about it. JTRH (talk) 16:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, per BWH76's notability standard, Lane has won an emmy. Which has now been referenced in the article. The sheer magnitude of references indicates that she is notable, and the WP:BLP1E argument fails once it is acknowledged that she is an award-winning news anchor who has worked in three very large tv markets (NYC, Miami, Philly) on major networks. Or stated differently: Which one event are people proposing is the one that gives her insufficient notability? Mitico (talk) 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        IMO, [20] is enough on its own to derive notability. Mitico (talk) 16:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, she's clearly notable for more than just one event. --Pixelface (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak keep adequately notable on her own. JJL (talk) 19:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep She is (or atleast was) an award winning news anchor in a major market. And in Philly news anchors are just about the biggest celebrities in the city (other than athletes). Also, she's notable for more than one event, I count atleast two - Rich Eisen bikini-gate, and the whole hitting a cop thing. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Lane got an Emmy award, a local one for sure, but nevertheless an Emmy. Which leads me to the assumption that a certain degree of notability may be attributed to her, regardless of any Bikini photos, or her conflict with a NY police officer, which wouldn't have received that degree of coverage if she hadn't been notable in the first place. --Catgut (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Just being known as a face on TV is not notable. The article said nothing about her style or ability as a newsperson. Too much weight is given to the two minor incidents, which only goes to show there is nothing else interesting to say about her. Although I do wish her well. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep. She was notable before the event (though, unfortunately, not for entirely positive things); most importantly, she was an evening anchor on prominent TV station in a major market. If the Foundation received a complaint from her or something (which doesn't appear to be the case), then stub-ify the article and delete anything questionable or unsourced. I don't see the big deal.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 20:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, as the references cited in Alycia_Lane#References provide sufficient evidence of coverage in third-party reliable sources to establish a presumption of Alycia Lane's notability per the general notability guideline. Her local Emmy Award as described and referenced in Alycia_Lane#Career provides additional evidence of notability. John254 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete this article and all like them about local TV people. Just being on TV somewhere and a criminal elsewhere doesn't make you notable. --MRPL8 (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Perhaps not, but Lane is the recipient of a prestigious award and the subject of news articles about several incidents, not just one (so WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, IMO, although the "controversies" section should be given less weight).--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back
        MRPL8 is likely a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete The arguments for deleting her seem to outweigh those to keep her. She is just a bloody newsreader. --Exoz (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please note that the user above has made very few other edits to the encyclopedia. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Exoz is likely a sockpuppet of User:Spotteddogsdotorg, an indefinitely blocked user. --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete She slapped a cop and called her a dyke and got fired for it. Should there be bios of every TV bimbo who did something criminal and got fired? No, unless they killed the Pope or something. --Cryptographic Slurm (talk) 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        On first inspection, this user appears to be a sockpuppet of User:MRPL8 --The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Hot Springs Mall[edit]

        Hot Springs Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Mall isn't the subject of any reliable sources. Simply being the largest in a town isn't always enough for notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete unsourced directory entry. Guy (Help!) 11:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Harry Stevens[edit]

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

        Doesn't seem to be a notable announcer. IMDb lists only two roles, and a search for sources turned up only a couple minor false positives. I don't think that being an announcer for just two short lived TV game shows is enough to be notable -- clearly this guy is no Gene Wood. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that three established users have supported the retention of this article [21] [22] [23], while no users apart from the nominator have commented in favor of deletion. John254 00:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Nicole Lapin[edit]

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

        Nicole Lapin is an anchor on CNN's internet video channel and who is not notable per WP:BIO. The sources for the article consist almost entirely of CNN pages, press releases, and blogs. I could find almost no reliable source coverage, with the most significant coverage being a small wired piece. She has not received any major journalism awards. The article mentions that she is one the youngest anchors in CNN history, which is somewhat misleading as most of the anchors are on the much higher profile CNN television networks. BlueAzure (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Define a reliable source. CNN pages are the direct source of information and includes the most accurate information on Nicole Lapin. Nicole being the youngest anchor is a fact. To disprove this please provide a source where there may be another anchor younger than Ms. Lapin. Nicole also graduated as valedictorian with honors in political science Reference. This wiki is entirely accurate. --Rankrover (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .[reply]

        • Keep Passes the notability bar for me - the Wired piece, being an anchor for CNN even if it's for the online stuff ... tons of google hits and fan coverage too. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 05:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: An IP address has now twice added material to the article that was not in the source [24] [25], and inserted a citation for an article in middle of quote from a different article[26]. This appears to be attempt list every article the subject has been mentioned in, her imdb publicity listing list these in a simpler to read form. BlueAzure (talk) 05:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I was able to find another one of the articles that were cited, the article does not mention what it is being used to cite. It is likely that more of the sources do not mention what they are citing. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:BlueAzure: there are obviously new people experimenting with editing and contributing to Wikipedia everyday. As a new user myself, I find Wikipedia very confusing and not very user friendly. I'm sure this is why most of the editing, contributing and in your case, policing is done by the pros. I understand you're just doing your job sniffing out false material, but I can assure you the information on Nicole Lapin's Wiki-page is accurate and the photos are not infringing on any copywrite. I have no idea how to prove this, but if you walk me through the verification process, I'd be more than happy to facilitate in resolving the issue AND it will give me a chance to learn more about the inner working of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockstar037 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — Rockstar037 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        Rockstar037 (talk) 17:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)Rockstar037 (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        That editor was not a new user, as their first edit was to add a proper cite web ref one hour after the article was taken to AfD. It is pretty likely that they are a sockpuppet of the article's long time sockpuppeter, whose last ten accounts were blocked. It is also likely that you are a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of that person, as your first edit was to this AfD and you are quite familiar with the situation. Information on wikipedia is verified with reliable sources. Part of the reason I nominated this for deletion is that when I tried to clean up the article I couldn't find reliable source material to cite almost any of the information in the article . Currently, even some of the unreliable sources don't mention what their supposed to be citing. This isn't the place to discuss the images, if you have a good explanation why one person was claiming to be two photographers post a message at the PUI page, otherwise post a message at the media copyright questions page or on my talk page. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment:I am new to Wiki myself. But I see an abuse of deletion on this particular case. And is seems to be the same individual BlueAzure that is doing it. Maybe you should contact Nicole Lapin yourself and verify the facts of the case before unfairly deleting the contents of this Wiki. --Rankrover (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)— Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Keep, this person appears notable based on the references in the article. --Pixelface (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep I see no reason whatsoever to delete this wiki page. Questioning the reliability of the contents is ridiculous - she works for CNN. Ms. Lapin is far more known than other people with wiki pages, such as small time actors and even bloggers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.221.245 (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — 81.154.221.245 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        In terms of notable awards, she has won and been a finalist for multiple Hearst Foundation awards. More information on the Hearst awards is available at http://www.hearstfdn.org/hearst_journalism/index.php.

        Furthermore, Nicole has PRESENTED notable awards--namely the LA Press Club's 2007 awards. https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=37772373&postID=2317977087332174425 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        • Keep, Many notable references exist. Nicole Lapin works for CNN, and is CNN's youngest anchor. Notable references include Maxim, Six Degrees, Wired, Men's Health, Lucky, Fitness. She is the Spokeswoman for Starlight Starbright Children's Foundation, and Dosomething.org. Notable reference exist from dosomething.org, Stellar Foundation, Sworovski Stars on Ice. There are no copyright violations. There is absolutely no reason to delete this Wiki page. Everything is verifiable, and deletion of this page would be abuse of deletion. Cynscreations (talk) 15:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)— Cynscreations (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        There has been some reliable source coverage, but it has all been trivial. For example, the maxim article consist of a small photo and a sentence. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        (Discussion--please let me know if this isn't where it belongs)--Let me try and understand the question of notable references--if this was any other entry, CNN would be considered a more than notable reference, right? Has anything been found that clearly contradicts anything in CNN's Nicole Lapin bio that undermines the presumption that CNN vets its own material? If the concern is tone (I don't have a problem with what's on there, but perhaps others do?), that would seem to be a matter of editting rather than deletion. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)— Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        (personal discussion--pls delete if this is not the appropriate space) Thank you BlueAzure for pointing out that I do not have any contributions outside of this article. I understand the Wiki community's concern to make sure that editors are not single purpose. I came to this page because I was curious about ms. lapin, and was surprised to see that she was up for deletion as non-notable. In the future, I look forward to adding/editting articles where I can, but don't feel that my lack of experience should automatically create a presumption of sock puppetry, as you seem to accuse others on this page. (yes, I did read around a bit before starting an account). Feel free to run a checkuser on me. I appreciate your vigilance in making sure that the article is as well sourced as it can be, but believe you are conflating user-based issues with article-appropriateness issues. If your problem is with particular editors and sources, deal directly with the content--it does not make ms. lapin less noteworthy. Does the fact that vandals often try to attack other pages, i.e., George Bush, suddenly make him less notable? Would CNN articles and information be appropriate sources for him?Bullcat99 (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)— Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        A CNN article about George Bush would be reliable source, but a CNN employee's bio page would not. As I said when I nominated the article for deletion, I do not believe that there is enough reliable source material to indicate that Nicole Lapin is notable. Nominating the article for deletion is the way that this is handled. I don't know why a vandal would add citations for real articles. It seems like something someone who was trying to keep the article would do, in an attempt to show all the reliable source coverage she had received. BlueAzure (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        BlueAzure, thanks for the response. What basis do you have for suggesting that a CNN press release or other CNN-produced/focused documentation is less accurate or rigorous than a CNN news article? Under your standards, an official government biography posted on a government site would not be considered reliable. (as an aside, if you are going to eliminate CNN bios, you have a lot more wiki entries to delete)
        As to the reliable sources, we can agree to disagree--I feel that the coverage in Wired, Men's Health, Lucky, Fitness, and Maxim, taken together, are substantial enough to qualify for notability, both in quantity and quality.
        Further, addressing the other standards for notability, there has been no refutation of Ms. Lapin's Hearst awards, and I would give weight to the fact that she presented significant awards for the Southern California journalism community.
        Bullcat99 (talk) 03:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)— Bullcat99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        Reliable sources is a wikipedia guideline, not my standard. The guideline reads in part "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources ". Neither a press release or a official government biography is third-party source. No reliable source has been provided in regards to the Hearst Award or presenting the LA Press Club's 2007 awards. BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        --Rankrover (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Pardon my ignorance here, but isnt Wiki supposed to be the biggest open edited encyclopedia? In my opinion, you would be un-building an encyclopedia if you delete accurate information. BlueAzure does not contest that any of the information about Nicole Lapin is true. Only that he does not see a reliable source to make the content notable. In my opinion, that is just his opinion. I say keep Nicole Lapin's page and get on with life. Seriously.— Rankrover (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

        The threshold for inclusion of information in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. So accurate information can and is deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep per Matthew Brown (Morven). A CNN anchor and has been the subject of secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject, the core criterion of WP:BIO.--Oakshade (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The core of WP:BIO is not simply "subject of secondary sources that are reliable and independent of the subject," but significant coverage. As the standard says "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." BlueAzure (talk) 17:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Trivial" as defined by WP:BIO are "a directory entry or "passing mention". The Wired Magazine article alone goes way beyond the scope of either. --Oakshade (talk) 20:55, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 solid consensus, thus defaulting to Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        List of shopping malls in Michigan[edit]

        List of shopping malls in Michigan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        This list is composed quite heavily of red links and is redundant to the category Category:Shopping malls in Michigan. I created this list because I thought that it could be expanded beyond a mere list; however, that doesn't seem to be the case. Given that other editors have added to this page, I can't {{db-author}} it, so I felt that this warranted a discussion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep A category can't do what this list already does -- provide a (potentially? existing?) comprehensive list of the malls, whether or not they have articles; and a list of defunct malls and locations of malls. It seems to me this list may have an encyclopedic purpose in helping someone in the first stages of studying the Michigan retail economy, or just someone who wanted to browse by location. For whatever reason, the page got quite a few visits in December (ho, ho, ho) but even an interesting number in January and almost 1,000 hits in February. If there's an encyclopedic purpose that a category wouldn't provide, why disappoint all those readers? A sortable table with a regional or county column would improve it. Noroton (talk) 03:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This site appears to be a reliable source for current malls. What size mall is too small? Beats me. It certainly wouldn't bother me if the list was cut down (in fact, it wouldn't really bother me if this is deleted). It seems to me WP:DIRECTORY may be the strongest delete argument. I'm not certain it's encyclopedic, but Shopping malls in New Jersey seems to make the case that it could be. Noroton (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • On the other hand (just to be annoying) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of shopping malls in New Jersey (which contains the immortal line: Shopping malls are to New Jersey culture what freeways are to Southern California.) turned on notability, and the article was essentially changed from just a list to an encyclopedic article, and the name was changed as well. That's unlikely to happen here. I don't think notability is a strong argument to delete a list, but maybe others do. Noroton (talk) 05:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 (T / C) 08:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I don't think there's a set size that is "too small", but I do think that there might be some dispute as to what constitutes a mall. For example, Westborn Mall in Dearborn is basically a strip mall with an enclosed portion. Orchard Mall in West Bloomfield is maybe 50,000 square feet in size -- most malls have anchors bigger than that. Und so weiter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral Categories and lists serve two different purposes, as categories can contain WP articles (and other categories) only, while lists may validly contain items which are not only not WP articles now, but also items which might never have WP articles. I don't think "the list is redundant with the category" is a valid reason for deletion. I boldly edited the list to change all redlinks to non-links. At the same time, I'm not convinced that the list should be kept, either. Chuck (talk) 18:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete The malls themselves are probably non-notable for the most part - any listing is bound to have reddlinks, non-notable unlinked malls, etc. CredoFromStart talk 18:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, this list is perfectly consistent with the other articles in Category:Lists of shopping malls. Many of the malls may not be notable enough to have actual articles (and be in Category:Shopping malls in Michigan), but mentioning them in a list is fine. The redlinks have been removed so I don't see a problem. --Pixelface (talk) 19:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Same rationale as User:Noroton, User:Pixelface. Royalbroil 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep this list. Make it better. There are red links because some vandal keeps removing the articles.Njbob (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 The merge suggestions (which very well may indeed mean "redirect" anyway as they are commonly confused) are the consensus here. However, because the text of the current compilation article, Minor characters in CSI: NY already states all of the information in a similar fashion to the individual article titled Shane Casey, a merge is not necessary. The article, "Shane Case" will be deleted briefly, then reappear as a redirect to the compilation article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Shane Casey[edit]

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

        Previous nomination was closed due to the ongoing Arbcom case. Reopening with no personal opinion. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Original nomination was (for reference):

        Thanks for this, Zetawoof, I didn't realize the injunction was lifted. Fixing my own redlink, that should be Minor characters in CSI: NY, but by nom reason still stands, I don't believe he's significantly notable as a short run guest star to even be classed as a minor character. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 02:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Randall Thornberry[edit]

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

        Despite all of the verbiage, the bands this person is apparently associated with don't appear to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. There was apprently a prod on this once before, which I hadn't discovered till after I put a db-person tag on it, but since the prod has been removed during the lifetime of this "article", we have to go here. Corvus cornixtalk 02:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        We are working on fixing the article. Most edits and update will take place today. When we are done we will remove all tags and the article will be up to the standards. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiancreativesignal (talk • contribs) 02:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Please do not remove the tags, that would not be proper. Please see WP:BAND. None of the bands appears to meet Wikipedia's guidelines for band notability. Corvus cornixtalk 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Oh, sorry, I don't know how to put them back on. Anywho, I don't think that will be necessary anyway. The bands listed are notable. Most have a very stable wiki page. I have linked everything and made note of everything. I think that this is a very solid and well written article. There are not many things about this artist. There is however alot of music and lyrics. I think that this is a very informative page. After I listened to his stuff. this page help me figuire out who he is. That is why I contribute to the page. I think that this the work I put in to this page is clearly for information. None is advertising for this artist. I like and am happy with the article. I think that fans will be too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiancreativesignal (talk • contribs) 02:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep, Well Written article, All information if verifable if you look real hard, one of the only information sources for the artist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiancreativesignal (talk • contribs)
        • Delete. Of the three "sources" linked, the first is a message-board post, and neither of the other two contains any mention of the name Thornberry. A Google search turns up no reliable sources that support the information in the article, nor does Thornberry appear to be mentioned in any of the wikilinked articles therein. This appears to fail WP:V. Deor (talk) 03:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep,Must agreed with Deor with it not having many realiable sources. HOWEVER they are out there. I have google Randall Thornberry, and found about 3 or 4 great sources. And I'm sure their are many more. He has about 4 thousands hits. That enought for a wiki page in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.196.245 (talk) 03:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Odd, I get only 79 unique hits when searching for "Randall Thornberry". And a search for "R4!L" +Thornberry yields only the WP article and the same on a Bulgarian WP mirror site. Where exactly are these "great sources"? Deor (talk) 04:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, It has 112,000 GHits. It passes my Ghits test. Not to mention, lots of people have worked on this for about a year now. I can find 493 Unique hits on metasearchs. This is notable article,. Wikipedia has alot of rubbish articles this one ain't one. I also happen to know CCS and know his information is found only. I have even created this account to stand up for this article. I believe CSS primarly uses one of the band websites. This is a keeper —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizonacroc (talk • contribs) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC) — Arizonacroc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        • Strong Delete The 112,000 hits on google are probably due the number of people named "randall", forcing Google to search for the phrase "Randall Thornberry" yields less than two pages of links to Mr. Thornberry's work, and most of those are either copies of this Wikipedia article, or self-published content such as author-contributed lyrics listings. Dalamori (talk) 10:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete due to lack of credible independent sources. WP:SPA involvement leads also to the impression of promotion. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong Keep This person has lots of different stuff about him online, such as a couple of youtube videos. They get alot of views. Not to mention. I have taken the time to do some research and it's seem that the sources listed are wrong, but the websites has alot on this person. You just have to look in the archive section. It kind of seem this person has disappered from the net, because of this I would normally say delete but it seems that alot of people like article. Wikipedia already has alot of myspace artist and what not. This doesn't look like it's one of those. This seem to be real verifiable information. I think that the article should be keep and the sources updated. A Picture would also be nice. - Will N. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.233.0.53 (talk) 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. I attempted to prod it at first, but failed. The arguments for deletion have been laid forth (simply not enough notability) and I trust they will be enough, but I'd like to point out that this article has already been deleted once: 22:58, 29 August 2006 (aeropagitica) (Talk | contribs) deleted "Randall Thornberry" ‎ (Nonsense article) Jobjörn (talk) 18:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Non-notable, unsourcable tripe. sparkl!sm hey! 20:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Google search of '"Randall Thornberry" -wikipedia' reveals official pages, and lyrics pages. Not much in the way of independent sources. Article is entirely unsourced. Perhaps sources can be found, but even so, perhaps the article should be rewritten beginning with these sources, in which case a delete would be acceptable. If the sources cannot be found, then he fails notability and doesn't appear to deserve his own article on WP. -Verdatum (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - there are no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        List of illinois race car drivers[edit]

        List of illinois race car drivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        This list is better addressed as a category. Having a list like this encourages people to add their favorite non-notable local driver to the list, and allows notable drivers from any genre of racing to be included. A category forces an article to be written. I am very impressed with the broad racing knowledge of the writer. Royalbroil 02:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Compromise has been reached and this article was speedy delete nominated by author and deleted by me. The content was used to create the article Racing in Illinois. Royalbroil 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Might be too narrow of a category, and as a list it serves no purpose, given all the red links. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 02:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete, trivial intersection. The blue linked drivers should be categorized/listed with their hometowns, of course, but the state isn't really something that comes up in racing media that much. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete I agree with all three comments, except for the part about making this a category. Dhartung is right on the money in describing this as an intersection between two unrelated qualities. Nothing against Illinois, nothing against race car drivers, but I'd say the same thing about a "List of boxers from California". Mandsford (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I deleted my comment here. Jgrace1294 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I'll say this. You've got talent as a writer of articles, as evidenced by the one about the now-defunct Motion Raceway drag strip. The way Wikipedia works is that everyone can publish an article, but not all articles stay up permanently. Trust me, we've all had articles that were deleted, and it's a real pisser to see your work go, when so much other crap gets to stay. In this case, I think the objections are based on the choice of topic, not the organization or the presentation. Save it to your own computer, and don't let this experience keep you from continuing to contribute. Like Royal, I'm impressed with your knowledge as well. Mandsford (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If you noticed, (which I doubt) I placed a note at the top of the page which would discourage addition of "local" racers, such as myself. I have been on a major touring series, but my stint with them didn't last long enough for me to gain ANY noteriety. My dad, my uncle, 2 of my cousins, and a whole boatload of freinds could and would be added if I didn't have that note there. Heck, even my sister, her boyfreind, and one of my neices are involved in racing in one form or another. I could probably add enough "local" names to crash Wiki's servers, all of whom I know personally. But, I made this for the causal racing fan who might wonder where a certain famous, or semi-famous, driver is from. I know a few names that surprised me (such as "Fast Freddie" Lorenzen, one of the pioneers of NASCAR), and I know of others I still have yet to add. Unfortuenately, most of them do not have Wiki pages, and I can not create most of them, as I don't have quite enough background on them to do a page justice Randy Eller, a close freind of mine, and the man who got me into off road racing is one I couldn't do a good enough job on to warrent a wiki page). Jgrace1294 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment It might be possible to include the hometown information as part of an article about racing in Illinois in general, or as part of the Chicagoland Speedway related pages, or something else. If there's one thing I've learned, it's more practical to find a way to add to an existing article rather than to start a new one. My first encounter with AfD was like a kick in the head, although in retrospect, my critics were correct. It takes some time to see what goes and what doesn't around here. It's frustrating to see what looks like a double standard, although it's really a case of there being a lot of different people in AfD, each of whom has their own areas of interest. Remember, you have just as much right to be here as any of the rest of us. Mandsford (talk) 20:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I am concerned about other Wikipedia contributors, especially the anon users, adding non-notable drivers. They do not see the big picture: not every driver who has won a local track title should have an article in Wikipedia. I agree about starting an article on Racing in Illinois and add this table to the article. You could discuss its history, a list of major/influential tracks, list of notable drivers, etc. If you decide to write an article on that topic after this article gets deleted, let me know. I have admin tools, and I will provide the entire text of this article to you to add to the article. The entire history of any article is available to admins, including all deleted edits and even deleted articles. You could end this deletion discuss (or at least as far as I am concerned) by moving the article to Racing in Illinois and starting some text on its history. I would withdraw my deletion nomination. Royalbroil 01:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I could almost move it to "Racing in Illinois," but I know little of the history of racing outside of central Illinois (roughly within 50 miles of Springfield, and a few other tracks), even though I've been to many, many tracks throughout Illinois, the US, and Australia. I don't even know enough early history on my "home track" to be able to write the article on it, and I've been going there for over 35 years. I couldn't even start to write a history on racing in the whole state. In fact, I was going to create another list of defunct tracks in Illinois, as well as update the pathetic list of tracks in Illinois that is part of a larger list (I can't remember exactly where it is right now). Jgrace1294 (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Also, I have nothing better to do, so I would be keeping an eye on this page, editing out all content that does not belong. Jgrace1294 (talk) 02:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I absolutely hate that article that lists race tracks by state. It's extremely incomplete and there's no chance it will ever be completed. It's impossible to upkeep since so many tracks close every year and some open. I might nominate it for deletion, so don't waste time on it. We have discussed it at WikiProject Motorsport.
        I do mean the history racing in the state in general, not the history of individual tracks. A list of the main notable tracks throughout the state would include Chicagoland, maybe board track racing at Soldier Field, Rockford Speedway, Gateway, etc. I once attended races at Clay County, and small tracks like that should be skipped (even though it was cool!). You could discuss the sanctioning bodies/genres of racing that happened in the state (board track racing at Soldier Field; ASA racing at regional tracks like Rockford Speedway or Grundy County (I'm guessing that one of those two had ASA); stock cars, midgets?, sprint cars?, USAC Silver Crown, and motorcycle racing on various tracks like the mile at Springfield; NASCAR today at Chicagoland/East St. Louis). It wouldn't have to be comprehensive/complete, a short article to get the ball rolling in a different direction is what I'm thinking. Royalbroil 03:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Let me see what I can do. BTW, IIRC, board racing was not held at Soldier field, but on velodromes, or purpose-built wooden tracks (none of which survive today). Soldier field hosted local racing, as well as NASCAR's top division. Hmm.....that might be a nice section.....trivia.....NASCAR at soldier Field..... Jgrace1294 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Racing in Illinois has been created. you were right, Royal, that article IS a great fit. I knew about Soldier Field being on the NASCAR circuit, but I wasn't aware of the earlier board track. Jgrace1294 (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy deleted Author requested speedy deletion on the article after agreeing to the compromise indicated about. This AfD should be closed immediately. Royalbroil 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. On the off chance that someone will search using this, the title will redirect to the artist. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Out Da Darkness Of Da Kut[edit]

        Out Da Darkness Of Da Kut (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Non-notable something by barely notable performer. This something-or-another is so non-notable that no one is even sure if it's an album or a single. Article references no sources at all. Kww (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
        Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was delete. The weight of argument is on the side of deletion, a decision made somewhat easier by the fact that the content of the article is basically just a listing of the officers.--Kubigula (talk) 03:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Carrom Federation of Sri Lanka[edit]

        Carrom Federation of Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Delete: Fails WP:RS and WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
        Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:51, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 02:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete This is not about Carom billiards, played on a pool table, but about Carrom which is a board game. While we do have articles such as United States Chess Federation, such articles still have to demonstrate notability of the subject (as with USCF, which has 80,000 members, has publications and sponsors championships. While carrom may be very popular in Sri Lanka, the article doesn't indicate that this group is notable. Mandsford (talk) 15:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - From what I can ascertain, this is the national governing body for carrom. It's noted in the International Carrom Federation article, and on the ICF website. The article does need a lot of work, but a national governing body in a sport is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Carlucci Weyant[edit]

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

        Non-notable model and actor. The claims in the article do not seem to indicate much notability. The only reliable source cited just mentions that he is appearing in a film, the rest of the sources are movie databases and bio pages on random websites. BlueAzure (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete. Non-notable. All of the citations are fan sites, no secondary sources. Renee (talk) 02:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]



        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Personally I think he's very notable, as the multiple major news sources state. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Timothy Shepherd[edit]

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

        I am not sure if this [alleged] criminal is notable, so I will leave Wikipedia to decide. There are quite a few sources about the gruesome crime he [allegedly] committed. It seems he received more media coverage than usual because of how gruesome the crime was. Such murders occur all the time, and the media reports on them, but do the murderers necessarily deserve an article? BlueAg09 (Talk) 01:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete. No secondary sources. Just news. Renee (talk) 02:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        News reports are secondary sources. Primary sources are things like court records. Johntex\talk 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. Gruesome murders are committed all the time and some receive media coverage, most don't. No need for an article in this case. This person has also not been convicted of the crime and yet the majority of the article focuses on it. KnightLago (talk) 02:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral. He clearly meets the notability guidelines. The sources are there. The problem I have with this, which I tried to state above, is the media. There are hundreds of thousands of gruesome murders all over the world. They occur everyday. In the U.S., the media loves to grab certain stories and sensationalize them because they need to fill print space and the 24/7 news cycle. This murder and all the others are no different, yet, we cover this one because the news has covered it. Not because it is truly encyclopedic, or because some change resulted, but because it has been sensationalized. KnightLago (talk) 00:38, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The involvement of Quanell X makes this far more notable than the average murder. We could re-name the article to something related to the crime if you object to an article about Timothy Shepherd, for instance Alleged murder of Tynesha Stewart. Johntex\talk 22:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Very Weak Keep This incident has received quite a bit of attention in the U.S. That said, just because a person has not yet been convicted of a crime, doesn't make the acts attributed to him any less heinous or less notable. I certainly understand that this could be considered "just news", but given its broad range of coverage, it seems to just barely pass the notability standard. — BQZip01 — talk 03:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete As sad as it may be to say, I don't think that this awful crime is notable. Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 11:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: The crime is temporarily high profile, but the article is all "alleged" this and "alleged" that. I.e. "maybe he did terrible things." That's not anywhere near the level to be admitted. Utgard Loki (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong keep - the subject received national press attention, and easily passes our notability guidelines. The article violates no Wikipedia policy and therefore our policy is clearly that we lean heavily towards keeping the article. Furthermore, the involvement of Quanell X makes this far more notable than the average murder. Johntex\talk 22:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Does every crime Quanell X gets involved with deserve an article? Notability is not always inherited. Besides, his article covers the role he took in this crime here. BlueAg09 (Talk) 22:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Does every species of bacteria deserve an encyclopedia article? Does every Star Wars comic book? Does every small town in Germany? If they are sufficiently-sourced and sufficiently well-written then they should not be deleted without a clear policy violation. Our starting proposition is that we are striving to be comprehensive.
        Given time, one could easily image the article being expanded to include parallels to other crimes, arguments used by the defense and prosecution, a link to an article about the general topic of Activism in criminal cases, etc. The case isn't even resolved yet. We won't know what someone will find to add or connect to these facts if they are deleted. Let is grow; build the web. Johntex\talk 01:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There is significant coverage on the case, but not on the alleged criminal himself. That is, the criminal is only notable (for now, at least) for the crime he allegedly committed. Having said that, I would support moving this article to Alleged murder of Tynesha Stewart, as you pointed out above. Covering arguments used by the defense/prosecution, parallels to other cases, etc. would be more appropriate in such article. BlueAg09 (Talk) 02:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, I agree with you; that would really be the better title. Unless/until we have facts about other parts of Mr. Shepherd's life then we should focus on the events of the alleged crime, the activist involvement, etc. Cheers, Johntex\talk 02:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong keep - This is a fascinating story, most definitely notable. I can't support any of the reasons given for deletion. I say Strong keep. --Art Smart (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - meets the general notability guidelines. Postoak (talk) 23:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - Well-sourced, to secondary sources that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS, and not just local sources, but MSNBC and The Associated Press, among others that haven't yet been included in the article. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong delete as per WP:NOT#NEWS. There is no claim of any lasting notability. The article (as it currently stands) is primarily a list of accusations against this individuals which is an example of WP:UNDUE, and the article is an example of WP:BIO1E - as one editor wrote in this AfD, "Newsworthiness is not the same as having any long-term notability, and the article does not convince me that her case was particularly unusual nor that it resulted in any societal or legal changes." The same is true in this article. BWH76 (talk) 09:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC) I made a mistake - I already voiced my opinion to delete on this article above. I still believe that the article should be deleted, but I shouldn't have done this twice. I'm sorry for any confusion that this may have caused. BWH76 (talk) 10:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep - probable lasting effect, well-sourced. Bearian (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neutral/Comment - The subject is clearly notable from our guidelines. However, since he is only "accused" I think this could be a WP:BLP issue. Wizardman 23:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment - Look, this article has several major problems. The first is that it is covering the person instead of covering the case, as we should be doing. This could be solved by renaming the page, but I don't think that's the solution here since the article makes no claim as to why this case is any different than dozens of murder investigations each year. I'm confused why arguments stating that the article is well-sourced are used as justification for keeping this. Simply being well-sourced is not good enough as WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BIO1E both speak to. How does this fulfill either WP:Not#News or BIO1E? How can we say that this case has lasting notability? What is the evidence of this? Is this specific case making an impact on the American legal system? Is this specific case leading to a change in American society? Although it is an interesting, yet gruesome, story, it does not warrant encyclopedic coverage according to our guidelines and policies. BWH76 (talk) 02:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 delete. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        BigBellyFilm[edit]

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

        Also included in this nomination:

        Another series of articles on a film company by one creator whose sole claim to fame is awards won at possible insignificant film festivals whose articles were created by the same user (see here for my last nomination of a similar series by this user). No news coverage. Only Ghits are to user driven sites (Myspace, IMDB, YouTube, etc.) and their official web site. No secondary sources. No reason to believe this company, their employees, and their films are at all notable. Articles fail WP:BIO, WP:CORP, WP:MOVIE. Redfarmer (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete per nom. I left a note at the possibly misguided editors talk. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
        Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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 to delete; whether or not to merge can be discussed at article talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        X Culture Magazine[edit]

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

        Non-notable magazine, few to no reliable sources. Halo (talk) 23:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Merge to Sally Bishai since she started the magazine. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, significant Editor-in-Chief, seem to be sources available. --Oldak Quill 23:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
        Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 01:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Useful article, can be sourced. - cohesion 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge and redirect 630 ghits, with a few blog posts, but nothing on Google news. This can be redirected to the article of the creator for the time being, until it proves to be more notable. --NickPenguin(contribs) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge and redirect per above. Of the paltry 34 unique Ghits, the lead one is the magazine's website, the next few are the Wikipedia article, Wiki mirrors, Bishai's own Cafepress huckster page, etc. Rather than there "seem[s] to be sources avaible," there is not a single hit from a reliable source about this website (I decline to call it a "magazine" when it isn't really a magazine), and most of the hits mention it only in passing as part of Bishai's resume. If it indeed can be sourced, I invite any editors who feel they can to do so.  RGTraynor  14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 07:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        UK Webcams[edit]

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

        Topocs lacks notability, sources and is unencyclopedic neonwhite user page talk 01:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        I am also nominating the following related pages (non-notable website, both articles have likely been created to promote this website, the creator of both articles User:Pretzelphil is the owner of the website.):

        UK Webcam Map (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
        • Week Keep UK Webcams and Merge and Redirect UK Webcam Map into UK Webcams. The information has yet to have references but it appears valuable. Also, I can't see where else this info could go. Billscottbob (talk) 01:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete both. This is non-encyclopedic. There are webcams all over the world. We don't need an article confirming that there are webcams specifically in the U.K., and that they work and don't work sometimes, unless there is something notable about them. KnightLago (talk) 02:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My thoughts exactly, i just don't see how the fact that there are webcams in the UK is noteworthy enough for an article. --neonwhite user page talk 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Both. The first doesn't really seem to establish notability as an enclopedic topic, and ends up reading like a linkfarm. The second seems to fail WP:WEB. -Verdatum (talk) 20:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Pauline Robinson[edit]

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

        Delete Not independently notable per WP:BIO Veritas (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete per nom.--Michael WhiteT·C 05:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. Not herself notable, probably not even necessary to redirect as she's an unlikely search term. --Dhartung | Talk 05:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Merge and Delete - It would be perhaps more suitable to include some of this information in her husband's article. BWH76 (talk) 11:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Marginal Keep - The information here is worth having in the Wikipedia and having it as a separate article means we don't have to worry about keeping the articles on all of her father, her husband, and her daughter in sync with information that pertains to just Pauline. That said, I won't object too much if it is simply merged into other articles. Caerwine Caer’s whines 20:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Could you explain why it is worth having in Wikipedia? --Michael WhiteT·C 20:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Reply It gives details about her that is relevant to obtaining a fuller understanding of those about her. If only one of those people were in and of themselves notable, then given the minor degree of notability that she enjoys on her own (her position in the Garden Club of America), she'd more appropriately belong as a section of the article on that one person. However, she touches upon the lives of three (or four if you count her youngest son, Scott, as well) who definitely are notable enough in their own right to deserve an article. Rather than repeating the relevant info her in three or four articles and having to keep them in sync, creating one article and linking to it from them is better. Caerwine Caer’s whines 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Comment Well, yes, she touches on their lives by being related to them, but it's unclear to me what information the article contains that really contributes enough to the understanding of those people to keep it. And besides, aren't you claiming notability is inherited? Should we have articles on everyone who touches upon the lives of notable people? If not, how does the fact that she touches on the lives of more than one notable person change that? I don't think the small difficulty of having to keep information about her synchronized across those articles is a good enough argument, and I think it could even solely be kept in the article about her husband.--Michael WhiteT·C 21:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 appears again without significant changes/sourcing/assertions of notability, it can be G4. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Alma Saraci[edit]

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

        This was previously deleted at AfD and then recreated a week later. It looks like there has been enough change since the first deletion that CSD G4 doesn't apply, so I am bringing it back to AfD. She is still a non-notable actress. The only film that she has appeared in that has been released went straight to video. BlueAzure (talk) 01:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Her IMDB page lists four released titles. Which of these is the 'only' one to which you refer?! --BrucePodger (talk) 13:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        666: The Beast, if you look the IMDB pages for the other three they don't have a rating or any reviews. BlueAzure (talk) 23:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Her movies will come out this year, and she is in the movie Karma, there is a wikipedia page about the movie. This movie has been in the news in Asia. She is notable actress. She has thousands of hits on google and does have other credited movies on IMDB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stugeguy (talk • contribs) 01:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Keep Has been noted by other sources, for example her IMDB page referenced in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 13:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: IMDB must have an article on every actress who has appeared in a single credit to a single film: that's their job. On the other hand, an actress who walks across the frame once on a film that is not seen (and that's 666: Beast) is not of a high enough profile for an encyclopedia article. Further, the article is a personal homage to her yoga and beauty, and neither an article about an actor nor a biography of a person. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        First of all, its not a homage to her yoga and beauty. Second, the movie has come out and she has a source of fans since reviews HAVE been written. If you take your time and read the reviews you know that she actually is known. And maybe the actress does not want her biography shown since, if you did your homework, it got hacked and was altered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stugeguy (talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Strong Delete This actress is not notable enough to have a page at this time. Canyouhearmenow 03:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Chennithala sidhasramam[edit]

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

        Delete no context as to whether this is a building, shrine, town, whatever. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Delete. There are only two ghits; they are the Wikipedia article and this deletion log. Clearly non-notable. Also fails to meet WP:V. Billscottbob (talk) 01:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. No context, no ghits, nothing to identify exactly what this is, or if it even exists. KnightLago (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Fails WP:V at the most basic level — BQZip01 — talk 03:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Delete, existence in Wikiworld!WP:V TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 04:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GlassCobra 07:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew[edit]

        AfDs for this article:
        List of minor characters in Tokyo Mew Mew (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        List of extremely minor characters from the Tokyo Mew Mew series. Most of those who are listed here have only appeared in a single episode of the anime adaptation, and do not appear in the original manga at all. None of them are notable for mention. This list is pretty much episode plot regurgitation and fancruft. Renominating now that that injunction has been lifted. Collectonian (talk) 01:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Thanks...wonder why Twinkle didn't get it that time. Collectonian (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No idea. I just figured it was a good idea to mark the article. I found out about it because I was going to do a procedural nomination after injunction was lifted, and I found out you'd already done part of it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Speedy keep as this article was previously nominated only 3 days ago (March 8) and speedy kept and aside from the ArbCom injunction there were already several keep votes at the time it was closed. 23skidoo (talk) 12:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The close was administrative and arguably done inappropriately. This is a valid, good-faith nomination and the debate should be started over on its own merits. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The close was administrative, but was not inappropriate. I agree that this is a good faith nomination (as is the previous nomination), and I was going to procedurally nominate it as soon as the injunction was lifted, but Collectonian beat me to it. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete per TenPoundHammer and per failure to satisfy WP:N. The first AFD was inappropriately and prematurely closed after less than 4 hours. Edison (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stop with the bad faith accusations already. The close was administrative, but was not inappropriate. I don't personally give a damn one way or the other if this article is kept. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Other Anime series have a list of minor characters. Why should this be an exception? YoungWebProgrammer msg 16:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please refer to WP:OTHERSTUFF for an explanation. As there is some merit in such a list, I am recommending moving some of the content to a new article. G.A.S 10:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep, this list is probably preferable to having articles for each minor character. And WP:ITSCRUFT is not a valid reason for deletion. --Pixelface (talk) 20:19, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The valid reason is none of them are notable and per several MOS and guidelines, we do not mention every last bit character to make a few second appearance on screen. None of these are major characters. They do not need individual articles, certainly, nor do they need a list. Collectonian (talk) 20:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - there is no need to have a list of every character who appears in a show. Move any worth keeping to the regular character list, delete the rest. Doceirias (talk) 23:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep as a discriminate and verfiable list and because the previous nominations was but a few days ago. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete per WP:SNOW --JForget 01:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Trio Of Italians[edit]

        Trio Of Italians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Irrelevant article about the signings of three football players, none of them notable for an encyclopedia. No citations for the amount of money paid for transfers, and POV issues. Plus even the title is wrong. Udonknome (talk) 01:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Until the information is properly sourced, I have to !vote delete. The notability of these football players is questionable until the information is verifiable. If sources are provided that make this article verifiable and assert notability, then I will change my !vote. Billscottbob (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. There is no source that this term is ever used in any news sources, instead it just looks like a fan's view of three "crappy" players. Chanheigeorge (talk) 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete. I think if the phrase has any weight it can be mentioned on the individual players pages; but as a single page for the three it serves no real purpose on wikipedia. The players are notable in Italy as all have played in senior games at the highest level--but they then should have individual pages, like Manini. Stochil (talk) 03:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong delete: unreferenced, borderline with BLP vio. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 07:30, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment The phrase has been used, see [27], not sure about the quality of the m though. Bevo74 (talk) 07:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete article, although all three did play for Forest in the First Division - therefore they do warrant individual articles. Oddly, the article on Moreno Mannini does not mention his time at Forest even though he played 8 games Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete – POV, lack of citations and the bad title alone are not reasons to delete as these problems can all be cleaned up. Each player is notable in their own right and could have their own article, however they don't seem to be notable enough to have a seperate article about the three in this context. I'm also not convinced that this term is in common use. Dan1980 (talk ♦ stalk) 08:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete per all the above. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete – Aside above reasons, the article intends to discredit 3 players contribution. It would've been acceptable if there was any source --NAHID 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - it's POV City, and this article's the Mayor. GiantSnowman (talk) 13:16, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - major cruft. Pretty much no encyclopedic content and hugely POV to boot. Peanut4 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - Since I'm the one proposing the deletion, 'Irrelevant article about the signings of three football players, none of them notable for an encyclopedia. No citations for the amount of money paid for transfers, and POV issues. Plus even the title is wrong.' Udonknome (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        The result was Delete --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        VS.Php[edit]

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

        A Visual Studio plugin is hardly notable. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 00:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mr.Z-man 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Mela y sus hermanas[edit]

        Mela y sus hermanas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

        Page made to promote non-notable video on Youtube. Makes no assertion of notability, not does it have any reliable third party sources. RedShiftPA (talk) 00:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        I could also go along with the merge/redirect suggested below. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 02:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Article lacks external coverage from secondary sources. — Scientizzle 15:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        MagnaFlex[edit]

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

        Delete. I can't find any indication that this company meets the Wikipedia guidelines for notability. A Google search for MagnaFlex+Scarborough results in about 37 hits. A search for MagnaFlex+chimney results in around 260 hits, but I don't see any in-depth coverage by independent sources. Prod tag and {{notability}} tag contested. ... discospinster talk 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • (MagnaFlex Industries is no longer in Scarborough Ontario which is most likely why you cannot find links related to it, please look for Magnaflex in Ajax Ontario which will turn up more results. MagnaFlex has been around for more then 20 years and is one of the top 10 chimney flex liner manufacturers in the United States much like Johnson Johnson was in the early 1900's. IP comment moved from within nomination by -- saberwyn 02:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - I can find no coverage of this company, only directory type listings. -- Whpq (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Kleopatra Farri[edit]

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

        She is not a notable person. Per WP:V and WP:MEMORIAL and WP:Bio Wiki-nightmare (talk) 00:08, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Weak keep delete I'd say being on the cover of Vogue and the various job appearances she's done (Prada, Puma, etc.) constitutes notability but without sources to WP:VERIFY this information, then it doesn't mean much. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment On a second thought, I do agree with the users below and I do think this should be deleted. If references were cited, I may reconsider. --On the other side Contribs|@ 00:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Weak delete exists, but greatest notability seems to be in porn site keyword spam. Need WP:RS showing WP:N. JJL (talk) 00:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete per WP:RS. If verifiable sources were provided then I would still say weak delete based on WP:N alone. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC) 00:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: "One of the newest models" is almost an automatic "not notable," because she simply hasn't had a career yet. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Simply non-notable Canyouhearmenow 03:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page. 
        --JForget  23:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

        The result was Delete --JForget 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        Ace (rapper)[edit]

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

        lack of notability and unsourced due to the generic name. Delete CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment The above should have read "...and unsourced. I looked but it's hard to search for due to the..." CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 12:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete non-notable. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete: Another wrapper for another ad. Utgard Loki (talk) 15:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete NN (not-notable). Also lacks of information and sources. YoungWebProgrammer msg 16:33, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Strong delete, looks like obvious vanity for a non-notable newbie rapper. JIP | Talk 18:11, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Addhoc (talk) 22:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Delete Although i can confirm the existence of this rapper, also known as Ace Hood; Ace Gutta; or his real name Antoine McColister, from various search parameters on google I cannot find any reliable sources. He has produced one single but i cannot find any reliable reviews. Unless reliable sources could be found this article should be deleted. Seddon69 (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment—Here is some evidence of third-party coverage but the mentions might be considered trivial, as the articles are mostly about the label We the Best Music. --Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 00:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


        The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
        1. ^ Participation in and in most cases winning individual tournaments, except the most prestigious events, does not make non-Athletic competitors notable. This includes, but is not limited to, Poker, Bridge, Chess, Magic:The Gathering, Starcraft, etc.
        Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_March_11&oldid=1081073395"