Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep Non Admin Closure Dusti^{talk to me} 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spotsylvania County Public Schools[edit]

Hodge podge of odd bits about the schools, no explanation of the district. Looks as if it's a merge mess. No way is this encyclopedic. Bananaqueen (talk) 23:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - as discussed many times school districts are inherently notable as government bodies and a repository for merging nn schools. TerriersFan (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it *is* a merge mess, due at least in part to my merging of a closed AfD this afternoon and then, while at it, merging the remaining elementary and middle schools that hadn't been redirected already. No doubt that it needs clean up, and I hope to get to it this weekend, but as Terriers said above, school districts are inherently notable and this one appears to have some RS coverage. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet. --Canley (talk) 05:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, school districts are notable by dint of being local governments, and because we have agreed to redirect oodles of permastub articles about individual schools to them. See WP:SCHOOLS for details. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've just sourced the overview, it still needs significant expansion about the schools and has been tagged as such. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:06, 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 keep per WP:SNOW. Canley (talk) 00:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children's Museum of the Arts[edit]

Non-notable museum. I live in the city and haven't heard of it. NYC is full of museums, doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to be a directory of them. Basegirlball (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean it's not notable (especially in a case like NYC, where I bet nobody knows about everything in the city). There are plenty of sources in this article, and I'm sure more exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - looks notable, ghits include writeups in Fodor and Frommer's guidebooks. PamD (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per User:TenPoundHammer. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 00:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep notable, and this user has nominated 7 articles for AFD today. KnightLago (talk) 00:43, 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 Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pacheco. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pacheco[edit]

Contested Prod. Deleted through AfD less than a month ago. Liverpool reserves player, still no pro league appearances. BanRay 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. BanRay 23:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4 - already been deleted at AfD. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 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 Delete --JForget 00:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TT (Drink)[edit]

You'd think one of the CSD tags would apply, but I couldn't find one. A drink somebody probably made up a few weeks ago, does it get anymore unencyclopedic than this. But hey it's big in North Stockholm. Polly (Parrot) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Was actually deleted as an expired PROD earlier today by myself. Jmlk 1 7 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the one who PROD'd it. NN made up drink. KnightLago (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It has been a standard drink on most parties in northern Stockholm since 2008. Wow, what an endorsement, indeed. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 09:20, 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 transwiki and delete as dicdef. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hinali[edit]

Delete WP is not a Hindi-language dictionary, and nothing shows that this name/concept is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. Dicdef. David Mestel^(Talk) 23:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary. Not a topic, no scope for development. SilkTork *^YES! 15:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki if Wiktionary will have this. I take it the licensing schemes are compatible? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:54, 19 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, without preventing a merge either way with Methodic Doubt. Davewild (talk) 08:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cartesian doubt[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this book/concept is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait The concept of Cartesian doubt is worth an article, but this newish page only contains a reference and no real content. Suggest giving it a day or to. I might add some text myself.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I've added some guts to the page which I think should hold its head above the icy waters of AfD until the original editor (or others) expand upon it. Worth keeping seperate from the Rene Descartes article as Cartesian doubt is a term that can be applied to work of other philosophers.Nick Connolly (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm merge? Darn I can't even reach consensus with myself. This article could be merged or become a redirect to Methodic doubt Nick Connolly (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Methodic Doubt. "Cartesian doubt" is probably a more common term than "methodic doubt", so maybe the merge should be in the other direction. But the two article do cover the same thing, so I'd say they should be merged in one direction or the other. Klausness (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This concept is certainly notable. What title it should go under is something that can be decided on the talk pages, or by a bold edit. Either way one of these should be redirected to the other so there's no reason to delete. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per Klausness, keeping this as the main article.Annamonckton (talk) 16:27, 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 Merge into Skrull which has already taken place. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadre K[edit]

Failed to prove notability, no references or sources provided Rau's talk 23:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge fails WP:N, WP:V - there must be a list of characters to merge this to or Skrulls itself. (Emperor (talk) 02:32, 15 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, Tiptoety ^talk 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Skrull#Cadre_K until such time as the section grows enough to be split off into a stand alone article. SilkTork *^YES! 16:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with main skrulls article Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:48, 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 (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn. Whpq (talk) 11:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse: The Twelve[edit]

Fails to mention why the subject matter is notable Rau's talk 23:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —J Greb (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I hope you realize the wrath that you're going to incur by proposing the deletion of X-men material from Wikipedia. Nerds everywhere will storm you. :) Celarnor (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Reply: Its not just this article, but if they can prove its worth, then I have no problem for its inclusion, but currently its just a very detailed plot summary. Rau's talk 23:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a notable X-Men storyline and Marvel Comics crossover. The nominator never put a {{notability}} tag on the article and AFD is not for forced cleanup. --Pixelface (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Twelve was a major plot dangler in the X-Men Comics. -- DCincarnate (talk) 23:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, per above. This has been a well-maintained article for quite some time, and there are many, many more, almost just like it (i.e, Uncanny X-men). It's a notable X-men series as well as a notable Marvel series. I have to say, I'd lose a lot of respect for WP if this were removed. Celarnor (talk) 23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we have to keep it! i've just added to it and it took me ages (i'm still slow at this). there's no way we're getting rid of it... unless we're out voted. Steveking 89 (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because it is a major X-Men story does not mean that it gets its own article. And saying that "there are many, many more, almost just like it" is WP:POKEMON. Rau's talk 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - So which of these 42 policies would this topic violate? --Pixelface (talk) 23:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - He believes that it's not notable. Celarnor (talk) 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:NOT. Rau's talk 00:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - (edit conflict... and basically the same info...)
      Just at a rough glance? WP:PLOT (yes, it does fall under the 42) since this is in-story background and plot summary. WP:NOT#GUIDE is a maybe since there is a "Reading order" section (a stretch there). And there is the nagging bit about the notability guidelines (not under the 42 though).
      That being said, the article should have been tagged for maintenance on Notability and Plot grounds before being punted to AfD. - J Greb (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - If anything, and it's a very strong if in my opinion, this article just needs to be worked on a little more to establish it's relation to other events/plots/etc to keep it from being just a summary. Deletion is not a solution to something this minor. Celarnor (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Fine. Tell me how to remove my nomination and I will. That way, you can work on the article some. Then, after some time has passed, if the article has not improved, I will renominate it. Rau's talk 00:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe you would need to state "Withdrawn" just like a "keep" or "delete" and give your reason. After that, tag the article with the appropriate maintenance tags — {{notability}} and {{plot}} are a good place to start. {{In-universe/Comics}} also fits. - J Greb (talk) 00:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        (edit conflict)
        Looking at the article, it goes a little beyond that. All we've got is information base on the 10 comic book issues and some of the lead up stories. There's nothing about reception, reviews, or critical commentary — no real world context at all. Yes, it would help if the arc could be put into context of the X-verse and the Marvel Universe, but that's still in story, adding it just expands the plot summary.
        Are there any interviews or reviews from reliable secondary sources that whys from the writers and/or editors, actual character and/or plot analysis, sales, reader reaction, editorial/publisher promotion, and the like? If not, that goes a long way to selling Rau's argument. - J Greb (talk) 00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Which is one reason why i nominated it in the first place, you wont be able to make this article meet the required standards. The arc is far too old to have many, if any, reviews and out of universe references. Rau's talk 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's an assumption, and not really a valid one.
        Most on-line 'zines keep fairly extensive archives. And there are also physical publications that can be found, both targeted at the readers and the retailers. It's reasonable to tag the article for maintenance and give the editors working on it a chance to hunt down that information. An AfD should be the last step, set up when an article has been tagged and no improvement has been seen over a reasonable time, generally months.
        Further, age and limited refs aren't good arguments for skipping straight to AfD. There are many, many topics relating to fiction and entertainment that first appeared long enough ago to make finding sources hard, but not impossible. And an article can be written from a few reliable secondary sources. If there are enough to prevent plagiarism and original research, then the article is on solid ground. - J Greb (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Decided i acted too harshly, will remove nomination to allow for time to improve the article. Rau's talk 01:40, 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. Tiptoety ^talk 04:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Venice Party Animals[edit]

Fails WP:NOT#CRYSTAL and no references to verify that production has already taken place. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 22:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also no references to verify the cast list. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. --clpo13_(talk) 09:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible hoax? There are no reliable sources. In fact, I can't even verify the existence of the film being made. For a movie that is due out in 2008, it is very surpising that IMDB doesn't know about it. The article claims Weintein is making the movie, but the [company's web site has no listing for the flim in the index. -- Whpq (talk) 11:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I was gonna say that Crystal doesn't apply here if the film is all but certain to be made---eg if it was already in production which it would have to be for a November release... but the only hits I found on Google were for Wikipedia and Wikipedia knock offs.Balloonman (talk) 03:06, 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 speedy delete per A1. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life stress[edit]

Delete in this encyclopedia article we learn that life stresses produce stress and strain, less than a dictionary definition. Presumably Foo stress also produces this so we can have our next million articles by substituting any noun for Foo and copying this article's great wisdom... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - lacks any content whatsoever. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A1 for no context, so tagged. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or just csd it BanRay 23:37, 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 Non Admin Close Dusti^{talk to me} 17:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Tower[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this skyscraper is notable, no sources Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it spent a year as the tallest building in Toronto and the entire British Empire[1]. --Dhartung | Talk 23:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is a City of Toronto Heritage Property.[2] --Dhartung | Talk 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep if Dhartung adds the information to the article.DGG (talk) 23:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Stunning that it could have held such an honor, yet today there are 150 buildings taller than it in Toronto. --Dhartung | Talk 23:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Dhartung's expansion; almost anything that was once tallest is probably notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Having been the tallest building in one of the largest empire's in history indicates notability. --Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a City of Toronto Heritage Property. As far as being the tallest in Toronto for a year goes, the Foshay Tower was the tallest building in Minneapolis for many years, but it's dwarfed by several taller buildings now. The Foshay Tower is still notable, though. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:23, 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 SPEEDY DELETE Jeepday (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson Kitto[edit]

This person has two claims to notability; as a "one of Western Australia's most prominent lawyers" and as the legal expert for a radio station. The first claim is not backed up by any evidence of prominence; news stories about him, famous and/or important cases he was involved in. The second claim is that as someone who "appears regularly" on a morning radio show he is notable. Neither claim is enough to satisfy WP:BIO. Atama ^chat 22:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unless evidence of notability is provided BanRay 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. n/n —Moondyne click! 03:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed a prod on it, but it was removed, and taken to Afd instead.I'm not sure why, but the Afd will prevent re-creation. Related articles need looking at. DGG (talk) 14:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sorry for dragging this deletion process out in AfD DGG, but I removed the prod because the article's creator objected in the edit summary of this article after the prod was placed. My understanding of a prod is that it should be a completely uncontested proposal for deletion and that if anyone objects that they should have their say in an AfD. I certainly didn't object myself to the prod or the reasons for the prod. -- Atama ^chat 17:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N. Twenty Years 17:12, 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, references have been corrected and article expanded to establish notability after the only delete opinion was made. Davewild (talk) 08:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Pizza Machine[edit]

Asserts notability but no verifiable references, in fact no references at all. ukexpat (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are references, the editor just forgot to place a reflist tag.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 23:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definetly not notable enough.--Carerra^carerra 22:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~WeakStrong keep~~change to Strong keep. National industry awards are mentioned at the end of the article and citations are mentioned. The article needs to be wikified, not deleted. - I wikified the article - its good to go, and this is a recognized leader business in its field. • Freechild'sup? 00:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't reviewed all the sources or the nature of the award, so I have no opinion (yet) to keep. However, there is at least one reliable source with significant coverage[3]. That alone isn't enough to prove notability (IMO) but if you find a few more or weigh it with other stuff, it's possibly notable. A 65,000 square foot entertainment venue is fairly big and its part of a "family entertainment" trend, so the subject matter is nominally encyclopedia. Wikidemo (talk) 03:07, 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 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

City destroying lasers[edit]

Unencyclopaedic. Couldn't decide on a speedy category though. Chris (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unverifiable information about a possibly non-notable topic -- although to steal a line from Dave Barry, it would be a good name for a rock band. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as totally unreferenced, largely conjecture. Could have been speedied as lacking context in all honesty. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete makey-uppy nonsense. Camillus (talk) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cruft. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 23:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Interesting concept. Since it doesn't list a single novel/movie/comic/whatever that uses this tool, nor any sources, it looks like OR.jonathon (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I think I played a computer game based on this concept. Anyway, probably best as a one-liner written into Plot device. Somebody snowball this. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plot device or doomsday weapon are possible targets. I think snowball is in order. --Agamemnon2 (talk) 08:03, 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 Speedy delete as nonsense/no context. Article can be recreated later. —Moondyne click! 03:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australian cricket team in the West Indies in 2008[edit]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL, otherwise we can add any future game and say it will be played with no more indication of notability or sourcing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL, unsourced BanRay 23:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is plenty than can be said about the tour at present that is encyclopedic, however the article as it is could be speedy deleted as nonsense. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 01:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 01:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can be recreated later. —Moondyne click! 03:23, 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; I'll let you guys decide if you're carrying on with the merge or not. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshido[edit]

Delete and Salt NN Neologism, all gnews hits are for bullshido.net. Article has been tagged for refs since Dec 2006, citations since Nov 2007 with no improvements. Essay is a manifesto for the site and has severe issues with original research, refs provided are examples of what author considers to fit description not WP:RS. COI and POV issues include article's creator Phrost is also the bullshido.net co-owner, and he and Scb steve the designated representative for bullshido.net wrote almost all of the article's content. I'm seeing no indication that enough independent material or usage exists to create an article up to minimal standards in the forseeable future.

Requesting salt as article has been through process twice and has never closed as keep yet keeps returning. VFD[4] resulted in redirect w/o merge (revert by IP), AFd in merge (revert by Phrost), despite a blatant puppet/vote stacking campaign conducted to keep it. DRV[5] discussion was closed on procedural grounds due to the article existing, not as an overturn of previous result. Horrorshowj (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was returned within hours of deletion and has been in widely edited since. Regardless or out come i see no grounds for salting. (see my comments bellow) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the puppet accusation, the article also covered the site at the time, a link was posted on the public forums and suddenly their were lots of interested parties, who were not directly incited to post. Im not saying it was a good thing but it should not be prejudicial here. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of third party coverage regarding the term; fails WP:NEO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge whatever is needed into Bullshido.net, redirect, and protect. --Dhartung | Talk 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of the many issues raised by nom. The representatives haven't kept up with this one, and no one outside of their group seems interested either. A description of the term is already at Bullshido.net. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 02:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep widely used by martial artists but best known in association with the site. JJL (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —JJL (talk) 02:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Salting is just silly in this situation. Its a notable neologism. Bullshido is a reputable source imo on martial arts. RogueNinja_talk 02:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The website is a separate article and not what we're discussing. Would you mind showing proof of the term's notability, because nobody has managed it in the 15 months it's been tagged.Horrorshowj (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge as per Dhartung. The article is un-sourced and redundant to bullshido.net. jmcw (talk) 08:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Bullshido.net and protect if necessary. No reliable sources to substantiate article contents or demonstrate notable usage independent of bullshido.net. --Muchness (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable term used by martial artists. It has been used independently [6], and while they mention the site it is as an aside, try this search for more, this gives 5000 which have had a lot of potentially relevent ones removed by the constraints a lot are hits to descriptions of videos, while not sources these are a pointer that it's in common useage. The article needs more sourcing as do the vast majority of MA articles, however some is provided, a removal of less sources material would be fair as would some re-wording, however very few good faith attempts to improve the article have been made. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. I am member of bullshido.net with same username, but would state I have about over 10 edits here for every post there.)--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The term is in common, conversational use by Martial Artists and describes a specific and serious phenomenon familiar to people within a multi-million dollar, international industry. --Phrost (talk) 15:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Nate, but I think some POV information has to be removed and cleaned.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The term Bullshido is becoming more and more widespred in the Martial Arts lexicon and used with no relation to the website. As an example see No Bullshido, a short independent movie done without any association to the website itself. An article is definitely warranted and needed.--Palcrypt (talk) 20:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources in the article do not establish that this is a notable neologism, and 95% of the article violates WP:SYNTH. Quale (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This source I added dose cover much of the same territory tying together several of the strings quiet neatly. It's hard to use some of the specific comments other than the lead as it is in the same area but written very diffrently
Keep per comments by Nate1481. Additionally, the website Bullshido.net is predicated on the term in question here - a term which connotates fradulence and martial arts. The website, and consequentially the term, has gained mainstream media notice, particularly in the Rocky Mountain Herald. Similarly, the term "Gucci socialist" doesn't have an established provenance, but enjoys a place on Wikipedia as a notable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scb steve (talk • contribs) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide the article for your WP:WAX argument again? I would like to take a look at it to see if it needs to be deleted. The link you provided is already red. Thanks. -- Swerdnaneb 22:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gucci_socialist --Scb steve (talk) 23:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thanks. Good timing. We edit conflicted. :) -- Swerdnaneb 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The difference is that "Gucci socialist" has been used by reliable sources... Canada Free Press, Daily Dispatch. -- Swerdnaneb 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge I don't think this lives up to WP:NEO. I see a lot of examples of things that would be described as "bullshido", but I don't see a lot of reliable sources. -- Swerdnaneb 23:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment well, 251,000 is a lot of ghits for a neologism. Look how many are used to describe videos of bad martial arts practices. JJL (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Neat! Any reliable sources turning up? -- Swerdnaneb 23:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can the editors who want to keep the article provide reliable third-party sources to establish that this term satisfies WP:V and WP:NEO? Because currently the only article references that mention the term are self-published sources (Usenet posts and a self-published article on a website). Note that WP:NEO states: "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." --Muchness (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment National Association of Martial Artists: August 2007 Martial Arts Professional Magazine Extraordinary Marketing - Are You a "Bullshido?" Or, Do You Run a "McDojo?", Part 2 by Stephen Oliver, MBA. Part 1 is in their July issue. The NAPMA is a major fixture in the Martial Arts industry. --Phrost (talk) 02:00, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you get the ISSN for those two, as site seems to need a password to view them. If those are added then you have a clear pass of WP:NEO with as an article on the term in a published source, then the other sources are gap filling --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment This is the best I can do, it's a cache of the page. I don't actually subscribe to this magazine myself. Cache of the magazine table of contents --Phrost (talk) 02:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nate1481 although I would not be totally opposed to some sort of a merge solution given this is the third nomination for this article. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:53, 19 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) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banana Split (TV series)[edit]

This article has been proposed for deletion twice now. On 23 Feb 08 for WP:CRYSTAL, which was deleted by the author of the article after the 5 day Ok to delete time frame. On 12 Mar 08 for WP:MOVIE, which I deleted to open this Afd. Delete for the same reasons as the previous PROD requests. --Wolfer68 (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. When I first saw this I thought it was referring to Banana Splits....... -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Danngarcia (talk) 01:32, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brightidea.com[edit]

Asserts notability, but no references. ukexpat (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TheProf | Talk 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom ~ Lego K^ontribs T^alkM 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of notability BanRay 23:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and orphaned.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:16, 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 speedy delete. Addhoc (talk) 23:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Norman sparkle[edit]

Hoax. It's an advert for a school play - follow the facebook link - that opens tomorrow. He doesn't exist, which is how come they can be sure he dies tomorrow.... Chris (talk) 21:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nonsense. Camillus (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax/nonsense, so tagged. The facebook link only clinches it. (Jeez, now we've got platypi editing Wikipedia? What's the project coming to?) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Page's author left this comment on the talk page:

It is not an hoax since it clearly states at the end that it is a character from a play, which is very real, therefore it does not qualify as an hoax. Also as the play contains themes such as the bad use of internet and the credulousness of people, it serves as a warning and is definitely not vandalism of any kind (vandalism is defined as such : willful or malicious destruction, injury, or disfigurement of any public or private property, real or personal, without consent of owner. As you can see there is no destruction, injury, or disfigurement of wikipedia provoked by that article)

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, not a hoax, but definitely a character in a non-notable production. Note that this was deleted yesterday from Norman Sparkle. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:48, 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 No Consensus with the balance of opinion being to retain the information the question is as to where. Gnan garra 06:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Fraternities and Sororities at George Mason University[edit]

This list is not notable. Limited/Localized to one university. Refer to WP:UNI#STRUCTURE - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly does not meet the requirements of the general notability guidelines. Doesn't seem to serve any purpose.—Noetic Sage 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 02:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - localized in scope, mere listing of information. Maybe send the info back to the GMU page. --RedShiftPA (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Up Merge into parent - As this Article will never expand so much as to become unwieldy, merge it into the George Mason University Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This list was spun off from the main GMU article just a couple days ago, presumably for space reasons. I'm asserting that this is really a subsection of the GMU page and not a separate article, and therefore the "notability is not inherited" mantra does not apply. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into the university, it's not going to grow short of the addition of another greek organization so space concerns aren't really valid. It has no notability outside the Uni and someone who is curious as to the greek life at a certain uni will look at the uni, not for a separate list. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, space concerns have nothing to do with whether the article is expected to grow or not. But there is a space concern with the present GMU article which is pages and pages long. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps I should cite WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball? This list is not notable now... as in right now. If it gains notability somehow in the future, I believe readding this material will not be a problem. And you're right, GMU's article size is fairly large, but not as nearly as large as MIT, currently sizing up at 82kb. I admire you for taking the initiative to break off sections from the main article into smaller articles for easy reading and "keeping within general guidelines of not exceeding 32kb", but perhaps you might want to split off core sections that are more notable into separate articles, such as notable people of GMU, academics, athletics (if the team is actually notable, not just NCAA membership). You had the right idea, just this list is not notable at all. This list should have stayed in its respective Student Life section. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I don't see what the "crystal ball" rule has to do with this one. This list will probably stay the same for years. I'm asserting that while this list lives in a separate article for technical purposes ( WP prefers pages stay under 32K I think ), it's really a subsection of the GMU article which takes care of notability, and is no different than a photograph or other media that lives in a separate file. Though, I wasn't the one who made the split. Squidfryerchef (talk) 13:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - This page is a subsection of a notable article. However, the material itself is not notable by itself due to its limited scope and coverage in depth. This is simply a list of links of student organizations on one university campus and Wikipedia does have a policy on WP:NOT#LINK. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Only 3 of them have external links, and these seem to be as references. It isn't a collection of links to each chapter's website. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Uh... Please read the guideline again. WP:NOT#LINK specifically say that it should not be a "mere collections of internal links". Although the title may qualify for WP:L, the content is not used to organize GMU's article, but to merely display every single Greek Life organization that exist(s/ed) in GMU. This is not right. This list does not enhance the organization of the original article. In fact, the listing of these organizations is completely unnecessary, as student organizations in a university should be kept in the Student life section. This list will grow outdated once a fraternity's (or sorority's) charter is revoked, expired, or just cease to exist one reason or another. It is better for GMU to update this list of organizations on their student life website rather than listing old information in our articles. Trim (existing organizations only) & Upmerge, no redirect will be my vote. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This list will grow outdated. Most Greek organizations on a college campus stay there for decades. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay... you said most not all. Can you guarantee that the list of every single fraternity and sorority at GMU will stay exactly the same in the next 20 years? (using 20 years for example taken from the word "decades") What I'm saying is, why keep a potentially outdated list with limited scope and notability (not to mention the mere collection of internal links)? An external link to the university's list of student organizations on the GMU main article should suffice. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 05:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Any article on Wikipedia could become outdated in 20 years. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well then, your usage of the word decades may not be appropriate then. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to whence it came. Not really notable on its own, and with the side disadvantage that splitting it off means it's now unreferenced. Anyway, though precedence is not supposed to guide us, the thought of thousands of list of fraternities and sororities at college x articles makes me whimper. -- phoebe/(talk) 07:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I do feel this information ought to exist on the Wikipedia, we already have pages on national fraternities that list the different chapters. Perhaps this could be better handled by a "Greek Life" VDE which could be added to the bottom of college articles and link back to articles on national fraternities. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep logically part of the parent article and spun off due to WP:SIZE. Notability is of the topic as a whole. Hobit (talk) 01:24, 19 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 due to improvements in the article during AFD which establishes notability. Davewild (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Zaffis[edit]

This guy appears to not be a notable person. His claims to fame are his involvement with some demonology center (no article), and a self-published book which was deleted long ago. I see zero third party sources. R. fiend (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn BanRay 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "This guy," as the nominator calls him is an authority on Demonology he has taken on the mantle of the world famous demonologists Ed and Lorraine Warren of which he is their nephew. He has been a guest on Coast to Coast with Art Bell worked with Malachi Martin and has appeared on many television programs including Unsolved Mysteries, Children of the Grave (for which he is also a writer), and the docu-drama The Possessed in which he plays himself. People who know anything about the subject matter of demonology would realize his notablity. Lack of sources or ignorance of importance is no reason to delete a viable article on a notable individual in his field. Dwain (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No indication that Zaffis "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Victoriagirl (talk) 16:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC) Keep Given Dwain's good work, I think the subject meets WP:BIO.Victoriagirl (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaffis has "been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable," Victoriagirl. He has been written up in at least seven independent books including, Ghost Hunting: True Stories of Unexplained Phenomena from The Atlantic, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Ghosts and Hauntings, Encyclopedia of Haunted Places: Ghostly Locales from Around the World, Our Haunted Lives: True Life Ghost Encounters, and Ghost Hunters of the South. The newspaper articles, which are too many to list here, include one from a little paper called The New York Times. This is not to mention the scores of radio and television shows he has appeared on. If Coast to Coast AM is not reliable or intelligent then why is there an article on Wikipedia about the program? Dwain (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Very good. Why not add these references to the article? I'm more than ready to change my opinion. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some of these sources to the article since you pointed out they were lacking. Dwain (talk)

Speedy keep. After looking at the recent edits, I'd say he's certainly notable, especially so within his field. Celarnor (talk) 01:19, 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 Closing as a speedy deletion as obvious hoax. The fake source coupled with my utter inability to locate any verifiable source leads me to believe this a hoax. Dloh cierekim 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Gowing[edit]

Hoax article. Only cited source is from a website [7] which allows users to design fake newspaper clippings. No verifiable third-party references. Non-notable. DWaterson (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax per nom, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:43, 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 --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English as a lingua franca for Europe[edit]

Delete this has gone through the process 4 years ago, was expanded into quite a long essay and then pared back to what was verifiable - and there ended up being no there there. This concept is apparently not notable or is nothing but a collection of ideas and hopes and fears that periodically may be mentioned but no coherent movement with a membership tally anywhere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Empty "article" with links that don't address the alleged topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No vote from me, but anyone wanting to comment at this AfD needs to look at this version as well as the current stub. AndyJones (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The short version is pointless and the long version is a classic example of original research by synthesis. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:37, 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. Doesn't pass WP:PROF. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julio Gutierrez[edit]

Not notable, apart from his publications. In addition, the only backlinks appear to be for a Cuban musician, not an American scientist. —BradV 04:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The initial contributor is very likely the subject of the article (User:Julioanacleto). —BradV 04:50, 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, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's a fine publication record for a student, and this link indicates that he was indeed a student as recently as 2004. It's not enough to pass WP:PROF, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:18, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 02:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JACOS[edit]

Deleted prod. No secondary source citations as required by WP:CORP. Nsevs • Talk 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as with nominationKeep This has been much improved, and now it does read like a wikipedia article. although I would personaly like to see some more stuff that ties it to a larger social context (I think that makes sence) it definatly dosn't need to be deleted now.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - spammy. – ukexpat (talk) 21:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BanRay 23:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The author has since added additional secondary sources. I'm still not convinced that the notability guidelines are met, however, so my nomination stands.--Nsevs • Talk 21:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is messy and needs to be rewritten. However, there are enough secondary sources to fix the main problem. The problem probably is that the author is newcomer and not familiar with WP policies. Probably we should encourage him/her and avoiding deleting his/her first article. I will work on this article and will see if am able to fix the problems.Beagel (talk) 08:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope the problems are fixed now.Beagel (talk) 10:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Beagel has done a pretty good job tidying it up, and I will do a bit as well. 14:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Strong keep: I think this is significant enough that I am going to write a reference to it in the History of the petroleum industry in Canada (oil sands and heavy oil), and include a link. I have now done that. It is a useful part of the history, and it motivated me to do a major rewrite of that section. 15:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn: the article has come a long way since NP patrol.--Nsevs • Talk 21:12, 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. I couldn't find anything signifying notability, unfortunately. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ofermod (band)[edit]

Contested PROD. Fails WP:BAND. Band have not yet released an album. No indication of notability. No reliable sources. Michig (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite my searching, I can't find anything reliable or noteworthy. A lot of sites dedicated to metal/thrash spring up, but nothing that isn't trivial. Fails WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An underground band yes (on a significant label, nevertheless), but it is mentioned together with and by very influential bands such as deathspell omega, funeral mist, ondskapt and watain (contributed lyrics on their latest release). In this genre it is a household name, you'll inevitably find it on lot of sites by just doing a lazy google search. As for reliability of sources these guys aren't really likely to be interviewed by MTV. Real magazine articles do definitely exist though, the Terrorizer article on their homepage for instance.Sixhundredandsixtysix (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Provide diffs for such magazine articles. Also, not a convincing argument if you concede the band is underground or that reliable sources aren't likely to be found. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diffs? If you don't know what Terrorizer magazine is, one can question the legitimacy on your opinions about important vs. non-important extreme metal bands. I happen to not have the issue where this interview is published so I cannot produce any details, but it is available at Ofermods website. And most extreme metal bands would be considered underground by mainstream radio music listeners. It's all a matter of perspective.Sixhundredandsixtysix (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability asserted. No big mentions in third party sources. Also, to 666, I've never heard of Terrorizer mag. and I'm one of the biggest metal fans you will find. Undeath (talk) 06:08, 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 Delete due to original research concerns and being completly unverified. Davewild (talk) 08:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cold Generation Y[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable subset of Generation Y; a search for sources turned up virtually no uses of this term. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that "Several Scolors" not proper citation method. WP:OR. Coffeepusher (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 100% original research. Seriously, we can make generalisations about people born in a 3 year period? Camillus (talk) 22:09, 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 (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn by nominator. JohnCD (talk) 13:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burford County Combined School[edit]

This is a curious muddle. There is a Burford Combined School (not Burford County Combined School) at Marlow Bottom in Buckinghamshire, England; and there is a Burford County Primary School in Oxfordshire. "County" in the Oxfordshire school's name implies that it is run by the (Oxfordshire) county education authority; there is no such place as the "Burford County" the article mentions. The link provided is dead - "No web site is configured at this address." This article seems to be a hoax cobbled together from different bits of information - best to Delete and start again if someone wants to make a real article about one of these schools. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn - see below. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as hoax per nom's evidence, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further evidence; there doesn't seem to be a Burford County but some evidence shows that this school may indeed exist. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Hoax. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending further evidence. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 03:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was fixing it up (see history), and clicked on the link to nowhere. So I tagged it as a hoax. It may have been mis-named. Start over. Bearian (talk) 21:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it's a HOAX!!! Big top 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (hoax comment based on Otolemur's comment and per nom)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Wow o wow. ~~as no finding to support notability or verifiability.~~ For what it's worth. There is one phone and fax listing. Maybe someone messed up the name of the article.22:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 70.126.47.211 (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is not a hoax. The article is clearly about Burford School in Marlow Bottom, as it said before Bearian started "fixing it up". Presumably the author gave it this title because there is already an article about the private Burford School in Oxfordshire. The link didn't work simply because of a typo, ".com" instead of ".co.uk". I would suggest that the editors who have accused the author of hoaxing/vandalism retract their comments which violate WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Having said all that, the school probably isn't notable anyway. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN by nominator. The nonexistent "Burford County", combined with the dead link, was what convinced me this was a hoax; but it seems the originator was not to blame for the first and the second was an accident. The article still has problems - at present it is a direct copyvio of the school website and needs rewriting to fix that - and I am not sure of notability; but it looks fixable; I withdraw this nomination, and will apologise and explain to the originator. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have added a {{mergeto}} tag to the article, suggesting that it is merged with Marlow Bottom. This is what we have done with other primary school articles for the local area. -- Roleplayer (talk) 22:56, 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Name[edit]

Violates WP:CRYSTAL; very little is known about this single yet. The only claims in the song are primarily unsourced and the song hasn't charted yet -- it probably won't for another month. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per addition of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete until it charts. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 21:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources have been found. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point in deleting it if we know it's going to be a single? Plenty of articles on future singles that have not yet charted are on Wikipedia. Some singles never chart at all, but they still have pages. There's no point in deleting the page and then having to recreate it in a few weeks. Plus I added sources on the reception of the track, so that's not unsourced anymore. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 16:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also how does the song violate the WP:CRYSTAL section? There's a source that it will be the third single, so that's not just a fan prediction. It's not like there's chart positions on there trying to predict how it's going to chart. I just don't understand how it violates that. WIKI-GUY-16 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is already receiving airplay, which effectively confirms it as a single. It is even already getting reviews. Nabudis Shadow (talk) 05:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still not enough info on the song yet. It may well have been confirmed as a single, but I really don't see a point in making a page if all you can verify is the release date and title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Never mind, I didn't see that Wiki-Guy-16 had added sources. I withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 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 keep. faithless (^speak) 05:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Your Students[edit]

This is largely an advertisement WP:NOAD for a WP:N non-notable blog, only referenced once, does not assert notability, shoddily written sophomoric tone W-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nodW-i-k-i-l-o-v-e-r-1-7 (talk) 20:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources appear to be reliable, and although there is only one reference, the multitude of external links provide plenty of what look to be reasonably reliable sources.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 21:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that it does need some work, but the fact that it adresses the outside issues of this web site make me believe it isn't an advertisement. I agree with User:HisSpaceResearch that the outside resources establish Notablility, and can be encorperated into the article easily.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It could use some improvement, but it's hardly an advertisement, especially considering that it deals with the criticisms of the subject, and it's obviously notable considering the links. Celarnor (talk) 21:34, 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, taking into account that there is hardly any content, and create a dab page, which would facilitate rectification in case it can be verified that University of Georgetown would refer in Guyana to anything different than University of Guyana. Tikiwont (talk) 10:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Georgetown[edit]

There's no such institution. It's University of Guyana. Should this be speedied? Camillus (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as possible hoax/misleading misnomer/etc. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral pending more info. The Google Scholar hits are somewhat interesting (Google Scholar still suggests removing quotes as a way of getting more results?), but it appears that the true University of Guyana may be occasionally (mistakenly?) referred to as University of Georgetown. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep.~~ (See comment below) Gets 3 Google ~~scholar~~ news hits. Dloh cierekim 21:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wow! 3 ghits! Seriously, the only University in Guyana is University of Guyana, which is in Georgetown.

Should probably redirect to Georgetown University Camillus (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And 5 google scholar hits Wow, sarcasm not appreciated. It's not the number of hits that counts but the quality. Obviously, not a hoax. If high schools are generally notable per Outcomes, what about Universities? If you follow the links, you will see that there is verifiability for the subject. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 21:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and obviously, should not be a redirect to the one in Washington. Dloh cierekim 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per information provided by Dloh. Considering Wikipedia's prominence as a source, it's really disturbing the ease at which things get deleted without verification of anything involved. Looking at the matter at hand, you should have a look at WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Celarnor (talk) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In light of that which is presented above, and my own searching, obviously this does not meet WP:HOAX. A university more or less possesses inherent notability, much like high schools. WP:SCHOOL. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most Google hits seem to be related to University of Guyana instead. Possible redirect to University of Guyana? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please consider the possibility that the 5 hits are just plain wrong, or "mistaken", a similar search for "University of Guyana" gets pages and pages of hits. There is only one university in Guyana - that is "University of Guyana", in Georgetown. I lived and worked in education in Georgetown for two years, I think I'd know if there was another university.

Should be a disambig page for Georgetown University and University of Guyana Camillus (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable to make disambig page. Dloh cierekim 21:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't get on board with that. Yes. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources have been provided with which to verify the content of the article. Guest9999 (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Redirect per Camillus. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Dab pretty obviously just a mistaken name, either redirect to the correct name or make into a disambiguation page. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is so such an institution. [8] [9] [10] It is also clear this is not a mistaken name. [11] [12] [13] [14] --The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume The Devil's Advocate is just trying to live up to his user name. Don't waste your time following the links - they do not prove anything of the sort. Check instead the 5 Google scholar links for University of Georgetown versus the 1410 for University of Guyana, cited above.

(Sigh - I wish I'd just been bold and dabbed the page to UG/Georgetown Uni. There is only one university in Guyana!!!) Camillus (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, we should just take your word at it then. You say you've been to Guyana and know there's only one university. Obviously personal anecdotes pass WP: Verifiability. This is not simply a matter of it being mentioned, but it being mentioned on the same page as the University of Guyana as a separate university. One of those sources, mind you, is the Smithsonian. Now, who should we trust, some person on the Internet who says he totally knows there's only one university there or the Smithsonian. Another source calling it University of Georgetown, though not mentioning University of Guyana, was the UN. Does the UN use nicknames? I doubt they'd mix the names up. I for one can not find a source showing that University of Georgetown is even a nickname for University of Guyana. When the UN and Smithsonian both attest to this university's existence and one attests it as a different university from University of Guyana, you're going to have to give something better than your personal experience.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 19:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you care to follow the link on the Smithsonian Institute page you cited, RTP Project Summary you'll see it refers to a Guyanese student at the "University of Georgetown" in Washington DC.

All the others cited for the existence of this university mention it by name only.

The website of University of Guyana is http://www.uog.edu.gy/ Find me the website of the "University of Georgetown" in Guyana and I'll eat my hat. Or perhaps this "university" doesn't have a web-site?

Here is the International Association of Universities (a UN - UNESCO hosted organisations) list of universities - Note ONE entry for Guyana.

UG has campuses in Turkeyen, Georgetown and Tain Campus, Berbice - it's entry on the 4 International Colleges and Universities list of accredited unis and colleges is at http://www.4icu.org/reviews/1911.htm . Find me a single mention of this fictitious University's address or phone number which shows it's not just been mistaken for the one and only uni in Guyana and I'll give you 8000 Guyanese dollars. Camillus (talk) 13:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure the last part of your comment was all that necessary for this discussion - and it smacks of WP:SARCASM. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm at all - it's a genuine offer, and it still stands. When I got home from Guyana I found 8000 G$ in a jacket pocket that'd I'd forgotten about. It's worth about 40 US$ and I will donate it to the charity of choice of anyone who can find the website, the address or the phone number of the University of Georgetown in Guyana, other than proof that it's just a mistaken name for the University of Guyana. Camillus (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your attitude is not welcome is all I have to say. I looked at other sources and I found at least one instance where University of Georgetown and University of Guyana are clearly referring to the same place, but this in no way deals with the problem of the United Nations University listing University of Georgetown in Guyana as one of their partners and other sources referring to two universities there. Your sources are not to be taken as proof as the fact only one university is shown doesn't mean there is only one university since neither source would require every university be included. If anything it proves University of Guyana is a prominent and well-known university in Guyana.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide the link for "United Nations University listing University of Georgetown in Guyana as one of their partners" - I couldn't find it, sorry.

I can't agree with your 2nd statement - the two sources I give for lists of accredited universities, the United Nations/UNESCO/IAU and 4ICU are comprehensive lists of 'accredited universities.

Here's some more -

BRAINTRACK - The World's most complete Education-Index http://www.braintrack.com/linknav.htm?pprevid=24&level=3

Webometrics Ranking of World Universities http://www.webometrics.info/university_by_country.asp?country=gy

Find a school http://www.findaschool.org/index.php?Country=Guyana

College Abroad http://www.collegeabroad.com/guyana/

Universities Worldwide http://univ.cc/search.php?dom=gy&key=&start=1

So I think we can say that a university that is not accredited, has no web-site, no phone number, no address is either a) not verifiable b) not notable or c) just doesn't exist! Camillus (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a UN source which is the first site I gave. Here's the UNU page: [15]--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 03:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, all we have there is the text "University of Georgetown, Guyana" - doesn't clinch it for me, sorry. Camillus (talk) 10:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarcasm?? On Wikipedia? Heavens forfend! I guess if we can have faux Supports on RfA, why not ironic keeps at AfD? Camillus makes some sound arguments to delete the thing. U o Georgetown may be a misnomer for U of Guyana, so I like the idea of keeping as a Disambig page. Dloh cierekim 14:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Get right out of town! heh, but seriously, even though I made a typo up above, I am still for the disambiguation page. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 14:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The G$8000 reward also applies to anyone who can find a picture or map location for "University of Georgetown" in Guyana. To save you the bother, I've tried google images and maps.

Images

Lots of nice pictures of buildings, former principals, academics, students from UG
No pictures whatsoever of the elusive University of Georgetown, Guyana

Maps

Go to http:maps.google.com and try "University of Guyana" loc:Guyana - Voila!

Go to http:maps.google.com and try "University of Georgetown" loc:Guyana - Rien!

Camillus (talk) 10:04, 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 Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Generation Z[edit]

Generation Z

No substantial information will be found currently; it's a stub, and it won't change in the nearby future. It adds nothing to Wikipedia. For Christ's sake, references 5 and 6 are links to the Generation Z camera. The only info it has is the time period of people in Gen. X and some "CLAIMS"!!!!!! This is nonsensical bollocks, and should be deleted as such. Kodster (Talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not quite nonsensical, but reads as original research/synthesis and seems to be a not-so-widely used neologism. (And here I thought "Generation Z" was a term for lazy people...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if you think this is OR, take a look at Cold Generation Y - bollocks! Camillus (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with iGeneration, Generation C, and Generation V which, like this term, are all terms for the generation born into an internet digital world. Further the second nomination was just closed as a keep. It's against the rules to immediately have another nomination. This nomination should be deleted. WAS 4.250 (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED, although it could use a little improvement. Celarnor (talk) 21:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep definatly can be worked on, but dosn't deserve deletion.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one as an abusive renomination--the earlier ones are [16] closed just on Feb. 8 and [17], both closed as keeps. Then merge the articles on the same generation into whatever is the most widely used name. I think it is Generation Z, but that's just my impression. The sources for the other Generation C is really weak. The Internet generation article lists another half-dozen synonyms.. As they are all the same concept, one article will hold them. But if people keep doing renominations soon after keeps this way, wer should consider whether we should just make a rule disallowing them for the first 3 months, or whether we should regard it is attempts to disrupt orderly process. DGG (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per DGG. It's too early to renominate, and I don't se anything in this new nomination that the first two don't have.--Ye Olde Luke (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article does need to be expanded, improved, etc. But an article in need of improvement is not one that should be deleted. By nature, Wikipedia will grow and the article will grow with it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:36, 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 Speedy Deleted (non-admin closure), This article was speedy deleted under G11 (advertising) concerns by User:Anthony Appleyard Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:22, 14 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 00:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong Wii (Tentativie Title)[edit]

Contested prod. Crystal ball page with no assertion of notability, no references and completely speculative information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. The AfD tag was removed from this page without comment; I have restored it. Plenty of unsourced speculation with a dash of original research garnished with a lack of verifiability makes for a very unsavoury dish. Once the game is out and material is verifiably known, then we should have a page for it. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 20:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Donkey Kong game has been announced for the Wii (other than the already released Donkey Kong Barrel Blast). No sources. TJ Spyke 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced crystalballling. Also, will someone check into users Smarty Kong (talk · contribs) and Dummy Kong (talk · contribs), one of whom seems to be a sock of the other? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got the same impression about the two usernames. I didn't want to be the first to say the word sockpuppet because I was still trying to AGF despite strong evidence to the contrary. Now that it's out, though, I too call shenanigans (I'll get my broom.) OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all of the info I can find for this title relate to the vitual console rerelease of the classic game and one mention at Inside Games [18] that speculates Nintendo will be producing a title.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I prodded. Jobjörn (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I now a site that mentions this game, Mario Wiki.

Dummy Kong —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dummy Kong (talk •

contribs) 20:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The probelem with Mario Wiki is that it is page that anyone can edit so it would not count as a reliabe source. There are also no references meaning that noting on the page can be verified. Anyone with an account on that wiki could have made that page. --76.71.209.55 (talk) 22:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 18:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:HOAX; otherwise fails WP:CRYSTAL. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless references are added. Johntex\^talk 17:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Donkey Kong Barrel Blast. The only references I could dig up on a Donkey Kong game for Wii were this one stating that a Gamecube Game titled Donkey Kong Bongo Blast had been pulled from the Gamecube to appear on the Wii instead, and this one on UGO, containing a lot of speculation but which could be pointing to the same title. Gazimoff (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found another site, Wii Plus, a message board for the Wii —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dummy Kong (talk • contribs) 19:56, 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 Speedy keep. Nom withdrew. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chez paul[edit]

Tempted to nominate for speedy, but the Blues Brothers reference may just get it through. Still, does not seem to be notable to me per WP:N and WP:Notability (organizations and companies) and it is completely lacking references. ukexpat (talk) 20:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete for virtually no assertation of notability. I agree that the Blues Brothers ref might be just enough to avoid A7, but not by much. Either way, this restaurant doesn't seem to have been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability; no references; no verifiablity. This place's only possible claim to notability is the unsourced assertion that a scene from the Blues Brothers was filmed in the dining room. Even if that were backed up with a proper reference, it's not nearly enough to meet WP:N standards. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC) 20:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Would seem to beckon the appraoch of Wikipedia:Geogre's Law. Buy while it has been defunct for a decade, when it was open, this was the oldest French restaurant in Chicago, and only exceeded in prestige by Le Francais. Google News Archive Google Books--Dhartung | Talk 22:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Okay, not a uber-Wikipidean like y'all but isn't part of the idea of Wikipedia the idea of collaboration? I'd hoped to start an article on Chez Paul that others would then run with, perhaps someone still living in Chicago with better access to their public library system. If you delete this after 2 days, how's anyone going to get a chance to contribute? Isn't Dhartung's references out of the Google news archive enough to show it was *once* notable? And isn't that enough? Is it up to the first person that starts an article to be its sole supporter? Should I just take his google news link and use them as references? Will Hughes (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I went ahead and did just that. I support all efforts to keep Wikipedia clean so if people still don't think this merits an entry, I guess I'm just outvoted. But ask anyone over 40 who lived in Chicago and they will have heard of it. Will Hughes (talk) 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability clear from Google book search, and the verified fact that it was Chicago's oldest French restaurant adds to that. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per above. There's lots of material to work with from the Chicago Tribune archives, among other sources. I should note, however, that the interior scenes in The Blues Brothers were not filmed in the restaurant, but in a replica of the restaurant. I have a cite for that, which I'll add to the article shortly. Zagalejo^^^ 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn - based on recent edits. – ukexpat (talk) 15:34, 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. Maxim_(talk) 14:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobjörn was the deciding factor here.

Brian Aker[edit]

nn. the most notable thing about Brian Aker is that he's the Director of Architecture at MySQL AB and i have to question whether that's notable enough. it isn't notable enough for him to be listed in the MySQL AB article. Misterdiscreet (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreement with the above comment; def. fails notability! --Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 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, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Major author of a major piece of code. Probably comparable to Alan Cox. Slashdot found it worthy to interview him. Pretty good article that'd go to waste too. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 01:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's got [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], etc etc. Has definitely recieved significant coverage in several reliable secondary sources independent of the subject himself. By the way, that he is the Director of Architecture at MySQL AB is definitely not the most notable thing about him. Jobjörn (talk) 14:06, 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 00:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hovel t moon[edit]

Completely fails WP:FICT. This character was mentioned once in a Dave Berry article, and that's all. Absolutely no notability at all. Atama ^chat 19:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable one shot character. Put him right up there with Dr. Viewfinder and all the other Dave Barry goof offs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely un-notable. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 19:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. It gives next to no context as to what it's about, it's non-notable anyway and doesn't give any assertion of why it should be on Wikipedia. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 22:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not meating WP:FICT. Dloh cierekim 04:07, 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. WP:BLP1E seems to summarize why, except the guy is dead, but I think that portion of the guideline applies both ways. WP:INHERITED also applies; not every victim of militant conflict in the Middle East will be notable enough to have their own article, even though many people push towards it due to the current nature of the issue. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luqman Mohammed Kurdi Hussein[edit]

A non-notable victim of beheading in Iraq. No sources, very few to be found, and no other claim to notability. Jmlk 1 7 19:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unfortunately, a representative example rather than an anomaly. --Dhartung | Talk 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nobody bothered to check Google, even the author of the article. there seem to be a number of newspaper articles. DGG (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources to be found (I've put one of them in the article), and there's no requirement in the notability guidelines for a subject to be an anomaly. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, there are plenty of news reports on the beheading, but this seems to be a classic case of someone that received news coverage for one event. Looks like a news item rather than an encyclopedia article to me.--Kubigula (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - Definitely only famous for one event and nithing else, and even then he was an unwilling participant. Chris (talk) 21:58, 19 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, notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael-ryan fletchall[edit]

The subject of this article fails to meet notability criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (people). A Google search ("Michael-ryan fletchall") yields 252 results, including an IMDB entry. But a careful review of the hits reveals no detailed description of who the subject is that makes him notable. In the IMDB entry as well as most of the other hits, he is listed repeatedly as crane operator and sometimes camera operator. All in all, even though there are references made to this subject on several websites, he is non-notable. SWik78 (talk) 20:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After carefully going over the hits for google, all I see are empty/incomplete mentions of the individual at IMBD, NY Times, and yahoo! TV - despite the last two being reliable, there is no purported notability anywhere to be found. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:37, 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 19:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Completely agree with Wisdom89. Lots of empty listings, nothing of notability. Chris (talk) 16:43, 19 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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of basic Canada topics[edit]

All the content of this article is covered elsewhere in particular the main Canada article and articles linked therefrom. A pointless list that adds nothing to WP. ukexpat (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is a basic topics list, so it should be kept under the policy. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What policy? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was that all basic topic lists that are about notable subjects are articles that don't fail the deletion policy. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Sox!} 19:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the basic topic lists comply with WP:LISTS, and this list falls within the scope of the Lists of basic topics and though it is still under construction, is a valuable addition to that set of lists. The Transhumanist 23:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article was just created today, and I think the article creator should be given some time to develop it. The similar List of basic United States topics is an excellent navigational tool, which is good for Wikipedia users who do not wish to read prose. Bláthnaid 19:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:LISTS. Also keep in mind this was made, like, today. Give it time before you go crazy on it. Celarnor (talk) 19:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. List of basic United States topics is an excellent precedent for a navigational list. AndyJones (talk) 19:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I'm not expressing one view or the other on this, but WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS should be noted when comparing this article with others. 23skidoo (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Come off it. Saying that this artice should be kept because it has the ability to develop into an equivalent of another good article is a perfectly valid argument, bearing no resemblance in common sense or logic to the argument criticised at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. AndyJones (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a fine looking article but it duplicates the Canada article which should present the main topic in a readable way. I also worry that there will be edit warring over the definition of basic - who decides what makes the cut? Colonel Warden (talk) 21:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't seriously expect the main Canada page to have everything Canada-related linked to it, can you? An article discussing Canada isn't going to be anywhere near as effective at presenting a list of Canadian topics as, well, a list of Canadian topics. Deleting pages like this marginalize WP and reduce it's effectiveness at being a cross-linked encyclopedia. As to the basic, I realize this is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but we have a crap ton of list of basic (topic) lists. They provide an excellent place to go to start looking for information regarding that topic, and it's terrible that they're getting marginalized and AfD'd like this. Celarnor (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do expect the Canada article to do a proper job of introducing the country since that is the article's purpose. This is just what I would call a format-fork - presenting the same information in a different format. It seems to be intended for those who don't like prose, i.e. people who can't read too well. But Wikipedia is not the Book of Lists. And I looked at the US equivalent which is supposedly the model. I don't care for that either and have tagged it accordingly. In particular, the determination of basic topic seems quite subjective and I find that the current version is far from the choice that I would make. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list, and complies with the purposes, forms, and functions of lists on Wikipedia. See WP:LISTS. By their very nature, a great many of the Lists of topics and Lists of basic topics share the same scope as the articles on Wikipedia - that's to be expected since they serve as tables of contents. By the way, there have been no edit wars on any of the lists of basic topics (that I'm aware of), so your fears have not materialized in the two years they've been around. The talk pages of these lists have proven sufficient to work out the nature of "basic" for each respective subject. The basic topics lists are part of Wikipedia's table of contents system - they aren't intended for people who can't read too well, they are intended to help people find what they want to read about faster. They also assist those who can read fast read even faster, by providing an outline of each subject. They are great for browsing, and make it easier to find topics than tediously scanning prose for the links buried within it. They are meant to supplement and complement articles, and they do that very well. The Transhumanist 22:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page for the US version didn't exist until I created it just now. If there seems to be little strife, it may be because most readers, like me, never heard of these lists before. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These lists are quite common. If you go to Portal:Contents, you'll notice that the whole structure of Wikipedia is based on them. Celarnor (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with above. Putting everything about one subject on a single page in prose isn't going to work. Somewhere along the line, you're going to have to have a list. Since List_of_Canada-related_topics contains more internal links than Canada, it fails at being a 'format fork'; it doesn't contain as much information. Not having them is still a bad idea. You have an index in a traditional encyclopedia; if you looked in the index under Canada, you would probably find Geography of Canada, Economy of Canada, etc; this is our equivalent of that. Celarnor (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's a "list of basic topics", fits the purposes of that project and is consistent with the rest of the lists in that set (see Lists of basic topics), and it isn't even finished yet. It's the formatting and scope which are the key elements of a list of basic topics, and the basis of the value they add to WP. All the lists in that set reiterate material in the encyclopedia. That's totally normal for these lists. And this list isn't even finished yet. If it isn't allowed to be created, it will create a hole in the topic coverage of Lists of basic topics. The Transhumanist 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The list was made with the standard subheading skeleton which most lists of basic topics use. I've created a new skeleton which fits countries better, and have inserted it into this list. The list is still under construction, but is shaping up nicely as a basic topics list. The Transhumanist 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this content fork. We have categories for such things. Biruitorul (talk) 02:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories do not replace lists. Nor do lists replace categories. They both have their uses, and both should be kept. See WP:CLN for more information regarding their differences and the advantages and disadvantages of each. Celarnor (talk) 05:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand this delete !vote. I don't see how a category could ever be better than this list already is. AndyJones (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters, who defines "basic"? Biruitorul (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The same people who who define it in any other "List of basic (subject) topics". The Wikipedia community, although basic is fairly self-evident. For the most part, they are links to articles that are linked to at the begenning of each section of the article of their subject: culture of Canada, economy of Canada, government, military, etc. These are places someone goes to when they want to start reading about a topic; for example, I spent a lot of time a while back going through List of basic topics in classical studies; like this, the article didn't include all of the information maintained in the article, which is of course understandable; it's much more difficult to maintain an article than it is a list. However, unlike a category, it's easy to read by humans, and is organized better, so it's better for navigation. Again, going to Portal:Contents and List of basic topics, you'll see that the entire organization of Wikipedia is dependent on these, and removing them would make life difficult for a lot of readers, as well as forcing editors to cram a considerable amount of extra content into articles that would better be placed in a list. Celarnor (talk) 16:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is taken from WP:BT. Each entry below is a list of fundamental concepts in its respective subject area. These lists are intended to help the beginner become familiar with each subject. For more comprehensive lists on these subjects, see Lists of topics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Celarnor (talk • contribs) 16:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything on the list is on Canada. So it is basically redundant and pointless. The same goes to List of basic United States topics. Chris! _ct 16:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canada only links to around ~30 of the ~50 articles present in List of basic Canada topics. In order for it to be redundant, they would have to be identical. Celarnor (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A similar AfD has been brought up. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Macintosh software (2nd nomination). Celarnor (talk) 18:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The list is still under construction. It's counter-productive to nominate a list for deletion when it isn't even completed yet - by doing this you're pressuring list builders into completing drafts of lists before they post them to article space, the very place where others who may wish to collaborate would most likely find them and help out. Collaboration is one of the main benefits of having a wiki in the first place, and AfD's like this defeat that purpose. Chris's argument above was that the list is redundant in that it only includes links that are in the Canada article. Well, Chris was mistaken, as the list already included coverage that wasn't included in the article at the time the AfD nomination was made, the list has more non-redundant links now than it did then, and the list continues to diverge with the Canada article as the list is being further developed. But redundancy is totally irrelevant here. This is a list, not a paragraph-based article. And it totally conforms to Wikipedia's guideline on lists. Lists serve as outlines of knowledge and as tables of contents. Tables of contents are by their very nature redundant in scope with the material they provide easier access to! In addition to this, this table of contents is part of a larger table of contents system - the Lists of basic topics. (See Wikipedia:Contents for more information about the overall table of contents system). By deleting part of the system, you in effect cripple it, forcing an edict that Wikipedia's basic table of contents can't cover Canada. That makes no sense. Canada is a fundamental subject, and it should be covered in Wikipedia's tables of contents systems. The issue boils down to whether we should have a table of contents or not, and if that is the case, the entire set of Lists of basic topics should be nominated for deletion, not just a piece of it. If a piece of the table of contents system is to be deleted, without deleting the whole thing, it should be shown how the piece is inadequate to be a part of the whole. Nobody has done that here. None of the deletion supporters above have explained why we shouldn't have a basic table of contents on Canada. Nor have any of them presented justification for creating a blatant hole in the Lists of basic topics table of contents system. The Transhumanist 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this article is as you said a part of the Wikipedia table of content system, then could you explain to me why we need the article List of Canada-related topics? The thing I want to point out is that we don't need a set of basic topics on countries because we already have a set of countries-related topics under Lists of country-related topics. While the list we are discussing here is different, it essentially serves the same purpose as List of Canada-related topics. We don't need multiple lists of the same subject. Chris!_ct 22:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: It's an entirely different thing altogether. There is the List of topics structure, and there is the List of basic topics structure. The lists of basic foo topic lists which can be found under WP:BT, is a list of fundamental topics without the all-inclusiveness of their counterpart, The "list of foo topics" lists satisfy the human-readable equivalent of a category. They are distinct entities. For example, the List of science topics includes everything that is scientific. There, you can find things like Timeline of stellar astronomy, List of genera in Faboideae, and other 'advanced' topics. In the List of basic science topics, you'll find a smaller and more basic list of scientific topics, which contains only Astronomy and Botany. The same is true for the country-related ones. You aren't going to find something like The Manhattan Project in the list of basic topics, but you'll find it in the list of United States topics. Instead, you might find a link to a list of scientific programs in the United States. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion that people are having regarding the distinction between the two types of lists. Celarnor (talk) 23:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: The list has undergone considerable development since it was nominated for deletion. It is intended as a table of contents of material on Wikipedia related to Canada. Please let me know how it can be improved. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. In light of the discussion above and the excellent work done by The Transhumanist I hereby withdraw the AfD nomination. – ukexpat (talk) 01:04, 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. Not notable in any ways that I can see... Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

InHuman[edit]

Short story with no information on winning a prize or otherwise being notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World of the Lupi because the story is part of that series. Bláthnaid 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Is there any evidence that World of the Lupi is notable either? I see none. Just delete this article. -- Atama ^chat 16:02, 19 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 by User:Jmlk17, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter rodick[edit]

Obvious hoax. The Louvre? Time's sexiest man alive? Should probably be speedied, but I'll get a couple more opinions. Tanthalas39 (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - and the Pope has made him a saint. Speedy G3, blatant hoax, so tagged. JohnCD (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see your db tag, John - edit conflict? Weird. Anyways, between your tag and this, hopefully we'll purge it soon. Tanthalas39 (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete He is apparently a art director, but this page is blatant nonsense. Even if the nonsense were removed, he would still utterly fail notability guidelines -- so either way, it's speedy-able. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 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 No Consensus though leaning to keep. Gnan garra 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zhing-zhong[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS and WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - AfDed in under 1 minute. Zimbabwe is an English-speaking nation, and the article author seems to have contributed to Wikipedia a few times; so it'd be nice to give the author a bit of time to establish whether this phrase is notable, beyond the 2 (admittedly minor) references already given. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete neologistic slang with it's rightful urban dictionary entry already in place. Please make others though, article creator, I had my first one deleted and am still here- don't despair! The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 20:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I think this article could easily be more than just a dicdef - it's already discussing things like the official government reaction to the term. I just hope high-quality sources can be found. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 21:07, 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What??!! That’s a Zimbabwean slang??? It sounds Chinese, it's defiantly not English. Who knows if it's really used by the people of Zimbabwe? Where is the reference? I can start making up Chinese sounding slangs right now. TheAsianGURU (talk) 21:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Try Google news before making claims of unverifiability. cab (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi Cab. I did. With 2 entries on Google News - 1 from "Zimbabwe Guardian" UK, 1 from South Korea. Over 985 results on Google search. 90% from blogs. If blogs now fit WP:RS, then keep it all you want. TheAsianGURU (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Try again. 37 GNews hits. cab (talk) 05:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh I did, I just didn't click the "All Dates" like you did. However, out of your 37 results, over 50% of those can't not be verified. (Yes, I clicked on all of them.) AllAfrica.com needs to signup, Accessmylibrary.com says it's free but it isn't free either, "Inter Press Service English News Wire" at "highbeam.com" asked me to sign up for a "FREE trial." I found BBC Archive asking me for ranging from $2.95 - $9.95. TheAsianGURU (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Under WP:V, pay sources are emphatically acceptable. There is nothing here requiring every potential source used for an article to be freely available to every internet surfer at the click of a button. And the snippets shown in the GNews search clearly show the context in which this term is being used, refuting your original position that this is made-up and couldn't possibly be real Zimbabwean slang. cab (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I am fully aware of what is under WP:V. That’s why I went out my way to click all links of your so-called 37 GNews Hits. However, I had a hard time verifying whether they can be used as a source. Sure, pay sites can be used under WP:V, so somebody please pay the $2.95 (or $9.95), so we can save this wiki entry. No need to attack my position from the beginning, my position hasn’t changed since March 13th – Where is the reference? Per WP:RS. TheAsianGURU (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Don't want to get in the middle here, but TheAsianGURU, you did start the discussion pretty strong with lots of punctuation and an implication that it was made up. Dimitrii (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep verifiable and sources go beyond mere use or etymology of the term into real world consequences. For example, "The police recently announced that it will be arresting people for using the term 'zhing zhong', which derisively refers to the cheap Chinese goods" [24] (this claim is already in the article, but sourced to a blog). Failing that, merge to China-Zimbabwe relations. cab (talk) 23:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than a dic def. Notability and Sources seem to exist, just are hard to get. Dimitrii (talk) 22:16, 20 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 lack of sources. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid Videos[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Previously not deleted after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stupid Videos. I believe the website is a dime-a-dozen video hosting service; the article doesn't list any third-party references for notability. (The website's Alexa rank has been fluctuating; today it's about 10.000 and the best one is about 2.000.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as per previous nomination. Also, you should actually search for third party references. I believe reuters and DMR qualify. Also, the argument that because there are other video hosting websites is gay. There are multiple political parties, and yet they all have articles unless they aren't notable. Also, an Alexa rank is a bad metric to use; WP:NOTBIGENOUGH. Celarnor (talk) 19:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. K im u 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, self promoting. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable per Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Can someone show why it's not notable rather than just saying it isn't? WP:JNN is a bad way to go about AfDs. Filtering through a couple pages of google results gives some nice, reputable sources. I don't understand what makes this non-notable, as it's been the subject of news coverage. Celarnor (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons given above. Also, Celarnor, the "Reuters" and I'm pretty sure DMW source as well, are press releases. Company issued. Space-filler. Not reliable sources. The article has no other reliable sources. Delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:11, 19 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 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elen Cole[edit]

A porn star whose notability is questionable. Back in January, I nominated this article as part of a bulk nomination (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Josephine James), but withdrew it following comments from other editors who thought a bulk nomination of porn stars was not such a good idea. However, I am now giving this subject its own afd discussion, so what is the view of the community on this particular topic? Egdirf (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The fact that she's been in the mainstream media has to count for something, doesn't it? The problem is that I can't find any non-trivial third party coverage.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Based on the potential for notability from other activities. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:47, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable - has passing mentions in the mainstream media but nothing significant. -- Naerii · plz create stuff 18:06, 12 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BIO#Pornographic actors. According to her article, Cole regularly appears on Men & Motors. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply because I can't find independent reliable sources beyond 1 Mirror article that's subscription only to verify her claims of notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Looking at The Mirror website, it turns out that it's a celebrity tabloid site. I doubt that it should be considered a reliable source to verify notability. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:46, 19 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, consensus is that she fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Grieve[edit]

fails WP:BIO Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete, RS coverage is trivial or solely in connection with her boyfriend. If someone can turn up RS coverage of her modelling career, then I think she'd pass. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear to have done anything noteworthy. Her only web presence is when she's temporarily on the arm of a C-list celeb.Chris (talk) 16:48, 19 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 redirected to parent organization. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out in Schools[edit]

A film and media company that operates seemingly only in the lower mainland of British Columbia, shown films to only 1900 students, no other assertions of notability. SGGH ^speak! 08:45, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Out in Schools is a youth education program that operates in the lower mainland of British Columbia. The reference shows the link to the source, where I took the information regarding the participants of the program. I've edit the link again to include an additional one which shows a list of the various school screenings that took place in 2006-2007. If that is not enough notability, I can currently eliminate that fact until I research more in-depth to present more accurate numbers. Since Out in Schools is a new pilot project that was launched in 2004, it's beginning to get recognition in the community this year. Here are a few references to Out in Schools in the Vancouver community:

Georgia Straight: http://www.straight.com/article/kids-in-the-halls

Vancouver Foundation: http://www.caringforcommunities.com/archiveShow.php?show_id=17

Gay Mafia, a film screening: http://www.superdyke.com/eventinfo.php?loc=1&month=02&event=1834&PHPSESSID=20b55801d9b8ca711be3c4c834e50eb3 http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:a7o2JKM6n6IJ:www.xtra.ca/public/ViewContent.aspx%3FAFF_TYPE%3D4%26static_content_id%3D113+%22out+in+schools%22+gay+mafia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

Alinga 1:14, 5 March 2008 (UBC)

Delete no outside notability, no reliable sources, all sources come from sites relating to the company. Fails WP:CORP and WP:N Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Such organizations exist in the 'millions'. Why is this one notable? Agree it fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Cheers ! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vancouver Queer Film & Video Festival. Bearcat (talk) 22:59, 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 Keep while its limited on content, the article is not a Crystal ball as the information is sourced. Gnan garra 08:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Italian football transfers Summer 2008[edit]

Very little content and not notable. Also had a WP:PROD tag removed.

My vote is Delete for my above reasons. TheProf | Talk 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment quoted form edit summary: Remove prod. sources mean it is not a WP:CRYSTAL) . Matthew_hk t c 19:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thats just the opinion of the prod remover. For me it does still fail WP:CRYSTAL. If it gets deleted, i would not have any complaints about it being re-created in the summer. As long as it has alot more content. Thanks TheProf | Talk 19:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:CRYSTAL BanRay 10:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BanRay. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 10:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Its deletion tag is larger then its content. Nuff said. Mm40 (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:CRYSTAL is for unverifiable speculation. Unverifiable, meaning no reputable sources. This article's content (small though it is) has been sourced. The article will only grow as more info is known about transfers this summer. Neier (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it's a stub with a reliable source. It follows the line of a lot of other articles and will be recreated later if deleted when more transfers added anyway. Peanut4 (talk) 16:30, 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. And appararently all of them. Let me (or any admin) know if an individual in this mass nom is referenceable at a later date, I'll undelete that article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ermin Alić[edit]

NN footballer. he (possibly) played for Basel U21 in 1. Liga but seems the third division is a amateur/semi-professional/regional league. Matthew_hk t c 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also nominated:

Niki Wiedmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Samet Gündüz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ivo Pedro Krenczynski Welter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Franck Grasseler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Marco Schmid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sabri Boumelaha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Jan Hartmann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Timm Klose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dominik Ritter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Serkan Sahin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Nicolas Schindelholz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mario Simić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Matthew_hk t c 18:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just about notable enough. I suggest a source needed tag be placed on the article, should it survive this AfD. TheProf | Talk 18:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as they clearly fail WP:BIO#Athletes as they have never played in a fully professional league. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 18:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Especially with no sources, it should not survive an AfD, so if TheProf wants a chance to add sources, it's now or never. Gene Nygaard (talk) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but i don't know, nor care, about the topic. So if it gets deleted, so be it! TheProf | Talk 19:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all NN BanRay 10:11, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trigano Tribute[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable line of motor home. No sources could be found at all. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this should have an entry on Wikipedia. The Tribute has become a very popular compact motorhome and I feel that it should be included in the encyclopedia. Thanks. LisaInig (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I am not sure why tenpoundhammer would say that this motorhome is not notable. I google search produced several links. It looks like the majority of sales happen in europe and maybe this is the reason for the deletion? Thright (talk) 20:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)thright[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 18:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An unsourced article about a vehicle that is not notable, even in Yorkshire. While there is no doubt that the Trigano Tribute exists, there appear to be no reliable sources available that demonstrates that the subject meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia per WP:N. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The vehicle does not seem to meet WP:N. I scanned through hundreds of google hits looking for some WP:RS that does more than note that this vehicle is for sale, and I found nothing. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:58, 21 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 for deletion, defaulting to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph S. Johnston (judge)[edit]

I just don't think this person is notable. I don't see what he has done in particular, other than a normal job. Jackaranga (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important note Please see http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/A2F6GYJPGSTZ2Y and you will see his amazon profile. Now note how the user's nickname on Amazon is gulfy and the creator of this article is User:Gulfy32, coincidence ? Jackaranga (talk) 18:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability. State judges are not inherently notable. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 19:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and WP:LOCAL. --Dhartung | Talk 19:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dhartung's assertion's. ArcAngel (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local judge who does not appear to meet WP:N criteria. I did a Google search that was restricted to AL.com, the website of the Mobile Press-Register, and turned up nothing. (Full disclosure: I work for the Press-Register's sister newspaper in Birmingham and for AL.com.) More generic Google searches turned up a handful of news-story references, nothing particularly notable. This smells like a vanity article. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:56, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep State circuit court judge. I think that's more than local. as a judge of appellate jurisdiction there ought to be some material on notable cases. "Handful of news story references" might be enough for notability, depending of what they say about him. DGG (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I will see if I can find some more information on him that make him notable. He is a state judge, not a local/city judge. Just to clarify, I am not Joseph S. Johnston. Gulfy32 —Preceding comment was added at 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope none of you critics are being partisan (Democrat) Johnson was the first Republican state judge in this circuit, and this state is very Democratic in local politics. He has been elected 3 times without opposition. There are Wiki articles on Sam Jones (Mobile city mayor) a Democrat, Montgomery Mayor Bobby bright, a Democrat, and Vivian Berkerle, a local activist who ran for congress. I know of another dozen Alabama politicians--all Democrat that hold lesser office than a circuit judge. Go to the internet archives if you really want to google as most news stories are removed in a few weeks. If you go to the archives you will find dozens of news articles with national implications. For example, the sentencing of Dallas Cowboys player Leonardo Carson. In fact, Johnston was criticized in a book call "Spoiled Sports". Also, read about the capital murder trial of Thomas Lane who was sentenced to death for murdering his so-called mail order bride.Dauphin1999 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:50, 7 March 2008 (UTC) HYPOCRISY and Content Bias One of our editors has also FAVORABLY edited the Wiki article of a Mayor Heather Fargo mayor of Sacramento, Ca. I am sure anything or anyone in California is more notable than Alabama, but I fail to see how this California mayor is notable, especially since she "is just doing her job". Could it be because she is liberal and anti Second Amendment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dauphin1999 (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that judges are inherently notable, and I imagine most have received the media coverage required to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. I admit though, this is more based on my personal view, not so much on any policy or guideline. faithless (^speak) 05:52, 12 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 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment/rationale for relisting. Although there have been policy based assertions for deleting this article, they were primarily based on lack of reliable sourcing and (more generally) lack of notability. Since the start of this good faith Afd nomination, the article has been expanded significantly, including sources that I've not personally looked through to determine their validity, verifiability and importance. I feel this article, based on apparent improvements and at least a handful of "keep" proponents, deserves another round of discussion. Personally abstaining from !voting or closing this debate. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable, enough coverage in article to support the topic and well written. No reason to delete. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sorry, I'm still not seeing it. The references added do little to indicate notability and are basically name mentions, e.g. he's a judge who is not running for higher office. --Dhartung | Talk 23:18, 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. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eugene McCullough[edit]

This seems to be about a secondary headmaster with little or no claim to fame/notability. Much of the article is merely a list of staff that has already been deleted on at least one occasion. Paste (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC) *Weak Keep and add source needed tag. TheProf | Talk 17:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE: Article deleted by Orangemike at 03:20, 14 February 2008 under the name Eugene J. McCullough and McCullough's data transferred to St. Michael's page. Creator of this page, who is almost a single-issue contributor, recreated it without the middle initial (J.) for obvious purposes of evasion. Nothing has changed to make the person more notable since last month, although the article has been expanded, mostly with filler. Not every successful schoolteacher in the world is notable for Wikipedia purposes, which is a message worth sending.

ADD: Marie McKenna as affiliated page for deletion. Crazy8 (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Marie McKenna, Eugene McCullough & the redirect page Eugene J McCullough. Articles fail Wikipedia:Notability (academics), WP:BIO, and lack reliable sources. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources, therefore we shouldn't have an article. If he is notable, people independent of him will have written about him. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In light of the info posted by Orangemike. I change my vote. TheProf | Talk 12:42, 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 delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultima Tower[edit]

Building not yet constructed, so not notable yet - fails WP:N and WP:Crystal. ukexpat (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Complete fantasy of 500-story tower. Speedy delete. Moncrief (talk) 21:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. From WP:CRYSTAL: Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced. I think that this article is verified from at least a primary source (the designer's website), and the design has been covered in other news sources. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but some other buildings that have been visions has been allowed. Also the building was visioned in 1983. --HAHA70000 (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which are reasons to keep this article. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If you want to successfully argue to keep this article, please read up on applicable Wikipedia policy, namely WP:V, WP:N, and WP:CRYSTAL. Tanthalas39 (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — there do not appear to be any reliable sources supporting this as anything than one designer's pipe dream. I can't find any sources treating it as either influential, important, or even a "going concern". --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's interesting, but interesting is not a reason to keep. When duplicates were omitted, I found 177 google hits. The only new usable source I found among them was this Village Voice article which mentions it as one of many "super buildings." If there were a parent article on such things, I'd suggest merger there. There doesn't seem to be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to a google search, it brings up about 400 hits, including various newspapers and blogs. The notion that an unbuilt structure does not belong on wikipedia is absurd- certainly the mile high building by Frank Lloyd Wright is notable as well, and similarly, deserves a place in wikipedia --SeanMcG (talk) 02:55, 21 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, mainly due to notability reasons. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 03:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Oxidation[edit]

I removed the speedy tag on this article and have attempted some cleanup. Upon reading (and rereading), I've come to the conclusion that this article is most likely a school project, almost like a topical report. The creator is a s.p.a and has made no other contributions. The article's subject matter is already well covered at Apple, Browning (chemical process), and Oxidation. Although there are references, this reads more like WP:OR. I say delete. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as possible school project. Nonetheless, it's an essay full of original research, and is covered more thoroughly at other pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as original research. AndreNatas (talk) 17:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research, seems to be a personal essay or a school project. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This article could easily be re-written to Wikipedia standards. The basic thesis is definitley not original research. No doubt it originated as a science fair project. But it is a real agriculture topic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt it is a real subject. I didn't say it was fake. I am asserting that the subject is already covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, and has been for many months/years prior to this essay. Did you read the links I provided in my nom statement and compare them to this article, Wassupwestcoast? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but your links don't specifically deal with 'Apple oxidation'. Wikipedia does allow for such specific articles. And, it is possible to make this article FA. It doesn't suffer from notability problems. It is just badly written. The Editing policy states simply that editors should work on improving pages, without regarding perfection, because it can be fixed later. It is not a reason to delete an article. Actually, what policy are you basing the deletion request on? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OR. WP:N. Also, please read WP:SUP. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reasons for re-writing the article: not deleting it. The topic is not original research. It is super easy to find journal references. See: "Oxidation in apple juice. III. - Oxidation turbidities". Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture. doi:10.1002/jsfa.2740020803.. Some Wikipedian with a couple of hours could re-write this to FA status. Remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is room for this article. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll state again, I didn't say this wasn't a legitimate topic, just not a legitimate article. I'm not disputing that apples turn brown (and for a scientific reason, no less!) as you seem to be implying. I'm saying it's already covered in the links provided above. Simply that. I've noticed that you are improving the article, which is good. I'll be more than happy to withdraw my nom if you (or any editor) can show me how apples turning brown is significant/notable enough to have it's own article. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow you. 'Apple oxidation' is notable by any definition. Scientific journal articles deal with the topic specifically. Books are written about it, specifically. Compare this to the dozens of articles on specific episodes of The Simpsons that have reached GA or FA status, and your argument falls apart. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson can be FA on Wikipedia, then there is room for Apple Oxidation. If The City of New York vs. Homer Simpson cannot be deleted, then there is room for an article about apples turning brown. By the way, in university, apple physiology, storage and oxidation was one of the topics covered in an apple course. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do apples turn brown (oxidize) in a significantly different way then any other fruit, or are they (apples) simply the fruit of choice? Oxidation is notable. Apples are notable. Apples turning brown are not. Bringing up the Simpsons doesn't seem relevant. If we are getting waxy, then there should probably be an article titled Pear oxidation, as well as Grape oxidation. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and pears are similar - both are in the same sub-family as is medlar and quince. Grape is different. I smile when you don't see the relevance of individual articles of a TV program getting the 'Wikipedia stamp of approval' in comparison to 'apple oxidation'. It would be easier to get funding to do 'apple oxidaton' research than to do the same thing over an individual episode of The Simpsons! Only on Wikipedia, does such weirdness reign. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and merge any salvageable content into Browning (chemical process). Tim Vickers (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Browning (chemical process) and/or Apple. Far too specific a topic, should be a subheading of one the two previous articles. You wouldn't write a separate article about peeling an orange or how pears get ripe, now would you? This should have been added to Apple or Browning in the first place. VanTucky 00:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/redirect/whatever. I don't have anything against articles about highly specialized topics. I think this topic is notable enough so that an expert (or at least someone with copious amounts of spare time and a good understanding of basic science) could write a good article about it. However, I see nothing salvageable in the current version of the article, and being so specialized it seems unlikely that it will improve anytime soon. It is so filled with inaccuracies and confused writing that I think the best solution is to turn it into a redirect for now. However, if someone writes something better in the future I won't object. --Itub (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.226.220.56 (talk) 04:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial essay. There may be a home forthis somewhere, but not on WP. Ref 1 is "Science Fair Projects", which is where this belongs, not in an encyclopedia.DGG (talk) 04:07, 19 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 is unsourced and fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amerikafka[edit]

Article does not attempt to establish notability; the article has WP:COI editor issues. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fixed formatting for you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ref ^(chew)(do) 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article cites no references, and does not assert notability for this red-link band other than that one of its members was once in the band Nosferatu, a somewhat successful group whose article states they have sold a combined 100,000 units. That's notable enough for that group, but not enough to be transitive through all its members. A Mick Jagger side project would automatically be notable by association, but that's not the case here. A conflict of interest also appears to be at work here. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC) 14:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - in fairness, the band Cureheads, whose debut album this is, are not actually a redlink band at this time. However, that article is prodded as non-notable and with conflict of interest issues. Ref ^(chew)(do) 15:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll read through the obtuse sentence construction, improper punctuation, and multiple interwoven parentheticals, you will see that the album is actually from the band The Hiram Key, a red-link. The Cureheads reference is saying that one of the members of Hiram Key was also a founding member of the Cureheads. It's very hard to tell all that because of the way it's written, but after a few read-throughs I'm pretty sure that's what it's trying to say. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any independent verification for this. The name is shared with a play, which has a lot of GHits, but as far as I can tell this record goes completely unmentioned.Chris (talk) 16:55, 19 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 copyvio from [25] Pegasus «C¦T» 11:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Gill[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Melissa Gill

Non-notable participant of amateur skiing. No assertion of notability beyond that her amateur club has participated in some events. References are all primary sources. Can find no secondary sources covering her or any news coverage. Creator has been proded several times to provide evidence of notability and has not complied. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Redfarmer (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First of all. Rowmark Ski academy is not an amateur ski club. It is prestigious and well known for creating cream of the crop athletes for years. In 5 years, 5 members of Rowmark have qualified for the US ski team. FIS is not an amateur association. Its contenders include; Bode Miller, Benni Raich, Lindsey Vonn and many more world class athletes. USSA and FIS are updated sites that include competitors racing biographies, that include athletes FIS and USSA points, and their updated results thats why there referenced. Skiracing.com is news coverage. It contains updated articles of everything that is going on in the ski world, referencing notablility. I attached several secondary sources of her, including articles from ski racing and anchorage news. Gill is notable because of her outstanding results, being one of the youngest people to qualify for US nationals, and one of America's top racers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissagillfan (talk • contribs) 16:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)Melissagillfan (talk) 16:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; fails notability guidelines for athletes. Has several refs but they're all primary. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://web.mac.com/mgillfan99/Site/About_Me_2.html there 75.165.235.12 (talk) 03:19, 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. An overall agreement seems to have been reached, and the nominator appears to not object to closing this AFD with this result with improvements now made to the article. Camaron | Chris (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh International School, Dammam[edit]

Usually we tolerate articles about non-notable schools, but I am very concerned about recent BLP vandalism on this article. It is not the usual "My teacher smells bad" stuff that is too ridiculous to be called libel -- it is actually allegations of corruption against specific school personnel (e.g. [26]). If the topic were notable, I'd just say semi-protect -- but since this article doesn't really deserve to exist anyway (totally non-notable school), let's just ax it to avoid any needless complications. Jaysweet (talk) 16:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification regarding original nom: Let me be perfectly clear: Vandalism is not the reason why I think this article should be deleted. Vandalism was the catalyst. I do not believe it meets the notability requirements. For whatever reason, Wikipedia culture seems to tolerate articles about non-notable schools even when they are quite deletable. So typically, I would overlook an article like this, even if I thought it was deletion-worthy. The vandalism issue simply spurred me on me to nominate an article that I already had notability concerns about when I first put it on my watchlist.

If you believe the school is notable, please address that below, and if the consensus turns out to be that the school is notable, then I'll just keep an eye on the vandalism and it will not be a problem. But do not say "Vandalism is a bad reason for deletion" because I already know that, and everybody else here knows that, and that's not the point. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete PerNom, If it were to stay it should get a WP:HEY sort of rework. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a Bangladesh school in Saudi Arabia, how notable is that? This achievement can be added for starters. Vandalism is a very bad reason for deletion - we have the tools, protection, blocking etc to deal with that. TerriersFan (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I'm wrong about the notability, then definitely the article should be kept. The vandalism is not the reason for the AfD, it's only the catalyst. I don't want to keep a non-notable article that is having libel added to it; but if I'm wrong and this school is notable, then it should be kept and we'll just stay vigilant about the vandalism. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not buy that the "achievement" you linked to above makes it notable. A couple of students got some awards -- and not just awards that are given out to any students, but if I'm reading the article right, these are awards given to: students in foreign schools based in Saudi Arabia that are affiliated with nations that are part of the British Commonwealth. Phew! Nah, I'd have to see more than that to be convinced this is a notable school. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, vandalism is not a reason to delete an article. The school seems to be notable, so unless something else surfaces I'll stick with TerriersFan on this one. CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: for what it's worth I agree that the awards do not add any notability. But somehow a British-backed Bangladeshi international grade school-high school in Saudi Arabia would seem to be notable just for being, well, that. Maybe I'm wrong there... any figures on this kind of thing? CRGreathouse (t | c) 22:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't quite see how this is anything unusual. The Gulf states are a huge destination for South Asian skilled and unskilled migration. Isn't anything new about it - back in the 70s and 80s, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans came to take those exact same jobs. Some brought kids, so they set up schools too. cab (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with User:Jaysweet that a brief mention about a student who goes to the school in an article about some kids who got high grades on an exam isn't enough to establish notability (nor are a lot of the other fluff articles you can find on GNews like "School holds graduation ceremony" [27]), but there is other non-trivial coverage from the Arab News, mainly due to issues with the school's management board [28][29][30]. cab (talk) 00:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment TerriersFan has done some great work with the article, and with it tidied up like that it is easier to monitor for vandalism. Since consensus seems to be keep, I'll just keep it on my watchlist and hopefully we can keep the BLP vandalism off the page. Any admin reading this, you can probably close the AfD, as I don't see a Delete consensus, and I don't really care that much anymore. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:15, 19 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. Addhoc (talk) 22:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bishoy Kamel[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. Addhoc (talk) 18:48, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Strong Keep I originally speedy-d tagged this, but then withdrew the tag. If, as the article claims, this individual founded a number of churches and has some publications under his belt, then he may indeed be notable. References really should be provided, though-- at least two of them to substantiate claims of founding churches and publications. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: After conducting a Google search on the subject of this article, I believe that notability is indisputable. There are nearly 600 hit on this friar, a good portion of which translate into reliable sources. Most of them are Coptic Church related media. This doesn't even include the more numerous hits in arabic and other languages. Although the article is unsourced and poorly written, the topic more than meets WP:bio. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 02:09, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In which case Pgagnon999, I suggest you add the reliable sources you've found. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; easy enough to do. It appears that the good friar is a saint of the Coptic Orthodox Church; I'd say that more than qualifies him as notable. I added a reference & did a little POV housekeeping, but more cleanup needs to be done. Perhaps you could contribute as well.--Pgagnon999 (talk) 21:41, 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, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notice of this afd posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 22:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep; saints of major churches are generally notable, and there seems to be an ample number of sources.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 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 Non Admin Close Dusti^{talk to me} 17:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muckross Park College[edit]

Article makes no assertion of notability. Google searches reveal nothing that meets the requirements at WP:SCHOOL (proposed guideline). —BradV 15:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, no sources appear to be available to show notability. Despite trying to use evil primary sources (i. e. the school website) I cannot find anything substantial, as much of the site is "under construction". EJF (talk) 17:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Wisdom89 found sources so that's good enough for a keep from me. EJF (talk) 21:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —EJF (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Independent Dominican school founded over 100 years ago! Paste (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- Bláthnaid 19:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Two points: 1.)per WP:SCHOOL, colleges, primary, junior and high schools, and universities are not deleted if notability is not ascertained. They are merged. 2.) [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Merge may be an option for this school. Where should it be merged to?

Comment If it were merged, it would probably be a new section of Donnybrook, Dublin. Adam McCormick (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(2) Those links don't assert notability. The first is a primary source that says they got a new building. The second is an article talking about a school project (not mentioned in the article). The third states they got a new building as well, the fourth is a telephone directory, and the fifth says that a student that went there won an award (also not mentioned in the article). The analysis that the article makes no assertion of notability and I can't find anything notable on Google has not been proven wrong. —BradV 22:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given the tenuousness of the links provided, merge might be in order. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 00:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep A 1901 founded school probably has a minimum of required notability. It needs someone to add that info tho. --Stormbay (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A high school that's more than 100 years old almost certainly has notability somewhere. Hobit (talk) 22:01, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Industrial Systems Research[edit]

This article about a company doesn't clearly indicate how the company is notable. I looked at the company's web page, but they didn't have a section for press on the company. I checked a few of their publications on amazon.co.uk, but couldn't see any mention of ways in which they were notable. I tried doing a google search, but the name of the company made it tough to google- I'm open to the possibility that there are sources that I missed. I searched for "Industrial Systems Research" using Google News and findarticles.com, and couldn't find any reliable sources. Prod removed by creator, who added information but no independent reliable sources. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. This is a consulting business that has collectively written a number of non-notable books. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Editor who started the article has also been spamming the series to other articles, strongly suggesting a COI in addition to notability problems. SFC9394 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. Nothing that states why the company is notable. Reads like a publishers catalog. jonathon (talk) 02:08, 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. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 13:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Savannah Shane[edit]

Character is only ever called Savannah in All Grown Up!, Article creator was mistaking her for another character called Samantha Shane. Both characters are not notable enough to warrent an article on wikipedia! As nom, i vote: Speedy Delete TheProf | Talk 15:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable character, not the subject of any sources. Doesn't meet any speedy criterion though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Ten Pound Hammer. Bondegezou (talk) 18:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN CRUFT muddle Plutonium27 (talk) 16:12, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bedote[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for things made up one day. The meaning of this word given in the two references is not the same as that presented in the article. PROD removed by author without comment. JohnCD (talk) 14:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFT. --jonny-m t 15:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PerNom. It does not seem to be a real term. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PerNom. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and is not for things made up one day. Alleged meaning not supported by references.--Boson (talk) 21:00, 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, non-admin closure - Peripitus (Talk) 02:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rompo[edit]

Non-notable creature from a book. FusionMix 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually, it's a mythological creature referenced in an Encyclopedia of mythological creatures. Dloh cierekim 15:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Attests from here, here, and here. Other Google book hits were not visited. Dloh cierekim 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see...hmm. I still don't think that it needs an article all to itself, perhaps there is a 'list of mythological creatures' article it could be merged into? FusionMix 16:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you're thinking of List of monsters? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legendary creature covered in secondary sources -- that latter's pretty much the definition of notability. Or if you insist, of notability for fictional things. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My rule of thumb is that if it's notable enough for a paper encyclopedia (which has size constraints), then it is notable enough for an unlimited electronic encyclopedia. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 19:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty agree with that rule of thumb. —Quasirandom (talk) 17:32, 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 for lack of verifiable notability. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Metal Observer[edit]

Despite having been flagged, notability has not been established, whilst the only sources are from the subject itself; appears to simply be an online fanzine Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I looked but couldn't find any reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. --jonny-m t 16:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is probably one of the most popular online metal review sites in English. I don't know how to find Alexa ratings, but that might be of interest. Chubbles (talk) 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It may well be, but that is irrelevant. I can't find any third party sources. It may be popular but at the moment it's just an Internet fansite. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to guard against a purge of all citations of this website on Wikipedia if this AfD closes as delete. This is a likely, but inappropriate, possible consequence. Chubbles (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Obviously whether the fansite deserves its own article is a separate issue from whether it should be used as a reliable source. As it happens, if it is in fact just a fansite, I do not believe it should be used as a source. It's not like we have a shortage of (non-self published) print media for heavy metal reviews. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 01:04, 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 merge the three character lists List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars; Mars into the main page. I have redirected the articles; knowledgeable editors are encourage to merge relevant and verified information. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of minor characters in Biker Mice from Mars[edit]

These pages are all an in-universe plot summary/fancruft/otherwise indiscriminate info collection on Biker Mice from Mars. None of these pages is sourced, and despite being tagged since November for notability and sources, no improvements were made. This is also a last minute procedural nom on my part, as I had {{prod2}}'d these pages (except for the last one) without realizing that they'd already gone through AfD before (easy mistake, as they'd been part of a bundle AfD). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Mars (Biker Mice from Mars) into Biker Mice from Mars and keep the rest as sub-articles. --Pixelface (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? You haven't given a reason. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The setting of the show seems like it would fit well in the Biker Mice from Mars article and the other lists are too long to merge. There's nothing wrong with character list sub-articles. "Fancruft" is not a valid reason for deletion. Per the editing policy, this information can be preserved elsewhere. --Pixelface (talk) 15:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, how about unsourced, indiscriminate, and written in-universe, not to mention that these are mostly one-shot characters who aren't likely to have been covered in any sources at all? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cartoon is the source and if something is written in-universe, the solution is to rewrite it or put an {{in-universe}} tag on it. If necessary, all four of the articles can be merged back into the Biker Mice from Mars article. Or are you saying that no information from these four articles would belong in that article? --Pixelface (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, specifically lack of sources and no evidence of notability. Pairadox (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge There are lots of sources to demonstrate notability. Rearranging and editing this material is a matter of content editing not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are lots of books that might be sources. Unless you've actually read them, you can't say that they could be used for the articles. Don't confuse potential with actual. Pairadox (talk) 15:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential is what we are looking for here, rather than perfection. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet nowhere in that segment on perfection does it say anything about ignoring the Verifiability policy. Pairadox (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination is for several articles which cover a mass of material. Is there some specific detail which you feel needs verification? Colonel Warden (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gee, is "the articles" not specific enough? None of them meet verifiability requirements at the moment, and showing a list of books from a google search doesn't bring them any closer to doing so. Pairadox (talk) 17:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took the first character of the list to check verifiability. This is A-bomb and I had no difficulty verifying the information about this character at sites such as this. There's not a problem here that requires deletion.Colonel Warden (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shrink and Merge the 2 characters pages into a single characters sub article. One-off characters probably don't need more than a sentence rather than a explanation of how they affected the plot in the episodes. Merge the Species and Mars information into the main Biker Mice article. There's too much emphasis on plot information, but if it is downsized it should be fine. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggest merging to a single article. I also suggest all those in discussion take a look at this previous AfD for Biker Mice characters Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars) it may shed some light on the arguments surrounding sourcing and notability.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThere are no notable or credible third person sources to justify its notabilityDwanyewest (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the verifiable evidence to justify the character lists for the 1993 version of the Biker Mice show? Dwanyewest (talk) 23:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge per the Colonel above. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment: I don't consider this unsourced; when an article details a published work, it is implicit, but very clear, that the work itself is a source. I express no opinion for or against merger. TJRC (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Mars page into the show's page, and the three LoCs into one. Will ^(talk) 01:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per previous AfD. The Prince (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge all, per the Colonel. If they can be sourced, and it seems that they can, then I see no reason to delete them. Cel ^{Talk to me} 12:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the soruces? The Prince (talk) 19:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Higher up in the discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge per Will's suggestion. Ursasapien (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only information regarding character bios regarding 2006 version of biker mice from mars has reliable third person sources. There are no reliable third person resources for the 1993 version of biker Mice from Mars and please don't say this website[36]. It's a fansite which has not been updated in almost 7 years so is hardly a reliable source of information.Dwanyewest (talk) 21:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Plus while I am discussing whether I believe this article should be deleted which I firmly believe it should be. Please don't refer to the official biker Mice website as a reference for information regarding 1993 version of Biker Mice from Mars. The new version is NOT a continuation of the original series. Its clearly a remake as the back story to 1993 version and 2006 are completely different.Dwanyewest (talk) 21:44, 19 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. Surprised? Consensus is not a votecount. Please see my closing rationale on the talk page before you flame me on my birthday. Thanks. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 07:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Megalithic geometry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was previously deleted in Nov 2007, following a discussion centering on whether (a) the theory itself was 'notable' and/or (b) whether possible merge targets might be. In the end, the merge targets were unavailable or deleted, and so the AfD was also a delete. The article was recreated, with substantial increases in content and referencing, but subsequently WP:CSD#G4'd. Following a reasonable request (from the author) at DRV, and the "substantially identical" requirement in G4 which this article clears the hurdle of, I've restored it, so you now have before you the new version of the article to consider. Abstain myself, but you might study the prior AfD for starting points. Splash - tk 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main issues I think is that this article deals with a one-man theory. In my eyes this is not completely true for it involves Xavier Guichard, the 'inventor' (discoverer) of Salt lines, Scottish professor Alexander Thom, the discoverer of the Megalithic Yard, Alan Butler, the discoverer of the Megalithic Geometry (the one who claims to have understood the connections between Thom and Guichard), Christopher Knight, Butler's fellow writer in 3 books, Robert Lomas, Knight's fellow writer in a book dealing with the Megalithic pendulum and Megalithic geometry ('Uriel's Machine') and Sylvain Tristan, the French author who claims that most ancient capitals are located on Salt Lines and who went further into the investigation of this so-called 'Megalithic geometry.' So the theory seems to involve at least six people from three countries (France, England and Scotland). I included all the references in the article. What is more, Alan Butler is a quite famous, prolific English writer and a professional writer I think (which means he makes a living out of his writing, something rare enough to be included in Wiki in my humble opinion, but the article was deleted as well). Here's the (unfinished) bibliography that I had added in the 'Alan Butler' article:

- Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Warriors and the Bankers: A History of the Knights Templar from 1307 to the present. London: Templar Books, 1998. ISBN-10: 0968356729
- Butler, Alan. The Bronze Age Computer Disc. London: Quantum Books, 1999. ISBN 0-572-02217-4
- Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Templar Continuum. London: Templar Books, 2000. ISBN-10: 0968356761
- Butler, Alan. The Goddess, the Grail and the Lodge. London: O Books, 2004. ISBN-10: 1903816696
- Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Civilization One: Uncovering the Super-science of Prehistory: The World Is Not as You Thought It Was . London : Watkins, 2004. ISBN-10: 1842930958 and ISBN-13: 978-1842930953
- Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Who Built the Moon? London: Watkins, 2005. ISBN-10: 1842931636
- Butler, Alan. The Virgin And the Pentacle: The Freemasonic Plot to Destroy the Church. London: O Books, 2005. ISBN-10: 1905047320
- Butler, Alan and John Ritchie. Rosslyn Revealed: A Library in Stone. London: O Books, 2006. ISBN-10: 1905047924
- Butler, Alan. Sheep: The Remarkable Story of the Humble Animal that Built the Modern World. London: O Books, 2006. ISBN-10: 1905047681
- Butler, Alan and Stephen Dafoe. The Knights Templar Revealed.agpie Books, 2006. ASIN: B000OHHNJ0
- Butler, Alan and Christopher Knight. Solomon's Power Brokers: The Secrets of Freemasonry, the Church, and the Illuminati. London: Watkins, 2007. ISBN-10: 1842931687

Finally, I think that this theory is widespread enough (and notable enough, having been heard of in such well-known papers like the Times and the Guardian, to deserve objective treatment in Wiki. --Little sawyer (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still looks like it merits a passing mention in pseudoscientific metrology or some such. The article as it stands is unsuited to an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC) (closing admin interprets this comment as "delete")[reply]

(An answer to Angus) Let me tell you why I have a slightly different opinion. I’ve read hundreds of books in my life, dealing with hosts of different topics, and many of which dealing with bizarre theories. My humble opinion is that most of these theories are crap or pseudo-science indeed (not to mention the loads of loony theories you can come across the web nowadays). But I do have the feeling that here we’re dealing with something slightly different. Not only do these theories involve different researchers working in three different countries, but also there seems to be too many ‘coincidences’ that are apparently difficult to explain with chance only. Let me give you a few examples. The 366 degrees are claimed to be derived from a 366-day calendar (the Phaistos Disc), and later this geometry would have been simplified into 360 degrees for easier computation. That seems to make some sort of sense. What is more the 366 degrees are echoed by the 366 Megalithic yards that form the Megalithic second (with a staggering accuracy). The 40-year cycles of the calendar (hence 366 days times 40 = 14,640 days) are echoed by Thom’s claim that the yard was divided into 40 inches rather than any other number (hence there were 366 yards times 40 inches = 14,640 Megalithic inches to the Megalithic second). One last example – the Minoans are known to have used a unit today called the Minoan foot, and that foot is exactly one 1000th of a Megalithic second (the Minoans, of course, are the ones who made the Phaistos Disc). Again, I may be wrong of course, but my feeling is that what we have here doesn’t seem to belong to the run-of-the-mill pseudo-science that spawns on the web.--Little sawyer (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect- Regardless of how famous the author is, or how prolific his writing, this is a fringe-theory that has no scientific support. At best, it deserves a few paragraphs in the article about the author. And, even if the article is kept, it would need a significant rewrite to read as an encyclopedic article. Right now, it sounds more like a persuasive essay attempting to convince us of the validity of this research. -- Kesh (talk) 15:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit the article. Two heads are better than one. --Little sawyer (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Needs some rework but possibly still is within the WP:N.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I suppose the DRV rules out speedy G4 deletion, but I still don't see why the previous AfD doesn't apply. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, or possibly merge to Pseudoscientific metrology. It looks like a real-world walled garden. Assuming it's not an elaborate (real-world) hoax, only two people have done work in the field, and the megalithic yard stuff is mathematically incompatible with this megalithic geometry stuff. For example, if the megalithic yard were defined as 1/366³ of the polar circumference, it's not that close to 1/366³ of the equatorial circumference. ~~In fact, it's closer to 1/360³ of the equatorial circumference(!)~~ (It should also be noted that the megalithic yard is "actually" defined as 1/(366×(60×6)×366) of the polar circumference, which would be "significantly" different if the difference between 366 and 360 is significant.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I curiously find myself having some sympathy with your view that all this could be a huge real-world hoax, but on second thoughts I think there are just too many books about it and I don't really see what the authors would be after. But interesting thought all the same. --Little sawyer (talk) 12:23, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge to Alan Butler/Rename 'Alan Butler' and trim appropriately. As a 'discovery' it's fringe/pseudo- science, but if the author is notable (at a glance, I'd suppose he is) a mention of this at his page would be appropriate. CRGreathouse (t | c) 18:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Alan Butler's article has also been deleted and recreated and deleted several times; see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Butler. The most recently deleted version was sourced only to the many publications of Butler himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to comment on the notability of Butler, I'm not well informed enough (and frankly don't care to be). If the article exists at some appropriate point, this content could be merged there. If that article is deleted for WP:N, that's fine too. I'm sure that if at some point the community was to accept an article on Butler as notable, content from this soon-to-be-deleted article could be retrieved by some admin for addition to that hypothetical article. Regardless, I don't think the content is important enough to justify its own article. CRGreathouse (t | c) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable. I don't see any indication that this theory has become more notable since the previous debate. --Lambiam 20:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The original article was deleted on notability grounds, from my reading of the 1st AfD. I realise that the deletion of Alan Butler complicated the matter, but that seems to have also been on grounds of notability. There doesn't seem to be sufficient reliably sourced independent material to establish notability for any topic here. I am not opposed to material being merged into Pseudoscientific metrology or indeed More amazing coincidences involving numbers. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the sources seem to include Alan Butler. Maybe a smerge to his article if he has one, but this is very obviously a one-man theory. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont understand the general attitude. No one talks about the numbers, no one explains why everything works so well. Not only did I write the article in detail, summing up an apparently sound theory involving SIX men (again, NOT ONE man), so I think it would be fair for anyone to discuss the numbers before deleting it. What is more at least two of you are from California and, although I have nothing against the sunshine state, I understand that this British ancient history might be the last of your concern but here in Europe this theory is taken a bit more seriously I think. One more thing, En.Wiki is international, and there is nothing so great as universal knowledge, it is just sad to see so many quickly-written 'delete' by just the few same persons who initially voted for the deletion. There are 6.5 billion people on this planet and it would be sad to delete something like that just because it is not the personal interest of a handful of Wiki admins. Or at least please prove the numbers wrong because as far as I'm concerned I can't, and so far no one (except for Arthur Rubin, but timidly so) has even cared to discuss them. Many thanks. --Little sawyer (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked, in the talk page of one of the deleted articles, whether analysis was done of 366 vs. 360, and did not receive a reply. In fact, I noticed even we mention Tristan moved Alesia away from its (now verified, although it wasn't in his time) archaeological location. That makes the coincidence (if any) rather weak, at best. And it's not 6 men. Only Tristan and Butler appear to be the people working in the field, and they have different analyses. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No one talks about the numbers because it's completely irrelevant to Wikipedia inclusion. Guy (Help!) 22:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arthur Rubin, if there are several people publishing books on it, its notable enough to have an article. That the article lacks coherence is because the subject is an incoherent collection of nonsense, but that doesnt make it un-notable. DGG (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Arthur Rubin's recommendation was "Weak delete"! --Lambiam 07:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And several is awfully close to one in this case :o) Guy (Help!) 22:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know Arthur's conclusion was weak delete. But his argument , however, gave good reasons for keeping it--on the basis of books being published about it by more than one person. the books about it do not agree with each other, but that doe not make the concept non-notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)

I note that there was a prior DRV shortly after the first AFD. Following it, this title was redirected to Megalithic yard and the section Megalithic yard#Megalithic geometry was added to that article. Whatever is done, that article and that section should be attended to as well. GRBerry 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Duly mentioned under Phaistos Disc decipherment claims wuth the rest of the "self-evident" Disc cruft. If there is a favorable reception by third-party reliable sources, that might justify a longer article, but not this one. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A collective answer to everybody: I don't really understand what's going on here, honestly. In my view Wikipedia's aim is to describe objectively checkable facts that have reached a certain notability level, thus providing general information to the public about things that are known to exist in this world. I don't think it should be a pseudo-democratic debate held by a handful of people when there are billions of people living on the planet, otherwise it would be considered as a sort of tyranny, wouldn't it?

a) First of all, the research presented here is notable enough, according to one of you (DGG), for it relies on published material.

b)My writing of the article might not be good enough to suit all the Wiki conditions, but so far NO ONE has been able to show demonstratively that any of the figures might be wrong. So, until proved otherwise, what we have here is one of the greatest mysteries of all times, and that alone would be almost enough to warrant treatment in Wiki, in my opinion.

c) The debate has focused on very simple terms, i.e. notability, and a bit of mathematics, but NEVER on historical grouds. Again, in my view, the chronology presented by the Megalithic geometry authors shows no obvious flaw, so again, on what grounds should it be deleted just because five or six people say so without giving any solid arguments, may I politely ask?

d) Again, I have to stress that there are SIX men involved:

1) Xavier Guichard discovered the Salt Lines, whiich he thought was a geometric system working w/ 360 degrees, but he himself admitted the interval between the lines was too small (which is normal if there indeed were 366 degrees). What is more he was notable enough to have a Wiki article long before this debate started (not my article in the first place).

2) Alexander Thom is probably the most notable of the bunch. He clearly devoted his life to show that the Megalithic people used units of measurements and that they were in their way geometric 'experts' (see all his books dealing with the geometric structure of stone circles in Britain). He might have been wrong, of course, but this is not really the issue here.

3) No need to come back to Butler, who is obviously central to the theory.

4) Christopher Knight has coauthored three books with Butler, and clearly endorses the Megalithic geometry theories.

5) So does Robert Lomas, who in 'Uriel's Machine' clearly endorses them too, the book being devoted to the astronomic capabilities of the Megalithic people, with a full discussion of the Megalithic pendulum.

6) No need to come back to Tristan, who is central to the theory too. He clearly endorses the Megalithic geometry and went on writing a full book about how all the ancient capitals align on the Salt Lines.

Now, even if only one man was involved instead of 6, which is not the case, it wouldn't necessarily mean the article should be thrown away. Some great theories have been ultimately vindicated throughout history and at the beginning they were held by a single man.

e) To finish with this too-long-already note, let me put it this way: by deleting this article, aren't we running the risk of weakening Wikipedia itself, which is supposed to be an easy source for universal knowledge? These books exist, like it or not, and so far I don't see anyone constructively arguing against it half less than I do for maintainaing it. I'm not trying to force my article, just giving you food for thought.--Little sawyer (talk) 11:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC) One last thing, please feel free to edit the article to make it as objective as it should be, I did my best, but I'm far from being perfect.--Little sawyer (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For inclusion of the material in Wikipedia, it is immaterial whether the theory accurately explains many otherwise great mysteries, or is complete hogwash that does not explain anything. It is also irrelevant on the shoulders of how many great people the authors of the theory have stood. What is important is notability. Has the theory been reported on by multiple and independent WP:reliable sources? Butler and Tristan do not count. Thom has written on the MY but is wholly innocent of this 366-based geometry. There are also the Wikipedia guidelines for fringe theories. To properly report on this theory, we also need sources that offer a critical discussion of the theory – which should not be hard to find if it is truly notable. --Lambiam 21:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funny thing is that I'd love to discuss its historical basis and how much explanatory power it has, but the WP guidelines are about notability and other concepts, not these scientific reasons. Now I tend to think the science in the articles is bad as well, but it would be great if it could be discussed on that basis. CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this topic is truly notable, it should be treated as the literary creation of one or more of the listed "discoverers", perhaps Alan Butler. It's not science. Tim Ross (talk) 18:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'It's not science.' Right. But suppose Alan Butler and all the rest of them were right. Then you will have deleted something of primary imterest about our history. Isn't it more logical for you to edit the article so it meets all Wiki requirements of objectivity? Right or wrong, these theories DO exist, that's what I've been trying to say from the very beginning. This is an inevitable fact, isn't it? You can delete a Wiki article without even discussing it apparently, but you can't delete reality. --Little sawyer (talk) 19:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC) By the way you've written two lines on this page only (as compared to 108 as far as I'm concerned). It is very easy to write 'it is not science,' it is much harder to explain why, and even harder to demonstrate why. Why don't you at the very least discuss the subject in detail (historical aspects, mathematical aspects, and so on)? --Little sawyer (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It exists" is not a reason to have a Wikipedia article on the subject. THe subject must meed our notability guidelines, and we're not seeing it here. -- Kesh (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, there are not so many independant sources dealing with Meg. geometry. I could find those though:

1-The Guardian, Peer review of 'Who Built the Moon?' by Christopher Knight & Alan Butler Paul Nettleton, Thursday September 1 2005

2-The Times (precited)

3-Stone Circles and Megalithic Geometry : An Experiment to Test Alternative Design Practices - Author(s) BARNATT J. ; HERRING P. in Journal of archaeological science ISSN 0305-4403, 1986, vol. 13, no5, Publisher Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 1974

4-'Megalithic geometry' (about Thom) in http://books.google.fr/books?id=MfeOkLyZ9KkC&pg=PA378&lpg=PA378&dq=megalithic+geometry&source=web&ots=zhTzM5AvGp&sig=X2_h_s2YSyYVFypJODUxBV9mw7g&hl=fr#PPA370,M1

5-'Megalithic triangles' (about Thom too), Based on the article by M. Beech, Journal of Recreational Mathematics, 20 (3), 1988.

6-Megalithic Science and Geometry, http://www.geocities.com/sk8agrrl/science.htm

7-Alexander Thom, "Megalithic Geometry in Standing Stones", New Scientist, March 12, 1964

8- Radio Iciet Mainetnant, interview of Sylvain Tristan "Les Lignes d'Or" - L'Histoire du Monde : des histoires trafiquées ? - (25.07.05) - 5h.mp3, http://icietmaintenant.info/emissions.php?idNouvelle=16

9-'SacreePlanate' (French magazine), interview of Sylvain Tristan, Aug-Sept. 2007

Little sawyer (talk) 22:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up a few of the publications with "Megalithic Geometry" in the title, which were mostly related to Thom's reserach, and they use the term "megalithic geometry" in a very different sense than the article. The issue treated there is: what geometrical construction method was used to created the circular or elliptical arrangements of stones, like was it that with a loop of chord around two poles moved around while being kept taut, or some other method. 85.107.0.106 (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who you are but you're absolutely correct. Thom never imagined, apparently, that the Megalithic people could have used a 366-degree circle. However, Thom was one of the first to suggest the Megalithic people could have been cognizant with some form of geometric knowledge that they used when building their arrangements, and he based his theory on this precept. I agree that my article doesn't stress that clearly enough, that's why I asked if someone could edit it (you could do it, for example?). The title of the article is 'Megalithic Geometry,' not '366-degree geometry,' so I think that the article could be slightly rewritten to include Thom's research as well, all the more so because Butler includes the Megalithic yard in his theory.--Little sawyer (talk) 07:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC) I've now started to edit the article myself, giving more details about what Thom considered as 'Megalithic geometry.'--Little sawyer (talk) 08:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, except for Arthur Rubin's short analysis of the figures, none of you has been able to offer any counterargument to the theory. No one has even tried to edit the article (for example by giving a few more details on Thom's findings). I had the intimate gut feeling the theory was unassailable. Now the feeling has grown. This complete lack of arguments confirms only one thing - it proves the theory right. --Little sawyer (talk) 08:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to have a gross misunderstanding of what we're doing here: our purpose in AfD is not to argue about the theory itself. All we're trying to determine is if we should keep or delete the article based on Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know this quite well. the only thing is that some comments include sentences such as 'it's not science,' without saying why it is not. I take note of Guy's comments that the discussion of figures is not relevant. --Little sawyer (talk) 12:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, discussion of the figures is irrelevant here, except to the extent they show mistakes indicating lack of scientific review. If the figures are correct, they should be noted outside the walled garden, and some (modern) analysis could be done to determine which of the numbers from (say) 350 to 370 would best fit the observed ancient site locations. If that had been done, I'd consider the results notable. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have finally decided to edit a full paragraph describing what Thom considered as 'Megalithic geometry.' Although this geometry was not regarded by Thom as literally being 366-degree geometry (he apparently never imagined anything like that), Thom was convinced the Megalithic people had astronomical and geometric knowledge and that they used it in their stone structures. As what Butler seems to have discovered is obviously related to the Earth's geometry and to the Megalithic people's stone circles, and as the Megalithic yard is part of Butler's theory (one 366th of an arcsecond), I now believe the connection between Thom and Butler is sort of inevitable.--Little sawyer (talk) 15:47, 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 merge to Ferdinand Magellan. If an article about the circumnavigation voyage is created, it may more appropriately host some of this material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martino de Judicibus[edit]

This article has been created by Mr Dario de Judicibus (Vanity entry already listed for deletion cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dario_de_Judicibus)

There is no evidence about this martino de judicibus in reference history books. There is a major hoax doubt about this entry--Jbw2 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. JBW, your statement is absolutely false. It is evident that your proposal has nothing to do with Wikipedia but it is a continuous attack versus me. There are several historical references about Martino. Here are some of them:

Boyd-Bowman, Peter, "Indice geobiografico de mas de 56 mil pobladores de la America hispanica I. 1493-1519"

Messico, 1985, p.268

A. Pigafetta, "Il viaggio di Magellano intorno al mondo" revisione di James Alexander ROBERTSON, Cleveland USA, 1906, Ed. Arthur Clark, 365 copie
"Roteiro", nella revisione di Andrea da Mosto de "Il primo viaggio intorno al globo" di A. Pigafetta, Roma 1894
A. Pigafetta, "Relazione del primo viaggio intorno al mondo" revisione di C. Manfroni, ed. Cassa di risp. di Verona, Vicenza e Belluno
"Nuovo Mondo: gli italiani", per A. Pigafetta a cura di P. Collo e per G. B. da Poncevera

a cura di P.L. Crovetto, Torino, G. Einaudi ed., 1991/94

--Dejudicibus (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Martín de Judicibus has quite a few Ghits, with at least one books mentioned above available to sample on Google Books. The entry needs to be trimmed though. At least half of the page is more concerned with Magellen's voyage rather than the page's subject. Alberon (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is my WP:HEY standard: I would like to see more references here. The article looks like it is based on a book written by one of his decendants. If this is all factual, and I have no reason to doubt that it is, there have to be reliable sources that are independent of the family. I looked at the ghits, most of them reference this wikipedia article, the writer, or the book. That is why the WP:GHITS section of WP:AADD exists. If these criteria are satisfied, he would seem to be notable enough for inclusion. Otherwise, Delete. Mstuczynski (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My original edit restored. I will thank the anonymous editor not to change the manner in which I comment. Mstuczynski (talk) 18:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification References in the article, not here. Mstuczynski (talk) 15:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I'm doing. I did not know if I could edit an article under investigation, but it looks like I can, so I am adding references.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Quotation from the book on Magellan's circumnavigation Over the Edge of The World (Laurence Bergreen) 2003 ISBN 0-06-621173-5 listing the survivors (incl. de Judicibus) of Magellan's voyage as per the memorial plaque in Sanlucar de Barrameda: In the entire list only Elcano, the captain; Albo, the pilot; Bustamente, the barber; and Pigafetta, Magellan's chronicler, could be considered notable members of the armada's original roster. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All right then, add WP:BIO to my WP:HEY requirements. Mstuczynski (talk) 16:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. if nothing more is known about him than the name and the title of his position, then it should be merged with the article on Magellan. I challenge the author of the article to insert any information other than his being a name on a list. If he gave testimony on his return, what does it say specifically? DGG (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a reasonable proposal. I referenced the research that Danilo did about Martino since most of documents about him are only available on paper. I know by sure that there are ancient books in the Archive of Indias in Sevilla because a friend of mine saw them, but I had not yet a chance to go there. I was able anyway to discover something more from a book of José Toribio Medina. I think that those 18 survivers are important. To return back from the first trip around the world in that period was like going to the moon in the last years of 2nd millennium. We know few of them, so merging could be a good approach until more info will be found. About the fact that Martino was an ancestor of mine: yes, it is true, and i am proud of him. By the way, if it wasn't so, probably nobody would take care to make further researches, as happened for most of the other survivors. I do not think there is nothing wrong to publish his story here, no more if I would the descendant of Pigafetta and I would contribute to his article in wikipedia. i am doing that with my id, so eberybody can check it.--Dejudicibus (talk) 09:22, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can tell you what I found in my researches. I was able to discover that, even if in several books it was called Genovese he was really from Savona, not Genova. Genova was a republic, so saying Genovese is just like saying Italian or French today. I also found the name of father and mother. Father was Italian, but the mother was Spanish. I found documents that says that he arrived safe in Spain, and that he was interrogated by Inquisition (all survivors were interrogated). I know that in the Archive of "Las Indias" in Seville there are documents about the interrogatory, but they can be seen only by a special authorization since they are really ancient. Inquisition was involved because of mutiny. Some of the survivors, in fact, were faithful to Magellan, some to El Cano. They had to collaborate to survive (otherwise not enough people to manage the ship), but as soon as they arrived in Spain, they began to accuse each other. There was a political debate, also to decide who really circumnavigated the globe. Some people said that Magellan was to be mentioned, since he was the leader, but he did not finished the trip. Other people said it was El Cano, since he survived and was of high rank, but it was considered by them a mutinous.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:56, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , the page refer to Dario de Judicibus family page (once more autopromotion - cf. Dario de Judicibus other discussion about this topic)--195.68.44.206 (talk) 11:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please!!!! Stop it! This is ridicolous. Wikipedians should deal only with notability and trueness of content. Most of references about Martino are on paper, not web, so the link to that page is used to refer to bibliography, but I can also copy the bibliography info directly in the wikipedia page. It is a couple of days that you are attacking me everywhere by using a lot of false (and it si easy to demonstrate they are false) statements. I do not have any idea who you are but you look like a troll. Let's go back to facts, ok?--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal to merge Martino and Magellan articles. I may also provide a list of books and researches about Martino and a verifiable bibliography. I would appreciate if merging might be done by someone different from me (possibly an administartor), so that we can stop all those absurd accuses of self-promotion. I will only add the references. Thank you in advance.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:34, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that if I provided references that you can check, that would be easier for administrators to verify them. So I am doing. I am not changing the content of article but only adding references. Please, let me know if you have any concern about.--Dejudicibus (talk) 13:44, 14 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) Tiptoety ^talk 04:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge per DGG. The article's content pertains to Magellan's voyage, the biography content is a trivial wrapper around the voyage based on the fact that his name appears on a list of people who went on the trip. I don't see this amounting to the extensive coverage of Martino de Judicibus as a topic in indpendent secondary sources as required by WP:N. In fact I doubt there's anything here of substance to merge into an article on this voyage, but I do note that the article's defender, User:Dejudicibus agrees with the proposal to merge. Maybe it's time to close it as that, rather than relist? Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge a brief profile into Magellan and redirect. Not independently notable, just barely a plausible search term. I am vastly surprised we do not yet have a separate article on the circumnavigation voyage, though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dhartung. In my opinion we should have an article for the circumnavigation voyage separated from the articles of the various people who participated, as magellano, Pigafetta, El cano, Martino, and so forth. I would recommend to preserve from Martino article the sections about the voyage (chronicle and route) and the images. I designed the images myself, so I can authorize Wikipedia to use them under Common Creative license 3.0 in an article about voyage, if you think they may be useful.--Dejudicibus (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the material available, Martino de Judicibus does not yet seem to deserve a separate article, though I take the point of Dejudicibus that merely by surviving the journey, his achievement was similar to that of those landing on the moon in our own time. The most logical route appears to be to start a new article about the voyage and merge his information into that. Failing that, a merge with Magellan seems reasonable, though in that context it's not clear that more than the existing table is required. Leaving a redirect seems sensible. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:35, 21 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 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Material by Britney Spears[edit]

AfDs for this article:

2nd nomination, first nomination resulted in no consensus due to no reason given by the opening editor. AfD was attempted to be reopened by User:KeeperOTD with this argument "I am adding to the original request for deletion by providing justification. It is a list which is violation of Wikipedia policy, does not explain why it is notable or merits inclusion into Wikipedia, and is not up to Wikipedia standards of what an encyclopedic entry should be. KeeperOTD (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)" I have no comment at this time. Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Utterly non-encyclopedic, full of original research and synthesis. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as being full of original research and possibly unverifiable info. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Entirely non-encyclopedic. --AndrewHowse (talk) 16:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sources, is pretty much original research all the way through Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 17:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is entirely composed of rumors, speculation and predictions. No encyclopedic content seems apparent here. Kesh (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After reading the arguments presented I've settled to the side of delete. I see shades of violations in WP:CRYSTAL WP:OR and WP:RS presented here.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britney Spears bootlegs. Also some of the info can be proven false.--Hiltonhampton (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely a list of unverified rumours and original research. --Angelo (talk) 23:19, 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 --JForget 00:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyonce's Third Untitled Studio Album[edit]

At this time theres is no real indication that this album will be released. The first reference provided has only the shortest of mentions that Beyonce was in a studio at a certain point in time and the second reference is a blog. The article is not verifiable through reliable sources. Falls under WP:CRYSTAL. SWik78 (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. If you can't even verify the album's title, there's probably no need to make a page on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the umpteenth WP:CRYSTAL I've seen in the last hour. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yup! WP:CRYSTAL and fails WP:V. --Pmedema (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. - eo (talk) 20:52, 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. While article asserts significance, it does not verify that she meets Wikipedia:BIO#Pornographic actors. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Xene[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lilli Xene

This article on a somewhat prolific porn star was tagged with PROD however I believe she's notable enough to warrant AFD discussion. I'm pretty certain the article has survived a past AFD however there is no tag to this effect on the tag page. This nomination does not reflect my opinion and in fact I'll be entering my own separate opinion below. 23skidoo (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I feel the individual is notable enough, certainly as notable as others within her sub-genre who have articles. 23skidoo (talk) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no evidence of awards. She has done nothing special. And none of her films have been in the mainstream media. She doesn't meet any of the requirements of WP:PORNBIO. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 14:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She is about as notable as some other adult actresses whose articles have been deleted(including Flame whose article was deleted despite appearing in mainstream film - and had what seemed to be much more relevant bio info). Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. -RiverHockey (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO#Pornographic actors. According to her article, Xene has made multiple appearances on talk shows, including The Jenny Jones Show. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to verify that she satisfies WP:BIO. Can't verify her talk show appearances. Vinh1313 (talk) 04:53, 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 Speedy Delete. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 14:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hartattk[edit]

A nickname without reliable sources for its use. No indication of notability. Not a biography, so technically not A7 speedy deletable (and not any other kind of speedy I could think of). Was prodded, prod removed by author without significant improvement. Huon (talk) 13:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolute WP:FANCRUFT and un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism and cruft. DarkAudit (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As nom and Pmedema. Totally useless. Alberon (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A compacted sphere of hexagonally clustered frozen water drops is melting fast. Plutonium27 (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, no notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:50, 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. Clear consensus that article fails to verify notability in spite of good-faith efforts to locate reliable secondary sources. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

C & C Market Research[edit]

Spammy unsourced article about non-notable research firm; suspect COI from the tone of IP remarks on talk page; fails WP:COMPANY Orange Mike | Talk 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dude every remark on the talk page by an ip is me, as i cant login to every computer when i access it, all the time, if wikipedia doesnt make me (see: waste of time)) 70.178.71.123 (talk) 01:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)karthic420[reply]

Delete. Per the discussion on the article talk page, even if their work is confidential, their success and favorable reception from their clientele should stand out notably somewhere, somehow. It does not. Kill it. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. This article about a non-consumer research firm is referenced only to directories. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above; I've seen these guys in a few shopping malls but they don't appear to be the subject of any third party coverage. Possibly A7 for a non-notable company. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- response - Cobalt put a notability tag on 'em; no help. Prodded it, and one of the two s.p.a.s who WP:OWN this removed it; so it was taken to AfD. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It was also speedied by Pedro (talk · contribs) on 08:07, March 12, 2008;but then he restored it at my request because I wasn't done trying to find resources for it. I could not. See History. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as written is an ad. The only sources provided are themselves and a couple of directories. No indication of any reliable, verifiable, or independent coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails a reasonable look at WP:N.Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (unless sources found) - I tried too. We gave it an honest shot but nobody has found evidence of notability.Wikidemo (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, since i created the article, but already one person above said they know who we are, and are in thier local shopping mall. One random guy from half a dozen replies. That's already notable. Spam/ad appearance has been removed, and in response to the guy saying we're a non-consumer research firm, that's blatently false, C & C is a market research field service firm, (by defination that is consumer research data collection) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.71.123 (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See the user's comments on the article talk page. Karthic420 (talk · contribs) and 70.178.71.123 (talk · contribs) are the same person; no evidence of deceptive sockpuppetry found. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: by "non-consumer" I meant, not that they don't do consumer research, but that the service is not marketed to a mass consumer base outside of the group of businesses that conduct market research. End-user consumer products and services are likelier to be notable than products and services marketed chiefly to other businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment one guy going "I know who they are" is not an acceptable assertion of notability. You need multiple, reliable, verifiable sources that are independent of the subject per both WP:N for notability, and WP:RS for those sources. The article does not meet those guidelines. DarkAudit (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's just an ad. Rien (talk\stalk) 14:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom. Paste (talk) 10:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:02, 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 Speedy delete by User:RHaworth, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"lakas socialism"[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"lakas socialism"

Reads like an essay full of OR and POV. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gives no context or reference to anything, apparently unrelated with the normal use of the word "lakas". Gorgonzola (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is WP:OR. Fails WP:V and is WP:MADEUP. I don't think we should leave missinformation like this up for 5 days. This should be deleted quickly.--Pmedema (talk) 13:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense; I'm tagging it as such, unless someone objects. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:26, 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, Notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaka Jarc[edit]

Not notable. One of millions of singers. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any independent, reliable sources on him by searching Google. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to show that he passes WP:MUSIC, or any other guideline. No sources to even prove that he exists. DarkAudit (talk) 14:23, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eyeceeou[edit]

Notability unknown. Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sources, so therefore fails WP:N. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I can't tell if he passes WP:MUSIC or not, because the only references provided are non-English. Many editors to the English Wikipedia do not speak multiple languages, and as such could not vouch for the reliability of the sources provided. Guidelines do not require English sources, but they do expect translations to be made available. DarkAudit (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This source cites some well established Slovene rappers: Trkaj, Klemen Klemen, Kosta, N'Toko and another group of then almost unknown people that also contributed to a prominent rap compilation published in 2004: Medz'l, Eyeceeou, Laganee, Unknown. He has also been the first rapper from Maribor (as opposed to Ljubljana) to be able to publish an official rap solo disc.[37] On second thoughts, perhaps this article should stay here. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable, even says he is still "underground." -RiverHockey (talk) 19:48, 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. Non-notable band without independent sources to verify its notability. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 05:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lent0[edit]

Non notable band that fails WP:MUSIC. No tours, no label, and no sources. The one cd they did release was with another non notable band. Delete Undeath (talk) 12:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I can find some reliable and independent sources, but I'm still unsure of the notability. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if there is in fact non-trivial, independent coverage. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete under A7. Rudget . 13:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Myspace and their own site are not reliable sources. Releases and the notability of the label do not pass WP:MUSIC. DarkAudit (talk) 14:33, 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 merge. I have redirected to List of minor characters in the Hannibal series. Knowledgeable editors are encouraged to merge relevant, verified inforamation. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Miggs (character)[edit]

I do not think this admittedly "very minor" character from The Silence of the Lambs is sufficiently notable to have his own article, which would require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". PROD removed by author, saying "this article is necessary for people researching characters and storylines from the American crime fiction genre". A previous article on the same character was deleted at AfD here. JohnCD (talk) 12:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The character gets lots of mentions and so the article should be retained as a redirect at least. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Silence of the Lambs as per Colonel Warden. Too minor for its own page but not too trivial for a mention. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty much everything in this article is already in the The Silence of the Lambs (novel) article and no articles link to this one. --Pixelface (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As Pixelface says, it's already in the The Silence of the Lambs. Wipe it away and redirect it to there. --Pmedema (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge per the Colonel. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added five quick refs. You could probably find 10 more if you want. Not sure why so many reliable sources exist for him, but they do. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there's any content worth keeping, merge. -- Ned Scott 09:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of minor characters in the Hannibal series, I don't think this even requires an AfD, pretty uncontroversial redirect if you ask me. The Dominator (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Dominator. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 20 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maccabi Tel Aviv (basketball) past rosters[edit]

Poorly sourced list of former rosters. Non-encyclopedic content. BanRay 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. All-time rosters are valid lists. --Howard the Duck 12:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and as per nom, uncyclopedic content. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep needs references badly, but rosters for fully professional teams are considered notable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 12:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Allowing all-time rosters for only American basketball teams would be terribly US-centric. matt91486 (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - All-time rosters exist for most NBA teams as it is noteworthy information on a professional basketball team. The article can be more properly referenced (which I intend to do!!). I don't think the article is an indiscriminate collection of information. Cheers, AWN2 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming the AfD does not go ahead, I will provide references for each team roster. Cheers, AWN AWN2 (talk) 06:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - four votes to keep, go ahead BanRay 10:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sportin, 14 March 2008

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 13:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man utd anthem[edit]

WP:OR, WP:V, WP:N, WP:COI, just pick one. There was no speedy category for "things made up in school one day" скоморохъ 11:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can't find any possible secondary sources for this, sounds like OR to me. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 12:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failure of every policy I can think of. Made me chuckle though ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I tagged it for speedy deletion - no need to even nominate this kind of thing. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:48, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Grešovnik[edit]

Autobiography. Not notable enough. Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks like a resume, Article doesn't look to be able to be improved much futher. -Jahnx (talk) 11:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For goodness sakes, not another Slovenian non-notable! I mean, 'Researcher at the Centre for Computational Continuum Mechanics, Ljubljana, Slovenia'? Fails WP:N. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO. No independent sources to show that this person is notable in any way. DarkAudit (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless evidence is provided that the two bluelinked software packages he is claimed here as notable for writing, Inverse and IOptLib are themselves notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 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, Notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Predictor pro[edit]

Appears to be a software product. Google search is not illuminating, giving the product's homepage, as well as sundry download sites and press releases. Nothing there to indicate any particular notability. Note that there is another software product of the same name that is a "talking word prediction program". This software also would not appear to be notable. However, there is enough doubt in my mind to take it here and not to speedy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N as there aren't enough WP:RS. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This could almost be speedy as db-context. Fails WP:N for sure. --Pmedema (talk) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's either a sport prediction game or word prediction software but neither of those appear to be notable, and the article has no sources. --Pixelface (talk) 16:12, 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. Canley (talk) 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prefects Board of SMK Bandar Tun Hussein Onn[edit]

non notable, and probably unverifiable by independent reliable sources Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google not bringing up anything, and even if it did, these types of things should be merged into any main articles it might have. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very little to tell you what it is. Nothing to tell you where it is. No sources to back any of it up. It looks like it's a student organization at a school somewhere, probably in Asia. Even then, there's nothing to show that it's in any way notable. DarkAudit (talk) 13:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and preferably before we start getting lists of milk monitors too Plutonium27 (talk) 16:54, 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 redirect. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary human habitability[edit]

A hypothetical article, full of OR, few sources, and seems more like an essay or research project than an encyclopedia article. Jmlk 1 7 10:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be completely original research and unsourced. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 14:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On second thought, redirecting to Planetary habitability might be a better idea. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is uncited and unreferenced. I think this topic has potential to be a good article and so here is my WP:HEY. It's been tagged as needing citations and for WP:OR since January. I would say that if the editors of this article want to keep it, then cite the possible original research. If not then Delete. --Pmedema (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Planetary habitability, which is a featured article. I suppose some of the information in this article could be merged there by someone familiar with the subject. --Pixelface (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep It has merit but the execution is pretty poor. Has satisfied WP:N and would be a great article with some hard work by a WP:HEY type of contributor. Golgofrinchian (talk) 16:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the FA Planetary habitability, which covers the same subject material and more. This article does seem to be rather heavy on lists and anecdotes rather than on treatments of the subject by reliable secondary sources; nevertheless I'm sure those editors who have worked on this article would be most welcome to contribute there. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge images, if they meet FA criteria; otherwise redirect.—RJH (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Create a new section of planetary habitability about humans. BlueEarth (talk) 21:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR and I don't think it can be improved upon exclusive of Planetary Habitability. A redirect would just be an acceptance of the titular hair-splitting caused by the manifestly inferior and the unnecessary. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't voteMore of a note, the page has merit, but no real sources, i removed; 2 sections that were pure unsourced, basicly, it has merit.--Jakezing (talk) 13:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article needs a lot of work, admittedly, but it was created to contrast the abuse of the Planetary Habitability article, and it was left here for other editors who where interested to have their turn at improving it. If you believe you have more in common with bacteria than other people then by all means get rid of it. But it isn't Original Research anymore than the Planetary Habitiability article is.
If you can't contrast the ideas in seperate articles then you might as well just have a list of source references and no article(s).
It is definately a WP:HEY that will benefit the encyclopedia. You're forgetting the part of the five pillars that says this is an "Edit Now" place, whereas there is nothing there supporting your "Delete Now" mentality. Improve it rather than knock it, it has great potential.
GabrielVelasquez (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC). . . . . PS. The Planetary habitability article is about liquid water and planet types; This encyclopedia is missing an article that talks about the limits of human tolerance to extraterrestrial conditions!! which is more important than where bacteria might survive... "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Wikipedia:Ignore_all_rules... ...GabrielVelasquez (talk) 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - good view and well said "GabrielVelasquez" Pearll's sun (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Redirect this article with Planetary habitability , or the member who created this article may be asked to do so . , the aim of the member is good and bright . deleting is highly unwise . Pearll's sun (talk) 01:16, 21 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Pandini[edit]

Borderline speedy, but does claim limited notability - ie an award winning production (a 3 minute short, in fact), but doesn't state what award (neither does imdb). Delete as non-notable actor. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 09:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Actors appearing in ads and shorts aren't notable IMHO. Littleteddy (roar!) 12:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Depending on the award, being in that short film could be a valid claim notability, however that fact is unreferenced and subject to removal, and otherwise Andy seems to be non-notable. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 13:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent secondary sources so fails WP:N; the only web presence is either his own website or his attempts to get casted. Chris (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'm notable or not, but I've added some sources to the entry ... no problems if you want to delete it though - it was kindly added by a colleague of mine, but I'm not precious! Andy Pandini (talk) 11:21, 20 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 00:26, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Na Mas Pangit[edit]

Mere announcement of a TV series isn't notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. A report must state that the TV series is in the filming stage already. (I know I'm using WP:FILM's criteria but it is basically the same thing.) --Howard the Duck 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and for lack of ANY references. Starczamora (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Come back when the series has been created. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. K im u 19:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -Danngarcia (talk) 01:23, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Utoy (TV series)[edit]

Mere announcement of a TV series isn't notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. A report must state that the TV series is in the filming stage already. (I know I'm using WP:FILM's criteria but it is basically the same thing.) --Howard the Duck 07:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, and for lack of ANY citations. Starczamora (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another Phillippine TV AfD that has a nonexistant series. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. List of programs broadcast by ABS-CBN gives a citation for it from the ABS-CBN website. It will also air on The Filipino Channel and some other Philippine-related channels. However, ~~this article is direct copyvio from the ABS-CBN website.~~ --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the article is copyvio, not all. The questions and so on in the article are speculation. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:13, 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 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nagai-Aida[edit]

Mere announcement of a TV series isn't notable enough for a separate Wikipedia article. A report must state that the TV series is in the filming stage already. (I know I'm using WP:FILM's criteria but it is basically the same thing.) --Howard the Duck 07:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom (and looking how crazy it is to refer everything from a single source). Starczamora (talk) 07:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the third Phillippine TV series I have commented on and my comments have been the same every time. WP:CRYSTAL! Littleteddy (roar!) 13:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another WP:CRYSTAL violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karosel 2D[edit]

Some new way of playing Bridge that doesn't seem to be well-known, hence unnotbale. brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete the only published writing on it appears to be by (or heavily inspired by) its author (therefore non notable) who incidentally is the editor of the article (therefore original research). Abtract (talk) 08:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - bidding systems don't belong here. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I disagree. If they are notable then certainly they belong here as, for example, chess openings do. TerriersFan (talk) 23:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Although the article is written by the developer, that doesn't necessarily make it OR or not-notable; it is, however, a COI which raises those possibilities. I also disagree with the notion that bidding systems don't belong here. What is necessary is that it is NPOV, V, and NOR. On that, I am undecided; it has been published in American Contract Bridge League's Bridge Bulletin and on the "Bridge Guys" website but the article is not written clearly enough for me to understand and it is not well-enough referenced to reliable sources to dispel POV, V, and OR concerns. Happening upon the article, I tagged it as lacking some necessities and made a request for help from WikiProject Contract bridge. They seem divided as to whether it is notable but one editor promised to do a clean-up in the future. DoubleBlue (Talk) 14:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of people invent bidding conventions. The question is is anybody using it? The answer seems to be no. No Ghits, when even the Little Major, a wacky one from the '60s, gets some. Clarityfiend (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been published in the ACBL Bulletin (clearly a reliable source) and is on the BridgeGuys website, which is independent and fairly reliable. Yes, the article has issues with COI, OR, etc., but those can be resolved. Unlike LittleTeddy, I believe that there should be more bidding systems here, but am not sure to this level of detail, particularly if not all of the details have been published. But there is no specific established consensus on this issue. Ma^t_chups 18:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable in my view, for the reason given by Clarityfiend. Almost no-one apart from its inventor seems to be using the convention. JH (talk page) 21:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no secondary sources; fails WP:N. Article content just lists rules and/or strategy; Wikipedia is not a game guide. Percy Snoodle (talk) 07:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a secondary source, as mentioned above. To the extent that the article says, "you should play this way," it is a game guide. But to the extent that it describes in an NPOV fashion (and I agree that work is needed there) an established convention that other people play, it is encyclopedic and belongs. Ma^t_chups 12:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it is worthy of deletion, I won't fight you after this post. Almost no one plays Kaplan-Sheinwold anymore (as relay and canape systems are limited to very high levels of competition by ACBL regulation), yet you leave it alone. A few of you even vilify me for posting my own article. Some sanctimonious person also called it my "personal hobby horse" on the talk page for my article. From my end, that's almost crossing the line of objectivity. The sophistry of some of your arguments is laughable, as well. The funniest of all is the "well, he posted it, so it should be deleted as violating NPOV but if my friend posted the EXACT SAME article on my behalf it would at least not violate THAT provision."

On a side note, the reason I included the full conventional treatment is that when I listed merely the basics, the article was considered too small to even be a stub and was simply linked to the article "Contract Bridge." If you think that simply listing my article under the heading of "Bridge conventions" or "Bridge Systems" and not generally (which was my intent all along), then that is certainly OK with me.

Lastly, I have a comment about notability. We have to have the article referenced in a work separate from the source material. When it comes to things like bridge, what sources on point would NOT be relevant to the source material? Even the New York times doesn't print stuff about the use of Stayman or Jacoby Transfers, except in its Bridge column, which is NOT separate from the source materials. Above, someone noted that bridge conventions are like chess openings. Almost nothing has been written about the Sicilian Defense or Ruy Lopez that is NOT in a chess book, so how does this NOT violate the "notable but separate from the source material" provision?

Anyway, this old curmudgeon has blathered on enough. I've said my piece. As Yoda said, "delete or not delete. There is no try."^[1] TheKurgan (talk) 14:11, 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 Nom withdrew Afd. I'm not completely sold on her being notable, but Sbowers3 has shown enough that I am willing to give the article a second chance. It does need to be cleaned up and many of those non-trivial links need to bye bye, but that's not for AfD.Balloonman (talk) 03:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen[edit]

Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is a non-notable person who has been spamming the Military Brat article for quite some time with her self published books. This article was written by User:Booksforbrats---which happens to be Ferguson's trademark. Her (auto)-bio it indicates, "Ferguson-Cohen established publishing company Little Redhaired Girl Publishing company to publish and distribute her titles internationally." In other words, the books are self published. Little Redhaired Girl had about 412 hits on Google and according to the companies profile only publishes these two books. Amazon ranks her books as numbers ~~445,291~~, ~~95,751~~ looks like this book moved up 350K this week---but at that level it probably means she sold a book or two---and in 2 hours she's dropped down 25,000 spaces and 2,262,453 on their list of top sellers. Also, note how she has included herself as being featured by and a contributor to the "Complete Idiot's Guide to Jokes." I suspect that she might have a brief passage or a joke in the book, but I couldn't validate this on any website.Balloonman (talk) 07:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Ridiculous COI issues. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vanity nonsense --Orange Mike | Talk 13:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither her nor the books are notable, and most of the page reads like an advert for the books. Alberon (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whopping great claims, none of them sourced. NN/vanity all over the shop Plutonium27 (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not Michelle Ferguson-Cohen and hope you do not consider my contributions to be spam. The website for the book series is www.booksforbrats.com. It is not little redhaired girl. I'm not sure of the statistics for the website. They are distributed via Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Environments, Baker & Taylor and Borders. As well as being distributed to governmental and FRG orgs. It appears the book's ranking are distributing throughout several editions. While her bibliography is not extensive, the entry is in honor of her pioneering work on behalf of the military community. She is akin to Mary Edwards Wertsch, except on the literary side instead of academic. The two books she authored and published happened to be the very first children's picture books for the minority community of military brats. They specifically help children coping with deployment of a parent. While many who are not in the military community may consider this "vanity", this was a major milestone for children in the military community. It's not unusual to recognize the author and publisher for her contributions. This entry has also been selected for inclusion in the Military History project and her linguistic reclaimation of the term "Brat" being used commercially was included in the Military Brats entry. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Jokes is an anthology of 200 working comedians that includes material from Ferguson-Cohen. I do not think it is relevant to the entry and have deleted it. The complete list of contributors is not available online. User:JSane 14 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but comparing her to Mary Edwards Wertsch is just laughable. And lest you think that I am unfamiliar with the military brat, please note who the principle author is on all of the articles on military brats.Balloonman (talk) 06:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should also be noted, that you make the claim that This entry has also been selected for inclusion in the Military History project and her linguistic reclaimation of the term "Brat" being used commercially was included in the Military Brats entry. Inclusion in the military history project does not confir notability (any article making the claim to the military is included. And her presence in the Military Brat article is consistently removed as non-notable spam.Balloonman (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I realize this is not necessarily a democratic process and you are superior to me in the heirarchy, but I will also try addressing the criteria you are using and some of facts to ensure their accuracy, since accuracy is important to you. Of course, I never disputed your knowledge of military brats, but this is also an article about an author of books for young children. Your first contribution to this article was a request for deletion 2 days ago. I would be very curious to hear from other contributors who made positive contributions to this entry before it is deleted. Obviously, I'm not the first person to contribute here.

I'm not offended, but confused, a childrens book can be just as important to a community as an academic work. To suggest Ferguson-Cohen's contributions are "laughable" is a bit harsh and sounds personal. In fact, giving a voice to the young children in the community was a major shift and these books were the first to become avaialable to librarians, though many followed. Please note that the author has been included in a a multitude of press and government articles on military brats, some of which have been deleted from this article.

Many early childhood educators and psychologists have noted these books in their work. For many children and people who serve children in the military community, seeing a military brat featured in a children's book was a huge turning point. It's relevant that this minority population was finally represented in the commercial media.

I am not the only person who has contributed information on Ferguson-Cohen's use of the term Brats in the Military Brats article. In fact, I am a recent contributor and there have been lots of prior entries. I don't see all of them being made by "Booksforbrats" as indicated above.

Before besmirching "self-published" authors, you should know Mary Edwards Wertsch is also the owner of Brightwell Publishing which publishes her books, the same way Little Redhaired Publishing does for Ferguson-Cohen's books. On the childrens book front, Sandra Boynton is another childrens book author many of my colleagues consider important. She owns most of her own publishing rights and has her own publishing company. Upon checking her Boynton's web statistics. Her website does not receive many hits. This concept of being "self-published" does not appear to prevent her from having an auto article on Wiki. Christopher Paolini the author of Eragon "self-published" his book. There is a great article by a childrens publishing professional about the outdated notion of referring to "self-publishing" as vanity press here. "Vanity Press" authors are not able to assess and mass produce inventory [[38]]. It might interest you to know that Beatrix Potter's The Adventures of Peter Rabbit was "self-published" [[39]]. But since so many self-published authors have auto articles in Wiki. I wonder if this criteria only relevant to this author and this article?

As for the relevance of the criteria, big publishing corporations bet on books they believe will be commercially viable hoping a few will return big profits. Unlike small publishing houses or "self-publishers" as you call them, major publishing corporations use agressive distribution and marketing strategies and often inflate their sales figures. They are not motivated by the importance of the art, just the impact of their actions on tehir stock prices. I am not sure why the decisions of this corporate elite is the standards by which Wiki decides importance or relevance. The importance of Ferguson-Cohen's actions and her titles, were that her small company forced big publishers to recognize this market and readership as valid. Several big publishers quickly pushed out similar books after seeing the success of Ferguson-Cohen's titles and the potential market she revealed in the military community.

Since sales numbers seem important to you. I wanted to be sure they are correct. Also, I would never deny Wertsch's importance to the community though her book only ranks at #858,905 in Amazon. I double checked Amazon and Daddy, You're My Hero!- 0972926445 is currently listed in the sales rank at #66,387 (I believe your ranking refers to an earlier edition). Mommy, You're My Hero! is at #556,089. Based on your criteria the small number of children whose mother's are soldiers might make the book irrelevant, but I disagree, that's like suggesting childrens books for Native Americans are unimportant. Jingle Dancer a similar childrens picture book for Native American children is ranked at #64,577 in Amazon. It's author Cynthia Leitich Smith has an autobiographical article on Wikipedia. Ian Falconer's book Olivia is listed at #1,607,506. Gary Soto writes books for Latino children (He is also a poet) and his most popular children's title is listed at #315,319 in Books.

Amazon is by no means the only place these books are sold. I know Operation Military Kids (also noted in Military Brats) uses these books, as do many FRGs, schools and military daycares, so you know people are buying them direct instead of retail.These numbers are not bad considering they were released 7 years ago and there are less than 1 million military brats in this readership range. Most major publishing companies consider any book that sells 10k a success. Clearly there are more than that in the marketplace.

The only negative comment in any entry about the author I could find aside from yours had no Author signature. It was also factually inaccurate, suggesting these were not the first commercially published books. Since I cannot prove a negative, perhaps you can cite the source that indicates an children's picture book that was commerically published earlier.

Daddy, You're My Hero! won the first children's book award from the Military Writers Society of America. [40]

Additional references found via a simple Google search show the author to be very "notable". See numerous references added to the artice including feature stories on the books and interviews with the author in Stars & Stripes, The Washington Times, The Colorado Springs, Knight Ridder Tribune News Service (Picked up by Chicago Honolulu Advertiser, Tribune Arizon Republic, etc.), and Fox News amongst others. I also found numerous academic and medical sources. --JSane (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A news article where the author cited Michelle (and another author) about the rise in popularity of books on military brats. The article includes, The National Military Family Association’s Web site now lists 28 books “for children living the military life.” Are the authors of all of those books notable?

Short "book review"---should note that the "book review" uses the same language as is found in other articles--eg it looks more like a press release.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Entirety of section dealing with Michelle or her books, Daddy You're My Hero and Mommy You're My Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, Published by Little Redhaired Girl Publishing (www.booksforbrats.net): A book designed to help kids (ages 4-8) deal with deployment of their father or motherBalloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of books dealing with military/deployment of the parents. This does nothing to establish notability of the author--unless you content that every other author on this list meets notability. Oh wait, this is the list of books referenced above!Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of books, with a short description of These board books address deployment from a child’s viewpoint in a comforting, reassuring way. Recommended by the Military Child Education Coalition, DoD Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools, Iraq War Veterans Organization, USAA, and the American Press Institute. A good way of encouraging discussion about and pride in the military parent's service. 2002 Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to sign up for this one...Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No reference to Michelle or the books.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the reference: If you know a young child whose mother or father has been sent overseas, you may want to know about this story book for children by Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. It comes in two versions, "Daddy, You're My Hero," and "Mommy, You're My Hero." Amazon.com also has other books for kids whose parents are deployed.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently she was interviewed on a radio program. The nature or context of said interview is unknown, this was a press release/schedule of upcoming radio shows. This was also a few months before the release of her second book, thus it may have been part of her publicity campaign?Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article about an upcoming book. Remember The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entirety of the section dealing with Michelle, Michelle Ferguson-Cohen first created her Books for Brats children’s books five years ago. Since then, The Washington Times has called them “Dr. Seuss for military brats.” One is called Daddy, You’re My Hero! and the other, Mommy, You’re My Hero!. Also check out her website for e-cards and other goodies for educators and parents.

A blog, thus not a reliable source. But the two sentences in the blog essentially said that a volunteers kid was familiar with her book.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again a list of books, this does not establish notability, it only confirms that the books actually exist.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mini bio of Michelle as she was apparently invited to Ft Benning for some event. I should note that *I* have a bio online of comparable length for an event where I've been asked to be the guest speaker, but that does not make me notable.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The extent of this website, Michelle Ferguson-Cohen first created her Books for Brats children’s books five years ago. Since then, The Washington Times has called them “Dr. Seuss for military brats.” One is called Daddy, You’re My Hero! and the other, Mommy, You’re My Hero!. Also check out her website for e-cards and other goodies for educators and parents.Balloonman (talk) 05:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Putting aside Balloonman personal issues with Booksforbrats I would like to point the following:
- Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is reasonably known in the military community especially in the world of educators and librarians. I think the article provides multiple references – so I will not repeat them here.
- Michelle Ferguson-Cohen is especially recognized for writing a book for children of mothers-soldiers.
- The fact that Balloonman is a contributor to the Military Brat article does not make him an expert on this topic.
- Please refer to [[41]] before suggesting this drastic step here. It specifically states that deletions should not be made based on personal dislike (“non-notable person who has been spamming ….” -sounds like a personal attack to me especially when no proof is provided). The policy also recommends that pages that can be improved should not be nominated for deletion (perhaps Balloonman can help there?).
- Please refer to [[42]] as to what consists of a notable author. Ferguson-Cohen is clearly a notable author - see multiple references and reviews in article.

--RageNot (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this is Ragenot's first and only edit. A few articles does not notability make. Being the author of a book in the top 500,000 and top 2 million on Amazon's list does not meet WP:BIO Balloonman (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Wiki defines a multiple criteria for notability and Ferguson-Cohen meets a few (for WP:BIO: several independent secondary source material – some in depth). I did not find Amazon ranking as one of the criteria, is this Balloonman own definition? Notably, at the time I am writing these lines Ferguson-Cohen is ranked #52,068 on Amazon for [Daddy you’re My Hero] something that Balloonman for some reason misrepresents. I must admit that I feel silly even bringing it up – since it is ridiculous to assume that sales on one retail website (or total sales for that matter) are the only measure for notability. One can easily find other authors, even very famous authors (including some of Balloonman favorites) with significantly lower ranking – which BTW constantly change over time. As for a “few articles does not notability make” – I disagree, I see that JSane added more than a few, and I think that Balloonman has a Yoda complex (truthfully, I actually liked the anastrophe :)). Again – this is a very narrow read of wiki standards. --RageNot (talk) 04:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Striking !vote as duplicate to above. Also, watch out for WP:Civil, personal attacks are not appreciated on wikipedia.Balloonman (talk) 04:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note:

Notability is not a subjective concept on Wiki. According to Wikipedia:Notability Wiki requires the following to meet Basic Criteria: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." The author has clearly establihed notability based on that criteria. She also meets the Additional Criteria established by Wiki as an author and Creative Professional, having "originating a significant new concept" a commercially published children's picture book to help kids coping with deployment of a parent in the military.

All material in this article has a reliable, published source as per Wikipedia:Citing_sources

Also, your Amazon facts are incorrect. You continue to insist that Daddy, You're My Hero is ranked 2million and have now repeated that inaccurate fact twice without citing a source. The book is clearly ranked at #46,561.

I normally wouldn't spend so much time commenting, but I after receiving the notice of deletion, I devoted a great deal of time researching references and addressing comments made regarding criteria for deletion, assuming they would be responded to with respect and logic. This deletion demand is Ballonman's first and only contribution to this article. I would respectfully request that Ballonman please cite his sources in further statements given his erroneous and baseless comments so far.

I'm unsure what the 'Military Brats' article has to do with this author's autobiography, Balloonman claims the author has been "spamming" the Military Brats article. Upon inspection of its history, I see that nobody under the author's name or 'Booksforbrats' as you claim has "spammed" or even made a contribution to the Military Brats article. In fact, Balloonman has made a majority of contributions and virtually all of the edits. Please cite a source for your accusations that the author has "spammed" 'Military Brats'. It's important to be careful when making potentially unfounded accusations and slanderous comments about article subjects as per Wiki standards.

I see that 'Booksforbrats' initiated this article, but I do not see any further contributions. However, I see a variety of contributions from authentic authors that I would not dare discredit. --JSane (talk) 04:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Balloonman, Please cite your sources for this statement. "Amazon ranks her books as numbers 445,291, 95,751 looks like this book moved up 350K this week---but at that level it probably means she sold a book or two and 2,262,453 on their list of top sellers." OMK alone has purchased thousands through their chapters and grant sourcing, please see cited reference in article. If you continue to make these sorts of remarks you are vergining on contentious or slanderous remarks that require citation as per Wiki policy. From "Daddy, You're My Hero!" Amazon.com Sales Rank: #46,561 in Books (See Bestsellers in Books)

Popular in these categories:

20 in Books > Children's Books > Educational > Explore the World > Fiction > United States
99 in Books > Children's Books > People & Places > Family Life > Parents > Fiction

--JSane (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your link, and you do have a link that has a lower level than the one that I provided---But before you start threatening with legal action please check the links I provided which clearly showed the 2.2 million-rather than claim that I didn't provide a link. AS for her rankings in those convoluted categories... that's irrelevant as she is still non-notable.Balloonman (talk) 06:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Balloonman for the Yoda reference - this was intended in good humor - but i am sorry if i offended you. As you pointed out i am new to wiki and still learning the ettiquete. I would also ask that in return you be both civil to me and to others (especially the subject of this article - "sold a book or two"?????) --RageNot (talk) 04:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doing your work for you Balloonman. That 95,751 Ranking is the Mommy, You're My Hero! Title. The Daddy, You're My Hero! Title is at #46,561. I'm still not sure what accounting you used to come up with "one or two books" sold, but it doesn't appear to be cited or even relevent to the aritcle. Please make an effort to contribute factual information instead of subjective attacks that are not relevant to the article's status. You also have still not proposed a reason for deletion as per Wiki standards that meet deletion criteria. If you still wish to have this page deleted, edit the page to include your reasoning as part of the code in the "reason" field as per Wiki standards, instead of just offering subjective and unsubstantiated remarks.--JSane (talk) 05:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again Jane, name calling is unbecoming. *I* have provided links about the rankings. All you have to do is look at the provided links above. But her low ranking isn't the reason for my nomination to delete, it's her non-notability. As for the fact that this is my first time to edit said article, that doesn't matter. But the fact that you and RageNot are wp:SPA does. Neither of you have edited outside of Michelle. You have about 60 edits total and Ragenot has 4 Everyone of your edits deals with Michelle---which explains why you may feel as if she meets WP:N when she doesn't.Balloonman (talk) 05:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

linkspam[edit]

I should warn people who review the article now, that the article now has scores of references---but they are mostly in the same vein as cited above---very short without establishing notability. Many of the links simply reaffirm what we already know, that Michelle has written two books. They do not meet the criteria in wp:BOOK or WP:BIO for establishing notability. I suspect that before this is through, that EVERY page that mentions Michelle will be linked to the article.Balloonman (talk) 06:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to post because my entries continue to be vandalized. Many of my contributions to this page have been spammed, deleted and changed by Balloonman. Very scary to have someone edit your input like this under your own signature. The abusive posts above are nothing but vandalism. Last I checked journalists who wrote feature articles for The Washington Times, Colorado Springs Gazette, Fox News or Knight Ridder were not authors of "reprinted press releases". This has gotten completely out of line and Balloonman is not allowing civil discourse or relevant contributions. I have spent enough time here already and can't tolerate this vandalism. I'll leave this to the pros and administrators. How sad though, this article has been hijacked by someone who is not interested in objective editing. --JSane (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Errr, let's see, I added a critique of the links you provided... where there was none... and then you undid *MY* edit where I signed my critique of the edits. To which I reverted your edit as you were vandalizing what I had said. I then gave you a warning on your page---and now you claim that I edited your words? Please show me where I have changed a single word of yours? ANY link will do? Oh yeah, undoing your vandalism does not count. If you want to respond to my critique, you can, but you cannot delete/change words.Balloonman

(talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to contest the references made in my post on this delete page, or contest any other contribution in my post on this page, please do so in a post of your own instead of editing the words in my post. It is inappropriate to edit my posts on the delete page with my signature as you continue to do. You are welcome to your say, but please don't manipulate my words. Was it you that put a strike through Ragenot's "Keep" header too?I would never do that to any other editors post. It's not good ettiquette and it's misleading to others. Also asking that you cite sources is not "name calling". --JSane (talk) 20:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No but warning me of slander and saying that I am misrepresenting something, when I have provided facts to the contrary is. Yes, our facts were at odds with one another, which I admitted to, but you continue to say that I am misrepresenting facts. Also, I have not edited ANY words of yours, whereas you have blatantly rewritten what I have said.Balloonman (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Subject appears to precisely meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability

That is exactly what I see. The depth of coverage is not substantial but much more than trivial and I see multiple independent sources. Furthermore, the books meet criterion 1 of WP:Notability (books). Sbowers3 (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, criteria 1 reads, the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself ... The immediately preceding criterion excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book. So far, we haven't been presented with any non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book. If you click on the links, you will find that for the most part the links are very trivial in their coverage of Michelle or the books---I quoted the entirety of several of them above! How can one say that a list of books is more than trivial? Or that a page that reads, in entirety, Daddy You're My Hero and Mommy You're My Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen, Published by Little Redhaired Girl Publishing (www.booksforbrats.net): A book designed to help kids (ages 4-8) deal with deployment of their father or mother is not trivial? I am supposing that the links SJANE provided above are the best examples establishing notability---in which case they are woefully wanting. If she could show some non-trivial references that are independent of the Author/publisher, I would be happy to reconsider. But NONE of the links above or that I looked at on the article last night do so.Balloonman (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first two references (Notes) are the Fayetteville Observer and The Washington Times. (Not all, but enough, of Wash Times article is available for free.) They are independent and non-trivial. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then there is Stars and Stripes, and Fox News. You looked at the article last night; I'm looking right now. l see more than enough and I haven't gone through half of them. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Articles now cited:

The first two articles are the only one's that come close to establishing any notability. The rest are garbage. THe first link, the Fayetteville Gazette, doesn't do much except to indicate that a reporter called her for an interview. We can find two articles on plenty of people/authors/activists/etc that are not notable. As for the other links currently used as citations (which amounts to mostly OR):

To support the claim that "Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community" the article provides two links. One is, in entirety: Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, whose “Books for Brats” children’s storybooks for military families came out last year, is offering Mother’s Day e-cards on its Web site. The other link is the schedule for a radio program called "positive parenting," but we don't know if that was a where the radio program reached out to her, or as part of her advertising campaign for her book as it is simply a schedule with no details.

To support the claim that "recommended by many educational and child development experts" the article list pages that have lists of books where her book is listed [43][44] [45]---but no substance, thus trivial in coverage.

To support the claim that "convey coping skills to small children faced with separation from their parents." Several sources are cited, most are merely lists of books, the two most comprehensive entries about Michelle's books was Daddy, You’re My Hero and Mommy, You’re my Hero, By Michelle Ferguson-Cohen (Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, 2005) These board books address deployment from a child’s viewpoint in a comforting, reassuring way.} The Second being, Books for Brats www.otonomimedia.com/book A “self-professed” Army brat is publishing timely storybooks for children who are waving goodbye to parents in the military. The two titles are Daddy, You’re My Hero or Mommy, You’re My Hero. Thus, all of these links are trivial in nature.Balloonman (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll admit, those two references are better sources than the stuff currently cited in the article or on this AFD page....Balloonman (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for several {{fact}} on the page. If we can get some of the assertions verified, then I will withdraw my opposition to this article.Balloonman (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Wiki Standards Deletion policy states that: Disputes over page content are not dealt with by deleting the page. --72.229.10.154 (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: This is not a dispute over page content---this is a dispute about whether or not she is notable and meets the criteria for an article. I've given you the opportunity to prove me wrong... provide reliable independent sources to substantiate the claims made in the article, and I'll pull my nom. If you can't substantiate the claims, then my contention that she is non-notable stands. It's your opportunity to prove me wrong. Content disputes are when you are arguing the content, not the existence of an article!Balloonman (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sufficient notability has been established as per Wiki Standards. Don't take my word for it. See other editors above and comments in history. --72.229.10.154 (talk) 01:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-trivial references[edit]

These are the references that I think are non-trivial and demonstrate notability:

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=18120&archive=true
http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,77704,00.html
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5244/is_200509/ai_n19619671
http://www.fayobserver.com/article?id=254810
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6128998_ITM
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=NewsLibrary&p_multi=CSGB&d_place=CSGB&p_theme=newslibrary2&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=100A72E82B0C64D1&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-93173330.html
http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,Stuff,00.html
http://www.nmfa.org/site/PageServer?pagename=books_for_children

Some of these require purchase but the lead paragraph (for free) strongly suggests that the article is a non-trivial reference. The two book reviews are short but together with everything else count for something.

The article does have a ton of trivial references and I don't blame anyone for thinking that all are like that but separating the wheat from the chaff I do think the above articles are more than enough to demonstrate notability. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sbowers, thanks so much for all your editing assistance and recommendations. As you suggested, I compiled all the references and links under one category and reduced the duplicates. Let me know if this is what you meant. --JSane (talk) 03:30, 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 moved to userspace by author, and blanked. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 09:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dario de Judicibus[edit]

Dear Sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dear sir,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete - see Pedro's rationale. Probable hoax, fails notability, borderline G3. Rudget . 14:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seven diamond scale[edit]

This appears to be a joke article. There is no evidence this is widely used. It is a reference to the Emperors Club VIP, the escort agency of the Eliot Spitzer prostitution scandal. Dforest (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, quasi-hoax. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism.P4k (talk) 06:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as GC3 -Jahnx (talk) 07:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with another article I came here specifically after a google search trying to learn what specifically a "diamond scale" was, as it is being frequently mentioned in the news media. I agree that there shouldn't be a specific article about it, but it would be highly appropriate in the escort agency or call girl articles. It also seems that these articles need a rewrite. But I suspect that's too much work for all the deletionists around these days.-Nodekeeper (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but put the fact that the club used this scale as a shorthand for the price charged onto the Emperors Club VIP article (if it's not already there). Heavy Seltzer (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emporers Club VIP article. It certainly has met enough notability in the press. 70.136.39.180 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete borderline G3. Fails WP:N. Probable hoax. Pedro : Chat 10:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Emperors Club VIP article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Klausness (talk • contribs) 10:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not encyclopedic in the least. 69.207.139.221 (talk) 11:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to Emperors Club VIP. Just plain non-notable. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Silly kiddie article celebrating a single ludicrous element of a case. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:40, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raleigh Burns[edit]

Although gets some ghits in the news archives, I don't see how they attest to his notability brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, non-notable. -Jahnx (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely non-notable. Might be a vanity/self article. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable, def not vanity article. Need a little more time to compile the information to meet notability requirements. Maroon55 (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)— User:Maroon55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete - unless reliable, independent sources which provide significant coverage of the subject and assert its notability can be found. Without such sources the infromation within the article is not verifiable. Guest9999 (talk) 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No independent sources. Chris (talk) 21:44, 19 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. While articles on attack phrases can be written in principal and are not necessarily subject to CSD G10, they need to be grounded on reliable and neutral sources about it, and it is more than clear from below discussion that this is not the case here. --Tikiwont

Piss be upon him[edit]

Non-notable slur. P4k (talk) 06:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have just put db-attack on this, actually.P4k (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any more reason for this to be deleted than Axis of medieval. There are ten times as many google hits for "piss be upon him" as "axis of medieval"? -- Q Chris (talk) 07:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WAX. We are discussing the merits of this article, not another. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, though I think we should be careful not to give the impression that it is OK to document negative slogans against the US but not against Islam. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with your point, I do not think this is the forum. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I wish I could use a speedy delete here, but this might be a better route. I will instead call attention to wp:not#dict as I do not see this as capable of becoming more than a dicdef. Mstuczynski (talk) 07:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The article is obviously one sided and non-encyclopaedic. On the other hand if it were expanded to include references to use, similar phrases used against other religions, rebuttals of accusations against Muhammad, etc. then I would say keep. I think it is important to show that we are not deleting it because it is a taboo subject, but because it is one sided and of low quality. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOT#DICT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and next time don't use an edit summary that says "Look at the refs" when your refs are urbandictionary, a google search, and a blog. (...who walked into a bar, and the bartender said ...) --Dhartung | Talk 08:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO, no reliable sources about the term, as opposed to ones which just happen to use it. In fact, not even any reliable sources which happen to use it - just a blog post, Urban Dictionary, and a Google search which leads mostly to forums. Iain99^{Balderdash and piffle} 08:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per attack, given lack of notability. --Dweller (talk) 13:24, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Károly Nagy Astronomical Foundation[edit]

Although the person that this organazaion is named after might be notable, I don't see how that makes this organazation notable per WP:ORG. brew crewer (yada, yada) 06:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be non-notable and could be a COI thingo. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet WP:ORG --Orange Mike | Talk 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is a non-profit organisation for the public outreach of astronomy, one of the biggest in Hungary with international relations in this area. Although it was founded last year, the original observatory of the foundation was built in 1847. I think we can delete all of the astronomical society-s, if this will be deleted, but we should not I think. But I agree that probably it contains some needless information like the partners. --User:Kumuty; User talk:Kumuty 3:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete Spartaz ^Humbug!

Australian MFO Members Hit-and-Run[edit]

This article contains no evidence that this alleged incident is notable. The only references to it are the testimony of an Australian soldier to a parliamentary inquiry on military justice in the Australian Defence Force. The incident recieved a single paragraph in the inquiry's final report which is focused on how the Army treated the soldier who reported the incident, and not the incident per-se. Nothing comes up on Google searches of 'Australian MFO hit and run' [46] or 'Australian Army hit and run Egypt' [47] which strongly suggests that when this incident was publicly reported it didn't recieve a significant level of attention. Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, apparently unnotable event. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete it, it just needs refinement. I served in the MFO a couple of years after it happened and it has been used as an example of why incidents should be reported immediately. It is a deterrent to others. - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 07:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC) — Dogfit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Can you provide any examples of published materials which discuss this incident in depth? --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line is that the parliamentary inquiry would not have included the incident if it did not happen, so irrespective of whether there is extensive published information, a major government inquiry DID publish it. The possible reason for not finding much on the internet is because it was reported in 1995, prior to internet explosion - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to both the article and the parliamentary report, the incident was supressed until 2005 when it first came to light as part of the parliamentary inquiry into the military justice system. Since then the only coverage it seems to have recieved is the single paragraph in the inquiry's report. As such, I don't think that it meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping it suppressed obviously upset someone as per this entry in history trail of the article so it has struck a nerve 22:33, 2 June 2007 203.214.14.243 (Talk) (90 bytes) (←Replaced page with 'Hartshorn is not a desert rat, he is simply a rat. Category: Middle East peace efforts') (undo) the page had also been blanked at one stage - dogfit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.43.79 (talk)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge an abridged version (one or two sentences, with refs) back into Multinational Force and Observers, which is where it came from in May 2007. This incident is non-notable and an article of its own is unwarranted.

Re Nick Dowling's comment about providing examples of published materials which discuss this incident in depth, paperwork is held in the collections section at the Australian War Memorial which discusses this incident in depth and the documents are open to the public. This refutes claims that it was suppressed till 2005. Go to http://www.awm.gov.au/database/collection.asp and type David Hartshorn into the collections search engine and you will be taken to an outline of the public documents held. - dogfit —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogfit (talk • contribs) 05:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — Dogfit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't see how a collection of personnal papers held in the AWM's massive archives (in which all soldiers are invited to donate their personal papers) meets WP:N or WP:V. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those archives contain public documents such as newspaper articles and papers which came into the archive from the public domain Nick so what is your argument?Glanvis (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also found another article in the Weekend Australian Newspaper which was published in 1997. It is titled "Courage Under Fire" and go into depth about the incident - to see article details go to http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/archive and type staff sergeant david hartshorn into the search engine and select unlimited - you will be taken to the article details but to read the whole article will have to subscribe - I did and it is comprehensive - more evidence that the incident was published and not suppressed at stated by Nick —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 07:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — Glanvis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, it's the article which states that this was supressed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well we have proved that wrong haven't we Nick and we also proved that you weren't thorough enough with your research or you would have found the earlier article yourself. So the wiki article needs some fine tuning but it is not necessarily non notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — Glanvis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not really: one news story isn't anywhere near enough to meet WP:N (see: WP:NOT#NEWS). Significant coverage is needed. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A feature article written by a defence journalist about an incident in the Australian Newspaper is significant. Because it was published in hard copy in 1997 that would explain why it is hard to find on the internet. I support the wikipedia article with some adjustmentsSigsA (talk) 10:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — SigsA (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Ohhh Nick you didn't do enough research did you?Proqa (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Australian Newspaper article referred to in section 3 of the hartshorn collection at the Australian War Memorial is a hard copy of the article electronically accessable via the Australian Newspapers online archive. That gives two options to access comprehensive information on the incident in the public domain. The article in the Australian newspaper is in the form of a feature by then defence journalist Don Greenlees, who wrote it only 3 years after the incident occurred, so Nick Dowling doesn't appear to have been thorough enough with his research before jumping to his conclusions that the article is 'non notable' —Preceding unsigned comment added by Glanvis (talk • contribs) 08:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — Glanvis (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. We now have three brand new Meat/Sockpuppet accounts Glanvis (talk · contribs), Dogfit (talk · contribs), SigsA (talk · contribs) and Proqa (talk · contribs) contributing to this discussion. Sorry guys, but thats not how things work here. Deletion or retention will be determined by a genuine consensus and sending your mates here or creating new accounts to comment is wasting everyone's time, ~~including~~ especially your own. —Moondyne click! 11:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A further two meat/sockpuppets (Crynt1 (talk · contribs) and Dumbelmore (talk · contribs)) have also added material to this article and added references to it and to David Hartshorn to another article with little connection to this one and I'm suprised that they haven't turned up here as well yet. It's pretty blatant. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nick. Its worth noting all of them here so at least we can keep an eye on them. As I said, its their time they're wasting. —Moondyne click!

Delete - incident does not seem to be sufficiently notable to merit an article. I can't even see any justification to merge elsewhere - either to the article on the unit or middle-east peace keeping. That reporting of incidents needs reform or even a parliamentary enquiry to promote reform does not require an article. I have concerns about some of the annotations about parliamentary privelege etc.--Matilda ^talk 05:47, 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 keep; non admin. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 08:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

St Andrews Lutheran College[edit]

Fails WP:N. Non notable and self-promotional article about a college that would need major reediting to fix up. -=Elfin=-³⁴¹ 06:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete much of the text has been copied and pasted from the school's website [48], there's no indication of notability and the article needs a total re-write. --Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated removed the copy-paste and added three references and basic information. Working on adding more as I find it. -Jahnx (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The general concensus is that high schools are automatically notable. Whilst this article may be in short supply of sources, someone willing to do the research would find them easily, hence passing WP:N. Twenty Years 09:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: When there is something to say, it can be said, but keeping this while we wait does not serve the school, its community, or us. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after comparing nominated version with current one this article is a valid high school stub. Copy and paste issues have been addressed. Sting au Buzz Me... 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a valid article about a comprehensive K-12 school, to use US terminology for it. DGG (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pwer Twenty Years. —Moondyne click! 03:29, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The fact that an article needs cleanup is not a valid reason for deletion. WP:SOFIXIT certainly applies.Yeti Hunter (talk) 03:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twenty Years and Yeti Hunter Satu Suro 07:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highschools are generally automatically notable. Fosnez (talk) 15:40, 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 all per consensus here. --- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ufomammut[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Google searches yield 4 results. They did manage to release one record on a notable label, but WP:MUSIC calls for 2 records released on a notable label. Lack of third party sources keep notability at zero. Delete Undeath (talk) 05:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the albums that this band has recorded.:[reply]

Delete all per nom, fails WP:MUSIC.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Delete it all. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, not notable per WP:MUSIC, especially given the utter lack of reliable sources (or heck, any sources at all). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 12:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Nominator did not search Google properly. Searching for the correct spelling yields over 66,000 results. Closing admin please keep this in mind. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even under the correct spelling I can't find any reliable sources. Note also that the number of Google hits usually doesn't matter. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment [49][50] Littleteddy (roar!) 08:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's not really a band with a major label or distribution or chart position or "influence upon" other acts or significant underground happening. They may be the greatest show on earth, but that's not for us to determine. We have to be among the last to notice. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:37, 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 per WP:NFF. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracy (film)[edit]

Article about an upcoming film with no supporting references/sources. Fails WP:FILM. The only ref is primary. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability standard of future films. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasoning on the PROD I placed, removed by an anon IP without explanation: "Article about a supposedly upcoming film with no supporting evidence that it exists and no indication of notability. The only ref confirms the subject of the film, not the film itself". Ros0709 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:18, 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 and redirect to Sarah Palin Garion96 (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Todd Palin[edit]

Todd Palin's only claim to notability is that he is the husband of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin TommyBoy (talk) 05:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Or merge into his wife's article if, for some bizarre reason, this isn't mentioned there.) One sentence and a succession box isn't anywhere near enough for an article. I like how the first edit says he'll be First Lady. That's really nice. :) Makes you wonder if someone had an agenda or something. vıd ıoman 06:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Sarah Palin Beeblbrox (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~(there's nothing to merge)/Redirect per Beeblbrox. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not nearly enough information and not notable enough person to get his own article. --Drew Lindow (talk) 07:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Sarah Palin. Sorry about the succession box navigation, but I'm not sure there are that many people going to be hitting "Next" through every First Lady/Gentleman of Alaska. --Dhartung | Talk 08:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Sarah Palin per Beeblbrox (talk). Notability by association does not work in Wikipedia. Ref ^(chew)(do) 10:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - husbands shouldn't be merged into their wives' articles. So if this article is deleted, will we delete Bill Clinton if Hillary becomes president? lol Littleteddy (roar!) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have answered User:Littleteddy's question on his Talk page--TommyBoy (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no independent notability -- Y not be working? 15:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sarah Palin. Merely being "First Gentlemen" is not sufficient notablity to justify a seperate article.--JayJasper (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect For obvious reasons ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:01, 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 Speedy delete by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Rose (poet; singer/songwriter; composer; engineer/producer; writer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Christopher Rose (poet; singer/songwriter; composer; engineer/producer; writer)

Fails WP:BIO due to lack of secondary sources. Also fails WP:MUSIC on the grounds that the subject only performed only a demo tape for an unsigned band. Article has been edited by a WP:COI. Although the article claims notability of a band called Amsterdam, there is no article for such a band, but was only added as a note on the disambiguation page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficiently notable. Also, if this is kept, the title should obviously be changed. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most likely a hoax. Googling the names "Christopher Rose" and "Jim Carroll" together give nothing that justifies the claims the article makes. JuJube (talk) 06:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- poet; singer/songwriter; composer; engineer/producer; writer - and soon to be ex-wikipedia article (Delete per WP:BIO).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per JuJube. 'tiz a hoax. Xdenizen (talk) 08:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:BIO and could be a hoax. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as apparent hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 14:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. "Hoax" is not really a speedy deletion criterion Dloh cierekim 15:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an apparent hoax; the person may actually exist, but this is more a question of notability. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:10, 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 add a link to the wiktionary page on this subject. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gentleman's bet[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Gentleman's bet

Has been residing on Wiktionary for over a year, as indicated by the talk page, and it serves no real purpose here, being a DICDEF. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 04:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Complete Transwiki, apparently wasn't ever finished despite the fact it's been sitting at wikt:Transwiki:Gentleman's bet for over two years... Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CSD#A5? --Pmedema (talk) 16:41, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, I think it was fair to give it one last chance. I have actually thought about expanding it to include better-known gentlemen's bets, but the only ones I could remember didn't fit the definition once I looked them up. --Dhartung | Talk 04:20, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: Perhaps a redirect to Promise would be appropriate? Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm thinking proposition bet is the closest. Basically, it's a prop bet for no money. --Dhartung | Talk 20:31, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically another way of saying Gentlemen's bet. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of famous Gentleman's bets, but that would be a different article all together and until that artle is made, I suggest that this gets deleted as it is already in Wiktionary. --Pmedema (talk) 15:38, 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 delete. Canley (talk) 11:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of Me[edit]

Violates CRYSTAL as an unreferenced article on an upcoming album, for which no sources seem to exist. (Note: Given the poor performance of this album's first two singles, I have a feeling it will be pushed back even further until it's gone; Curb pulled that same trick with a few other artists before. Shame, since I really liked "She Ain't Right" and "Happy Endings".) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:58, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:59, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crystal ballism and no references to speak of. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:CRYSTAL. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yes it does violate WP:CRYSTAL. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:27, 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, nomination withdrawn with nobody calling for a delete. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Bizarre[edit]

Contested PROD, band which likely fails WP:MUSIC, no sources showing independent coverage, no assertion of notability, written like an advertisement. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 03:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep They've had chart singles in Germany and Austria; according to this, at least one of the chart positions is legit, so I'm sure the others are as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for catching that, it isn't made clear in the article. If they had a single that reached no. 9, then the band does pass WP:MUSIC. You can go ahead and close this, Ten Pound. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:02, 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 Merge to List_of_minor_characters_in_Battlestar_Galactica_(re-imagining), which means practicaly redirect. Tikiwont (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Seelix[edit]

Fictional deckhand, plays minor supporting part, non-notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable character played by a red linked actress. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FICT. K im u 03:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List_of_minor_characters_in_Battlestar_Galactica_(re-imagining), where it was before it was split off onto it's own article. 70.55.84.89 (talk) 05:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously an extremely minor role by a redlinked actress, definitely non-notable. Littleteddy (roar!) 13:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to whichever episode centers on her -- the one where she wants to be a pilot, as she is central to that one. She's not really very, very minor a character, but we really shouldn't be having biographies of fictional people on TV shows in the first place. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, since anyone can edit Wikipdia, we probably should only allow biographies on fictional people rather than real people. You can't defame a fictional person by saying they were behind the JFK assassination. --Pixelface (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm quite fond of the current notion of allowing any article that has reliable sources. Let's stick with that. Blast Ulna (talk) 19:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of minor characters in Battlestar Galactica (re-imagining). There was a past discussion on the talk page against merging, but merging this information would be preferable to deleting it (per the editing policy). --Pixelface (talk) 19:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as usual to the list of minor characters. This should be the standard treatment for these topics. DGG (talk) 01:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect though this is a fictional or minor character we cannot ignore it , just merge it with the list of minor characters and leave this page as a redirect .Pearll's sun (talk) 21:47, 19 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 Protector (novel). There is no prejudice against merging content according to procedures set out at Help:Merge, but this closer found no substantive non-duplicative content to merge, as the article is plot summary and plot summary already exists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Truesdale[edit]

This Known Space character is not notable, even within the series. Blast Ulna (talk) 03:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:FICT. K im u 03:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Protector (novel). He is a major character in this book, but otherwise fails. Mstuczynski (talk) 08:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Protector (novel) or Known Space (or a yet-to-be created Characters of Known Space article) per the editing policy. --Pixelface (talk) 18:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per Pixelface nancy ^(talk) 20:02, 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 Speedy keep. Both prod and nomination were in bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liliane Tiger[edit]

No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. No evidence of notable award despite claim. Contested PROD. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 02:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO. AVN Award nominee (sourced), plus extensive filmography. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. per above. Renee (talk) 02:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies WP:BIO. Another case of link rot. The AVN nominations are available on the Wayback Machine, but there may be connection glitches. I'll fix the article. Note to nom: an nomination claim is an assertion of notability. • Gene93k (talk) 03:06, 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 keep. Both prod and nomination were in bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ellen Saint[edit]

No assertion of notability. Despite claim, no evidence of notable award, Contested PROD. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 02:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO - "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" - Ninfa Prize per article (sourced, too). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2007 FICEB listings have a link rot problem. Anyway Ellen Saint also had a 2005 Best Startlet FICEB nom [51]. The 2007's should be up on the Wayback machine some time in April. I have no reason to doubt them. • Gene93k (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above. JJL (talk) 03:08, 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 keep. Both prod and nomination were in bad faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica May[edit]

No assertion of notability. Despite claim, no evidence of notable award. Contested PROD. SilkTork *^{What's YOUR point?} 02:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:PORNBIO - "Has won or been a serious nominee for a well-known award" - Ninfa Prize per article (sourced, too). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 02:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FICEB nomination confirmed at citation link given. Click the "2002" link. WP:Bio#Pornographic actors is satisfied. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 03:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. JJL (talk) 03:07, 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. Nomination was withdrawn, and despite a significant number of initial WP:CRYSTAL delete !votes, I am satisfied the article has been adequately referenced for a forthcoming album. Canley (talk) 11:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nostradamus (album)[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and not much in the way of references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums, may fail WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:47, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Not even Nostradamus can help us predict what tracks will be on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Renee (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ^ Can always be remade once notable. Mm40 (talk) 01:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 02:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. K im u 03:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep It already is notable as it is a notable future album by a notable band, and it is not crystal balling as it has been reported by media and it is certain to take place. Did you guys even read the policies you are quoting?--E tac (talk) 10:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I only see one (improperly cited) reference, and that's an interview with the guitarist where he says they've recorded a bunch of stuff for an upcoming album. There's no source showing it's actually scheduled for release. Also, I don't see any notability claimed in the article; remember—notability is not inherited. Just because the band putting out the album is notable, that doesn't impart notability onto the album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Yes when it comes to albums notability is generally inherited if the artist themselves are notable. Just because the article doesn't have a lot of sources right now does nothing to diminish it's notability, which is why I tagged it as unrefferenced to see if we can help get some on here. Funny that wasn't done as an attempt to improve the article Before it was put up for deletion.--E tac (talk) 21:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment No, it's not. WP:MUSIC#Albums says an album by a notable artist "may" be notable, not "is". And please assume good faith—there's nothing "funny" going on here. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment How did I not assume good faith, I just thought it was odd and counterproductive to put something up for deletion rather than attempt to improve it first. The policy on albums didn't used to be worded this way which is now far to subjective, but even as it stands how is this particular future album not notable?--E tac (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment By saying it was "funny" and implying that I should have tagged it. The album policy has been like that since at least last summer. The question is not how is it not notable but how is it notable. I'm sure once it's out there will be plenty of media attention to assert notability but it's a little to early for any significant coverage. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment If an album needs to be released to have an article then why do we have the "future album" tag available.--E tac (talk) 06:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Two examples of future albums with significant media coverage: Metallica's ninth studio album and Eminem's fifth studio album. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:16, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment So the level of media coverage is the only factor that determines notability? Notability does not equal popularity. Are you prepared to go through all 61,400 of these links? Once you do so then you can say there is not enough coverage or source information.--E tac (talk) 13:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Media coverage ≠ popularity. I don't see any end in sight to this discussion so I'll just leave it to the closing admin to decide. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment You know what I mean, Metallica and Eminem are much more popular than Judas Priest with mainstream audiences so of course there is going to be more media coverage on their upcoming albums. That however does not make this album any less notable to this encyclopedia.--E tac (talk) 16:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, via aforementioned WP:CRYSTAL. Wikipedia can not see into the future. A guy in a band saying they did something isn't enough to pass WP:V. CelarnorKeep. I've done my best to improve the article, and I think it's enough to pass now. (talk) 20:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What is the purpose of the {{future album}} tag then? And what is enough, does he have to sign his name in blood as well?--E tac (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply: {{future album}} is for notable, verifiable music albums that haven't been recorded yet but have received media coverage outside of the band's own announcement that "we're doing some album named x". Essentially, what this amounts to is "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." That doesn't meet WP:V. If you find some reliable third-party announcements and information, list them here and I'll remove my !vote. Celarnor (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Could you give an example of such a future album that contained info that wasn't revealed through interviews of the band members?--E tac (talk) 09:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply: Eminem's fifth studio album seems to be a good one. Celarnor (talk) 13:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply You miss the point. All the info is still coming from interviews and quotes from your publicist and friends and that is even less relevant and verifiable then if they were coming from the artist themself. Instead of the artist saying "Hey guys, we started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." it is like saying "Hey guys, my friends started an album. It's gonna be called Nostradamus." How is that better?--E tac (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply: You should read WP:RS to help you understand what constitutes a reliable source. I don't see this going anywhere, so I'll leave it to the closing admin to decide. Cel ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reply Of course the admin is going to decide, who else would? — Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs) 04:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per E tac "...it is certain to take place" = WP:Crystal or I'm the chaos butterfly Plutonium27 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Have you even read WP:CRYSTAL? It states that "future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place" right in the begining.--E tac (talk) 15:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Inx272 14:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:JUSTAVOTE. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination rescinded Celarnor has added enough references to show notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as meets the Crystal requirements: "articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The event is verifiable by notable sources, and there will be an article on the album when it's released. SilkTork *^YES! 17:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has been rescinded after I found some sources. I'd be nice if everyone could review their votes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closer will take the development of the article into account. If the AfD is closed as Delete you can ask for a Wikipedia:Deletion review. AfDs are not votes, but a discussion to find consensus. SilkTork *^YES! 11:11, 19 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 by User:Orangemike, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:03, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Rode[edit]

Delete Non-notable Thebluesharpdude (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as very much non-notable, so tagged by another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:38, 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 Dlete. Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fetish (band)[edit]

Possibly not a notable band. It's in the gray area; doesn't seem to match notability, unsourced, and I can't find any (reliable) sources to use. Was prodded, but later removed by a fresh account. -WarthogDemon 00:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unfortunately, I can't find anything beyond trivial/fleeting mentions from myspace or emusic, or musicdownloads etc..etc.. I think this fails WP:MUSIC - no mention of awards of notable members. [52] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, no secondary sources, just a band bio site like what one would expect on myspace. Renee (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem notable enough, and seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Hello32020 (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found non-trivial references in Billboard and the Africa News wire service, as the band seems to have received media attention for being the first band from South Africa signed to Virgin. With the two citations I added, along with this that was already there (probably borderline for WP:RS), it is enough, I think, just to squeak by WP:MUSIC criterion #1. Keep. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable band. No big tours and hardly any news online about them. Undeath (talk) 04:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn subject. Peter Fleet (talk) 19:18, 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 00:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowsera EP[edit]

Non-notable EP by non-notable band. No significant secondary source coverage. No sources. Not even an article on the band itself. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a hoax, given that the cover is actually of L.S.D.E.P. by Days Away. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a hoax. They have a Myspace page and were reviewed on several user driven web sites. Whether the cover is a hoax or not is a different story. Redfarmer (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. Strong delete as non-notable album; band isn't notable, therefore the album isn't notable. I think A7 should extend to include albums by non-notable bands. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable EP..no sources, wikipedia has no article on the band in question, band/EP has no label. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, fan site. Renee (talk) 01:29, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. K im u 03:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 08:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable EP by a band that does not seem to meet WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 13:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redlinked band Littleteddy (roar!) 13:34, 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 keep. Nomination was not done properly. No one other than nom feels it should be deleted. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Alastair Dunnett[edit]

Delete The article seems to have no importance. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 23:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being the editor of a national newspaper is a pretty good assertion of importance and notability. I'd like to see more sources, but the thing's not a day old yet. Give it a little time. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:N; we just neeed to bring it up to code. K im u 00:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep editor of one of Scotland's major newspapers (The Scotsman) for 16 years or so; notable enough to merit his own entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which doesn't accept just any ol' dead person. Room for expansion, clearly, but sufficiently notable. NB article is not yet tagged with notice of this discussion (I noticed this debate because I had the author's talk page watchlisted for reasons I forget) probably because Sir Alastair Dunnett is a redirect to Alastair Dunnett and Twinkle got confused when trying to tag the page. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Well, i call it a snowball for all intents, but hey... subject was knighted (notable, QED), and the above added a strong reference to the article (point furthered). Notable. --Auto ^{(talk / contribs)} 00:28, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the ODNB reference was in the article anyway - I highlighted it, rather than added it. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable, does needs help though. Burner0718 ^JibbaJabba! 01:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Dunnett has a 1200 word article in the Oxford DNB! This is a stub that ought to be expanded if Wikipedia wants to be a serious encyclopedia. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:19, 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.

^ Paraphrase of a famous line from The Empire Strikes Back

[1] Paraphrase of a famous line from The Empire Strikes Back

[1]