Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 16

< March 15	March 17 >

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 delete.--Kubigula (talk) 04:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leigh Laurie[edit]

No evidence of RS coverage of her one role as an alternate. Nothing to prove she passes WP:BIO for entertainers. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 10:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - apparently first professional role, and not surprisngly, there does not appear to be much in the way of coverage about her. Google news shows a single result. -- Whpq (talk) 22:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BLP1E. Can't see why every 10-year-old girl in a musical would deserve a Wikipedia entry. Article creator seems to have contributed only to this article, and an article on the musical itself. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:04, 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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgi Lazov[edit]

WP:ONEEVENT, neither men (another article was merged here) is notable apart from being kidnapped and WP:NOTNEWS. I don't find an appropriate "event" article to redirect to. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 10:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Thanks to whoever made WP:ONEEVENT/WP:BLP1E part of official policy! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:06, 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 due to crystal ball concerns and lack of reliable sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pa'l Mundo: All Access Live[edit]

Apparently unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage, the only reference is a pre-order page on CD Universe. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no concrete information. Powers ^T 19:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as unreleased album that isn't the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable sourcing for this unreleased album -- Whpq (talk) 22:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the crystal ball has cracked. B.Wind (talk) 04:53, 22 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 ( ¡? ) 06:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second Reflection Eternal Album[edit]

Unreleased album (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I worry that at year's end, if the album actually does come out, someone will have to start the article from scratch. I'm okay to just leave it as a {{future album}} which disclaims any serious expectation of reliability anyway. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 03:52, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 23:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Album won't be released for a while yet; currently, it's not the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close call. I was initially going to suggest a merge with Reflection Eternal, but the sources were lacking. Thus a delete is more appropriate. When/if it finally ~~escapes~~ gets released, then will be the time to consider the inclusion of an article on the album, but not before as the current article tends to be fuzzy on the details as to label, release date, and so forth. B.Wind (talk) 04:59, 22 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 and Redirect to Tampines as no notability has been established. Davewild (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Hilda's Primary School[edit]

This article does not currently meet Wikipedia's notability standards. I say it only deserves to be kept if someone can improve it to show notability. The article also does not meet WP:SCHOOL. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to district. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/merge per WP:SCHOOL regarding institutions that are lower than high-school level and that lack the sufficient notability for an article. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:53, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Tampines. This could simply have been boldly done. TerriersFan (talk) 20:26, 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.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intereffectuality

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

The result was Speedily deleted -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intereffectuality[edit]

I believe this is a hoax.

Google Scholar does not know this word - see here.
Google finds only this article.
I can find no trace of the magazine Journal of Critical Aspect cited as a reference.
The other three references are books and do exist. I have consulted one of them {Loiseaux and Fraistat): it contains absolutely no reference to "Intereffectuality".
While getting it from the library I checked the indexes of every other book in the same catalogue section - about four shelf feet - and found no mention of the word.

In summary, I can find no evidence that this word has been used before. If not actually a hoax made up one day, it is a protologism unsupported by evidence. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, hoax. (I had a minor in textual criticism. The terminology of that discipline generally doesn't use small words to define big ones, the way this article does!) --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I thought the style was quite convincing; in fact, I wondered if it had been written by the Postmodernism Generator, but I don't think that goes as far as inventing new words, it just re-shuffles the old ones. JohnCD (talk) 23:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as hoax per nom and per Dhartung, seems to have certainly been made up. The fake sources are enough for me to call this one a G3. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article's creator denies that it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:59, 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 due to crystal ball concerns. Creating a redirect would be fine except that this song is not from the album to which a redirect is suggested. Davewild (talk) 12:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone's At It[edit]

Not yet a notable song; hasn't been released and won't be for a few more months. Violates WP:CRYSTAL. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:18, 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)} 22:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom., also for lack of sources. JohnCD (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it lacks sources and violates WP:CRYSTAL. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alright, Still, article about CD containing song. It's a viable search item for now. B.Wind (talk) 05:03, 22 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) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawnchaser[edit]

Non-notable music producer - No reliable coverage - I'm seeing myspace and various fleeting references that are otherwise tenuous. Article fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. [1] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see forum posts and download links but no articles about this person. If the claims in the article are true and can be documented with reliable soures, then it would be keepable, but I've not found any such sources. -- Whpq (talk) 22:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete - I deleted his myspace link per policy. I wanted to delete all the peacocking and unsupported hyperbole from this article, but realized that this would leave almost no content. If this article is 90% peacocking, and as Whpq says no sources can be found, this is an almost certain delete. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:12, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 12:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sanches Viva[edit]

Does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; unreferenced; added a PROD template and was removed by someone who just slapped on more porn titles which does not add a reason for notability AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can tell, he fails WP:PORNBIO - no awards, no notability established. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:04, 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 all, I see no arguments being made for deletion in this discussion. There is a divison of opinion over whether a merge and redirect is appropriate but this does not need an AFD discussion to be implemented. Davewild (talk) 12:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nite Owl[edit]

Also nominating Silk Spectre, Captain Metropolis, Comedian (comics), Hooded Justice, and Ozymandias (comics). Most of the articles have no assertion of notability outside of the comics themselves; putting the relevant info into List of Watchmen characters would be the best thing to do with these. Even with the upcoming film, not enough third party commentary (none in the articles, or just original research, and not much dealing with the characters themselves looking for sources.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want them merged, then you should start with merge tags. This is "Articles for Deletion" not "Articles for Merging." —Quasirandom (talk) 22:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the plot summary for all the characters is already in the main characters list, I don't see the point of a merge. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So redirect all. This seems like a waste of time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drakkenfyre - Given that this page has much more detail than the list of characters page, and given that if you merged all the character pages it would become one of the longer pages on Wikipedia and therefore less accessable, I think this is a bad idea. As Wikipedia's guidelines for deletion say: "Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded can often be merged into a larger article or list." This is not a short article and it is likely to be expanded when the upcoming movie is released. I have reviewed the other character pages you've nominated for deletion and linked to here and this seems to hold true for all of them. Drakkenfyre (talk) 11:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to List of Watchmen characters - they all fail WP:FICT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There is coverage, ranging from incidental to substantial, of most if not all these characters in seemingly reliable sources... interviews (1, 2) that discuss casting and character in the upcoming film, entries in Toonopedia, and I'd venture plenty more for reliable sources for those willing to search them out.--ragesoss (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Silk Spectre, Ozymandias, Nite Owl, Comedian. Each main character is sufficiently signifigant in both story terms and metafictional/symbolic status to warrant a separate page. And the upcoming film coverage will mean expansion for each. We don't want one crowded megapage.--Noclevername (talk) 23:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Change the List of Watchmen Characters to a List of Watchmen Supporting Characters. The critical analysis of each major character is detailed and would be a loss to the Internet and Wikipedia if it were lost. --Eideteker (talk) 02:32, 22 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, fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yung JoJo Tha Prince (rapper)[edit]

0 non-wiki ghits, no sources in article to show notability. Possible WP:COI issues. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they ~~are albums by this artist, and~~ also get 0 non-wiki, non-myspace hits, with no sources in articles to show notability:

--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all for failing notability guidelines for music/record labels. I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:V. Given the alleged chart position of the first album, it could be a WP:HOAX. Charting albums usually show up somewhere. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was previously speedied at Young JoJo Tha Prince. I think this could very well indeed be a hoax, but will refrain from tagging it for now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all because they are not notable. In my opinion, no rapper is notable. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article doesn't fail WP:V per [2] and is likely not a hoax, however, there is a distinct lack of notability - soundclick, myspace, answers.com etc..etc.. causing it to fail WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - all fail WP:MUSIC. BWH76 (talk) 11:03, 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 per WP:NOT. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 08:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of web hosting services[edit]

Invites WP:OR and likely to become a link farm for NN hosts. Appears Web hosting service can sufficiently cover this area in an encyclopedic verifyable manner. Hu12 (talk) 21:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it please. It's only been here a day or so. Please give it a chance to become a good article. See Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients for a similar established article. Also note that saying it invites original research doesn't mean it has original research. If there are a lot of problematic links added, we can remove them. --Vergency (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it looks more like spam than anything else, and it's not even complete. This is not the place for this kind of content. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We usually draw the line by allowing certain lists of products, but not lists of services. Web hosting services are definitely out, though: there are far too many to list even a small subset, and they change constantly. Both of these factors, as well as spam concerns, make it impossible for us to maintain this list. There are plenty of other web sites which maintain catalogs of web hosts. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:OR seems to be the main complaint, yet it doesn't appear in the article. As for changing constantly, I suggest that infant services not be listed. E.g. the four currently listed are each well established. --Jesdisciple (talk) 00:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I see no complaints regarding the Oversight privilege here. Perhaps you mean something else? Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it was OR :) --Vergency (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In any case, the other page referenced was a list of invalid reasons for speedy deletion. AFD would be perfectly appropriate for deleting a page full of original research. This isn't really the complaint being voiced here, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, and I'm trying to correct that... --Jesdisciple (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per my nom. Clearly fails Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET. "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers..". Web hosting service can sufficiently cover this area in an "encyclopedic verifyable manner". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many things that do not belong in an encyclopedia (such as Comparison of web hosting services) are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers, this is neither.--Hu12 (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very useful, as it tells readers the difference between major services in an easy to read table. --Vergency (talk) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree... The directories that I have found don't directly compare the services. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - See, for example http://www.free-webhosts.com/. There are plenty of comparison sites on the net. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Hu12. Fails Wikipedia:NOT#INTERNET Chris! _ct 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm surprised to see this AfD, because I prod'd it shortly after creation. The creator wrote "I'm just making this page so I can watch it" on the talk page, so I didn't think there would be any objection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was talking about the talk page. --Jesdisciple (talk) 20:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Delicious carbuncle. There are other sites that do that, so put a link on Web hosting service. Plus, there's very little chance of this being complete. Regarding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, software is (marginally) less changing than web hosting services. -anabus_maximus (Talk to me) 02:48, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Harden[edit]

I'm having trouble verifying that this young actor even exists, much less is notable- googling his name and the film which made him famous yields a surprising 0 hits. I hate to be an old cynic, but could this possibly be a not entirely true article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC) FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was actually about to file an Afd for this article as it seems like a hoax and none of the information is verifiable. Anyway I don't think the article asserts actual notability as a few small uncredited roles wouldn't merit a wikipedia article to begin with even if the inforamtion was verifiable. AngelOfSadness talk 21:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and AOS. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom--Hu12 (talk) 22:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & AOS. I suspect a hoax also or a self vanity piece, in any case no notability. The only link provided is to Facebook, which is hardly a reliable source. No entry in IMDB and nothing found via Google. — Becksguy (talk) 07:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete as the article is patent nonsense and an obvious hoax. Opening sentence claims subject starred in a film, whose link leads to an article about a singer. Also, a Facebook search is not an acceptable link to be posted as a reference. –Dream out loud (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment - if this is a living person and a minor, are we (Wikipedia) even allowed to have an article on him with zero reliable sources? I just deleted some personally identifying info from the article - his school, and his parents' first names - as I'm sure we're not supposed to have that sort of thing in an article about a minor unless maybe it's been published in a reliable third-party source. Don't want to see a future headline like "stalker uses Wikipedia to find child actor". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:19, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John A. McPake[edit]

There is no assertion of notability whatever in the article, and none available through the Internet. The article was created by the same person(s) who created Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth, a vanity-press book which I have also nominated for deletion, along with Frank Wilson (children's author), which was also created by the same person(s). You may want to see the related deletion discussions. Neither McPake, Wilson, or the book in question are notable in any verifiable way. Qworty (talk) 04:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep and comment - Actually, I do see assertions of notability in the article - that he has exhibited locally and internationally, and "has been elected President of Manchester Academy of Fine Arts". I've found a few links - [3] and [4] and[5] - that mention him. I feel I'm unqualified to comment on how notable he is as an artist, and I can appreciate the nominator's suspicion that this article could have been just part of a walled garden of non-notability - but this artist seems to pass an initial smell-test, for me, anyway. The article is poor quality, but could maybe be improved to Wikipedia standards. There are indeed some web-references, at least. Shouldn't punish a possibly notable artist just because he illustrated a wikispammer's book. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sources given. I would not object to a recreation if the editor takes the effort to show why McPake should be considered worthy of inclusion based on independent sources. I see little such here. B.Wind (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- even if the person is notable (of which there is litle proof), it is not the reader's responsibility to go digging around the internet for notability. The AfD is to determine what to do with an article as it stands, not what it may be. We need to keep the bar set high for notability and citations.--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 04:38, 23 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) 13:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth[edit]

The proposed deletion of this self-published book is related to the Frank Wilson deletion proposal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Frank_Wilson_%28children%27s_author%29 Please see the arguments given there. Thank you. Qworty (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Littleteddy (roar!) 10:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Found one source so far, beyond web sites selling the book: [6]. Powers ^T 18:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 21:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The author seems to fail notability criteria; therefore, so does the book. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that logic is sound. Is it necessarily true that a notable book has a notable author? (Here's an example of a notable book whose authors do not have articles: King & King. Lack of article is not necessarily indicative of lack of notability, but it's anecdotal, at least.) Powers ^T 23:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Self-publications tend to reflect the notability of the author/publisher. Also, I have problems with the prose (extreme clean up needed!), the lack of sources, and the lack of assertion of notability (nothing indicating independent review or discussion of the book, no mention of appearances in best selling lists, etc.). Delete B.Wind (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Canterbury Tail talk 01:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Santiam Junction, Oregon[edit]

It's a road and railway junction. The community may well prove me wrong but I cannot see how a simple road and rail junction is notable for inclusion. It'd need to be pretty significant. The article says it is the site of the National Register of Historic Places-listed Oregon Pacific Railroad Linear Historic District, which be taht as it may is referring to a large area of track and land, not to a particular railway and road junction. Canterbury Tail talk 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Towns/villages are inherently notable regardless of size. And this one has its own National Register of Historic Places-listed district. And I've never seen a community that has it's own airport up for AfD before. --Oakshade (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Oakshade. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What they said. Communities are inherently notable; this one even has its own airport. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm inclined to keep this as a notable landmark, but I can't find evidence it was ever an inhabited community; and the "airport" is basically an emergency landing strip often used for mountain rescues. The significant use of the site, aside from as a regional landmark for driving/hiking directions, is as a highway maintenance facility. As such it may be best merged with the airport, which is marginally notable. --Dhartung | Talk 22:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep please listing in the national register of historic places makes is very important too yuckfoo (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Okay I misread it. I didn't actually realise it was also a town. That is my mistake and my problem. It didn't state that it was a community as well when I started the notability thing on it and didn't pay enough attention to the subsequent edits. Previously it only said it was a road and rail junction. I withdraw the nomination. Canterbury Tail talk 01:23, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per notability and WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 17:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lunar ark[edit]

Unreferenced original research, prod removed with no real explanation Beeblbrox (talk) 20:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep maybe you should look for sources yourself first?--Otterathome (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The original article was a copyright violation, but the subject has received significant media coverage which meets the notability and verifiability requirements. If nothing comes of the "ark" proposals, the article can be deleted on the grounds that Wikipedia is not for news of no historical significance, but for the present we should accept the sources' view that this is a serious possibility. EALacey (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is permanent. If it is serious enough to have an article today, it will have to be serious enough to have an article permanently on the failed or succeeded proposals.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if this particular proposal goes nowhere, the general idea is notable. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or perhaps Merge to Colonization of the Moon. There is no formal name for this project and there are very few sources that go beyond saying that the idea is a possibility. I think that it would sensibly fit into the existent article on moon colonization. BWH76 (talk) 11:10, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Marketplace[edit]

Article fails WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, WP:NOT#REPOSITORY Hu12 (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Notable subject which could use an article. But this isn't it. Needs work. Quarterwit (talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a category Category:Social networks which encompasses most of these, and more. The only reference in this article is a wikimirror at answers, a recursive reference! I'd agree that the article could exist. Yngvarr (c) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term social marketplace does exist but the uses here are self-applied and not wholly congruent. This likely exists primarily to link out to "social marketplaces" that aren't notable enough for articles. Fails WP:NOT#DIR. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe there would be room in Wikipedia for an article on "Social Marketplace", but it wouldn't be anything like this article, so we should dump this and if someone wants to create an article on the real meaning of a social marketplace, as shown by Google Scholar and Google Books searches, they can do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per my nom. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so many things that do not belong in an encyclopedia (such as this) are excluded or removed. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be encyclopedic, this is WP:NOT.--Hu12 (talk) 13:43, 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, consensus is that the articles fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson Space Navy[edit]

Non-notable sub-subtopic of a science fiction series. Completely in-universe infodump unsupported by any third-party sources. Fails WP:N, WP:FICT. WP:WAF compliance would require a complete rewrite (and third-party sources). Not worth merging anywhere in any level of detail. Sandstein (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a reference to the Honorverse and the fact that it is in-universe is not a reason to delete. --Eastmain (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe the in-universe thing is just an editing issue, but the notability factor is a reason to delete. The only reference provided is an internal link to an article about one of the novels, not a reliable secondary source as required to establish notability. Beeblbrox (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and check-out all the other non-notable stuff {{Honorverse}}. This article along with many others in this, space, are all written in an entirly in-universe style and amount to little more than plot summary. Note the <noinclude> text from the above linked template;
It outlines articles about the fictional universe, from the point of view of someone inside the story. Meaning it makes no reference to the world outside of the books. However, the linked articles may or may not distinguish between those points of view.
This indicates a fundamental issue with the editorial focus of some of the editors involved. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:34, 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 Delete, notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Explorer Viewer[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 20:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not demonstrating notability. I can't find any independent sources discussing this software that aren't self-published; without these an article wouldn't be able to do anything but paraphrase the software's own website. EALacey (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it, it looks like spam. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrally. There was a number of web publications on the subject that I've seen in the past (something like [7] but it's more recent one). But if the Wikipedia community has no interest in this topic (I feel it since the article is not developed any more; and sorry, I don't have enough time for editing it), feel free to remove the article. --Fastboy (talk) 17:32, 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 the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Wilson (children's author)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Frank Wilson (children's author)

This "children's author" has paid for publication with the vanity press Jeremy Mills [8]. Wilson then apparently wrote this article himself as "rfw" [9], which is a single-purpose account as well as a previously suspected sock puppet of Frank Wilson [10]. This user then went on to create a promotional page for his self-published book, Gleda and the Sparkling-Cloth, which should also be deleted. Niether Wilson nor his single book are notable under the Wikipedia book notability guidelines[11]. Qworty (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; neither the author nor the book meet notability guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - promotional in nature; written by the subject of the article. B.Wind (talk) 05:20, 22 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 a copyvio. Davewild (talk) 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecomaterials[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article was originally deleted via AfD back in March of 2006. When the article was re-created it was tagged with a speedy-repost, but I think it should be re-assessed for the following reasons:

A lot has changed in terms of environmental awareness in the past two years. ~~I don't know how many google hits the term "Ecomaterials" got in 2006~~, but in 2008 it gets about 8,000 (also Ecomaterial and "Eco material").
The original article was more of an advert for a company that made Ecomaterials (as a trademarked name, I guess), and although the text is essentially the same in the new article, it does not mention the company.

For the record, my position here is Neutral. ... discospinster _talk 20:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Neutral-~~Delete There are copy-paste copyright issues, as most, if not all, of the article is copied from [12]. Also, the lead in says:
Ecomaterials is a word that defines construction materials that are ecologically and economically viable.
, but a Google search turns up a variety of definitions for the term, not limited to construction. Overall, I think that ecomaterial is more of a jargon term than a specific topic for an encyclopedia. Maybe it can be documented on Wiktionary. Also, to keep the Google hits thing in perspective, other environment-related concepts, such as ecotourism, get over two million Google hits [13] Phillip (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although this should be deleted because of copyright violation. Perhaps it could be rewritten as a good article using sources found on Google. Not sure who wants to do it though. Just a thought. Chris! _ct 03:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete copyvio. B.Wind (talk) 05:22, 22 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) 04:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do You Think I'm Disco?[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Do You Think I'm Disco?

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N, and WP:V. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Very short non notable article. TheProf | Talk 20:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable song per WP:MUSIC; didn't chart, didn't receive any awards, etc. Maybe a merge to Steve Dahl? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MUSIC, already mentioned in Da Ya Think I'm Sexy?. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice It's more notable in the realm of Dahl himself (it's one of the things that helps make Dahl notable), but I'm not sure if it qualifies yet for its own article. It didn't chart or anything but it was played a lot back then so it may at least have some offline articles about it. Delete it for now, if anyone can find something to establish it's notability, let it be recreated. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:MUSIC, songs need to demonstrate notability on their own to warrant an individual article - this song clearly does not. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No assetion of notablility.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 18:22, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karma (2008 film)[edit]

An article about an upcoming and non-notable movie. Movie is not in the IMDB. Per WP:NOTE, WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL Wiki-nightmare (talk) 22:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article consists almost entirely of a plot summary and trivia section. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 23:04, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the actors listed has this movie in their IMDB listings. Source or delete.--Thalia42 (talk) 23:06, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Mere absence of IMDB pages is not indicative of a lack of notability (I know of many notable people and films with no IMDB articles, particularly those from countries with non-Latin alphabets). Also, it is hard to figure out how much of the article and the associated actor pages to keep, because they were clearly created to read like an advertisement. However, there do seem to be some reliable third-party sources that talk about the film... Also, the purported release date of April is pretty close. Esn (talk) 01:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Need to dig deeper per [14], [15], [16], [17] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:45, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not an offense to Wikipedia, can easily flourish into a full sized article. Any "advertisement sounding" sections can easily be NPOV'd. Has respectable media attached, not too much not too little. I believe the point of Wikipedia is to give people a collection of information that could potentially be difficult to find in the first place. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 00:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On this sources there is an relative lack of information about the movie. The claims in the sources do not seem to indicate much notability. But it's a pretty good indicator/reference for an non-notable movie. Wiki-nightmare (talk) 03:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:25, 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 spam like and no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 13:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I-mag teen magazine[edit]

I believe it's non-notable; I added a speedy deletion to the page, but it was contested by the author. I wanted to leave it up to general discussion. Mr. Absurd (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that this page should be deleted, as it would be a noteworthy source of information to anyone interested in researching i-mag for publication in material, or just as a source of more information for the site.

Apologies for my previous comment of 'publicising i-mag'. I didn't mean it in that way - I just meant that if the article was on the internet, people could use it - not us making benefit out of it. I hope you consider reinstating the article.

Jackhowson (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete - admitted to be a promotional article on Wikipedia. Absolutely no independent third-party sources given to establish the notability of the website. Wikipedia is not an advertising avenue for people's websites. This is spam. This is a perfect speedy delete. This is what is wrong with Wikipedia. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. CSD G11 B.Wind (talk) 05:25, 22 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 the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesh Maraj[edit]

Taking it to AfD per the suggestion of the declined speedy. It's very close to a copyvio, but that aside, the rs coverage is false positives and ghits don't provide any evidence that he passes WP:MUSIC. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 04:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article was nomed for Speedy as copy vio (but it wasn't) and as blatant advertising---which it isn't. Barely passes A7 as article claims "distinctive" sound. But I can't find anything about said musician.Balloonman (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I will expand and turn it into a proper article, give me two days until this AFD is closed to prove that this can be a worthwhile article. ~ Dreamy ^§ 13:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, you'll need to find independent reliable sources to show he meets WP:MUSIC, his own site does not qualify. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 14:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks Reliable sources and fails WP:Music Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls well short of WP:MUSIC even if non-independent sources were taken at face value. B.Wind (talk) 05:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot find anything else other than his site and copies on other sites, no real or reliable sites to use. ~ Cheers! Dreamy ^§ 13:47, 22 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. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Media representation of Hugo Chávez[edit]

AfDs for this article:

First of all, this page is irredeemably POV. It entirely fails to note that Chávez has garnered plenty of positive press in the West: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], for instance. It strings together a bunch of loosely-connected incidents and makes it seem, in violation of WP:SYN, that there's some sort of media conspiracy against Chávez, when the picture is hardly as clear. It also distorts reality. For instance the last two paragraphs (totally unreferenced) present Chávez' December referendum as no big deal and liken the change to the status quo in the UK or Germany, when in fact, quite a legitimate case can be made that this was a power grab (but in any event, it's not our job to make either argument). We have here a content fork and an essay rather than serious scholarship. Second, the page fails WP:N - of course a major figure like Chávez will be portrayed by the media in one way or another, but that doesn't normally require an article on him. If we can live without Media representations of George W. Bush or Media representations of Benito Mussolini, then surely we can do without this as well. Finally, much of the content is duplicate and exists elsewhere - we already have articles on the coup attempt, on Aló Presidente, on RCTV, etc. Biruitorul (talk) 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I see no problem with this article. The subject is notable, verifiable, and inherently involves reliable media sources. If your 8 sources would help to reduce a perceived POV problem in the article, why are you presenting them here rather than adding them to the article? Cel ^{Talk to me} 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it still would have WP:SYN problems - what we need is multiple third-party sources showing that the subject has been of interest to researchers, not an assortment of Wikipedians stringing together articles to make it seem like this is something notable. We need outside confirmation of notability. Biruitorul (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mention WP:SYN, but this doesn't really advance a position or contain a thesis. What position do you see this putting forth? Also, articles of this type should be noted, which allude to the material contained within the article. I don't see a notability issue, as articles like the aforementioned abound; I am, however, concerned with the SYN symptoms that the parent is mentioning. Cel ^{Talk to me} 21:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The position seems rather clear: that Western media is portraying Chávez as an emerging dictator bent on curtailing freedoms and assuming ever-greater powers, when "in fact" (ie, the POV advanced by the SYN) he's a democratically-elected president like any other who's got a bad rap and an array of media outlets (and governments) ganging up against him. Biruitorul (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, even if the article seems POV-pushing to some, that issue has a solution other than deletion. A simple improvement drive on the article can solve that problem. This issue is notable and verifiable, as can be established with sources. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It might be better to retitle this Media coverage of Hugo Chávez; the "representation" is a bit outside what most sources will tell us. See Category:Media coverage and representation. I'm not entirely convinced that this article needs to exist, but I think it is possible for one to exist. Right now it's not much more than a list of incidents. --Dhartung | Talk 23:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has real world significance and verifiability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR, WP:N, and WP:SYN. The sources given are not about his media coverage - they are simply examples of his coverage in the media. There is no claim to the notability of the subject of the article, namely, the media representation of an individual. The individual himself is without a doubt notable, but his "media representation" (the subject of the article) is not. His media coverage, in other words, isn't the "story" - his actions are. By claiming Chavez's media representation warrants an article on its own, I believe, is an example of WP:SYN, particularly as the article seems to be another article describing his actions. BWH76 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Hugo Chávez#Chávez and the media (which is essentially keep). The article is too short and redundant to justfy it being a spin-out of the main article. It also could use some NPOV balance. Ursasapien (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Dhartung makes a very good point, but BWH76 puts forward a very good response to it. If there were third-party reliable sources who were discussing the quality of Hugo Chavez's representation in the media, I think this would be a good article to have. Unfortunately, if this is nothing more than a summary, then yes, WP:SYN and Wikipedia shouldn't have it. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:40, 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 Speedily Deleted -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roll of Honour (song)[edit]

non-notable song, fails Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Songs BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert notability in any way. Could possibly be speedied as a copyvio, given that the song's lyrics comprise the vast majority of the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection to speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lissa Lauria[edit]

Based on her IMDB page she hasn't done anything of note yet. Possibly in the future, but for now she isn't notable. IrishGuy ^talk 20:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on her past accomplishments and her future films at such a young age, most notably one upcoming with Uma Thurman (in talks), she is someone to be added to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs)
Delete Fails notability guidelines for actors, regardless of age. Note that the above comment was placed by the page's author, and said user has not made any other edits unrelated to this actress' page yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first submission and edit, but as a writer, would like to begin doing more here. All of what I submitted was based on actual and factual information which can be referenced on this page. Being aware of the boy band, NLT, and having this young lady's name included on V Sevani's page, I thought it would be a very good idea to be able to connect with someone that was named there to gather further information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The references are about the same single film. One film does not notability make. IrishGuy ^talk 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but doesn't it make sense that when a name is mentioned in Wikipedia that there usually is interest in finding out who that person is? That's how I even submitted this, because of that reason. This allows people to follow a thread from one person to another giving them greater information which is why this site is here. Just a thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dobs7 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia isn't actually about everything. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability to come. --Dhartung | Talk 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After becoming more aware of Wikipedia guidelines, I continue to feel that this is of great interest considering that this person is mentioned on an independent topic from this. I read the following: The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."[1]. Notable in the sense of being "famous", or "popular" - although not irrelevant - is secondary. With notable, secondarily being 'famous' or 'popular' I feel it deserves to be listed. Again, considering that Lissa Lauria was mentioned on V Sevani's listing, it surely is significant and interesting. BTW, I'm enjoying learning more. I will soon become a greater part of this and hopefully contribute to a greater degree. Thanks.DobsDobs7 (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - if she's significant enough that someone could potentially write a book about her - not just a promo piece from her publicist or her film studio, mind you - then she's worth having a separate article about her on Wikipedia. I don't see that right now. Peripheral people don't get their own articles. Also, btw, I edited the article - every article here is supposed to be written in an encyclopedic style, and assertions of fact are supposed to be supportable. Statements like "Lauria knew that the stage was calling her" aren't really supportable, unless maybe they were reported in an independent third-party source that meets Wikipedia's reliability standards, in which case they should be reported as "in an interview in Variety magazine, Lauria said that she knew that the stage was calling her". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is unforunate as a new user of Wikipedia, is that I guess I've learned that when something is added to be an extension of another topic, namely V Sevani where Lauria is mentioned, that you can just remove the statement about her and an upcoming film with Uma Thurman. Is that how these things are solved? Do you just delete what proves someone should be included because it proves to be an article of interest? Furthermore, you are getting obviously very personal which I did not think was supposed to happen when 'discussing' this. I am not a publicist or anyone like that. I'm someone that is on the fringes of the industry and knows of NLT and wanted to include the person that was spoken of in that article. If the 'flowery language' of the 'stage was calling her' is offensive to Wikipedia, then I'll change it if you didn't edit it already. But a true statement on V Sevani's page should not have been removed because it helped the reason to delete this. I added it again. It was there to begin with and no one is disputing V Sevani's page.Dobs7 (talk) 14:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is a referenced article that asserts notability and that is only a few days old. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- References #5 and 9 are the same reference. As are #8 and 6. Another is a film website, one is an official website, and the last is a variety listing of film credits. None of these are valid reference denoting notability. There is not one reference where Lauria is the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Nor is there any evidence that Lauria meets the following: Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. IrishGuy ^talk 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering the youth of the article, we should give those interested in editing it more time than but a few days to find additional sources and establish these points. We're not in any kind of a hurry. Plus, some sources are better than none. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I can appreciate the concern over the speed of AfD from creation of article. I didn't check that when I posted my !vote above. However, you've got to admit, this is like more of a VSCA article than the typical "geez, give the guy a few days to fix it up" submission. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she seems to be at the start of a career, it's probably worth keeping the article around for now as it is likely it can and would only be expanded and improved over time. If she suddenly just disappears, then, I could see deleting it, but right now it strikes me as premature. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your position. Though, at the same time: we could say the same about every vanity article on Wikipedia. Thus the elder gods gave us WP:N and WP:RS so that we could come to our decisions. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's no real problem with Wikipedia having many articles. Early editions of even the most revered encyclopedias had articles entirely based on primary sources and that were wildly inaccurate, but they made do with what they could because it concerned an element of human knowledge. If nothing else, I think Dobs7 makes a valid point below. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: what IrishGuy said, if you investigate Lauria further, you will see many notable accomplishments for such a young age, not only in the field of acting but as a singer/songwriter as well. She is the lead singer (as well as soloist) in an L.A. band called L Squared (obviously from the LL in her name) and if you go to their myspace, their fan base is huge with many street teams, fansites, etc. I agree that deletion is pre-mature, especially with greater notoriety coming from a film in pre-production. Also, according to further online information, she just booked another film made for Lifetime TV called "Jake's Wing". I feel that her page on Wikipedia will be added to and probably very quickly over the next few months. Dobs7 (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myspace means less than nothing here. Fan sites mean less than myspace here. We want real sources. You're unfortunately making it seem like her Wikipedia article was created in a street-teaming exercise. The request was simple: provide reliable sources to demonstrate her notability. If you want to learn more, read WP:N and WP:RS for clarification. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 17:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I'm not part of a street team. That's actually funny if you knew my age. I added that because of Irishguy saying about 'cult following' and fans. That's the only reason. There has been many realiable sources provided to demonstrate that, and as every day goes by, there seems to be more and more, which will probably continue on a steady basis.Dobs7 (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One more additional comment - why does someone keep removing the name "Lissa Lauria" off of V Sevani's page? The film that he is in with Lauria and Uma Thurman has been on there for quite some time and is a fact which is spoken of all over the internet. I did not add that originally. But now that the name Lissa Lauria is being discussed if it's notable enough and the possibility of deletion, someone keeps removing her name. I'm beginning to wonder why that is happening and if this hasn't gotten very personal, although I've been told that it should never be so.Dobs7 (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It is an unsourced statement that doesn't belong in that article. It was originally added by XoBrianaox who only edited four articles and hasn't edited since February. IrishGuy ^talk 23:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsourced? It's all over the internet and is in pre-production. It's also on the production company's site as well as V Sevani's NLT websites. That's how I ended up here. It seems to me that it keeps getting removed because that's the one reason to keep Lissa Lauria's page. My question is, why wasn't it removed from V Sevani's page before? It's been there for quite a while. Why only now? I will put it back with sources as soon as I have time. It's a statement that was put there by someone who obviously felt it was an important part of the young man's career and being his first feature film, it is. Is there a 'higher' authority that a person can appeal to re: the omission from V Sevani's page? If there is, I will find them.Dobs7 (talk) 02:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is removed because it is unsourced...as noted here. IrishGuy ^talk 16:16, 22 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 and redirect to Dalby, Queensland as per consensus. Davewild (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mayors of Dalby, Queensland[edit]

Drastically incomplete list of non-notable people, all mayors of a small Australian town. The article is entirely unsourced. Mattinbgn\^talk 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a disputed PROD, see Talk:List of Mayors of Dalby, Queensland for details. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost everyone on this list will be a permanent red link like this one; therefore, this list serves no purpose. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mandsford; I see no problem with at least listing the mayors in the town's article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Dalby, Queensland. Mandsford (talk) 20:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Town of Dalby. See for example City of Ipswich to see how this has been done elsewhere. (Note that as with Ipswich I think the names should all be delinked, as they'll almost certainly never have articles that meet Wikipedia standards of notability.) Orderinchaos 20:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. As stand-alone list is fine if its a) complete; and b) of a major LGA (eg. a city). Neither fit the bill here. —Moondyne click! 02:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, Dalby is not really big or important enough to have its own list, but the information is useful and should be kept on the town's article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:25, 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 (non-admin closure) nomination withdrawn Whpq (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Marsh[edit]

~~Fails notability guideline WP:PROF, completely unreferenced. TreveX^talk 19:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

Excellent updates, good keep TreveX^talk 01:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. I have added references that show he is one of the significant contributors to what is essentially the bible of Social Work undergraduates. Thus, he passes WP:PROF. He is also extremely notable within his field; I'm looking for a source for this right now. This would also pass him on WP:PROF. Also, Google Scholars gives a substantial amount of material that he has authored himself or contributed to, which is another criteria for WP:PROF. I'm sure that the nominator is acting in good faith, but I think it's about time people start improving articles rather than deleting them. Cel ^{Talk to me} 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the several criteria at PROF specifically quilfy him? --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, 2, and 3. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been improved, and now shows sufficient notability. --Eastmain (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see a demonstration of notability. Can you be more specific. I generally support inclusion but I need a hint or two here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kevin: I'd like to see some stronger evidence of notability. Dean of a school is a good sign, but not enough to be automatically notable, I think. And WP:PROF #3 talks about the author or editor of a widely used text, but he seems to be neither, merely one of a large number of contributors to a text edited by someone else. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's very seldom that one individual writes an entire textbook in this field, especially when the textbook is aimed being an extremely authoritative text. Merely being selected as one of the contributors should be enough to make him notable. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I spent a little time on Google and see stong evidence that he is well noticed in academic cirlces and is published all over the web. While I'd prefer to see something about him more than by him, there is an inference from the widespread involvement in projects and as a lecturer at multiple universities. I think that the article is weak, but that is no reason for deletion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Cel. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:17, 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 speedily deleted. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mongohorn[edit]

non-notable band, no hits on Google News. Apparently created by an editor with a COI: Mongohorn (talk · contribs), who has made no other edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per criterion A7 (non-notable band), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:49, 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 consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shellbacks[edit]

No indication of significant third-party coverage. The sources of the article are all from the band directly and their music so far has been self-released. For now, they don't meet the requirements of the relevant guideline. Pichpich (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Utterly fails WP:MUSIC; no major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources, etc. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing to indicate that they pass any criterion of WP:BAND. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong delete. Utterly fails eveything. Blatant promospam. WP:VSCA. I tried editing the article to try to make it masquerade as encyclopedic, but was completely blown away by the spamicity of the article. If this sort of article can't be speedied, there must be a problem with the process. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's sort of an ambiguity about whether one should speedy spammish articles on notable bands (I believe we should but not all admins do so in practice). And there was some sort of weak claim of notability so probably the speedy deletion on those grounds would have also been declined. Pichpich (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any claim to notability, in the article. There was maybe some hyperbole and peacocking, but that's not the same. To me, a notability claim in the article would look something like "X is notable because..." - except, you know, written better than that. And this article definitely is a CSD:G11, I think. Though, it's true, I've tried to G11 spam articles many times, was rebuffed by editors, and had to take it to AfD. Thankfully, those sorts of AfDs result in a delete 90% of the time; I just think it's a tremendous waste of all these good editors' time to have to bring such articles here. Oh well. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:37, 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 Keep, consensus is that sources are avaialble to verify and establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Monster War[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the best sources will be ten-year-old Japanese gaming magazines, but I have no doubt they exist. The general rule seems to be that actual mainstream console games are notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The game does have a page on neoseeker, gamefaqs and gamespot. However those pages have little info regarding the game itself. Besides the picture found in the article seems to be from a gameboy color game.--Lenticel ^(talk) 22:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 19:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What actions have been taken to verify that the article is not just in need of improvement, but irredeemable? --Kiz o r 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few profile pages for the game [26], [27], [28] which do confirm things such as developer and release date, and suggest notability, but they don't provide that much information to build a verifiable article from. I've been able to find one review, though I don't know how reliable the website is. The existing information can probably be edited and sourced to the game manual (if somebody has it). The profile pages and the fact it is a mainstream console game suggest notability. I'm going to say keep. Also, as mentioned above, I don't doubt there's Nintendo magazines out there with reviews that could be used to make a reception section. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, It has an entry on Allgame (Godzilla: Kajuu Dai Kessen), and GameSpot (Godzilla: Kaijuu Daikessen). It was released December 9, 1994 in Japan for the Super Famicom. The serial number is SHVC-AG2J-JPN. It was published by Toho (or perhaps they just own the copyright to Godzilla), and developed by Alfa System (according to GameSpot). It's a 2D fighting game. The playable monsters are Godzilla, Mechagodzilla, Mechagodzilla 2, Super Mechagodzilla, Anguirus, Biollante, Gigan, Guoten, King Ghidorah, Megalon, and Mothra. I believe there were two Godzilla games made for the SNES/Super Famicom. The other was a 1993 Super Famicom/SNES game called Super Godzilla, also distributed by Toho and it was released in English and Japanese.

I don't speak Japanese, but using the symbols found on enwiki and the interlanguage links on the Japanese Wikipedia, this category on jawiki is the category for SNES games. I searched for Godzilla and found this page about a 1993 videogame with Godzilla, King Ghidorah, Mecha-Godzilla, and Biollante, which is in the category Godzilla films and Super NES games. I think that's the Super Famicom version of Super Godzilla though (based on the year and since the title is <something> Godzilla). The list of SNES games lists the release date of that game as December 22, 1993. And yes, from the Google translation I see that's Super Godzilla.

The Japanese Wikipedia page for Alfa System mentions Godzilla and Toho and Street Fighter II, possibly indicating a fighting game, although I believe it's mentioning a PC Engine game since I can't find the sub-title of this game, 怪獣大決戦.

The list of SNES games lists a Godzilla game under 1994 with the release date December 9 with a price of 9,980 yen, which is this game I believe. That link currently redirects to Godzilla though. The Google translation of the Japanese Godzilla article mentions it, under "Armageddon monster Godzilla." I'm sure there were reviews of the game in Japan when it came out. The Japanese title of the game is ゴジラ怪獣大決戦 according to the Japanese Wikipedia. There are 2,100 Google hits for that (14,700 hits if you put a space after Godzilla). --Pixelface (talk) 05:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Prosfilaes said, I'm sure coverage of this game exists in Japanese magazines from 1994. Help from WP:CVG/M and Japanese-speaking Wikipedians may be needed, but sources can be found and translated before our deadline. --Pixelface (talk) 20:00, 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 merge to the Troubles as suggested below. Bduke (talk) 07:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Murder triangle[edit]

Unreferenced sub-stub, apparent neologism, possibly reflecting a particular POV on The Troubles in Northern Ireland. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep- seems to me that is refering to something notable and historical, but I am not exactly sure. AndreNatas (talk) 19:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, there were a lot of killings there during The Troubles, but the issue is whether this label is anything other than a neologism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, numerous sources easily found. Guardian Irish Echo The Post etc. There is a book, Dublin Bombings and the Murder Triangle. The term has other uses including a mystery novel and similar application in other cities, but none seem collectively as notable. --Dhartung | Talk 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge an explanation of the term into the Troubles (e.g., "The area comprising East Tyrone, South Londonderry and North Armagh saw such levels of violence that it became known as the 'murder triangle'.") Dhartung's sources show that the term is not a neologism, but expanding this into a full article would be duplicating information that belongs elsewhere. EALacey (talk) 21:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per EALacey. BWH76 (talk) 11:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EALacey. Based on Google listings, there are several different uses of the phrase "murder triangle"; ultimately, this could wind up being a dab page once the literary articles pan out. B.Wind (talk) 05:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge until someone decides to write a decent article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:03, 24 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, sources have been provided to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 14:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Doktorski[edit]

Self advertisement for non notable musician. Fails to meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self advertisement. Non notable that does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is fairly well disguised advertising, and although there are many sources, the performer seems to fail WP:MUSIC entirely. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Absolutely, meets our music notability criteria. If an artist meets our music notability criteria (he does), the individual is notable enough for an article. Badagnani (talk) 19:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It further appears, from examining the past several thousand edits of the editor proposing deletion, that 90%+ of his/her deletion proposals are for individuals or items related to ISKCON (the Hare Krishna movement). While editors are not prohibited from editing or attempting to delete articles in a single subject area, I believe this shows some sort of agenda or WP:POINT. Bringing one of the top American classical accordionists into such a battleground is really not proper. I recommend the editor branch out into attempting to delete articles on a wide variety of subjects, not just those related to ISKCON-related subjects. Badagnani (talk) 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please state how individual meets the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (music). Otherwise, there is no reason to see this article as anything but an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, you'll need to state how he doesn't. I've actually read the criteria and see that he meets them. The burden of proof is on you. Badagnani (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He fails all 12 Criteria for musicians and ensembles. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The 6 CDs belie your wish (hope?). Badagnani (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment They are not from a major label. Wikipedia is not a place for advertisements. Next? Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's not a good idea to comment (let alone start a deletion discussion) if you don't know what you're talking about. Bridge Records, Inc. is one of the top classical record labels. Badagnani (talk) 20:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, not a major label, and only one album on an independent label. More notability is required. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't continue to discuss with you if you don't carefully read the article and compare it to the notability guidelines. I suppose I need to set them out for you. They say 2 CDs. There are 6. Badagnani (talk) 20:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not disagree with the number of albums. But only one album is on an independent label. AND, Its still an article a person wrote about themselves. Its an advertisment. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot continue to discuss with you if you don't carefully do your research. Several are on independent labels. It is strange that I have had to actually do this research and point out our own guidelines for you each step of the way rather than you (as nominator) doing that. By the way, the word "it's" contains an apostrophe. Badagnani (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Weakish) Keep, but trim to relevant, independently sourced information. This may be a vanity article, but the following links suggest to me that he has received sufficient coverage as an accordionist for an article here: [29], [30], [31]. The chess instructor/eBay seller type stuff can go a.s.a.p., however.--Michig (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And since the record label that has released at least one of his albums has also had one of their albums receive a Grammy[32], I feel the record label is sufficiently notable to count for WP:BAND criterion #5.--Michig (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The individual is highly regarded in the rarefied field of classical accordion in North America, and publishes what is probably the most comprehensive website for accordions and other free-reed instruments. Thus, he is particularly notable as far as players of this instrument in the classical field goes. Badagnani (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—Passes WP:N, meaning it passes WP:MUSIC criterion #1. I just added a reference to an article about him in the Post-Tribune and there are plenty more. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The three sources above do not meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor do they establish WP:N. One album on an independent label (not a major label), does not make for an article. Also, sources must be reliable, not websites with little or no reputation. This article is still an advertisement. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, in fact several of the albums are on independent labels (however much you may hope or wish that they are not). This was pointed out just above, so it seems that you are not only not carefully reading the article or notability guidelines, but in fact this very discussion. Badagnani (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has one foot in academia with another in music and is a writer. I don't think that he can be specifically excluded by any of the subject specific criteria since no single guideline has specific purview. However, he does seem to meet the WP:N guideline of being noticed in independent sources. Yes there is no one compelling source, but there are enough sources to convince me. On the other hand I'm not impressed by the article, which should be trimmed substantially. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update—I have added citations to two articles about him in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, and two articles about him in the Post-Tribune, one of which mentions his first-place prize in the American Accordion Musicological Society solo competition. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - But trim down to relevant information only as per Michig's comment above. I have gone ahead and removed the ebay link and some other comments as a start. Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and close - looks like a bad faith AfD. Article says: "He has performed on accordion with cellist Mstislav Rostropovich, violinists Gil Shaham and Itzhak Perlman during concerts": for a guy like me with no clue about classical, to share a stage with those names reeks highly of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete its obvious, a self promotion that does not adhere to NPOV and Notability guides.Wikidās 21:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Simply writing one line and hoping he doesn't meet the notability guidelines really isn't satisfactory. The multiple CDs belie your comment. It's important to ascribe good faith to other editors, but in this case your comment stretches this guideline quite to the brink. Badagnani (talk) 21:45, 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 ,notability has not been established. Davewild (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Squerrik[edit]

No assertion of notability, no secondary sources; tagged for improvement for a while with no changes. Black Kite 18:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable fictional character; may have marginal importance in universe but none outside it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had this been prodded, it most likely wouldn't be here.B.Wind (talk) 05:51, 22 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaknulak[edit]

No assertion of independent notability, unsourced, has been tagged for six months without improvement. Already mentioned in passing at Kobold (Dungeons & Dragons), which is probably as much as it needs. Black Kite 18:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Had this been prodded, it wouldn't be here now. B.Wind (talk) 05:53, 22 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. Hut 8.5 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theater of the Mind[edit]

Unsourced; no information available about the album Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL; no verifiable info yet exists on this album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CBALL. I'm surprised this has been around since 2006. Spellcast (talk) 02:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This shouldn't be deleted. If it isn't an album, what's with the song "Down In Tha Dirty"?Y5nthon5a (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears here: Strength in Numbers (Disturbing tha Peace album) --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 00:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eh okay lol. Yeah, get rid of this page.Y5nthon5a (talk) 01:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:CRYSTAL strikes again. B.Wind (talk) 05:56, 22 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 find the rationale of the delete voters to be stronger than the keep voters. Wizardman 17:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri Students Association[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a plainly inaccurate statement. TerriersFan (talk) 22:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SUs are not inherently notable. Although many sources exist on Google etc, none are reliable. 95% of all sourced material comes from the UM Maneater, which is not reliable or secondary to the org itself.—Noetic Sage 18:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As for reliability and independence, the student newspaper mentioned is not published by the student union itself. The Maneaster's web site states: "The Maneater is the official student newspaper of the University of Missouri - Columbia and is a student organization that operates independently from the student government, the School of Journalism and any other campus entity." Independent student newspapers should be regarded as reliable sources unless there is evidence to the contrary. --Eastmain (talk) 18:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Maneater may be considered secondary to the organization, but it is not secondary to the university. Even so, it is not reliable because it does not have a history of fact-checking and accuracy, much like many professional publications such as the New York Post and shoddy website news organizations.—Noetic Sage 19:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Noetic Sage.--Michael White^T·C 21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article has a reasonable amount of information, I don't see any need to delete it. GO-PCHS-NJROTC (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (trimmed) to the university's article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Apparently every article I have written for Wikipedia is up for deletion. Guess my membership will be up for deletion next. BCV (talk) 01:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepPage is sourced with sources independent from the organization, notability is not clearly defined but the organization has a budget of over a million dollars, which is a pretty good indication of probable notability.-Grey Wanderer | Talk 15:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - just another student gov.; non-notable, no meaningful sourcing. These bodies are unknown ten feet off university property. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The first-order major components of a major university are notable. DCV, please do not be concerned if it does get deleted. Given the existence of Deletionpedia, as mentioned at [33] you will be rather easily able to restore this article when consensus changes back again to realising that the organisation representing the undergraduate students at a major university is sufficiently notable to have an article, under which is newspaper, radio stations, and so oncan be grouped into sections.DGG (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely local, what the heck is a first-order component? Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the main University article unless it is significantly expanded with information regarding all of the groups and events that fall under this umbrella organization. BlueGold73 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep http://news.google.com/news?sourceid=navclient-ff&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS251US252&um=1&tab=wn&hl=en&q=%22Missouri+Students+Association&btnG=Search+News shows enough notability (including some not from the school paper). I'd go with merge, but WP:size prevents any merger I can see. Hobit (talk) 20:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:49, 22 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. Wizardman 17:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Missouri[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - an inaccurate statement; absolutely no basis for claiming inherent notability. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not inherently notable, but some reliable sources do exist that should be cited. This org is not local in scope, and instead legislates on a state level.—Noetic Sage 18:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - they do not legislate at all. This is a passing mention where the body is quoted as commenting on someone else's legislation. What is needed is a substantial source on the body as an entity and none have been produced. TerriersFan (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - only trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, local. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not local. The ASUM keeps a representative at the state's dept of education. This is unique and has been picked up on by several newspapers nationally: [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40]. The ASUM is also mentioned in a published paper regarding the history of the Missouri Library system [41]. Do I really need more?
- Yes, you need to not misrepresent a bunch of Missouri papers as national. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 00:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - One of them is from Texas. And newspapers all across Missouri covering it are good enough anyway. There's a large difference between being local and being state-wide. Oren0 (talk) 04:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as a suitable place for merging aditional material, though the present content is not vvery etensive. Sources seem to be present. DGG (talk) 01:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of citations to reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 23:52, 22 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. Wizardman 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Syracuse University & SUNY-ESF Student Association[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a statement with no basis in policy. TerriersFan (talk) 22:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is just another "assumption" being played in by the attempted establishment of "WikiProject Student Unions", which is not a WikiProject, does not solve any debates on the notability of student unions at all, does not provide any kind of policy in existence that points SUs are notable, and is another one of those "This is notable because I said so" attempts. Sorry, no offense, but by using the same non-guideline excuse in attempt to outweigh the several guidelines and policies on Wikipedia is... (I'll keep the rest of that sentence to myself...you can pretty much finish the sentence for me.) *sigh* - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clarified Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 02:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: SUs are not inherently notable, and this article specifically lacks notability because it is local in scope and has only trivial mention in reliable sources. There are a few mentions in local Syracuse newspapers, but I don't think that is enough to satisfy WP:ORG.—Noetic Sage 18:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability outside the SU area, therefore failing WP:ORG for local organizations. SU's are not inherently notable and c/ping the same rationale does not make them so. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator did the exact same thing copying & pasting a rationale. GreenJoe 18:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And you're canvassing (among other locations). Point? None of these discussions have or will be clean. Arguments should be made in policy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 20:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apparently you're Wikistalking. GreenJoe 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nope you've just done it on at least two pages that are on my watchlist. I'm sick of these pointless debates that end up with about 1/3 delete, 1/3 no consensus and 1/3 keep. Not a productive use of my time which was why I chose to comment here and not on the other ton listed here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion#16 March (AfD, CfD, TfD). I'd rather do contructive work than endless circular arguments that don't get anywhere. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        This is not Wikistalking. If you review Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities/Deletion, you'll see every single AfD, including, but not limited to AfDs you may or may not have participated (in voting keep because of the Wikipedia does not have a deadline thingy). This page lets you view every single request, every single vote, comment, and result realtime, which does not require a user to stalk your contrib list to make a point. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References are non-trivial and enough to establish notability. --Eastmain (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no non-trivial references.--Michael White^T·C 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Page is a billboard for non-notable alumni of the school to brag. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom & failure of WP:ORG. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This whole article looks like a copy/paste from the organizations website. Beyond that, there's just not enough to merge. Lovelac 7 03:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as we are supposed to do when notability is borderline.DGG (talk) 01:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:53, 22 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 defaulting to Keep, disagreement over notability. Davewild (talk) 14:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G-Log[edit]

No citations or references on notability. Company no longer exists since Nov 2005 - you'd imagine that anything notable would have been merged with Oracle article by now. Bardcom (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect – As mentioned by the nominator – all relevant information has been incorporated into the Oracle piece. Shoessss | Chat 18:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if the original company was notable before Oracle acquired it, it remains notable. Notability is permanent. The total information from this article that was actually incorporated into the Oracle Corporation article is: G-Log September 2005 Transportation Management Solutions N/A That wasn't a "merge," it was a "delete almost everything and merge." DGG (talk) 02:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. OK, I have restructured the page which was a mess. As DGG says the content wasn't merged. I also agree that a merged company retains its notability. My problem is that I am not particularly convinced that the company was notable. However, in marginal cases we should default to keep. BlueValour (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still no references to notability though. Google throws out the usual amount of press releases, but I can't find anything notable. Have you had any luck? Anybody? Bardcom (talk) 01:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there are significant endorsements here and here. Just about enough for a keep IMHO. BlueValour (talk) 01:23, 22 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. Wizardman 17:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State College Student Association[edit]

Local student organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not inherently notable, but a few reliable sources do exist.—Noetic Sage 18:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - only trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:ORG wants the activities of the org to be national in scope. The sources provided are clearly local, and trivial to boot. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd prefer to merge it, but there's no parent organization to merge to. Lovelac 7 03:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the news results presented above are good enough to satisfy WP:N. Oren0 (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "local" applies to local branches of an organisation, which are almost always non-notable. This particular article is about a statewide agency, transcending any particular college, and is a suitable place to put paragraphs about the parts in the indiviual colleges, instead of trying to write articles about each of them. A good compromise. DGG (talk) 01:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Needs to beef up source list. Otherwise it's a marginally notable subject. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:ORG due to total lack of independent sources. The article includes no assertion of notability and none has been produced despite a long AFD. BlueValour (talk) 04:39, 23 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) 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of Washington[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Plenty of WP:Original Research. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not inherently notable, but ASUW still has a number of reliable sources that have yet to be included. They were also involved in Washington State Supreme Court case GOOD v. ASSOCIATED STUDENTS.—Noetic Sage 18:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first and third results on the link Noetic Sage provided establish notability - involved in Washington Supreme Court Case, recognized by Washington State as a historical "Century Corporation."--Michael White^T·C 21:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for whatever reason, this one has attracted national recognition. Paddy Simcox (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This student government may be notable, but the article has no sources. I suggest merging it into the parent article. If, at some future point, the subject is well-sourced and long enough to stand on its own, it can once more be spun off into an independent article. Lovelac 7 02:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adequate sourcing, enough encyclopedic information, good editing as a merge for other information.DGG (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This SU actually has reliable sources as mentioned by NoeticSage's Google News search link (esp the supreme court case). - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:44, 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 no consensus to delete; merges and/or redirects can be discussed on the article talk page. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of California Students Association[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree that there are no reliable sources found in the article itself, but it appears that there are a number of quality sources out there which have yet to be utilized. This organization seems to be notable enough to satisfy WP:ORG because it a) is not local in scope b) is referred to in over 170 news articles and c) has legitimate legislative and governmental purposes (i.e. the org doesn't have merely trivial coverage).—Noetic Sage 17:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am not seeing any reliable sources commenting on the body as an entity. TerriersFan (talk) 22:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Noeticsage. Amerique^dialectics 17:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC) To expand on my keep, this is the largest SA in the state. They directly lobby to the legislature. They represent a huge number of students. GreenJoe 00:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously no basis for this claim. TerriersFan (talk) 22:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing any non-trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, without the list, to University of California. Although that article is long, a couple of more sentences won't hurt. This is an umbrella organization, and deserves a mention because people might not suspect that it exists, unlike the ubiquitous student governments every university has. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or if delete, then merge+redirect) as per User:Noeticsage in addition to other sources that I'm probably gathering a list for this one in a little bit to establish better notability. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of California per Paddy Simcox. Lovelac 7 04:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some failure to discriminate between those students clubs that have no particular genreal interest, and the student organisations which represent what is in practice the major division of a university. Have all of us here who have gone through college ignored everything but the classwork?DGG (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was a member of one of the graduate student sub-organizations of this organization. We had a couple of meetings, ordered pizza and debated the toppings. We sent a representative up to the main meeting, the decision was based on somebody wanting to visit their parents. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of California. There are no real sources within the article, and the content is such that it can just be quietly pointed to the main UC article until someone wants to take the time to develop an actual article. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per (jarbarf) and add a sentence mentioning it to the article. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:13, 24 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, although tending to keep. Bduke (talk) 08:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown University Student Association[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources beyond university paper. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - obviously false statement. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although much of the article needs to be edited (e.g. the individual students mentioned), the organization satisfies WP:ORG because it is mentioned a number of times in reliable sources like the Washington Post. These need to be integrated into the article, but it is notable.—Noetic Sage 18:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no sources include a substantial review of the body. TerriersFan (talk) 23:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no non-trivial coverage in independent sources.--Michael White^T·C 21:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - student bodies have to meet WP:ORG. This requires significant secondary sources. This page hasn't them and thus clearly fails notability standards. TerriersFan (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this one has some claim to fame, since now notable politicians were involved with it. I would change my not-vote to keep if one source were provided that said the Association was responsible for their later success (rather than the University). Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Noetic Sage
Delete - trivial media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sorry I couldn't contribute to this discussion earlier, was on vacation in real life. First off, this should never have been a deletion discussion and this page should not exist. This is a merger discussion, and should have been kept to the talk page. This should be a speedy keep on that basis. Second, I fiercely oppose a merger to Georgetown University, which I spent over a year making a featured article, and would hate to see trashed by an section that clearly deserves its own article. From WP:DEL#REASON, I note that "all attempts" have not failed, and I did find and cite portions of the article with my own, and also User:Noeticsage's secondaries. Additionally, university papers have been found to be acceptable external sources by director Raul654, as I dealt with the issue in Georgetown's FAC. Despite the current campaign of one user against such articles, other student unions have been found notable, so non-notability is not an innate attribute of such organizations. And a former US president was involved in this organization.--Patrick Ѻ 00:28, 24 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) 18:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Associated Students of the University of California[edit]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources beyond student newspaper. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although the article doesn't use any of them, basically all the references that support the article on the Free Speech Movement can apply to ASUC. Amerique^dialectics 17:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with Amerique - the Free Speech Movement was largely started at UC-Berkeley and ASUC was involved. Additionally, the org was involved in a Supreme Court case: SMITH v. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.—Noetic Sage 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I checked up on that, it was a California Supreme Court case that was successfully challenged in federal district court by ASUCR, the student gov at UCR. Amerique^dialectics 19:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amerique. GreenJoe 18:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and vastly expand. Their impact was world-wide back in the 60s. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'keep please involved with supreme court case also yuckfoo (talk) 00:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:Noeticsage's explanation of ASUC in addition to many San Francisco Chronicle articles I've read involving ASUC over the years when I was living in California. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I believe this student government meets our notability requirements, but it just doesn't have enough sourced information to stand alone. Lovelac 7 03:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not local, but an important part of a university of international importance. Yes, perhaps some ofthese articles should go but--and I say it about other subjects also--it depends on the importance of the particular subject. DGG (talk) 01:41, 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.

Washington University Student Union[edit]

The result was Merge to Campus_life_at_Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Washington_University_Student_Union (non-admin closure). The keeps and deletes largely cancelled each other, leaving a consensus for merging. SilkTork *^YES! 19:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Local student government organization. No WP:Reliable Sources beyond WUSU website or student newspaper. No assertion of WP:Notability. Merge to main page contested. RedShiftPA (talk) 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —RedShiftPA (talk) 17:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I found only one potentially reliable source, but it seems almost trivial. The organization is local in scope and does not have enough national coverage to satisfy WP:ORG.—Noetic Sage 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Inherently notable. Wikipedia has no deadline. GreenJoe 18:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please cite the guideline which states that it is inherently notable simply for existing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.". - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:09, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no non-trivial coverage.--Michael White^T·C 21:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability established in hundreds of non-trivial mentions in Student Life: [42]. Note that Student Life is completely independent of both the Union and the school, so it's a secondary source that easily meets WP:RS. Oren0 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is confusing that the official name of the publication is called Student Life. As Oren0 wrote, it is not published by the Student Union.--Lmbstl (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Student newspapers are not reliable because they do not have a history of fact-checking and accuracy. Being secondary is only one of the requirements of being reliable.—Noetic Sage 00:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who says? Student Life has been around and independent for 130 years and has won awards for excellence. It easily passes WP:RS as far as editorial control and has been used as a source in several Wikipedia articles. Oren0 (talk) 01:34, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just an FYI, I found 14 sources in a matter of about 10 minutes, listed here. I already voted for a merge, but there is not a dearth of sources.--Lmbstl (talk) 03:42, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: As it stands, the article cannot stand on its own, and I vote that it be merged into Campus life at Washington University in St. Louis unless improvements are made.--Lmbstl (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Sources There are a total of six wustl.edu links, which in this case, does not help establish notability because it's just the university website of the SU. Three of them comes from studlife.com, the university's student newspaper, also not a WP:RS. The collegeprofiles.com reference is a trivial source. KMOV is a local TV station, hence a local source. The Columbia Tribune and insidehighered.com would have passed as good sources, but the article was more about the Student Union President, not the organization itself, hence fails as well. STLtoday.com source is local as well. So...every single source you've added so far - does not satisfy WP:N. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The original request to merge was contested because of violations of DELETING, MAJOR CHANGES, Wikipedia:CONSENSUS, and PRESERVING INFORMATION, which made this entire episode unnecessarily contentious. For the record, I do not agree with the implicit objective that the article should be removed without an opportunity to be reviewed/improved.--Lmbstl (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I know that some editors oppose a merger, but I think it is the fairest solution. To me, this AfD isn't about obliterating Washington University Student Union from Wikipedia. It's about presenting in the context of Washington University. This is quite simply a question of presentation, and I say we present the information in the parent article. Lovelac 7 03:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "presenting the Washington University Student Union... in the context of Washington University.: that;'s exactly right. The major parts of the University are appropriate for separate treatment. Just as the college of Arts and Sciences there should have a separate article, dealing with the academic side of things, so should this. DGG (talk) 22:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why are some of these more debated than others? I have to get to work, but these student governments have to pass Wikipedia's notability requirements like any other organization. Delete them all unless they have citations showing real, non-local notability. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is to delete because you think most of the other AfD's will end in deletes? Judge each on its own merits. This one has numerous sources as linked above and it, like most of today's noms for these groups, is getting significant keep support. Oren0 (talk) 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, my argument is "Delete them all unless they have citations showing real, non-local notability", like I just typed. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, if the university is important enough the branches are important. Notability is about importance. And a major state university is of non-local importance. DGG (talk) 01:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but these AfD discussions are supposed to center around Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not User:DGG policies and guidelines. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually notability must be present in each subarticle as well. Or else you'd end up with articles like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undergraduate Business Program at Cornell University. Cornell's definitely a notable university, but their undergraduate business program sure as hell is not. When considering student organizations in each this SU, experienced editors often can't ignore guidelines set by WP:UNIGUIDE, WP:ORG, and other pertinent Wikipedia policies. Although most of these SU articles are written by current students, past alumni, and the occasional Joe from a rival university, these articles are often not notable with trivial or no reliable sources to back their article up. We really should not label every SU article across the board for AfD, but this should not stop editors from judging each and every single SU article separately using existing policies and guidelines. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trim & Merge, No Redirect Article deserves merging into the WU article, but not notable enough to be its own article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:00, 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 speedily deleted (A7). -- Flyguy649 ^talk 17:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua cooke[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7 - so tagged already. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7, tag already placed by another user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:04, 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. Hut 8.5 10:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs of War (rugby)[edit]

Article seems to be about a local rugby union team, about which there is very little interest outside of a very narrow field. The article is poorly referenced, and a quick Google search revealed no hits for this specific team. – Pee Jay 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Although i don't follow the sport of Rugby at all, at first glance, this article seems genuine. Then, a check of 3 internet search engines found this team. The article does however need references. So i suggest, if it survives this AfD. Add a No sources tag. TheProf | Talk 20:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, so you managed to find the team on Google. However, I'm almost certain that this team does not meet any sort of notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. – Pee Jay 21:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable team playing in a non-notable league. Dancarney (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Neuter~~, er, Delete per nom. B.Wind (talk) 06:00, 22 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 there is no need for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Macdonald's discography[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Amy Macdonald's discography

Duplication of information in the discography section of Amy Macdonald (singer) - content should remain centralised in this article Fritzpoll (talk) 16:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough for a separate article; her discography can stay where it's at on her own page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree, no need for two seperate pieces. Shoessss | Chat 18:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - already in Amy Macdonald (singer) article; would not be a valid redirect (as opposed to... possibly... Discography of Amy Macdonald?). B.Wind (talk) 06:04, 22 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. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 13:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mari Luz Cortes[edit]

Murdered child, fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – ~~Sorry to say. No pieces at all in Google News. Which than means that we cannot establish notability~~. My Sympathies to the family. Shoessss | Chat 18:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I suggest you try your search again. I get 37 hits[43] in papers such as The Mirror and The Sun. Searching in Spanish gives 337 hits[44], but I'm not fluent in the language. Pburka (talk) 18:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you are right, sorry to say either I misspelled or had fat fingers today, there is coverage from credible and verifiable sources. Thanks for showing me. Struck Delete and moved to Keep. Shoessss | Chat 01:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:ONEEVENT. Sad but not notable apart from dying TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are enough verifiable non trivial sources as shown plus [45] to support retaining the article. Mis condolencias a la familia.— Ѕandahl 03:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the reasons given by Travellingcari. This is news, not notability. Is Wikipedia to become the repository for every murdered person story, no matter what their significance? WWGB (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brief assessment against the proposed guideline WP:N/CA at the time of writing (here [46]): The British press stories do not confer notability on the case, because they are basically using it to rehash the focus on Madeleine McCann. I cannot read the Spanish stories, but the ones in English all seem (at first glance) to come from a single provider. The proposed guideline would therefor suggest that the article be kept and moved to a new article titled something like Disappearance or Murder of... provided that the spanish references met the sourcing requirements of WP:N/CA. Otherwise the article would be deleted under the proposed guideline. Just my interpretation, anyway! Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Excellent point! Agree. Shoessss | Chat 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for memorials. B.Wind (talk) 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The Sun and Mirror aren't reliable. PhilKnight (talk) 23:58, 22 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 there is no need for a seperate article. Davewild (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Allen (discography)[edit]

Duplication of information in the discography section of Lily Allen Fritzpoll (talk) 16:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content is no longer duplicated on her main page. Given the length of the main article, I think that the discography is sufficient to stand on its own. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete now that info has been re-added to Lily Allen. Unless consensus changes, of course... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TenPoundHammer but rename it Lily Allen discography (currently redirects to Lily Allen, hence why it was probably named like this) like every other discography page. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only because it was removed by the author of the page being considered for deletion, with no consensus from other editors to fork the material. I have now restored the material Fritzpoll (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny. Um...hmmm. Now it comes down to my knowledge of British indie music. Miss Allen only has one album as of five minutes ago (has it changed yet?) and a handful of singles (one hit #1 in the UK). I'm gonna change my vote Weak Delete because of the small amount of releases right now, but that doesn't mean it could be recreated when she releases her second album and resultant singles. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Information duplicated from the Lily Allen article. Insufficient releases to justify a separate article in any case. And FWIW, she has nothing to do with indie music.--Michig (talk) 17:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know what I meant (indie/alternative. I said one when I meant the other) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 19:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would have kept. *shrug* If this is ever recreated it should be at Lily Allen discography, in line with other such articles. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as duplicate, and premature given how few releases she has out. When she's been around as long as Madonna or Mariah Carey, then let's talk. 23skidoo (talk) 13:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that long, i'd wait until she at least has either two albums, or enough EPs and singles to sustain a discography (i.e. Arctic Monkeys) Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 13:24, 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. When the comments of SPA's are discounted the consensus that this is inappropriate in several ways (WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc) is clear. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter[edit]

Original research. Page created by one of the authors of this fringe theory. The various references vary from (a) those which do not actually support/mention the thesis, (b) those which are are extremely obscure (d'Albe 1907?) and/or in Russian. Bm gub (talk) 16:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE 1: this article may be a recreation of the 2006 deleted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_nesting. Bm gub (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE 2: some keep comments are being added to Talk:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter rather than here. Bm gub (talk) 20:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a synthesis of ideas, POV pushing, conflict of interest, you name it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, OR synthesis and badly written beyond the point of being fixable. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:10, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. I doubt that Benoit Mandelbrot or Heinrich Wilhelm Matthäus Olbers would be pleased to see their names included in this article. The phrase 'infinite hierarchical nesting' does not occur in either of their Wikipedia articles. The concept presented in this article is a novel creation which is not accepted by reliable sources. Even WP:FRINGE articles require better sourcing than this. EdJohnston (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no original research, the article is long and well referenced; the concept of fractal distribution of matter is becoming very popular nowadays. So, don't be destructive, keep it. Denis Tarasov (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am agree completely with Denis Tarasov to keep this article in contens of Wikipedia and let the author to continue his work about this interpretation. With regards,Den Israel (talk) 19:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC) 19:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter can not be WP:OR because this idea is so old as atomism. From here it is not an original research of one author, but it is more belief a lot of people and scientists in many countries. The theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter can not be simply the synthesis of different ideas because it is the theory in opposition to atomism. The theory is common and have the right to be in Wikipedia. Moreover the theory is very important for the next development of science.

About the argument "non-neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV). Please show where it take place in the text precisely? And what do you mean under “articles require better sourcing”? On the page is 22 references !!

The page is translation to English from Russian Wikipedia where the page was already carefully examined for such criteria as WP:OR and so on. I call you to help for good translation of the article, and for search of more reliable references if you are sure that it is necessary. If you think that the name “Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter” does not occur in either of their Wikipedia articles may be you find the better name? Fedosin (talk) 06:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has specific and longstanding practices to deal with fringe physics theories. Right now, the article suggests that 10 or so people, over the last 100 years or so, have independently thought, "Whoa, isn't an atom sort of like a mini-solar-system, and a solar system sort of like a mini-galaxy?" This doesn't particularly differentiate your theory from the hundreds of few-adherent physics theories we delete all the time. The article does not even begin to suggest that there's a coherent school of thought behind the "fractal" idea; it's just a list of people who have, at one time or another, said, "Whoa! Fractals!" Oldershaw, for example, has published dozens of unrefereed papers and gotten exactly one obscure citation. The Plyashkevich works appears to be in Russian books, not in journal articles; I can find no US libraries carrying these books, and no one citing these books in further discussion: again, not notable. The Fedosin books are completely absent from Western libraries and are cited nowhere. The Baryshev and Teerikorpi book is about galaxy clusters only, not "infinite hierarchy". This is what we mean by "not notable". A few people have come up with this fractal idea, but nobody has paid them any attention. Two ideas: (1) You are welcome to keep working on your idea and attempting to publish it in refereed journals; Wikipedia has nothing to do with this. After some of these articles are published and receive notable mainstream citations, then perhaps your theory can be summarized here. (2) Fractal-ish cosmogeny (as a religious/philosophical idea about the structure of the Universe) might be the topic of a notable article, ideally backed up by scholarly articles tying together the similar beliefs of the Raelians, Bryusov, etc. Bm gub (talk) 15:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (User talk:Bm gub). Thank you for your opinion. I think you agree that Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is not only the theory of nowadays. It is a whole world outlook with ancient history, like atomism. Only in last century it become understand that the theory must be approved mathematically as it necessary for modern science standards. As a whole world outlook the theory is in focus of our view can not be dependent of quantity of published articles in scientific journals. Of course it must be on the Wikipedia. Atomism is a part of the Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, at the same way, as circular motion of things is a part of development in philosophy. If you think that it necessary to add some reference or publish some new articles on the theme – but it was already done. Some publications and references in scientific journals simply was not called because of absence of place on the page. For example, shot list here:

Maurizio Michelini. The Physical Reality Underlying the Relativistic Mechanics and the Gravitational Interaction. – arXiv: physics/0607136 v1, 14 Jul 2006.
S.G. Fedosin. Electromagnetic and Gravitational Pictures of the World. // Apeiron, Vol. 14, No. 4, P. 385-413, 2007.
S.G. Fedosin, (Contemporary Issues of Physics. In Search for the New Principles), Editorial URSS, Moscow. (2002) 192 pp. ISBN 5-8360-0435-8. (in Russian).
Jaakkola T., Moles M., Vigier J.-P. Empirical Status in Cosmology and the Problem of the Nature of Redshifts // Astronomische Nachrichten, 1979, Vol. 300, No. 5, P. 229–238.
Fedosin S.G. Problems of fundamental physics and possible ways of their solution // Cognition and physical reality (Russian Journal), V. 9, No. 2, 2004, P. 34 - 42.
R. L. Oldershaw .Hadrons As Kerr-Newman Black Holes. Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, arXiv:astro-ph/0701006v2 .
R. L. Oldershaw. The Meaning Of The Fine Structure Constant. Electronic Journal of Theoretical Physics, arXiv:0708.3501v1 [physics.gen-ph].
Fedosin S.G., Kim A.S., Shakhurdin V.I. Principle of modelling of extreme conditions of space objects. The power approach // VINITI, No. 3072-В00 from 06.12.2000, 12 pages.
Fedosin S.G. and Kim A.S. THE MOMENT OF MOMENTUM AND THE PROTON RADIUS // Russ. Phys. J., V. 45, 2002, P. 534 – 538.

As for Gandalf61, User:TenPoundHammer, User talk:EdJohnston opinion about deletion of the page. The page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was generated in February of 2008. No one commentary or discussion was on the Talk page from this members of Wiki. But suddenly in March of 2008 they tell about deletion of the page. What is this? It is very like to attack of some people. Of cource for somebody it is much more convinient to destroy then to build. So I appeal to Wikipedia editors to take into considerations possibilitiy of this attack, which has no real foundation. Fedosin (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you have identified a bunch of articles which no one has ever cited. Fedosin, Oldershaw, and Michelini are writing this stuff and uploading it to the ArXiv, but nobody is reading or using it. Zero citations across the board. Jaakola et. al. had an alternative cosmology (steady-state, tired light, etc.), but not the cosmology this article is about. Apeiron is well-known as an unrefereed "crackpot journal" and not generally a reliable source.

Before you complain about destruction/censorship, please read WP:NOT. Wikipedia is not a science journal for the publication of new cosmology theories, or the advertisement/promotion of little-known theories. Whether or not a theory is "new" or "little known" is a judgement call, guided by principles like WP:NN and WP:RS and WP:FRINGE, and that call will be made by the editors' consensus, as with any encyclopedia. You are welcome to present evidence and arguments that your theory is notable, reasonably weighted, and based on reliable sources, but please do not pretend that there is some free-speech right for all articles to exist. Bm gub (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear (User talk:Bm gub). First of all, you must prove all your arguments. Give us evidence that main thesis and conclusions of theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter was not used in scientific research and was not published in scientific journals? Can you say exactly how many publications must be on the theme and after it you say all right? Can you prove that the theory has no ever cited ? Please give us some references where the theory is found to be false or have mistakes and so on?

About your opinion that Fedosin, Oldershaw, and Michelini and so on are writing this stuff and uploading it to the ArXiv, but nobody is reading or using it. Your opinion is quite wrong. Nobody in science can not have new results in the theory without knowing of foundations of theory which must be used. I must repeat again that the theory of Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is not simply a cosmology. The theory is world outlook and so give us a lot of new results in many different fields.

In addition to 23 references on the page Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter, and to 9 references on publications, which are above, please check of the Publications List at www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw shows over 50 articles in refereed journals. Is it too little for you? Fedosin (talk) 05:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPIRES shows one citation for 11 Oldershaw papers. The one citation is to an technical experimental note, in French, itself with no further citations. Clicking through "citations" links on a ADS search for "robert oldershaw" shows 70 total citations to 26 of Oldershaw's 46 papers. These are (1) dozens and dozens from *other* Oldershaw papers, (2) two from the unrefereed crackpot journal "Foundations of Physics", and (3) several citations to Oldershaw's non-fractal cosmology articles like [47] and [48], and (4) two from Alfven, the other lone anti-Big-Bang guy. Fedosin on Spires shows one article only, and no citations to it. "Fedosin" on ADS shows zero. This is the standard way of gauging interest in a physics theory, and what I have seen (barely a few citations to 20 years of articles) is basically "zero interest". Bm gub (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here some comments from: Talk:Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter.

The page is useful, don^t delete!--MiraLeon (talk) 12:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia so I do not know if I am doing this correctly, but I would like to speak in support of Fedosin article on Infinite Hierarchical Nesting. I have worked in the area of discrete fractal paradigms and hierarchical cosmological modeling for over 30 years. This basic paradigm has a long history, which can be traced back to Democritus and Lao Tse in about the 5th century BC. Many scientists and artists and philosophers who have studied nature have "rediscovered" the discrete hierarchical paradigm over the centuries. Spinoza's metaphysics is based on the paradigm. It is very much worth considering and taking seriously.

Fedosin's article has grammatical problems and includes some sketchy versions of this paradigm, but it is a reasonable start. It is reductionism, rather than "atomism", that Fedosin really wants to question. The strength of Wikipedia is that articles become better and more useful as many people add their expertise to the articles.

Why not keep this article on Infinite Hierarchical Nesting for 6 months to a year and see if develops in a positive way.

Some of the arguments for deletion are arguments "from authority", and basically say 'this is not the way I think, so it must be wrong'. Healthy science with a capacity for progress requires that we allow fringe" ideas. Most of the best scientific ideas have come from the "fringes": like a patent inspector 3rd class in 1905, self-taught Faraday, Mendel, Wegner and his continental drift, Spinoza, Copernicus,etc. We should learn from history so that we do not repeat our mistakes.

Please do not censor work on the Infinite Hierarchical Paradigm. Rloldershaw (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Sincerely, Rob Oldershaw —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rloldershaw (talk • contribs) 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rob, please add your comments to the following page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Infinite_Hierarchical_Nesting_of_Matter. That is what the admins will read when deciding whether to delete or keep. Bm gub (talk) 16:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC

Keep The page is useful, don’t delete. Moreover, I think you agree that Infinite Hierarchical Nesting of Matter is very important for the next development of science.--MiraLeon (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reasons for participating: In his long diatribe above Fedosin questioned my motives for taking part in this AfD. I gave my opinion above because I saw this AfD in Category:AfD debates (Science and technology), which I scan regularly. No one has invited me to come here or canvassed my opinion or tried to influence my opinion in any way.

I invite Den Israel, MiraLeon and Rloldershaw to be similarly open about their reasons for participating in this AfD. I note that these are all new accounts whose only contributions to Wikipedia so far have been in this AfD debate. Gandalf61 (talk) 10:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would observe that Roldershaw, MiraLeon, and Fedosin appear to be three of the authors credited in the references. Bm gub (talk) 14:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is beyond saving from a simply grammatical standpoint. I cannot make heads or tails of half of it, meaning anyone but the author would be lost in trying to salvage anything from this. Most of the referenced material has no relevance to the subject of the article (that which I'm not even sure of). Furthermore it seems to be purported as a scientific theory instead of metaphysics/philosophy/etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.220.182.37 (talk • contribs) 22 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 consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Etches[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO. He stood in an election and received only 1.66% vote which eventually made him last person in that election. This article - Randy Kamp - can light on those issue. Thus, nominating for deletion. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_________________________________________________________

Response to deletion submission.

By the same token then it should be noted that Ralph Nader's page should be deleted as well as he did not get as many votes as an independent as Scott Etches. Furthermore unlike Ralph Nader Scott Etches did go on to win a seat in a public election to public office. So to suggest that public officials should not be included in the wiki simply because at one tiime they ran in an election and did not get elected is a silly assertion. Also it should be noted that of the over 400 independents who ran in te 2004 election Mr. Etches ranked 11th in that field for percerntages of the vote. Running as an independent in a party system dominated state is activism rather than an intent to actually get elected. Issues not on the radar of the parties have an opportunity to be expressed during the debates.

Here is a link to the Mission BC website where Scott Etches currently serves on councilMission web page

Comment Please sign your comments with four tildes ~~~~. Also, What about X? arguments are not considered especially persuasive on AFD. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Actually I didn't tag him as he became last. What I tried to mean is, that is the only notability (!) he achieved. And unfortunately this is not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, well below WP:BIO standards. --Dhartung | Talk 21:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found to suggest WP:N. I would be intrigued to know which automobiles Mr Eches wouldn't want to rear-end, mind. Plutonium27 (talk) 23:56, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liberty Fallen[edit]

Should be deleted per WP:CRYSTAL. No references to verify information. Article even says a website isn't up. On the other side ^Contribs|@ 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article cannot be verified. Mostly conjecture at this point, so it doesn't even warrant a redirect to Valve or Half-Life. —C.Fred (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Not only does it fail to assert notability, it openly asserts its lack of notability. The product needs to be released and then attract independent coverage before it can have an article. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Pure unverifiable speculation. I started to tag it for speedy, but it didn't quite seem to fit any one category. It is almost A7, but its being a mod for a major game could be considered an assertion of notability, albeit a purely hypothetical one since the mod does not yet exist. There should be a speedy category for this, but there's not. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC) 17:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as above. BWH76 (talk) 11:39, 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 deleted (CSD G7). Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mistajones[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO. Probably a case of WP:COI. A Google search returns a myspace page first instead of any reliable reference. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CSD G7 as author has blanked the page. So tagged. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:09, 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 nomination withdrawn with no "delete" recommendations. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Court Theatre (Chicago)[edit]

Delete as per WP:Note. This information can be included in University of Chicago article if active editors feel it appropriate. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 16:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn as notability is established. I would like to thank specially Eastmain to bring some excellent third party references to prove me wrong. In case you need any assistance, feel free to ask me, I'll try my best to help you. Cheers! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 19:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge with University of Chicago. If notable for it's productions/activities, it would be so through them. Cel ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has plenty of references from reliable sources to establish notability as a free-standing institution.--Eastmain (talk) 19:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. References have been added to establish notability as a standalone institution. Good job, Eastmain. Cel ^{Talk to me} 19:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Hotel Babylon, no content worth merging. Davewild (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Trueman[edit]

Non notable character. Any information should be merged to Hotel Babylon. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agree with nom. Wiki-nightmare (talk) 22:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hotel Babylon. Good King Wenceslaus (talk) 16:11, 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hotel Babylon. Two sentence stub doesn't contribute to a merge. B.Wind (talk) 06:12, 22 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: No-one other than the nominator supports deletion. Non-admin closure. Chris (talk) 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Sforza[edit]

Notability is not asserted for person. She is related to many others, but notability is not inherited. Zero references and the link is dead. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plentiful ghits, e.g. [49], [50], [51]. JJL (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep JJL's first link is good enough for me. You should have contacted the article's author or a relevant Wikiproject instead of taking this to AFD (let alone prodding it). Zagalejo^^^ 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will happily withdraw the nomination if references are added and notability asserted. I will contact WProject Royalty, but they should do something. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you do something instead of expecting others to do all the work. Here are over 600 sources you can use to improve the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse, me but I don't really care about this person. I can do a little something, but I'm not really interested in 15th century Italian nobles. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per obvious notability from a Google Books search. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notaqble historical figure. ineverheardof it isnto an acceptable reason for deletion. Search first, before nominating. DGG (talk) 04:13, 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 per the additional sources identified during the discussion establishing notability. Davewild (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Seattle Business Association[edit]

Local group, non-notable beyond Seattle. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - per nom, notability of organization not established. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete - update after further research. This really is a borderline case on notability under WP:ORG. While I still lean slightly towards delete, I can see that a decent argument exists to allow it to remain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:21, 20 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some newspaper articles as references. This GLBT group appears to be notable outside of Seattle as well, since it engages in advocacy at the state level and it works together with similar business associations in other states, according to the article. --Eastmain (talk) 20:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The only reliable source is one article in the Puget Sound Business Journal. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikipedia not an ever-evolving encyclopedia? I myself intend to continue developing this article and others I consider myself knowledgeable in. As additional sources come to light I see no harm in allowing the article to be here in a state of constant development. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Being that I am the originating author of this article, my opinion may be somewhat biased, but I will try to remain objective. Thank you for your comments Eastmain! While this organization may have only a regional membership, it has historical basis as one of the first and arguably largest organizations of it's kind. I did not include these in the article itself since I have no unbiased source to quote those facts but I believe them to be true. If someone has documentable evidence of those I would be greatly appreciative of that information. Furthermore, the GSBA's Scholarship program was definitely the first of it's kind (also excluded from the article for lack of a citable source) in the region, perhaps in the entire United States or greater global stage. To further Eastmain's comments about the GSBA's involvement in advocacy, the organization was also a founding member of larger organizations such as the WBA and later the NGLCC, as noted in the article. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 06:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - the issue is if the article meets the criteria of notability per WP:ORG. I have posted an opinion above of delete, but would be willing to reconsider if it can be explained how the article meets the threshold of notability as outlined in the WP:ORG guideline. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment - I'm definatly a wikinewbie Barek, but I'm glad you pointed out WP:ORG to me and mentioned notibility. It's an important issue. Since you've convinced me to remove the "Prominent Members" section, I'm hoping I can convince you to change your vote regarding AfD. After reading through WP:ORG, I have added a few other secondary sources and I plan to search and look for more verifiable evidence of this organization's notibility. In the meantime, I am still of the opinion that this article's content has historical and informational value. -- Financial-Foodie (talk) 21:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Here's another reliable source (but a small publisher) with substantial coverage[52]. There's also minor coverage in a number of articles from major publishers[53]. There's something inherently interesting (i.e. worth reading, notable) about a local gay chamber of commerce as opposed to, say, a hamburger restaurant with the same amount of encyclopedic news coverage. That's because gay empowerment and social values are a very important long-term issue, and understanding them (unlike hamburgers) is important to an encyclopedic knowledge of modern American culture. So my tendency would be to lean on the side of inclusion of articles of this type if they are close to the threshold.Wikidemo (talk) 19:05, 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 no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 15:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Art for Sale[edit]

Fails WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article does as far as I can determine meet all the requirements that are cited as objections. Firstly, the game ‘Art for Sale’, although it seems to be new has been cited on a few gaming forums. Secondly it can be verified that the game exists by going to the sited reference an downloading the game and must therefore a reliable source. Both the webpage and game should merit the inclusion of the article as the existence can be verified and there should not be any objection. In addition the game can also be found by searching for it on the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robroy865 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC) — Robroy865 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep: I downloaded and played the game after reading its page on wikipedia. Think it fits well into the class of tycoon simulation games that it has been classed in. Carinasch.
Delete. No third-party sources cited to establish notability, such as formal reviews in gaming magazines. Hqb (talk) 17:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary coverage; fails WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article for Deletion - article appears promotional in nature. No independent citations in article. Google can't be used effectively here since "art for sale" appears with regularity in advertisements. B.Wind (talk) 06:16, 22 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, no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypnotica (Von Sydow, Eric)[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Article fails to establish notability guidelines at WP:BIO, fails sourcing requirements for a biography of a living person at WP:BLP Dissolva (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable biography, no references provided from reliable independent sources. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dissolva's nomination statement. Gwernol 12:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was in the New York Times best seller book "The Game" and is a major figure in the seduction community. Mathmo ^Talk 08:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - has a website, review of his CD is mentioned in NYT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.106.210 (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC) — 121.217.106.210 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable references. Reywas92 ^Talk 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, no sources, no refs. The article is literally 3 sentences long. If this was a "MySpace-band" article it would have been deleted in a second. Rien (talk\stalk) 15:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per WP:SNOW, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER, WP:OR, probable WP:COPYVIO, and a touch of WP:IAR. Happy‑melon 21:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who is to Blame for Tribal Backwardness[edit]

Non-encyclopedic, original research, POV. This reads like a school essay--a fairly good school essay, but still not appropriate for Wikipedia. Justin Eiler (talk) 14:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed as per nom. Paste (talk) 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reads like an essay and a possible copyvio as The views expressed in this paper are of the author and not of the institute in which he is employed is written at the bottom. Either way it is not suitable content for an encyclopedia. AngelOfSadness talk 14:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV-laden essay -- and per AngelOfSadness, a possible copyvio too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a WP:SOAP vio. Wikipedia is no place for personal essays. almost entirely original research, That text written at the bottom is either points to copyvio or a possible attempt at page ownership. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A bit cruel to call it a school essay - the author claims to be a senior research officer! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title already has a strong POV built into it, so it's not surprising to find that the actual article is just a POV-laden essay. Klausness (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Considering the depth of agreement, I'm going to go ahead and put this up for speedy under the snowball clause. Justin Eiler (talk) 21:43, 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 23:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Whiting (architect)[edit]

Non notable academic. No independent sources found on Google. Paste (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Paste (talk) 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems to be rather more notable than I realised, so a Keep then! Paste (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Whiting is one of the most notable young academics and practitioners in architecture. Her acumen is highly regarded by architects, critics and academics. The fact that the New York Times solicits a contribution from her (source listed on references) on one of the highest profile architecture competitions in the World (Les Halles of Paris) indicates that they highly value her opinion. Just because Google/Google Scholar doesn't return substantial number of results doesn't mean that the person isn't notable. Google Scholar is still a beta project that's trying to incorporate library indexes for academic journals and is far from its goal. If you are not convinced I can expand her bibliography to include more works. Bgnuf (talk) 14:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keeep Obviously, she is notable as an academic; quite so in her field, judging by how her peers view her works. It's when things like this show up for AfD that it's obvious the system needs some help. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you implying that I am in some way putting up a frivolous AfD or that I don't know what I am doing? Paste (talk) 15:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I always assume good faith on the part of people submitting articles for AfD. My problem is that if no one came around and !voted keep, the article would have been deleted, despite overwhelming evidence for her notability. It illustrates a glaring problem to me. It's nothing against you, personally. Cel ^{Talk to me} 16:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Even I've heard of Professor Whiting! Is there a more notable female in her field, alive or dead? I think not. Annamonckton (talk) 16:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Julia Morgan may be more famous as an architect, but if you define "her field" to be architectural scholarship... —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Everyone is feeling very smug this afternoon! This lady is 'so famous' she is invisible on Google. Paste (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd like to refer you to the large stack of sources from Google Scholar that I posted up in my !vote. She's clearly notable. Also, please assume good faith and adhere to WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Cel ^{Talk to me} 17:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable scholar, multiple written works in peer-reviewed journals, well-known and respected in her field. Article does need some cleanup :) Shell ^babelfish 20:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- She's all over JSTOR with articles such as "Spot Check: A Conversation between Rem Koolhaas and Sarah Whiting" -- about 15 articles where she plays a major part. Google Scholar is atrocious when it comes to covering the arts and humanities. This is the type of information that WP:PROF reminds us to keep in mind. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of Google books references, too. Klausness (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources are weak, and there is no real demonstration of notability in the text, but the Times article (about not by) is compelling. --Kevin Murray (talk) 22:30, 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 no reliable secondary sources to establish notability. None of the keep opinions have provided any policy based argument for keeping the article. Davewild (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Mason[edit]

Unsuccessful candidate in an election. I looked on his campaign Website for any other claims he might have to notability--came up with zippo. Blueboy 96 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom. Paste (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article has no proof of vandalism, and has helped contribute to Wikipedia, but more information on it is needed but keep it.Mertozoro (talk) 23:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable Fritzpoll (talk) 23:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could use more expanding but should be kept.76.67.93.126 (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good article, shouldn't be deleted!!!!!!!Wikipowerman (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Are we to take Wikipowerman's comment seriously? Paste (talk) 19:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if this article is very short, it should be kept, if expanded it could provide lots of useful inforamtion.!!!76.67.93.126 (talk) 22:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second vote by this IP Fritzpoll (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless shown to be notable. Simply being a candidate twice doesn't meet the notability criteria - see WP:BIO#Politicians. --Tim4christ17 ^talk 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Come on, we don't need to shoot this article down, if we expand it a little it will be a good article, so we should keep it!!Futuramadude (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, then - what are the further claims to notability? The AfD isn't focused on length, but on whether Mr. Mason is notable. Also, note that Wikipedia is not a democracy - the administrator who will close the debate will be looking for reasons why it should not be deleted, not simply more "votes". --Tim4christ17 ^talk 17:09, 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, articles fails the notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gunwitch[edit]

Donwhiteman —Preceding comment was added at 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) The only two reliable sources offered amount to trivial coverage: one line mentions in sources about another subject. The article fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Dissolva (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fancruft w/o significant coverage in reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, was in the New York Times best seller book "The Game" and is one of the most major figures in the seduction community. There is already another reference there in the article to the magazine article "Lady Killers". Mathmo ^Talk 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment The mention in The Game is one line in a 452 page book quoting Ross Jeffries, the mention in the magazine article is also one line, which amounts to trivial coverage under WP:N. Dissolva (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep http://themodernsavage.com/2007/09/24/the-25-worlds-greatest-pick-up-artists/ or http://www.thundercatseductionlair.com/topten/Top10PUA2005.pdf Are a couple of fast pulled up lists Gunwitch has been featured on in the community of top instructors.Donwhiteman

comment Blogs are not considered reliable sources for biographies of living persons and should never be used. Dissolva (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, Anyone in the seduction community can attest to Gunwitch being one of the largest and oldest figures around. Figures with less media coverage and less reputation are included in wikipedia. I have been in the seduction community for 4 years and have heard of Gunwitch more than many of the figures on wikipedia. He is notable on the subject far beyond many in the notable members of the seduction community section. This is why I made the article.Donwhiteman Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gunwitch" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwhiteman (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because other articles exist in the encyclopedia isn't a valid rationale for why this article should exist. Notability as defined in WP:N isn't the same as popularity or importance. Dissolva (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment second "keep" !vote struck. Multiple comments are fine, but care must be taken to avoid the appearance of more various support for the article than actually exists. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:40, 16 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) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ There is an entire section in The Game describing the video incident and another describing the Gunwitch method, as well as the yes trivial mention by Ross Jeffries.Donwhiteman
- No, you still don't get to vote twice; not even with sock puppets. <eleland/talkedits> 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't flame or call names ockwick
Keep Gunwitch has been a notable figure in the seduction community ever since he came into it, as others noted. Look up the http://www.fastseduction.com/youarenew/ site - fastseduction.com being one of the central sites of the seduction community, a direct off-shoot of alt.seduction.fast newsgroup where the movement began. Gunwitch has his own personal mention there, along with a few other notable figures. His method has directly influenced other methods, such as RazorJack Method, Crablouse Method, and the memes he championed are pervasive in many more. Gunwitch has mentored many seductionists who went on to create their own methods and products, such as Tyler D of Real Social Dynamics. Search Gunwitch on google, and see how many seduction websites reference his materials, many of them as "MUST READ". Any mention of "sexual state" or "daytime pick-ups" in the seduction community will instantly make associations with Gunwitch Method in people's minds. Also, there's many results featuring Gunwitch the seduction teacher as there are referring to the fictional comic book character of the same name! If that's not notable, I don't know what is. ockwick —Preceding comment was added at 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) — ockwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Yeah that's right, that was my first comment on Wikipedia. So what? Judge the content, don't start name-calling! ockwick
  - No flaming or name-calling was intended, and I apologize for any offense given. For affairs such as a deletion discussion, which are pretty much votes, the votes of accounts which are brand-new and appear to have registered solely to participate in the discussion are generally discounted. <eleland/talkedits> 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Right, I can understand the concern as anyone would be able to create a million accounts and vote in their own favour. Fair enough. What happens when some people who have already contributed are voting against a certain article, possibly for competitive purposes ie removing mentions of competition from Wikipedia? I don't know if that was the case here, I'm just a guy who was helped by Gunwitch's teachings immensely, and when I saw it was flagged for deletion I decided to act to help a man who has helped me and countless others. Had to put my word in! ockwick —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment Deletion discussions are not a vote, but a discussion to establish concensus if an article deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. Mentions on web sites and unpublished claims of influence do not establish notability or meet the need for reliable sources for a biography of a living person. Dissolva (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        So in the age of the Internet, websites don't count? I'm reading those guidelines, and they don't mention that mentions on websites don't count, unless it is self-published. As I said, do a google search and find out all these websites that talk about him, talk about his methods, etc - published by other people who are involved in the seduction community. Before going any further, I suggest that anyone involved in this discussion research the materials a bit, search on fastseduction.com and the other seduction websites, google etc, and evaluate all the available sources and decide for themselves how notable the subject is, rather than just see that the references are only a few published materials and lots of websites and blogs and automatically discount it. Anything else is a farce. ockwick
Delete not enough sources to write an encyclopedia article that is neutral, based on verifiable information, etc. --Dragonfiend (talk) 05:43, 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 keep. This was close to being no consensus (in which case it would have default to being kept anyway), but I think there was a clear trajectory to the debate, in which more information and sources kept being injected, persuading more and more editors to keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 21:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment in the Bible[edit]

Contested Prod. Article is ~~half~~ possibly copyright violation and half original research. IronGargoyle (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article sounds more like an entry in a topical Bible than like an encyclopedia article. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I was really on the fence with this one. First, I do not believe you could delete under copyright for the fact the Bible is not copyrighted. If so, the Gideon's would be in a heap of trouble. As for original Research, you maybe able to make a small case. But than again, is quoting the Bible original research and the author provides the source of the information? Finally I looked at Lists to see if it could fall under that category. My personal feelings is that, as quoted from Guideline's; “…The list may be a valuable information source.” In that this could be considered valuable information, in that it does provide a list of information that an individual may search for, it does meet with Wikipedia requirements. Thanks Shoessss | Chat 14:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Some translations of the Bible are under copyright. The New International Version is one such translation. However, it is not the one being used here, and copyright issues were not the reason why I went with delete. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 15:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – No, I realize that and recognize your concerns. I was more trying to address the points that IronGargoyle made. To be honest, this one can either way. Nevertheless, as many know here, I am more of an includetionist (yes made up word) and will typically express an opinion to keep rather than delete when article is on the fence. Especially when an editor has spent a lot of time and energy in developing a piece that has no clearcut reason to delete. Hope this clarifies my keep opinion. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 15:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The King James Bible is in the public domain. Also, I concur with Shoessss in the belief that this is useful and valuable information. While it's not very pretty and could use some wikification, there's no reason to delete it on that account. Cel ^{Talk to me} 14:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do review WP:USEFUL. Biruitorul (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It could be a public domain translation is being used, but that does not change the fact that the rest is original research and it is also unencyclopedic. IronGargoyle (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There's a fine line between OR and common sense. I think it falls under the latter. However, here are some things to verify the information provided. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OR. We don't have sources for this selection of verses (rather too broad for the title, IMO) and so the selection is by definition original research. Possible usefulness is second to that problem, I think. -- BPMullins | Talk 15:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apart from the copyright concerns, I completely fail to see what this article is doing here. Basically it's just a (still very incomplete) list of quotes on one subject. What's next? 'Marriage in the Bible'? 'Animals in the Bible'? This can go on until Armaggedon. Rien (talk\stalk) 15:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - In fact there are articles here at Wikipedia such as Animals in the Bible. Remember Wikipedia is not bound or limited by the amount of paper we need or use. Rather the philosophy is to provide the free dissemination of information for individuals looking for information. The exclusion of information because we may not agree with it or find it trivial is Opinion and by my standards not a valid reason for deletion. Thank goodness for consensus.Shoessss | Chat 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, I don't find it trivial and/or un-agreeable, I just think it's an incomplete list of quotes that could go on forever without any use for anybody. Like the suggestion below, if it discussed reasons or historical/religious backgrounds of banishment, fine. But it doesn't. It's an index, no more, no less. Rien (talk\stalk) 17:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The topic has no encyclopedic notability of its own outside of the context of the Bible itself. SWik78 (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. I believe that this topic (as well as Rien's suggestions of Marriage and Animals) could well deserve an encyclopedic article which discussed the reasons for banishment, contrasted actual with threats, etc. (assuming appropriate secondary sources could be found, of course). But is just a list and doesn't feel to me that it belongs. I am not concerned that the current content is OR any more than List of fictional penguins or many other lists--additional editors can add or remove entries. There are no novel conclusions or syntheses in the article as it currently stands. Ma^t_chups 15:59, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well I've slightly surprised myself by wanting to keep on this one. If somebody wanted to research this topic, where else would they go but an encyclopedia? It's factual and could be useful. (I'm an atheist by the way, so no COI.) Annamonckton (talk) 16:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While it's a valid topic, and I'm reluctant to say delete, I can't vote keep either. It's unreadable. Some of the problem could be solved by fixing the form of the citations (refer to "Genesis Chapter 3" section for a proposed revision). Still,

I think that it would require a massive rewrite to bring it up to the standards of an encylopedia. Ultimately, it's more of an insult to have someone rewrite your article beyond all recognition. Mandsford (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is just a list of quotations from the Bible which each have something to do with banishment, along with a sentence putting each in context. It's not written in an encyclopedic style, and the article makes no attempt to establish banishment as a Biblical concept in itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I have added an opening statement to the article to establish the context of the piece. Hope this helps. Shoessss | Chat 18:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - for this to be a valid encyclopedic topic, you must first show (and I'm sure this isn't impossible) that scholarly research has been conducted on the subject and has produced material on it. Yes, God banished people in the Old Testament. However, it's not enough to simply pull verses out of the Bible showing that and collect them together here - we call that OR. Biruitorul (talk) 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I take it you did not view the article, in that the first cite is from a Scholarly work? In addition, I believe you will find more than enough academic papers, regarding this specific topic, as shown here – [54]. I do not mean to sound conferential, but have to ask – what defines an encyclopedic article? I always viewed that concept as someone looking for reference. Hence go to the encyclopedia and hopefully that is Wikipedia Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 22:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did view the article! The first cite is from Hobbes' Leviathan and the cited passage says absolutely nothing about the Bible. And no, the Google Scholar link does not show articles devoted to the subject. It may show papers that happen to have both words in them, but please show me a paper that actually treats the subject at hand. An encyclopedia is a tertiary source, which relies on primary and secondary sources. Occasionally, primary sources are enough, but here we need the intermediate filter of secondary sources that show others have thought of this connection before the Wikipedia article's authors did. Right now, one could very easily go to an online Bible search and derive the same "benefits" offered by this article. Biruitorul (talk) 23:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I am sorry that out of 10,900 hits on Google Scholar with the specific search criteria of Banishment Bible you found no sources that fulfilled you requirements. Therefore, I tried a secondary filter of Banishment & Exile and found several sources that reference that specific topic. Now I am not sure how you view Georgetown Immigration Law Journal, Journal of American History and several other sources as shown here [55], but personally I see them as independent – verifiable – reliable and 3rd source references. Just pointing out the sources :-) . Shoessss | Chat 01:18, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that still proves nothing. The GILJ article is about Britain, and mentions in passing the Bible authorised capital punishment. The JAH article is about the Irish. In fact just two of the sources are Biblical in theme. Certainly, both discuss the fact that Adam, Eve and Cain were banished, and the significance that had for them and us. However: a) those individuals' banishment is extensively discussed in the articles on them, and b) just one quotation is on Adam (and Eve implicitly) - aside from the fact that it doesn't even mention Cain, all the other quotations are from later in the Bible, and we're still left without scholarly backup for that. Better just let people thumb their Bibles rather than string together these random quotes for them. Biruitorul (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#INFO and because it's basically original research, with no evidence of widespread scholarly analysis of this subject. Guy (Help!) 23:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete complete OR Chris! _ct 03:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regret, Delete unless the article is rapidly improved, but do not salt. This is a valid topic, which could be the subject of an interesting article, but this is not an encyclopaedia article in its present. It is merely a list of Biblical quotations, probably derived from a concordance. There is no reason why an article on this subject should not exist, but the sources quoted should be articles in Bible Dictionaries or other encyclopaedias, no doubt periodically with suitable biblical citations (for which there are templates). However, this article cannot survive in its present form. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and add material. Just add something describing the topic, not just quoting the verses and adding a little material from websites. Should be easy enough to do.I dont think it OR, since the material added probably came from the cited websites & needs more exact referencing. But there are much more authoritative sources than those. DGG (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - possible article potential but there is currently no encyclopaedic content. I might change my view if there was a complete re-write with content basen upon reliable secondary sources which are linked together by more than editor synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 22:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and radically alter. The quotes have to go - as someone said before, WP is not a topical Bible - but the first paragraph is a good starter stub for an interesting and notable subject which should have an article. Mr. IP (talk) 01:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Comment – I have been working on the article over the last day or two and have made, what I believe are, improvements on content and formatting. Please comment on whether this has influenced anyones opinion. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, obviously you put a big amount of work into that and I commend your effort, and I don't want to sound dismissive. However, to my understanding at least, it seems like mostly narrative, retelling various episodes in the Bible. Moreover, you're just duplicating text from other parts of Wikipedia for a large amount of the article. For instance, under Exodus 30, the part about Aaron comes from Aaron. Under Leviticus, you just dumped text from Leviticus. First, it's silly and unproductive to duplicate text like that: once is enough. Second, and more important: what has any of this got to do with banishment? It's just padding that says a lot about random parts of the Pentateuch but nothing on the purported subject, banishment. So, good effort, but I still say delete. Biruitorul (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Replied on User talk page, not to take away from any further Afd discussions. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Personally I'm so not interested but this is a subject of Bible scholars and can certainly be handled to wikipedia standards even if the current version is wanting. Per AfD if an article can be improved through regular editing then it is not a good candidate for AfD. This article can and should be improved. Deleting useful content doesn't help the project. Benji boi 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Let me also clarify that seemingly every aspect of the Bible has some scholarly research and this is hardly an exception. here's a few for those looking. Benji boi 16:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with some nice cleanup/wikify/etc. tags, very much per User:Benjiboi. Some of this is OR, fine: leave the article and let's replace the OR with well-sourced statements. More important is that the article topic itself is not OR, and the first few references for the article establish that this is indeed a researched topic. Deleting is not the answer if we think this to be a "potentially useful" article that just "isn't there yet": there is currently a framework of useful summary information and biblical quotations that would be tedious to reproduce, which gives potential editors something to work with in trying to improve this article. Otherwise, starting with a blank slate, this topic would be much more difficult to get off the ground. Call this a work in progress, leave it be, and re-list in another six months if it's still nothing but a list. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 16:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research synthesis. If you can find secondary sources that assert that this topic is one that has received critical analysis, then by all means start an article on the subject. However, "banishment" is just one of the many things that happens in the Bible and I cannot find any secondary sources which assert banishment is any more worthy an article than, say, Snakes in the Bible or Skullduggery in the Bible. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I’m sorry – I do not think we are talking about what is more worthy or less worthy of inclusion. But rather, if this topic should be included in Wikipedia. As some may have noticed, I have been working to improve the piece. Is it anywhere near completion, sorry to say no. However, concerning secondary sources, I can answer that question in the positive. Here is a link [56], showing search criteria under Google Scholar on Banishment in the Old Testament. Reading through the links provided, there are several worthy papers concerning this topic specifically. That is my opinion. Others may differ. To the closing administrator: If the consensus is to delete, please archive a subpage on my talk page. This is not a way to get around removing the article, but more so that I could work on the piece and resubmit with a more structured theme at a later time, without losing the work already expended. Thanks. Shoessss | Chat 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You provided a Google Scholar link, but none of the papers seem to advance your theory that the subject has been treated by academics. Could you please show specific instances of where that may be the case? Biruitorul (talk) 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did some digging in the library for you. The Religious Ideas of the Old Testament by H.W. Robinson has an entire chapter on banishment. Encountering Ancient Voices: A Guide to Reading the Old Testament by C.L Carvallo also has quite a bit dedicated to the topic. For those of you who can't or won't go to a library, here is an excerpt from a paper. this is another paper that discusses banishment as a solution for the unclean via Leviticus. There's several of these out there, you just have to look for them rather than immediately discount them as non-notable because they don't show up on your google scholar and google news searches immediately. It's really an endemic... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banishment is an obvious theme in story of the Garden of Eden, as well as in the explanation for souls making it to hell - I'm sure there must be sources that deal with the theme of exile in at least these contexts, enough to satisfy ourselves that this topic is indeed touched upon by secondary sources. As a comment to ScienceApologist: though Snakes in the Bible might simply be a list of Bible verses, I see no reason why Skullduggery in the Bible could not exist (although perhaps under a different name, since I suspect you chose that one for comedic effect). Both trickery and banishment are common themes in the Bible which serve recurring and important roles throughout otherwise often disjoint stories. The study of such prevalent and common themes is no doubt of some interest to theologians and students of literature, so assuming we can get some sources, I see no impediment to having articles on either subject! --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that the sources identified by Celarnor provide the basis for an article on this topic. The rewrite by Shoessss has started the process of making a reasonable article on the topic. Davewild (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi. Looks like sources exist. Hobit (talk) 20:31, 22 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, G12. Virtually all of the article was cut-and-pasted from sections of the dojo Web site. Blueboy 96 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hwa Mo Yang Do[edit]

Recently invented martial art, unclear notability. Delete. Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 12:46, 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.

So, I wonder why this martial art's entry is deleted, but Other arts don't get deleted. Notice how one warning says "unclear notability" and the other says "it all came from a website" How many different ways are there to describe the same thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonfirema (talk • contribs) 18:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete as an article with no meaningful context (A1) or content (A3). Blueboy 96 14:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iphone emu[edit]

This verges on patent nonsense. I think it is supposedly about an iPod emulator, but looking on Google I cannot find any evidence of sources or notability. EJF (talk) 12:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete, CSD A1, possibly even G1 or A2. No meaningful content or context. So tagged. Redfarmer (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, it's either an meaningless, but in good faith, nonsense, or a a blatant advert for these emulators. All of those are grounds for a speedy deletion in any case Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 12:45, 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 all, per crystal ball concerns and lack of reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubi (Philippine TV Remake)[edit]

An article about a Philippine TV series that is yet to be produced, violating WP:CRYSTAL. -Danngarcia (talk) 11:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added speedy delete tag for Maria Mercedes as repost. --Lenticel ^(talk) 22:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the speedy. This version is substantially different from the one previously deleted. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aww... in that case Delete all. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ~~Rubi~~ All. Sources cited were from fan blogs. Starczamora (talk) 02:20, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 10:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Armand[edit]

Character from a non-notable book. Was initially tagged for speedy, but I'd think I'd post it here. Alasdair 10:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: full of POV, OR. No real-worl references. Fails WP:N and WP:FICT. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only originally researched plot. I see no hope whatsoever that this character could ever pass WP:FICT. Also seems to be orphaned except for Blaire Armand (currently on prod), who mentions this character in his SeeAlso section. – sgeureka ^t•c 17:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I never propose/endorse deletion based on WP:OR or a lack of reliable sources, this article wholly does not meet the criteria for WP:FICTION. Even if tagged with an in universe template, there is likely no outside relevance. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the arguments already put forth. If there were an article about the books, I'd likely say merge, but there isn't, and this is not worth an encyclopedia article on its own. Aleta ^Sing 20:21, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. You're all correct. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 15:11, 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. Tikiwont (talk) 11:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David spett[edit]

This article deals solely with one news event, and Spett's involvement in it. According to "What Wikipedia is Not":

"Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOT#NEWS

This is the sole topic on which Spett has attained widespread notoriety, and as such, under the criteria listed above, and according to Wikipedia policy, the article ought to be deleted.

Spett is currently already mentioned in the context of this controversy on the Medill School of Journalism page, and that listing seems within the scope of what Wikipedia is looking for. Thus, this individual article, at this time, is unnecessary, and ought to be deleted. Plugstickcupbook (talk) 08:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and also because the name of an article about the subject should have his proper name (with a capital "S"). OTOH, it should be mentioned that the nominator appears to be a WP:SPA. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Kubek15^{(Sign!) (Contribs) (UBX)} 14:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E. Blueboy 96 14:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO1E and WP:Geogre's Law. But more importantly because being a student-newspaper columnist is just not enough, regardless of whether someone else picks up on the same story you did. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not even sure that NOTNEWS is relevant here, because he doesn't appear to meet WP:BIO. However, strongly disagree with David's comment above that "being a student-newspaper columnist is just not enough, regardless of whether someone else picks up on the same story you did" I could easily construct hypotheticals where that would likely be enough (say a student at a major university found that the president of the university had plagiarized, the president resigned as a result, and the matter got international attention). JoshuaZ (talk) 22:22, 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 keep. Meets both WP:N and, after a quick search for sources, WP:RS. Punkmorten (talk) 09:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potrero, California[edit]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. AfD 5 minutes after creation? Settlements are notable and Potrero checks out according to USGS (U6 inhabited place). The Blackwater controversy has plenty of WP:RS coverage according to Google News. • Gene93k (talk) 09:20, 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, consensus is the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Padrino (rapper)[edit]

Delete. Subject of article does not appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Only references are a community television interview and subject's own Myspace page. WWGB (talk) 08:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic non-notable musician's page--borders on an A7 speedy. No Yahoo or Google hits on this guy. Blueboy 96 14:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Had the article not indicated notability and recognition, then it would have easily been deleted per A7 criteria. Moreoever, there is nothing substantial here [57]. Just myspace and other trivial mentions that fail to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:24, 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. Black Kite 18:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Androphobia[edit]

This article has been around for ages, but in searching for references for it (as part of general fact-checking) I turned up very little (most of the g-hits seem to be of WP mirrors). See the talk page of the article for a longer comment on sources. Briefly, I searched Pubmed, Pyschinfo and other medical sources and got no references. It turns out this was a term apparently coined in the lesbian/queer community; but it seems to not be widely used in the literature about gender studies either however. It also seems very similar to Misandry, which is a well-used term and has a well-referenced article. In other words, I think this is a very rarely used (and thus probably not so notable) near-neologism that isn't used in the psychiatric literature. Note there is a Wiktionary entry; this could contain the short definition that this article has and have appropriate etymology added. phoebe/(talk) 07:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fringe definition. Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms would indicate deletion. Not notable. Best for Wiktionary, if at all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NEO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've seen the term used in shoujo manga, often enough to be almost a cliche. This makes me wonder whether there is more literature about this in Japanese (regardless of its diagnostic validity). —Quasirandom (talk) 17:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Can someone who reads Japanese have a quick look? -- phoebe/(talk) 18:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - term doesn't exist in the scientific/medical community per [58] and therefore is a likely neologism or non-notable slang. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism, but I wonder whether this is correctly classified as a "medical" AfD, since the word appears to have been invented by an author writing a sociology book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I didn't find any evidence that it was coined in a soc book ... see talk page for what I did find. Ref? -- phoebe/(talk) 23:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the article has been tagged as having had no sources since July 2006 but there were no edits between April 2006 and August 2006. Perhaps may be an idea to check how long it's been tagged for before manking a final decision. BigHairRef | Talk 19:37, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sutherland[edit]

Autobiography of a security consultant that fails WP:BIO. No evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources. The "Publication list" (it's not really) gives a few sources where he is quoted, but he is not the subject of the articles, nor could I find any in which he is. Jfire (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Appears to be vanity page - see CV milking the Wikipedia article. Unremarkable and non-notable subject. WWGB (talk) 08:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability through siginificant coverage by reliable, independent sources. Guest9999 (talk) 10:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedily deleted -- Flyguy649 ^talk 15:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fempiror History[edit]

Description of a fictional species from a non-notable book series - I found no reliable external sources. Even if the series were notable, this race doesn't have notability outside of it (see WP:FICT. Crystallina (talk) 07:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable fictional species from a non-notable book written by a non-notable author. A previous AFD determined the broader source or at least host/publisher of this content is also non-notable. The dearth of incoming links to the parent subjects makes this one pretty clear. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Have tagged as a blatent copyright violation of [59]. The bottom of the page says "History and Language of the Fempiror Race and the Felletterusk Empire by George Willson, copyright 2005 and WGA #1124419. All rights reserved.". Guest9999 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:*I'd also note that the "virtual series" this is from was deleted about 18 months ago (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Zero Productions) due to notability concerns. Guest9999 (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC) Noticed it's been mentioned above. Guest9999 (talk) 12:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked the page as it's a blatent copyright violation. Guest9999 (talk) 12:46, 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 Withdrawn/Keep. Tabercil (talk) 22:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky Martinez (porn star)[edit]

Non-notable porn actor. According to imdb, has only appeared in 13 films, that's a drop in the bucket, when it comes to porn actors. Corvus cornix_talk 07:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO#Pornographic actors. He won a 2004 GayVN Award for "Best Solo Performance". I will add it to the article. • Gene93k (talk) 07:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- update: The 2004 GayVN win has been added to the article (along with a 2005 Grabby Award and a 2008 GayVN nom). • Gene93k (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the award would seem to indicate he meets the notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Based on the above, I withdraw the nomination. Corvus cornix_talk 21:56, 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, consensus is the articles fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Joy Tan[edit]

Not notable. Has only had a minor role in a notable production, and would not be notable for any other reason. Article doesn't have any sources. JSIN (talk) 07:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Created by an account holder (most likely a fan of her) which has only one edit - creating the article. Nicole is only known for minor role in the television series Summer Heights High. Nothing else of note. --Lakeyboy (talk) 10:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, according to IMDB, has only appeared in this series, and in a minor role. Not notable yet, and article can be recreated if she gets some notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patricrean theorem[edit]

This was prodded, with a succinct explanation of why it should be removed: "WP:BALLS". But the prod was removed. Mathematically, it is not incorrect, but the mysterious "Someone" crediting it to "Patrick" at the ridiculously late date of 1988, and the lack of references, marks this as something made up in school one day. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. He could have come up with a better title, though; not even a single non-Wiki ghit. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The formula is of course correct. Everybody learns it in 7th grade, if not earlier, and to say that someone recently "registered" it is to presuppose that such a thing as such "registrations" exists. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources with which to verify the content. Guest9999 (talk) 13:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A novel name for a property too trivial to be named. Zetawoof_(ζ) 23:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, as hoax. Paul August ☎ 03:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial "theorem"; no reliable sources to show it is known by this name. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't be bothered to look this up to confirm it, but I'm sure you'll find that Euclid recorded this over 2000 years before Patrick. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete It is an interesting observation that is if I'm not mistaken central to the earliest recorded proof that there are infininitely many pythagorean triplets but it isn't known by this name and doesn't have any sources talking about it or any name I am aware of. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:40, 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 and recreate as a redirect to Starship Troopers. Black Kite 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Starship Trooper[edit]

Per WP:MADEUP, the user that created the article is the same name of the one that posted it on the website that is in the links. Also, I'd like to point out that it's not quite Dark Side of the Rainbow. ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 06:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball delete. Before even checking the links, it was pretty clear this is just a random non-notable idea someone made up. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per above. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 07:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up and beside the sources given aren't reliable and I get no Google News hits for it (as I expected). Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 08:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my defense i would have to say The Starship Trooper is a local hit up here in my hometown in alaska, we have a big film festival every year and many of my submissions are quite popular. At one point everything is made up, im sure Dark Side of the Rainbow didnt get popular for a long time. Hell it isnt even that popular now and it still gets a page. If you go to the Darkside Of The Rainbow page you can see a list of other synchronicities by other bands and movies and they dont have a page either. If you have watched dark side of the rainbow, you have probably seen the definitive list definitive list which lists how many "rainbow connections" occur (there are 105). The starship trooper has 124 rainbow connections recorded thus far, this is only counting the first five songs played. the cd is played two and a half times which is about 23 songs. Try Dark side and then try this, i think you would know then. --XgWiZx (talk) 08:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, everything was once made up by someone. I direct you to WP:SCRABBLE. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 08:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow somebody cited google news, ummm try looking up Dark side of the rainbow in google news tell me if you find anything.--XgWiZx (talk) 08:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You get two hits...Anyway, something isn't notable until it's popular enough to be commented on by reliable sources. We don't go around guessing whether something will be notable one day (heck, we even have a policy on it), since that's not something that can be judged in any remotely objective way. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there can't be a wikipedia article on something until it is mainstream? What would you consider reliable recorces for a synchronicity? Rollingstone Magazine, MTV, MSNBC, 4chan, Your local newspaper that probably hasnt heard of synchronicity (unless its the hit album by The Police)? --XgWiZx (talk) 08:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Bad question; yes; I have no opinion; yes; no; no. And it doesn't have to be mainstream. But until at least one reliable source has covered it, you can basically consider the Wikipedia community to be unconvinced that this is worth mentioning anywhere. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted: a reliable source. check here and get back to this topic ASAP. Also a side note, wikipedia isnt a 100% reliable rescource. Most colleges wont allow you to use wikipedia because it can be edited by anybody. sure there is probably gonna be a comment on how it is policed and anything new that is unreliable, like someone edited that bill gates owns one third of the moon, would be removed.--XgWiZx (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1, that video isn't a reliable source and it doesn't confer notability. 2, it's an illegal copyright violation. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 09:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no third or fourth point?. so you admit that wikipedia isnt a reliable resource or is it the undoubtable truth. --XgWiZx (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to admit it. It says that at the bottom on every page. Wikipedia:General disclaimer. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

whoops typing error, i want a reliable sorce such as rolling stone magazine or the such to check that out and tell me wether or not its reliable. Not saying the clip is reliable the clip is what it is. --XgWiZx (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quote WP:RS"Wikipedia:Reliable sources; This page is a guideline, it is not a policy." So when did it become a policy? --XgWiZx (talk) 09:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, it's not strict policy. We are trying to build a good encyclopedia here, and policies and things can get in the way of that. That's why we bring things for discussion, like here. Others use those guidelines as part of their reasoning on whether something should or shouldn't be apart of the wiki. I feel this article also fails, WP:OR. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 23:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even remotely notable --SJK (talk) 22:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers; it's at least conceivable that someone looking for the Heinlein novel would garble the title this way. JamesMLane t c 05:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the slightest hint of notability. Edward321 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Starship Troopers as useful search term. Current article about something made up in one day should have been prodded, at least, if not speedied. B.Wind (talk) 06:25, 22 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 the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magic daiquiri[edit]

Non-notable cocktail Corvus cornix_talk 06:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's been deleted once already. Was spam then and is nn spam now. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This page is far from spam, it is exactly the same as any other alcoholic drink page, the creator does not make or sell the drink, but is a consumer of it and thought that others should know about it.The page does not contain any links to where people can buy the drink, but tells them what they need to create it themselves.It is a drink that can be made by anyone and does not belong to a certain person, group, or place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinnies (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I understand you worked hard to create this page but there's no evidence that it's notable and appears to promote one version of a daiquiri with most of the article lifted directly from daiquiri. No evidence that this is a notable drink per WP:N and the existence of other articles is irrelevant TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The reason i am against the articles deletion has nothing to do with time put into it, it has to do with the fact i believe that the topic in question deserves a page. The part of the article lifted from 'daiquiri' is to give the reader some knowledge about the origin of the drink without them reading the full page on 'daiquiri', the fact it is taking from this page is told to the reader before the paragraph starts. Having this pages does not cause any harm to wikipedia or its readers, it contains nothing biased, but a neutral view of the drink. Although it is not a offical alcoholic drink, it is a variant on the original daiquiri and is quite popular in certain areas. The page is clearly not advertising the drink,but rather allowing people to become known about it and possibly create it themselves.The page does not link to any where the drink can be purchased for a profit to the author or a link to clubs,bars or any other form of facility where the drink can be purchased from,or to increase their customers numbers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twinnies (talk • contribs) 01:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, however Wikipedia has notability guidelines and a google search does not indicate any notability for the product under either name. A product has to be notable to be included, it's not for something made up by one bar TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The drink was not made up by one bar, it was not made by any bar. It was first introduced to people at a bar, but has since grown and is now made in many private homes and different clubs and bars which sell the original frozen daiquiris. You will not find a site for it on google because it is just a spin on the original frozen daiquiri and became/ becomes popular and known through word of mouth.--Twinnies (talk) 04:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i think that the magic daiquiri is a real drink. a few of the clubs near where i live have served them for ages. i think that the page should stay there. around where i live people just call them MDs for short. that is how popular they are. the MD page should stay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.228.3 (talk) 08:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COmmentUnfortunately popularity!notability and there are guidelines that Wikipedia follows TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that last guy who said something must have had way too many magic daiquiris because clearly that didnt make sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.228.3 (talk) 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see how this is any different from a Frozen Daiquiri. At the most it should be a variant on the main Daiquiri page but as it seems completely non-notable per Wiki guidelines, I doubt it even deserves that. The current article adds nothing beyond repeating basically the contents of the Daiquiri article. 86.3.150.116 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Make this article disappear. Too much duplication of Daiquiri; not enough citation from independent, reliable sources. B.Wind (talk) 06:29, 22 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 fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guy V. Barfield[edit]

Nonnotable actor. See Google hits (nothing special). Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 13:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the child actor does appear have performed on broadway (playbill.com, imbd etc..etc..), there isn't any reliable coverage of the individual, ergo the article does not meet WP:BIO. Search yields: [60]. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context for one-line article. B.Wind (talk) 06:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, with no prejudice against merging/redirecting. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kong the Untamed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kong the Untamed

This page does not meet the criteria of WP:N nor WP:RS to a reasonable standard Netkinetic ^(t/c/@) 05:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and transwiki. We are discussing what to do with entries like this on the Comic Project - see here. This seems like an ideal candidate for this kind of thing. (Emperor (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Note that this is a comic book character as well as a separate comic book title, so if there is merging, it would have to be to separate lists covering both aspects. Postdlf (talk) 16:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I cannot imagine that there is not sufficient information about this to write an article. Phil Sandifer (talk) 16:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Comic series from a major publisher. Pburka (talk) 19:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete, no opinion beyond that as to whether it should be merged or kept separate. As a comic series from a major publisher, it's at the very least an element of an undeniably notable subject, DC Comics, so deletion is not an option. The question then remains whether there is enough substantive information specific to that element to justify an independent article, or whether it should merely be merged or even just mentioned elsewhere, such as in a list of DC Comics titles, a list of DC characters, and in the creators' bios. Postdlf (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've added some references and done more searching and he doesn't seem to have appeared outside of his own eponymous title. As there isn't enough material to create anything other than a thin, plot-based article (failing numerous guidelines) so I think it'd be legitimate to merge it to characters and then just put a link through from a list of titles (and creators bibliographies). Also worth transwiking as the DC wikia has nothing on him either and it'd make sense to kickstart that entry. Unless anyone knows of anything not obvious from looking around online. (Emperor (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Redirect to Alfredo Alcala - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Short-lived series and a lack of reliable sources. –thedemonhog talk • edits 00:16, 24 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 the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Splendidcrm[edit]

Non-notable software. Corvus cornix_talk 05:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I agree with Corvus cornix; I'm not sure the article even tries to assert notability. Shell ^babelfish 20:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree the software itself may not be notable, it's licensing structure has significant bearing on open source licensing issues.Miserablyeverafter (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No assertion of notability. There's more discussion of the licence terms than anything else. According to the (albeit defunct) software notability guideline, there should be multiple non-trivial published works about the product. This does not pass WP:N: "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." -- Mark Chovain 06:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete directory entry lacking independent sources or evidence of encyclopaedic notability. Guy (Help!) 09:42, 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 deleted by RHaworth (talk · contribs) as a copyvio of this page. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The greatest journalistic triumphs of the twentieth century[edit]

Is this notable? It's a subjective list with a subjective title, not encyclopedic. ukexpat (talk) 04:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete (G12). So marked --SJK (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as (G12) per SJK. Sting au Buzz Me... 04:36, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srila Prabhupada: The Prominent Link[edit]

Book advertisemet with no reliable third party sources. Article is an advertisement for a non notable book. Also, does not meet the standards of Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Ism schism (talk) 04:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Non notable book advertisement. Ism schism (talk) 04:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 04:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above - the article does not mention who the book is published by, and if it even has an ISBN. Regards, Gouranga(UK) (talk) 20:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Keep Notable, needs a rewrite. I think that the controversy surrounding this book makes it notable, that so many are stirred to action, article should focus on the NPOV of the controversy not just provide links to forum topics. Syama (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It fails WP:NOTE (I think) and has little useful information. I wouldn't call it an ad, though the main text of the article covers little more than a description you might see in an ISKCON book catalog. --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 05:55, 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 keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Aldana[edit]

Simply put the article shows no evidence that the subject is notable. Notability - as layed out in WP:NN - is defined by a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Of the sources provided in the article, only two look like they might provide significant coverage (not just trivial mentions), one[61] is from a tabloid and the other[62] from what appears to be a blog written based on the "facts" in the tabloid article. Neither tabloids or blogs are reliable sources and they shouldn't be used to source information about living people. The other trivial sources are no better being blogs[63][64], a youtube video of a chatshow[65](Vanessa's Real Lives) and two unreliable sites based on user generated content [66] [67]. These are actually used well in the article - they are not used as sources for any facts about the person only as sources to show that the sources themselves exist - however without any reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject or form a verifiable base for the article to be built on I don't think how they are used is relevent. I have no problem with the subject matter - there are likely hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for people noted only for the size of there chest - in this case it just does not appear that the sourcing exists to allow us to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:54, 16 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) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The Guinness record doesn't seem to be confirmed due to the conflicting information found in those two People articles. The earlier one (in the external links) said that Rachel was set to be in the books. The second one (in the references) mentioned they found two bigger sets. If that's all her notability is based on. No... sorry. Vinh1313 (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending confirmation of the Guinness record. If confirmed, then that covers notability (yes I know not every record-holder is notable, but Aldana has additional notability as a model and public figure). Most of the cited links lead to sites that under Wikipedia's outdated rules are of questionable acceptability, so until Wikipedia opens up to allow blogs and fan-made references as legitimate websites better links are needed. If the record is confirmed bogus then under Wiki's current rules related to porn there's probably not enough to sustain notability. 23skidoo (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are not reliable. I wondered if this could be redirected to an existing article on breast size as some kind of footnote on a woman with notably large breasts if it could be reliably established that she did have significantly large breasts - however, as Gigantomastia indicates, her breasts are not remarkable, and the growth of over-large breasts is a very serious medical condition rather than something to be smirked over in a tabloid newspaper. SilkTork *^YES! 13:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She does pass WP:PORNBIO as she has appeared in notable mainstream media, although I'm not sure if she falls within the scope of this guideline. Epbr123 (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep I think WP:RS implies that tabloids are low-quality sources rather than unreliable sources. I therefore think she does just about pass WP:N through her coverage received. Epbr123 (talk) 19:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incredibly, incredibly weak keep Appears to have some semblance of notability. --Shark face 217 03:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The one real notability claim that Rachel has is her Guinness World Record claim. That on its own could satisfy WP:N if verified, however the only news source I can find is The People. According to WP:RS all mainstream news sources are "welcomed", but it further goes on to state, "When adding contentious biographical material about living persons that relies upon news organizations, only material from high-quality news organizations should be used." As this is a WP:BLP article and this claim of "largest breasts" is disputed, The People fails WP:RS since it's a tabloid paper with a dubious reputation. Tossing out the big boob record claim we don't have enough in this article to satisfy WP:N. -- Atama ^chat 16:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator, per the others above suggesting keep.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 16:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:PORNBIO, has WP:RS to back it up. Xihr (talk) 20:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - could you give an example of a reliable source, all I can find is tabloids, blogs and a youtube video of a non-notable chat show, none of which I believ qualify as reliable sources on which an encyclopaedia article can be based. Guest9999 (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - article is in need of expansion although the basis of her notability does not. The mention of Guinness indicates independent third party coverage, even if the claim winds up being superseded. WP:PORNBIO seems no problem here. B.Wind (talk) 06:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject is notable on multiple fronts, so to speak, with ample sources available for verification purposes. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flambongo[edit]

It's "sensical" enough not to be nonsense, but it sure isn't notable. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a valid product becoming popular with colleges, so the article is now asking for more people to edit and add information. People need to know what it is as they are showing up everywhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkayne (talk • contribs) 06:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia isn't for something made up in ~~school~~ a drinking session one day. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. No assertion of notability for these devices which can be bought only on the Web (on one non-notable site). --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 13:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable product without any kind of significant secondary coverage. Shell ^babelfish 20:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable due to lack of coverage by reliable sources (although I hope it becomes notable in the future just so we can feature images like this). Guest9999 (talk) 20:54, 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, consensus is that the article does not meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 09:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bevolex[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, have searched high and low, but can't find reliable sources which gives this company any degree of notability Russavia (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does not meet WP:CORP. - IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I can't find any reliable sources either but someone with proficiency in Russian should look for sources in that language. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Already have, and nothing found. --Россавиа ^Диалог 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of media coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nomination. Richc80 (talk) 06:08, 23 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 the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeySolutions[edit]

Fails WP:CORP, have searched high and low, but can't find reliable sources which gives this company any degree of notability Russavia (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Russavia (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SEO-related promotional content. --ssr (talk) 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Two sentences do not a Wikipedia article make. B.Wind (talk) 06:39, 22 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 A7 by User:Jauerback, salt by User:Scarian. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World Championship Federation[edit]

No evidence that this wrestling organization meets the notability criteria; prod removed by creator FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as a group with no assertation of notability, so tagged. I A7 tagged two related pages: Baber Malik and Kamran Malik. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:31, 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 - non admin/snow. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

D.I.[edit]

Article has no reliable references. The only 2 references are to MySpace accounts. Force10 (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No references" is not a reason to delete. This band appears to have had several albums, as well as members of other notable bands; therefore, they seem to meet WP:MUSIC. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This happens to be an influencial band and other prominent bands have also covered them. Plus I agree with TP Hammer. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if lack of references is a problem then find them. The band is notable so refs do exist. Punkmorten (talk) 09:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup I've found an Allmusic guide entry which confirms that the band features members of Social D and The Adolescents (meets WP:MUSIC criterion 6). Hopefully someone else can add a few more sources. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 12:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would appear to meet WP:MUSIC fairly easily, as noted above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep No offense, but I don't see a reason why this article should be deleted. This article is about what now happens to be a legendary band. Maybe someday I'll try to research some more information and add a reference tag while it's added to the page, at Doc Strange's request. Alex (talk) 14:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:55, 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Einstein's razor[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Einstein's razor

Article appears to be only original research. All quotes and sources provided require an healthy application of WP:SYNTH to conclude that "Einstein's razor" is a new notion any different from Occam's razor. FeloniousMonk (talk) 02:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain Superficial analysis. This is hardly original research. None of the editor's works are cited. The first citation is to a Professor Mohan Delampady with 17 years of publications in Probability and Statistics including the book cited here. Note Delampady's using it to distinguish between the "boundary between simplicity and complexity", not just degrees of "simplicity".DLH (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research/synthesis regarding a non-notable neologism. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Einstein's razor is used in at least three different cited publications as well as by a number of web sites, none of which are by the editor of this article. This "Original research" attribution is groundless.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete This appears to be a neologism, used primarily by proponents of intelligent design. A google search returns 143 hits the first of which is from the more or less defunct PCID of the pro-ID ISCID. The remaining hits are primarily forum posts discussing it. A few of the hits seem to be actual uses but at present this remains very much a minor neologism. The article consists primarily of original research, throwing together a few examples of people who have used the term, some of which are blogs or fora posts which have had their nature disguised by being referred to in a way that sounds like a scientific citation (see for example the source labeled "Tracy Lightcap (2006)" which links to this blog entry).

JoshuaZ (talk) 02:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The major published articles use it to distinguish their argument from Occam's razor. Citing One PCID article out of the three publications is hardly a "Majority" by any stretch of the imagination.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only 1 google scholar hit to a non-notable paper which explicitly uses the term as a neologism. [68]. The intelligent design issue could make the article more notable: that is as a variation on Occam's razor used by proponents of ID. As it stands however the article doesn't seem to address anything not addressed by Occam's razor. No need to multiply ~~causes~~ articles.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First publication is to a book on probability and statistics

Delete Ironically, there's a fairly well-known anecdote about Einstein and shaving cream first revealed in a 1964 magazine article about his habits by one of his contemporaries. Mandsford (talk) 03:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no justification given.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per points raised by JoshuaZ, and nomination. Sources appear to be non notable, though Bruce Katz is notable as a jazz musician. ... dave souza, talk 10:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Poor scholarship does not justify argument - wrong Bruce Katz. See: Bruce Katz

Bruce Katz, Ph.D. (University of Illinois) Adjunct Professor. Speech communication and computer science; artificial intelligence. Dr. Katz received his B.A. in Philosophy from Duke University in 1981 and his Ph.D. in Artificial Intelligence in 1990. Between 1990 and 1998 he was a lecturer in Artificial Intelligence at the University of Sussex in the U.K. While at Sussex Dr. Katz taught a variety of courses including Knowledge Representation and Cognitive Science, and headed the Masters Program in Knowledge-Based systems. He also conducted research on the perception of beauty in man and machine and published numerous papers on this topic.

Dr. Katz specializes in Artificial Intelligence, and appears well qualified to speak on the subject.(Especially compared to the detractors here.)DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism/OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment - No reason given other than the lemming factor. See the cited authors' discussion of the differences / clarifications as to why they use "Einstein's razor" rather than "Occam's razor".DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occam's razor as per nominator. The term does seem to be used so a redirect may be helpful but it appears to be a mere redubbing of Occam's razor rather than anything new. Simple explanations for Science are a concept that predates Einstein. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - More than "simple", the authors use it to distinguish the tendency to attribute to "Occam's razor" explanations which are TOO simple. Thus the extension to Einstein's razor to emphasize this important difference.DLH (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retain -- An easy solution to many Wikipedia disputes is as follows: (1) retain the disputed item or a brief description of the disputed item (e.g., “Einstein’s Razor”); (2) briefly describe the dispute (e.g., some people believe that “Einstein’s Razor” is not a common term); and (3) link to Wikipedia discussion pages and external websites where the dispute is discussed or debated (another solution to some Wikipedia disputes is to put an item in a “trivia” section). The Wickedpedian solutions to disputes — long edit wars and arbitrary censorship by Wickedpedian control-freak administrators — are unworkable and unacceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.215.27.125 (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment DLH, please note that after you make your initial "vote" known (Keep, delete, merge), any subsequent comment should be labelled "comment" in order to prevent confusion when the administrator is determining what the consensus was. I've gone ahead and struck through the word "Retain" on all comments after the initial one, although the rest of each comment will remain. I'm assuming that the 63.215 url is also yours, but I'll ask that you simply confirm that and strike through or remove the heading that says "retain". No real harm done, you're new here, but it never hurts to remind everyone that no matter how many comments you make, only one of those is labelled as a "vote". Thank you. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Mandsford. PS the 63.215 url is not mine, so I remove the strike thruDLH (talk) 14:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nomination.--Doug Weller (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It seems quite odd that I've never run across that term in any of the physics, astrophysics or physical cosmology texts I've ever read. This leads me to believe that the neologism charge is qute true, as is the assertion that the term is non-notable. Also, if it's "really" a corollary to Occam, it should rightly be called Einstein's corollary. (Think Monroe Doctrine and Roosevelt Corollary). Hence, it's not merely a neologism, but a rather bad one at that. If it deserves any mention at all, it would be as a section in Occam's Razor. Jim62sch^dissera! 19:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wonder if DLH realises that Einstein, was talking about mathematical formulae, about which he and all physicists believe that the most elegant formula (which is really what Einstein is saying) is that which is as simple as possible without losing any of its explanatory force?Jim62sch^dissera! 19:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For reasons given in nomination, but also because DLH (talk) is simply using this entry to flog his POV on Intelligent Design. I.e., it's a case of WP:SOAP. Over on Uncommon Descent, he's casting this as some sort of ongoing persecution by Wikipedia against ID (of course, there's evidence of this POV to be found here, but this is pretty blatant) and attempting to recruit votes from fellow ID proponents. The URL is here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-citing-pcid-justify-censorship/

Pertinent quote for those who'd rather not follow the link:

"Does citing PCID and ISCID justify deleting “Einstein’s razor” because it is “pro-ID”?
If you think this is anti-ID discrimination and against academic freedom and free speech, then please provide supporting comments to retain this article at:..."

Most pertinent:

"Please comment on whether you think “Einstein’s razor” is indeed just a “neologism”, or if it provides a useful differentiation from Occam’s razor. e.g.,

1) Is neo-Darwinian evolution with “random mutation” and “natural selection” an example of providing the “simplest” scientific hypothesis per Occam’s razor?

2) Or is that an improper use of Occam’s razor?

3) Or is “RM + NS” “too simple” and in need of a better theory per Einstein’s razor?"

So, basically, DLH (talk) just wants to use this as a platform for discussing the application of "Einstein's Razor" to the current scientific consensus regarding evolution in order to demonstrate its purported failure to satisfy the criterion of the "razor". The issue of whether or not "Einstein's Razor" is a valid term is totally subordinate to that goal.

Didymos (talk) 20:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the term was actually widely used by Intelligent design proponents that would be a reason for keeping the article. As it stands the very best case that could be made for it would be a paragraph in Occam's razor. If DLH (talk) can recast the article in terms of a concept widely used or discussed or just otherwise notable within the ID movement then it would be worth retaining. After all Wikipedia can accomdate articles on concepts that are confused or incoherent so long as they are notable and it can be verified that people actually make use of those concepts. Currently the article doesn't do that and it just a bunch of "huh?"... Nick Connolly (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, it looks like that anonymous retain vote from 63.215.27.125 above belongs to one Larry_Fafarman, who has been indefinitely banned for sock-puppetry and sundry other offenses. It's a straight cut-and-paste of his comment here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/does-citing-pcid-justify-censorship/#comment-188534

Also of note is that two of his suspected sock puppets also have IP addresses in the 63.215.27.* block. Sheesh.

Anyway, not really sure of what the procedure is for stuff like this, so any instruction is welcome.

Didymos (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and assorted Comments I do not believe that this material belongs in an article with this title, since this appears to be WP promoting something under a title that is not standard usage. The material from this article should be folded into the Occam's Razor article, as appropriate.--Filll (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move any useful content to Occam's Razor. Hobartimus (talk) 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Retain If we're going to disqualify neologisms, better put the Denialism article on the hit list next. (Just look at the dates.) By the article's definition, the term "Einstein's Razor" is a play of words off the term "Occam's Razor," made due to some perceived scientific inadequacy of the latter. If in addition to the cited works, ID theorists are starting to use the term -- on blogs or wherever else -- that argues for the article's inclusion, not exclusion. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, right? ô¿ô (talk) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re: "All quotes and sources provided require an healthy application of WP:SYNTH to conclude that 'Einstein's razor' is a new notion any different from Occam's razor."

WP:SYNTH disallows original research (not synonymous duplication) via A (sourced) + B (sourced) = C (original conclusion). I'd like to see it demonstrated how the article does so, rather than just asserted. I don't see it. Or how the terms are synonymous either. ô¿ô (talk) 01:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of Wikipedia:Notability, and after reading more above and googling for myself, I'm changing my vote to a weak retain. While the term appears to denote a discrete concept, it has caught on only in a limited way. I'm also changing DLH's struck through "Retains" to "Comments." Those strike-throughs are making my eyes hurt. Plus Mandsford missed two of them. ô¿ô (talk) 16:17, 22 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 and Redirect to Characters and groups in BIONICLE#Brotherhood of Makuta (which I think is the correct place). As an aside, practically all these Bionicle articles are in a terrible state and really need someone who knows the franchise to clean them up. Black Kite 20:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chirox (Bionicle Character)[edit]

This article asserts no notability through reliable sources, and as such is just a plot repetition of this characters appearances in the various Bionicle media. As this characters appearances are already covered in those articles plot and characters sections, this is duplicative and should be deleted. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in-universe article on nn character. JJL (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or add to a general list of Bionicle characters due to notability and verfiability as will encyclopedic interest, i.e. per Wikipedia:Five pillars such articles are consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Bionicle. Yes, such published encyclopedias actually exist. Best,--Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link you have given is no indication of real world notability, and is probably just a fan encyclopedia that is in universe and lacking any creation info. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 15:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The book exists in the real world and is a specialized encyclopedic on Bionicle. Wikipedia is also a specialized encyclopedia, ergo we keep the article per our first pillar. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:59, 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, -- Flyguy649 ^talk 02:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Citrouilles. This is encyclopedic content, although most of it is in-universe related. Cel ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters and groups in BIONICLE. Non-notable by itself. Frickeg (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Characters and groups in BIONICLE, as this character has no real world notability outside of the Bionicle universe. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:56, 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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Smith (composer)[edit]

Borderline notability, this composer has yet to release an album but there are some claims to importance. No significant coverage in reliable third party sources. Polly (Parrot) 01:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although it's possible that he will be notable in the future, at the moment a single IMDb credit for The Quest for Babe hardly qualifies. Sources are mostly MySpace page, official page, etc. Frickeg (talk) 03:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:38, 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. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Leonard[edit]

Not notable. Plain and simply Delete! TheProf | Talk 01:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand, It (IMO) fails WP:BIO. ~~Jim.dooley also removed a Speedy deletion tag placed on the article by User:DanielRigal.~~ TheProf | Talk 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In light of DanielRigal's below comment, i see i made a mistake. However, my stance on the non notability of the article still stands. TheProf | Talk 20:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this entry up for deletion. I find the author's works most helpful, and they are on many courses in environmentalism. The webpage refered to publishes an international journal. I have certainly seen far less notable entrys.Jim.dooley (talk) 01:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 01:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Improve references Subject is arguably notable. The main flaw with the article in establishing that is a lack of references that are ABOUT him rather than by him. An article by opponent saying why Dr Leonard was wrong about something would do it.Nick Connolly (talk) 03:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Article creator is now vandalising page by adding his user name to it. TheProf | Talk 13:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The author did not remove speedy. I did that myself. I originally put speedy on because I saw that the article had been previously deleted for copyvio and that the text at the time was full of tell-tale indications of a text cut-and-paste. The author complained that this was unfair and that the text was new and, as the previous deletion was some time back, I gave him the benefit of the doubt. I don't think we should be thinking of vandalism here. I think the author is just very confused. Inappropriate use of copy and paste, coupled with inappropriate signatures on articles look more like mistakes than vandalism. As for the article itself, I am neutral. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more info and external links with articles on this author to improve the page. I am a student, new to wikipedia and I have made some mistakes, and felt this author was a very good subject due to his books, articles, cross border work and international journal editing, I have seen far less notable entrys in my time using this site. I prefer the academic resource side of wikipedia, and feel this entry is more than worthy of inclusion. I will update and improve this entry and add Jim.dooley (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)others.[reply]

To improve this site further, I have added new info and external links and with new external references added. These changes answer all of your concerns, and should lead to the delete notics being removed immediately, in accordance with wikipedia practice. Please read page on this author again, so there is no doubt as to the significance of the subject. Jim.dooley (talk) 22:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the primary references and included external references in their place. I have added some new references, which should help to clarify the significance of this subject. Apologies for signing earlier edits, I wasn't aware.

New references added including Google Scholar and Google books entries for this subjects works. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim.dooley (talk • contribs) 16:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have upgraded the bibliography and external links section. This should underpin the subject's significant academic contribution. Apoligies for earlier errors, don't delete page because of my errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.193.66 (talk) 18:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral probably does not qualify as an academic; very few libraries have his books, and there do not seem to be any substantial reviews yet. The journal is not yet significant either. Whether he might possibly be notable as an economic activist is harder to distinguish. DGG (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom and insuffcient coverage.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New external links added to improve quality of page. Page should be kept to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Irish issues.

I feel this article should be kept. For instance, how is the subject in this article: John Hogan (mathematician) (via WP:PROD on 2008-01-10) Unprodded any more notable then Dr Leonard, who has a far superior record of publications and history of activism in North & Rep Ireland? I mean this as a genuine inquiry, no disrespect to editors or Prof Hogan, but the subject has a significant record.77.107.197.64 (talk) 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-new info on publications and library collections which feature subject answer all concerns posted on this page.
Very Weak Delete I am not the best at it, but I can't find anything to satisfy the Notability requirement. I think Jim.dooley has put together a great start or even better article on the subject. I don't want to discourage him, but this subject doesn't seem to make it. I agree with DGG that activism will likely be the first area this subject may become/is notable. Jim.dooley may want to copy it to his user space, and wait to see if the subject becomes more notable. Dimitrii (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW. Nominator was neutral, everyone else has good enough reasons to warrant a keep. Nom has also given me permission to close here. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Alexandra Dupré[edit]

Personality that will be notable for only a short period of time. Listed as requested on the talk page. Precedents abound for deletion. Calwatch (talk) 01:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, despite the fact that I am the proposer for deletion, I am only listing because some people on the talk page want it listed but have no clue on the process, as such, I am officially neutral, just stating standard objections to the articles about the person in their 15 minutes of fame above. Calwatch (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She is one of the most famous women on the planet now - known and discussed in every country. Compare Christine Keeler, Mandy Rice-Davies and Monica Lewinsky. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, definitely meets the notability threshold. Article is well-sourced and neutral. I'm working on expanding it now. Nesodak (talk) 01:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable--the subject of articles in the NY Times, for example; popular singer as measured by downloads (yes, I know...). JJL (talk) 01:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems notable enough to me! TheProf | Talk 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. --Pixelface (talk) 01:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please read the Wikipedia Guideline regarding Notability, which states: "Notability is not temporary. If a subject has met the general notability guideline, there is no need to show continual coverage or interest in the topic, though subjects that do not meet the guideline at one point in time may do so as time passes and more sources come into existence. However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future." Anyone who has been the subject of front page articles in the New York Times and countless other publications will always be notable. At the very least, she will always be the answer to a trivia question, and most likely she will have a much larger presence than that. Those who claim that she lacks notability are really just expressing their disapproval of her morals. Steve913 (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:BLP1E says "Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but remains of essentially low profile themselves, we should generally avoid having an article on them." I don't think that applies here because I would not consider this individual "low profile." --Pixelface (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Divine Brown is notable enough for an article for her assignation with Hugh Grant a decade or so ago I don't see how less can be expected of Dupre. Reggie Perrin (talk) 02:00, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mortonomous[edit]

A five minute non-notable animated film released on the 14th of this month. No references from third parties, this seems to be just a small amateur film trying to promote itself. Polly (Parrot) 01:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you this isn't just an article trying to promote Mortonomous. It's an informational article for those who want to read about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbueddef (talk • contribs) 01:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn. JJL (talk) 01:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the notability standard of WP:MOVIE. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:41, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite appearances to the contrary, it's a class project, not a commercial film. Zetawoof_(ζ) 02:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Definitely not notable. Frickeg (talk) 03:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the notability standards at this time. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Snowball delete per Zetawoof; film is just a class project and not a commercial film, and therefore not notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:32, 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/Redirect to district, per WP:School. What we have here, is failure, to communicate. There seems to be a very widespread comfusion about supplemental notability guidelines. These guidelines (in this case a proposed guideline) do not present additional hurdles that an otherwise notable subject has to pass to be considered keepable. On the contrary, these supplemental notability guidelines provide a shortcut to allow retention of articles which do not currently meet the strict requirements of WP:N, but based on their subject matter, can be shown to follow a known precedent that given time they can be shown to be notable. For schools, it has been shown that almost every high school in the world can be shown to be notable. So to avoid deleting them over and over again while wikipedians finally get to the task of finding the required sources to pass WP:N, we generally keep them, as long as they are more than a mere directory listing, because it has been overwhelmingly shown that sources can almost always be found, given enough effort. Lower level schools, however, are less likely to have such sources. For this reason, middle schools are not considered inherantly notable; this does not mean we imediately press the delete button, but rather means we need to consider them against WP:N, and if they fail that, a small listing at the school district is appropriate. The nomination at this AfD seems to stem from a misapplication of the WP:School criteria, to create a new special hurdle. The discussion here did not center around the requirements of WP:N. MOst if not all of this discussion needs to be thrown out as off topic, as a result. However it is clear that this article fails to assert special notability, and does not in-fact list any relaible sources, so I am closing this AfD as merge/redirect. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kinawa Middle School[edit]

Middle schools have already been shown to be non-notable and should be redirected to school districts when appropriate. The author of this article refuses to abide by this consensus (even lauding his own self-appointed status as the editor of the article in his extremely long signature) and has reverted several times, so I decided to bring this here. JuJube (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect and protect. Middle schools aren't inherently notable, and this one seems to be run of the mill. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Okemos Public Schools. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okemos Public Schools, per TenPoundHammer. Nothing in this article really makes this school stand out from the zillions of other middle schools. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 03:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okemos Public Schools. No assertion of notability; this is essentially an advertisement. Frickeg (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per precedent and the near policy of WP:SCHOOLS. Protect the redirect if necessary TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 03:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 04:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Evidently notable Colonel Warden (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing to indicate notability from the link you give! Paste (talk) 15:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okemos Public Schools. Paste (talk) 11:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okemos Public Schools. While there is news coverage, it appears to be trivial in nature. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Colonel Warden. The nominator may be pulling on his SPIDERman costume to make a POINT. There are other methods to deal with TENDentious and DISRUPTive editors; I don't believe nominating for deletion is a good method for resolving disputes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment the issue is that per WP:SCHOOLS, these get merged. If someone keeps undoing the revert, the revert needs to be protected, not keep the article by default. Colonel Warden showed no evidence of notability, name mentions!notability TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Way to assume good faith there, cowboy. This nomination isn't to make a point, it is, as people have said, a case of someone trying to trump consensus with persistence. As for your overwikilinking to be clever, it's cute and all. Stop beating the straw man and focus. JuJube (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - AfD is not for enforcing consensus and correcting user behaviour. DoubleBlue (Talk) 23:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okemos Public Schools. CRGreathouse (t | c) 23:38, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect as above - article is essentially unreferenced and makes no assertion of notability. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect - Okemos Public Schools. TerriersFan (talk) 20:30, 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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep all. There are valid arguments from both sides, mainly "info is redundant" for those favoring deletion, and "could be improved, possibly to FL" for those favoring keeping the lists. There isn't a copyvio issue here, as far as I can tell - as Fosnez pointed out, there is no way this is negatively impacting Billboard anyway. If someone really feels strongly about it, it falls under fair use - put a rationale on the talk page. If editors still feel the information is redundant, I would suggest merging the articles together - such does not involve AfD. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Billboard Hot 100 top 10 singles in 2004[edit]

Also nominated:

Series of articles listing every U.S. top ten hit by year. I'm on the fence about these; to me they seem to go against WP:NOT#IINFO and they're redundant, as this info (in a less elaborate format) is already highlighted within the "20xx in music" pages. There are also articles listing number-ones, so these seem a little excessive - do we really need a list of every top-ten hit too? They also look to me like a bigger project that someone started but never bothered to finish - some of these still have empty columns and there isn't any indication that other years will be created (the author hasn't edited anything since May 2007). Thoughts? - eo (talk) 15:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All except the 2007 article, as that was deleted for some reason in the 2007 in music article. The 2007 list should be Merged into 2007 in music Doc Strange^{Telepathic Messages}Strange Frequencies 15:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This was previously nominated for deletion and the result was KEEP (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top 10 Billboard Hot 100 singles of 2004). I have recently taken up updating these pages with both the 2005 and 2006 pages now complete. I'll avoid adding more info until this is resolved. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. And I even nominated it. I have no recollection of doing that before. Anyhoo, would still like to get a new consensus, if that's ok. Kinda think these should be zapped, but if they're kept again I could help to get other years done. - eo (talk) 19:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very useful list for reference 82.16.184.164 (talk) — 82.16.184.164 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Wknight94 (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant to 200x in music and 200x in Hot 100 pages. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters •

^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question Is there a copyright issue here? Because I would think that the lists would be copyrighted by Billboard (magazine). JoshuaZ (talk) 04:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copyright is supposed to be on creative works to protect the artist's income for a limited amount of time. I can see no "creative" work here, and having the list on wikipedia is not depriving the company that created it of income. Fosnez (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, redundant, as information is listed elsewhere. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep They even meet criteria 1a of Featured Lists by "bringing together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria". They could easily be brought to FL status. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful list here BillboardWikipedia (talk) 23:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC) — BillboardWikipedia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c)[reply]

Delete I have put a copyvio tag on the article. Billboard's charts are copyrighted to them - they did the research. In order to use the charts people have to pay. In order to view the old charts you need to subscribe. It is OK to write about the Billboard chart, and there is a certain amount of the information we may use, but I'm not sure how much. I would think that this reusing of Billboard's research without their permission is likely to be a violation - but I am not 100% sure. There appear to be more such "articles" here. SilkTork *^YES! 18:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

people refer to it all the time, so I'd like a discussion of how much of the information they present is actually in the present article. I've removed the speedy tag to permit some further discussion here. DGG (talk) 01:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer that an admin with experience of copyright laws looked into the matter and made the decision. The Billboard site has a copyright notice, and the terms of use clearly indicates they don't want people using their service for free: "The Service and its Contents are protected by copyright pursuant to U.S. and international copyright laws. You may not modify, publish, transmit, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce (except as provided in this Section 2), create new works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the Content or the Service in whole or in part." and "Copying or storing of any Content for other than personal use is expressly prohibited without prior written permission from NIELSEN." This is not something we should be debating amongst ourselves if we don't know the law - we should alert someone who does know the law. I don't know enough to say one way or the other, but with copyright violations it is usually best to err on the side of caution. SilkTork *^YES! 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would also mean that every single discography on Wikipedia was violating copyright, as they can have the chart positions on sometimes numerous different billboard charts. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 04:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that IS the case then every instance of copyright violation would need to be removed. Copyright violation is not something that Wikipedia can do, even if people find the information useful, and not even if it has been going on for years and is widespread. Indeed, the more widespread it is, the more urgent it needs looking into. If we don't know the law here on this AfD we should pass it by somebody who does know. It just makes sense. And looking at THIS where Billboard are quite clearly selling the information that is being given away here on Wiki for free prompts me to urge DGG to immediately restore the copyvio tag. SilkTork *^YES! 09:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have more to do with how much of the chart is published and/or how it is presented. There are quite a number of reference books. for example by Joel Whitburn or Fred Bronson, which lay out all of the U.S. number-one songs or that summarize all chart singles and their peak positions, etc. Any of these books can be used as a reliable source to verify chart peaks in Wikipedia articles. The touchy part, I believe, would be if full portions of the weekly data was placed in Wikipedia — like if someone created an article "Current Top 40 Songs on the Hot 100" and then updated it each week and formatted it to look like it does on Billboard's website with all of the columns, etc. - eo (talk) 12:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all this is a very useful and notable list and logical format. I doubt there is a copyvio issue here, as we are only providing a summary of the top songs for a whole year, not every detailed weekly list. That information is available in many many places, and is even usually mentioned by DJ's, VJ's, and online MP3 download sites, so it would be quite a stretch for somebody to construe that our publishing this summary data is somehow competing with Nielson's market role for their intellectual property. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 05:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten pound hammer said it best. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn following WP:HEY. Meets speedy keep criteria. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NetLimiter[edit]

Notability not asserted - fails WP:N, no references - fails WP:RS and WP:V ukexpat (talk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. I am genuinely shocked and appalled. Apart from having 945,000 ghits, this software is extremely popular. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: After looking at the article, I can see where someone might mistake it's notability. The article is crap. While the subject is certainly notable, the article itself needs some serious work; I'll get on that now. Cel ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've added 4 references, rewrote parts of the article, and am currently expanding on the existing material. More refs should follow shortly, but what is already here should be sufficient to establish WP:N and WP:V. Cel ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As for notability - NetLimiter is a well-recognized software. Something like Windows. I assumed that if Windows is notable, then NetLimiter should also be.

As for Reliable Sources - what source is reliable, when program's official site isn't? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomek.poznan (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep updated article - clear notability now asserted -Halo (talk) 03:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Withdrawn. Works for me - nice work on the upgrades! – ukexpat (talk) 04:28, 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fornicatus Benefictus[edit]

Unreferenced one line article on a single invocation. Not notable. Cube lurker (talk) 00:43, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Basicly a dictionary definition. Mm40 (talk) 00:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. Possibly appropriate for Wiktionary. Frickeg (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline CSD A1 -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:50, 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 Redirect to Andrzej Wajda#Filmography. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three War Films[edit]

As far as I can tell, this is the just the title of a Criterion DVD set, not a cinematic phrase. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect. Agreed. This just appears to be an umbrella title used by Criterion for their box set and not any sort of official "series" title. And the individual films have their own articles, anyway. Additional: changed my vote to redirect too. I see no harm in that seeing a major company has applied the title to the trilogy, though I still think anyone looking for info on the films will go straight to the film articles themselves. 23skidoo (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can't hurt to redirect to Andrzej Wajda#Filmography. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The problem with this is the reader will have no idea which of the films are in this so-called trilogy. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per brewcrewer. If it really was the title of the trilogy, then fair enough, but Criterion says that it's only been "regarded as a trilogy"; it seems pretty clear that the title comes from Criterion, not Wajda. Frickeg (talk) 03:21, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Andrzej Wajda#Filmography. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:20, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - as above Think outside the box 13:27, 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. As we all know, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bloop ball[edit]

Non notable game. Prod was removed by the author with the wonderful comment "This game is a new game that will be introduced to a larger audience via the internet in the near future." Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. No reliable sources. J Milburn (talk) 00:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a made up game, thus violating WP:MADEUP and WP:CRYSTAL. It's not the subject of any sources either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note author's objection to deletion on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure it's quite popular with the Shields family, but the rest of the world....? Rien (talk\stalk) 00:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I propose another rule for this game: Its Wikipedia article gets deleted unless notability is shown. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Genealogically-exclusive Flanders-style invention. WP:NN WP:NOT WP:OR in addition to the WPs per J Milburn and TPH. But when Mark McCormack, Nike and Palitoy come knocking I'll be 1st in line to buy the deluxe yard set. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability, no sources (except Wikipedia, of course) ... Frickeg (talk) 03:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its notability is severely limited (several hundred people? really? that's it?). No reliable sources, only link is to Flickr (*oh boy*) as their website is still under construction (once again doesn't help its case). It seems like an advertisement for the product too. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 08:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious spam for a domain registered less than two weeks ago. Or just speedy as a hoax. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotion for a non-notable game, as above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Do not delete:. This is an old family game that is going to be going mainstream in the near future. The reason the domain name has only recently been registered is that the idea to increase the size of the audience who is aware of it was just recently thought of. Please do not delete this page, it is a real game and deserves at least a little bit of time to prove itself. --Iam2me3 (talk) 13:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Au contraire; the game needs a little bit of time to prove itself before it can be added to Wikipedia. Consult WP:NPOV, V and OR. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:. But what is the real harm in putting this on Wikipedia? It is not a fake game, it is not intentional spam, it really exists, so why not let it be on Wikipedia? Iam2me3 (talk) 18:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The harm is explained here. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball- articles can be written when things become notable, not before-hand on the off chance that they do. J Milburn (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not saying that this game will become famous, I am simply saying that it will become available to a larger audience once the webpage goes online. I know that it will be going online soon because I am in charge of its creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iam2me3 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, or at least no consensus to delete, despite lack of proof of notability. More references are needed though. Canley (talk) 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trollheim's Grott[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Little or no significant coverage found, and none included in the article by way of references. Band appears to lack sufficient notability. Michig (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:19, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are independent, usable online sources (http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll, see Google results). --Oldak Quill 15:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Such as? AMG don't have anything to say about the band.--Michig (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, about the bad link: http://www.allmusic.com/cg/amg.dll?p=amg&sql=11:dzfixqudldhe~T00). Information there includes an independent description of genre, discography, record label, and a song list. Also, the band's profile at their record company's website. I'm sure there are more reliable sources to find (Google has ~32k hits). The limitation is that they are a Finnish metal band, so someone would need to navigate through some Finnish/metal websites. --Oldak Quill 17:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither of those is a reliable source showing independent coverage of the band, which would make a huge difference regarding notability.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two albums on a small label, but every member of this band is or was in at least one other notable band, such as Ajattara, Swallow the Sun, Demilich, Darkwoods My Betrothed, Deathchain or Turmion Kätilöt. There are some good sources available, such as this. Prolog (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of those bands have articles here with references to prove notability. If references to reliable independent sources showing significant coverage can be found, I'll be happy to consider withdrawing the nomination. Thanks.--Michig (talk) 17:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a general lack of references in articles about metal music groups. It's a good thing Wikipedia is a work in progress. Prolog (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no indication in the article that they pass WP:BAND and no references. Even a new stub should have those if it's going to be kept. This article's been here for 3 and a half years.--Michig (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I did check for Wikipedia articles in other languages, but there is only an article on the Swedish WP, also completely lacking in references.--Michig (talk) 17:59, 9 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) 00:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The players in the band have been in other notable bands. WP:MUSIC lists that as one of the criteria. As per other links that have been given, they seem to have received media coverage, just not in English. If someone who speaks the language could browse some websites and provide us with translations/summaries of their coverage, it'd be great, and it would go towards fulfilling even more criteria for this type of article. Cel ^{Talk to me} 02:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Can anyone provide a reliable source that demonstrates that a member of this band has been in one of the bands listed above and a reliable source that demonstrates that one of those bands passes WP:BAND? Any significant coverage of this band in reliable sources? --Michig (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: this demonstrates some of the players relation to the Deathchain group and the Darkwoods My Betrothed group, among a number of others. This means they pass WP:BAND. Rather than spending so much time and energy trying to delete the article, why don't you help improve it? Cel ^{Talk to me} 14:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Metal Archives is not what I would call a reliable source, as the information on the site is editable. I was unable to find any coverage in reliable sources with which to improve the article, so there's nothing that I can use to improve the article. Apparently, nobody else has been able to find anything either in the three and a half years this article has been here.--Michig (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That information is also available here and here. Also, I respectfully disagree with you (and WP, apparently) that other wikis do not constitute reliable sources simply because of their openness. That's akin to saying OSS doesn't work because it's open. Cel ^{Talk to me} 14:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We're not here to discuss policy, just to apply it.--Michig (talk) 14:52, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Yes, well, in any case, it should be eminently clear now that members of this band have been members of other bands, in addition to receiving non-english media coverage on sites such as this. more than passes this group on WP:MUSIC. Cel ^{Talk to me} 15:30, 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 Keep. Tiptoety ^talk 02:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Milinda[edit]

non-notable pirate station, only 78 Google hits Rapido (talk) 00:01, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have added a number of sources to the article and flagged it for Rescue. Given that this radio station was around before the people that made google were born, I would say that it be best not to use Google as a notability guide. Notability, however, is established by my sources and the fact that this pirate radio station was the first Irish pirate station to be shut down by the police. Fosnez (talk) 02:29, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTBIGENOUGH should be considered when you are giving thought to this. As the article has already been tagged for WP:ARS, I think it's fine as is, but continued improvement couldn't hurt. Cel ^{Talk to me} 04:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 09:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable pirate radio station, sufficient third-party sourcing in the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. A fairly flimsy claim to notability, and some coverage that perhaps falls short of non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, but let's keep it for now and give it a chance to improve.--Michig (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable secondary sourcing is now provided so notability is established. Google hits are not always a reliable indicator for non-current people or organizations. - Dravecky (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is now asserted quite clearly through multiple sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:53, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SilkTork *^YES! 10:59, 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 per WP:CSD#A7. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 07:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Institute for Advanced Researches[edit]

Not notable organization, the info is written by the director himself, all the references are to self-published free internet resources. Copyright problems. I want to have a formal AfD decision as the article is continously restored Alex Bakharev (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reference to our web sites, is it prohibited? Who can say is it notable or not? The reasns are not enough to delete the article. Especially after all copyright problems are resolved.Ryururu (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a policy WP:CORP. It said An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources.. Please provide reliable, independent secondary sources showing notability of your institution ASAP if you have ones Alex Bakharev (talk) 07:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the institute exists and works, what is untrue in our information in the article?the main reason why some users are trying to delete the article is that riar scientists made some suggestions in wiki articles that contradict their edition of the science problems, and by deleting us from web society they try to delete their scientific opponents, and this is not a science method but just politics.Ryururu (talk) 07:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect. Rjd0060 (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Fun Mystery Episode[edit]

Completely useless episode entry for South Park. They only created it as a placeholder, and we don't need it at all. The Matyr ^{(converse with the Matyr)} 06:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect. I'm never usually one for deleting, so I think the most sensible solution is to orphan the article until the actual 2nd episode of season 12 comes out. Then redirect this name to that one. It's a much better solution than deleting. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not even broadcast yet, no non-trivial sources attesting to impact etc. If it turns out to be particularly notable or controversial, then the article can be recreated. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 16 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not a notable episode yet, especially considering it hasn't aired. Wait until it has an impact on society (which South Park seems to specialize in), then create the page again. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:57, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't aired yet, therefore hasn't established notability. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 23:28, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crsytal ball and there is not enough reliably sourced, verifiable information to support and article at this point. Guest9999 (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not redirect? - to Britney's New Look instead of delete? Here, I'll do that now and we can close this discussion as REDIRECT WAS THE RESULT. That's a much better solution. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 00:16, 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.