Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 18

< March 17	March 19 >

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 Move to Wikipedia:Online maps of the United States. The article was moved by Quentin Smith on 21 March 2008. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Online maps of the United States[edit]

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY. Whilst this is potentially a useful resource, it is not an encyclopaedia article. Was it intended for the WP Namespace? --Qu e ntin Smith 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - article is a linkfarm -- Whpq (talk) 13:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete basically a link farm for these maps totally unencyclopedic. Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyclopedia. The "article" is nothing but links. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:31, 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 A7 speedy deleted by User:Royalbroil. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Red-Chested Flufftail (band)[edit]

Non-notable band. No attempt made at asserting notability. I can find ZERO relevant Google hits - this is a notable bird, but non-notable band. Camillus (talk) 23:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A7 speedy delete, tagged as such for lack of any hint of assertion of importance. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC) 00:33, 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. John254 00:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Property damage[edit]

Contested PROD. Completely unsourced, survived an AfD in 2004 (yes, that is correct) in the basis of improvement, which hasn't happened. Specific topics dealt with elsewhere in WikiProject:Law, arson, etc. This article doesn't decide whether it's law, sociology or politics, it's title is too broad to be sustainable, and it's difficult to see how it could be made useful. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article could still be improved, and it is worth having it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It could use some work, maybe sectionalizing into law, sociology, politics as you speak of, but as a sort of meta-article, I think it is useful and necessary, mostly as a navigational aid to find what they're looking for. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs lots of work but will evolve into an article that will be more useful (if not more interesting) than the stuff I write about here! House of Scandal (talk) 21:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Wry)Comment Are you volunteering? Because this is what happened three years ago. Everyone thought it was worthy, but nobody did anything about it. See you back here in 2011. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As you are the one who has such an objection to the current state of the article, why don't you improve it? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:02, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The COMPASS Experiment[edit]

Non-notable band. Article even says "not well-known outside of their hometown... (of Calstock, Ontario)". According to the WP article, Calstock, Ontario is part of a district with total population of 2500. Absolutely ZERO relevant Google hits - although there seems to be a "COMPASS Experiment" at CERN, which is surely more notable than this lot.
(Incidentally, you gotta feel sorry for the brother who was killed in a "fatal" accident...) Camillus (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator, but could have been prodded. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BAND. KnightLago (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fails WP:MUSIC. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - article basically asserts their non-notability (unless being "locally famous" in Calstock passes WP:N). Also, no sources whatsoever - no proof it exists. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 18:24, 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, a multitude of references in reliable sources have been added to the article to establish notability. This addresses the concerns of those who argued for deletion who all said that reliable sources were required. Davewild (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Archiguille[edit]

Where to start... this article was created as an autobiography or by someone who copied the biography section of http:www.archiguille.com. It's full of peacock words and glowing praise, like "greatest painter of his generation" and "a cult figure on the Montmartre". (His web site calls Barbara Bush and other owners "avid groupies", although that term isn't in our article.) Unfortunately, there's precious little available to back up these claims – 38 Google hits seem a little low for someone who counts Barbara Bush as an avid groupie. Even The Times reference at the bottom is missing in action from Google. I'd expect books and magazine articles and the like, lots of them for such a famous cult figure.

Unless more reliable sources are found, the article should be deleted, as it fails WP:BIO. KrakatoaKatie 23:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the grandiose claims can't be verified by reliable sources, then this fails notability. Otherwise, I'm starting an article on myself, the Pope's favourite artist. freshacconcispeaktome 01:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. I have thought about this for a day and I think the grandiose claims make verifiability even more important than weaker claims might make it. House of Scandal (talk) 21:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs a thorough rewrite, but the artist is an honorary member of the Russian Academy of Arts: [2]. "Honorary members can be elected among outstanding figures of world culture and arts, as well as those who by their active charitable activity and sponsorship greatly contributed to the development of the Academy and Russian culture in general." ([3])--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He also seems to have a walk-on part in accounts of the assassination of Jean de Broglie: [4], [5]. That doesn't necessarily make him notable, but it is intriguing.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 22:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unless some substantial WP:BIO related references are put up. If his roll at the Russian Academy of Arts was "active charitable activity and sponsorship greatly contributed to the development of the Academy and Russian culture in general", then he is not a notable artist, he is just a contributer with deep pockets (self nomination). All other references dead end so far. Noatable artist or well padded resume? Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have inadvertently missed out the first part of the Russian Academy of Arts notice, which reads in full "Honorary members can be elected among outstanding figures of world culture and arts, as well as those who by their active charitable activity and sponsorship greatly contributed to the development of the Academy and Russian culture in general." He is shown as an honorary member with the profession of artist.[6] Ty 01:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Notability is established by sources, of which a great many are listed in the article. There is an objection that there is a dearth of them on the internet, but this is not a requirement: print sources are quite acceptable. However, there are online sources. One is another page from the Russian Academy of Arts,[7] which, amongst other things, states: Sixty paintings by the noted artist, Honorary Member of the Russian Academy of Arts Augustin Francois Guille dit Archiguille will be presented to the public by the Embassy of Switzerland, Russian-Swiss Commerce Chamber and the Russian Academy of Arts in Tsereteli Art Gallery (19 Prechistenka str., Moscow) on November 8, 2007 and His paintings ... can be seen in museums of modern art in New York, Chicago, Houston, Brussels, Madrid, Paris, Tokyo as well as in art numerous galleries. Swissenterprise.com has a biography.[8] La Grande Motte tourism office bills him as a guest of honor.[9] Translation[10] 16 of his works have been sold at auction.[11] Ty 02:08, 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. No good arguments for deletion have been made, even after relisting. Bduke (talk) 10:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shamrock Club of Wisconsin[edit]

Speedy Delete. Blatant advertising; probable COI. Houseboater (talk) 23:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If you wish to flag an article for speedy deletion, use one of the templates at WP:CSD. As you have opened a discussion, speedy delete rationales may not apply. --Dhartung | Talk 00:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am very sorry. Please change to Delete. Houseboater (talk) 00:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this does have some claim to notability per WP:ORG. The Wisconsin group was founded in 1960 and has no apparent connection to some other longstanding Irish-American groups on the East Coast. Many of the other GHITS are for one-off gentlemen's clubs (in the British sense) or political organizations. This group is primarily limited to Wisconsin but does have a bit written about it in reliable sources in Google Books and Google News Archive in addition to sources in the article. Nominator has provided limited, if any, rationale for deletion. --Dhartung | Talk 00:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 02:20 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete: Fails notability guidelines for inclusion (WP:NOTE). Pluswhich (talk) 02:54, 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, some sources have now been added and consensus is that this should not just be deleted. Davewild (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chemical bonding model[edit]

I had originally prodded this page under its old name of Molecular bonding model with the rationale that it was turning up absolutely no reliable sources whatsoever. The move to chemical bonding model has produced a few more hits using the term (which is why I nixed my own prod), but nonetheless it still seems to be a neologism. Page's author left comment on my talk page promising addition of sources, but so far I see none. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for giving the page a chance. I hope you can give it a second chance. I've included references I hope that helps. Silberbge general chemistry text covers this material between chapters 9 through 11. I understand your issue with the name. There isn't a good name, I would be happy to title the page "bonding models", "chemical bonding theories", "molecular bonding theories", "Models of Chemical Bonding", or "bonding theories" among others. It doesn't make a difference to me since all are used and often in the same text. This area of research hasn't been truly active for at least 50 years and there has been no need to maintain a strict vocabulary around the subject since most of the "models" are only taught to students as an introduction to bonding. Ideally editors with a chemical background could find a name through consensus. As I said before I'm new to Wikipedia and I defer to your better judgment.--OMCV (talk) 01:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep there is now some kind of references. Although there is a big overlap with chemical bonding. Graeme Bartlett (talk)02:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I considered incorporating segments on Valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) Theory, Crystal Field Theory (CFT), and Ligand Field Theory (LFT) into chemical bonding. I didn't go this route since chemical bonding seemed bloated and ripe for division into separate pages. For example Valence Bond Theory (VBT) and Molecular Orbital (MO) Theory get a health treatment on the page even though they have their own pages. There is even a well written "Comparison of valence bond and molecular orbital theory". So should links to the remaining bonding models(theories) be added to chemical bond?

Another issue with chemical bonding is that minor or sub-categories of bonds types are included on equal terms with the major ones. The major bonding types (strong chemical bonds) are covalent, ionic, and metallic; even dative is a subcategory of covalent bonding. Dative and the others minor bonds should be identified as less significant. Thats might seem ancillary issue but how are the issues of chemical bonding going to be refined. Does the page simple increase in size to the point where the significant information is diluted by second tier information or do we give the second tier its own venue. Does there need to be a page "types of chemical bonds" to collectively list things like Bent bonds and Polar covalent bond and the others minor bonds in a single place? I hope this helps.--OMCV (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. This new article does have a number of problems, but OMCV does raise some issues about the article on the chemical bond which also has problems, although I do not entirely agree with him about what they are. I am quite sure that a number of editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry will wade in fairly soon and the issues will get resolved. I would hope to do so myself, but am really tied up with other matters right now. As it stands, we have a new editor whom we should encourage and not discourage by deleting this article. It is really a question of how we have an introductory article that leads to a quite a large number of more detailed articles. --Bduke (talk) 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to agree again. I've gone through and read the bonding page in more detail and much of the associated discussion page. I feel like a poor synthetic chemist with a most limited understanding of bonding theory. When I think of bonds I usually think of MO's if I'm dealing with a transition metal orbitals and CFT hybridized orbitals if I'm dealing with main group atoms. I've gone through and tightened up the page. I'm pretty sure I've removed anything that is my opinion. In doing so I dealt with the issues I personally had with the page. I didn't like the way I split Valence shell electron pair repulsion (VSEPR) Theory, Crystal Field Theory (CFT) into a category separate from the other theories, honestly that was too creative.

The name of the page is still a nonissue for me and I'll be happy with what ever title it gets. While this concept might not have a commonly recognized name it does exist. A page concerning this concept has serious utility in directing undergraduate level students between the different ideas they are being taught often simultaneously in a confusing way. This isn't to say that this page is a text book page but rather a summing list or directional reference. It is analogous to Mountain ranges of Colorado which has a creative title that can be phrased in different ways but deals with an easily recognized concept which deserves a page.

After reviewing the Chemical Bonding's discussion I recognize Bduke as an authority on this subject and will take any advice he has to offer. If the page comes down than I recognize that I attempted a subject too far out of my specialization and in the future I'll stick to material I know better, no hard feelings. If the page stays up I'll continue to tighten the page while learning more about the subject. Identifying other theories and ideas that would be best introduced from this page such as modern valence bond theory (which I recently learned of). As I said before I think the page has real utility. Thanks for taking the time to deal with this page.--OMCV (talk) 08:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and allow any possible renaming, merging or restructuring of this and related articles to be discussed on talk and project pages. This is the type of article where web searches are pretty useless for establishing notability, because it is about a concept which is not necessarily always referred to by the same name. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Actually, it's closer to "no consensus". Still, this article needs some clean up, and sources, as the keep proponents have suggested. Marking as such. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Bosc[edit]

No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability; no sources in article that show notability. First half dozen pages of non-wiki ghits aren't showing notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. as the nominator reasons there is no cliam of notability. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - possible vanity article- the creating editor's contributions all relate to this subject. Dreamspy (talk) 09:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep COI is not reason for deletion--the academic book and the recordings are real enough. Given the difficulty of publishing classical musics, he's notable. DGG (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no vote - I checked Google. [12] says "French composer Michel Bosc was born in 1963 and as a composer is largely self-taught. A prolific composer, his works cover such diverse registers as chamber music, symphonies, choral music, and music for the theater. A member of the Société Marc-Antoine Charpentier, he also is a distinguished music critic, analyst, and author. His works have been performed worldwide by such performers and ensembles as Gilles Lefèvre, Aline Fox, Christian Foulonneau, the brass quintet of the Orchestre National des Pays de Loire, the National Orchestra of Kazakhstan, the Academic Symphony Orchestra of the Ulyanovsk Philarmonia, the European Orchestra, the Orchestre Instrumental d’Ile-de-France, the Orchestre Symphonique Lyonnais, and the Ensemble Gabriele Leone. Conductor Maximilian Fröschl has described Bosc’s music as possessing 'melodic sweetness, polyphonic rigour, and the power of rhythm.'" [13] says "French composer-arranger, self-educated, discovered by the famous french composer and singer William Sheller in 1985, he wrote, in addition to a trio for flute per request of Jean-Pierre Rampal (op.21), more than a hundred pieces including three symphonies, six symphonic poems, three masses, chamber music (including "La Harpe Invisible op.82", an order from the Ensemble Gabriele Leone, and also a pastiche of Charpentier for ancient instruments, op.5), scene music and arrangements of songs. He also wrote several articles in the Bulletin of the Charpentier Society, and he conducts the voice ensemble Beatus Vir." These seem very weak, so I'll leave it to someone more in the know to determine if these sources mean anything. There's definitely more written about him in the French language. At the same time, I'm in favour of killing any vanity article; this one at least needs a good rewrite to make it encyclopedic, if it stays. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs tagging. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up per AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. The sources from that comment need to go to the article, as it doesn't have any. It also needs some other fixing (e.g. why are all of the piece titles surrounded by double angle brackets?) I'd say his publications make him notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 02:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googlelization[edit]

Article text: Googlelization: The massive use of Google’s search engine and their services for default.

A non notable neologism Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As far as I can see this is just another neologism to consign to the scrapheap, as I can only see it used on blogs and such like. If there are reliable sources available with which to write an article with, consider this a keep. EJF (talk) 23:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — no worthwhile content in this one. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NEO. No real content. Belongs on Urban Dictionary. --Pixelface (talk) 02:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. We really need a speedy category for for unsourced neologisms that someone made up one day. It's a waste of time having to go through AfD for something like this. JohnCD (talk) 10:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, it was a prod contested by the creator. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - creator didn't give a reason for his contesting, did he? Anyway, I have found uses of the term (via a google search, ha ha); however, it seems to be spelt variously as "googleization", "googlization" and "googlelization". I don't think we'll find an encyclopedic treatment of the term when nobody even knows how it's supposed to be spelled, yet; I don't even see a general consensus as to its meaning. The article definitely doesn't explain it at all, as written. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sounds like something someone just randomly thought of to me, non-notable Izzy007 Talk 21:42, 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 Speedy Delete. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T.S.S Entertainment[edit]

Independent music label. Site link is to a different company. States company founded 2007, lists mixtapes from 2005. Lists notable rap artists, who are signed to other labels. 19 ghits for "tss entertainment", none relevant. Failed CSD#A7 for unknown reasons. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unreferenced, I suspect that it is a hoax article. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 as hoax, so tagged. Artists listed are on other labels; site links to another company; was founded in 2007 but lists tapes from '05; no relevant hits -- yeah, it's a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to establish notability or verifiability. Cheers Dloh cierekim 02:33, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Ward-Wilkinson[edit]

Non-notable child actor - ghits reveal minimal mentions or short/empty filmographies at mtv.com, imbd, tv.com, youtube, blogs etc..etc. Article fails WP:BIO. [14] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation - Possibly notable, but little or no useful content GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 23:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. The appearances on a TV show were enough to save it from speedy deletion, but nothing has been added to the article to demonstrate that he's notable. Further, there are no reliable sources cited. 00:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:29, 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, consensus is that these articles are a valid topic but that renaming or reorganising them should be discussed. Davewild (talk) 12:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 E0 m[edit]

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reasons:

First of all the titles to these pages are misleading they are not actually about the respective distances and would be more accurately titled something like "list of objects between X and Y long".
These lists vary between containing nothing at the extremes (examples 1 E-20 m 1 E-21 m) to being reasonable in length in the middle (example 1 E+4 m). I do not think that these lists belong in an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and these appear to be a form of non-encyclopaedic cross categorisations. Do people really want to know that flying height of the head of a hard disk is of the same order as the diameter of DNA helix?

It seems likely that some of the lists will always remain empty whereas others will be impossible to complete, 1 E+1 m could contain a good proportion of every notable building ever made. Notable scales (such as the Planck Scale) have articles and if people want examples of the different orders of magnitudes in regard to length Orders of magnitude (length) provides a nice table (possible redirect target – although I don’t see many people typing in these article titles). Being related by length isn’t really notable connection between objects and I don’t see that these lists serve an encyclopaedic purpose. Guest9999 (talk) 22:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into one article. Not notable on their own, but together, maybe. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above Orders of magnitude (length) might be an appropriate target - it already contains what is effectively a summary of the individual articles. Guest9999 (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep excellent almanac type entry that I come to Wikipedia for. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Almanacs generally cover a specific topic - a sport, geography, economics, sport - I realise Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopaedia but I really can't imagine that an almanac attempting to list everything in existance by length (which seems pretty indiscriminate) cis really a suitable topic for any encyclopaedia. Guest9999 (talk) 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Do people really want to know that flying height of the head of a hard disk is of the same order as the diameter of DNA helix? --- Actually, yes. That's nifty and informative, which is preceisely what an encyclopedia should be. Whether these pages are the best way to fulfill that purpose, I'll have to think about, so neutral for now. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If that information was on either the DNA or hard disk page it would be deleted as unencyclopaedic trivia, I don't think that the subject of comparing objects of the same length has been suitably documented by reliable sources. I think I'll stop commenting now - going to start to look obsessed. Guest9999 (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, if that information was on those pages, it would be regarded as trivia, since in those contexts it is trivial. But trivia in one context is not trivia in another - here it is a useful addition to the page. So if you delete this page, where is that information going to go? Somewhere where it will be deleted as trivial? Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these subjects are best covered in other contexts, articles, or lists. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - part of a regular pattern used not only with length, but also with area, volume, weight, and a host of other physical measures. Why single out length? Sure, there's a summary at orders of magnitude (length), but it is just that, a summary, and carries none of the extra detail which is possible from a series of connected articles like this. Note too that the nominated pages are still growing - if they are redirected to orders of magnitude (length), then it is very likely that that will grow to the point where it needs splitting very rapidly - and what would it be split into? Back to these articles. Grutness...wha? 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is collecting miscelaneous measures together that as a whole are valuable, but as facts scattered in articles is not findable. The more extreme values would be less known. This is in the same category as number and year articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to number and year articles is a compelling one, I have to say. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per GW simulations. Honestly, number and year articles aren't really a compelling argument, because you can cross-apply the same arguments (both pro and con) to both sides. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although the information is useful, I think that the organization of the "orders of magnitude" project is awful, too square for hippies and too hip for squares. It's too simplistic for people who appreciate scientific notation, and would write "2.5 E3 m" or say "2.5 x 10³ meters" sooner than they would say 2,500 meters. And it's too technical for the non-scientist. To quote an argument cited for keep, "facts scattered in articles are not findable", and the approach of separate articles doesn't illustrate relative size. Assuming that this was general information aimed at the average individual, I can say that it misses the mark. If you can't write for your intended audience, then you have a problem. Mandsford (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—These articles provide practical examples of units of scale that serve a useful purpose on other pages. Also I don't think that merging into a single page is a practical idea. If necessary the pages can be renamed to eliminate the "1".—RJH (talk) 19:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After thinking about it some more, weak keep. I find Graeme Bartlett's comparisons to number and year articles compelling, but as has been alluded to several times by the above, the naming system here is attrocious. It doesn't help that the titles are one scale, but the articles actually cover a range. So keep, and start a discussion on some centralized talk page about how to reorganize this stuff better. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Extremely useful lists--but they need clearer titles, for I would never have guessed the contents. Could conceivably be merged into one very long list, but I think this way is more appropriate--thats a discussion for the talk page. The assemblage of gacts into a relevant collection of information is what encyclopedias are for.,DGG (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and redirect as inheriting notability from Powers of Ten, and let's argue instead about what their base names should be, which is the whole problem. I propose "1 yoctometre", "100 zeptometres", etc., through "100 yottametres". For purposes of people finding them, redirect from many other potential versions such as "1 centimeter" = "1 centimetre", "ten nanometres" = "10 nanometres" (these first two also combine), "1hm" = "1 hm" = "1 hectometre", "one thousandth metre" = "1 millimetre", "one milliard metres" = "1 gigametre" (use of >100 and <.01 is limited only to text, and only with meter and metre), "one billion metres" = "1 gigametre" (not "1 terametre"), and occasional exceptions like "1 myriameter" = "10 kilometres". Also add to disambiguation pages like "10K". That should be enough to define a system, y'all can take it from there. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep - very very old Wikipedia articles that seem to have been originated from the "orders of magnitude" topics. Have to argue "spirit of Wikipedia" here instead of referring to the rules. This is really one of those topics that the Wikipedia guidelines accept as "an exception" - I'd really want to have this sort of information in my encyclopedia. Deleting them is like deleting 640s BC and associated topics. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:47, 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 No consensus to delete. Further discussion about whether the article should be kept and improved or converted to a redirect can continue at the talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Blake[edit]

This has been previosly deleted from an afd here, but the speedy as a repost was denied with "should not have been deleted for the reason it was", so I'm bringing him back as a seperate afd.

~~The link you provided doesn't lead to an AFD for Noah Blake. It leads to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtenay Semel.— Ѕandahl 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)~~ I see it was was included.— Ѕandahl 23:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there's a long list at his IMDB, none of his roles were substantial. His father is a non-factor due to WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, Delete per WP:BIO brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per previous discussion and CSD G4. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not G4 as the article appears to have been speedy deleted last time (despite the previous AfD). No reliable sources that establish notability, it might be appropriate for some information to be merged into Robert Blake (actor). Guest9999 (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If Noah's article is merged to that of his father, two principles (both more important than "notability") come into play: (1) the content attribution requirements of the GFDL would require us to at least keep the revisions which yielded the content being merged, and (2) common sense would require us to keep the title "Noah Blake" as a redirect pointing to Robert Blake (actor)#Family, or some functionally similar section within the article to which the content has been merged. See Wikipedia:Merge and delete for more information. — CharlotteWebb 13:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, either as an article or as a redirect with history intact (a.k.a. "merge"), in the absence of any compelling reason to delete. — CharlotteWebb 13:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article needs work but person is verifiably notable for reasons other than his parentage. House of Scandal (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is verifiable independent of his parents.— Ѕandahl 22:21, 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 - it is unlikely that its notability can be verified through reliable and independent sources. Appears to be just one of many characters from a fictional in-universe plot. Bearian (talk) 22:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fire Phoenix[edit]

This article asserts no notability through multiple reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Reads like patent nonsense. I can't even understand the article - what the hell is it?. If it is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to be more understandable, but I still like the article.Mertozoro (talk) 23:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you let us know why? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - what's the difference between this and the bare plot summary of a minor novel?--Doug Weller (talk) 14:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge- to create a list of characters from whatever tv show, franchise this character belongs to. AndreNatas (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Zoids. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List_of_Zoids is worth a look too. Wiw8 (talk) 19:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - but add a "requires citations" tag. If the franchise and its components are sufficiently notable to allow inclusion then it shouldn't be too difficult to find some reliable sources/references (no prejudice against relisting should none be found). Wiw8 (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - WP:NOT#PLOT. Is there anything encyclopedic that can be said about this topic that comes from a third-party, not-in-universe source? I can't tell what it is - is it a plastic toy model? If so, why do we need an article on each product in the series, complete with plot summaries or game mechanics or whatever this is? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of real-world references. Alternatively, merge and redirect to Zoids. --MCB (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Space exposure as boldly done by AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. I will create a DMB page, because of alternative meanings, as suggested. TerriersFan (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spacing[edit]

Non-notable science fiction concept. Contains a small amount of highly speculative information (fails WP:CRYSTAL) in the lead, and goes on to list fairly non-notable occurrences of deaths by vacuum exposure in science fiction (fails WP:IINFO). GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and WP:NOT#OR. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; WP:NOT#OR also. Houseboater (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect to space exposure, which already discusses the important bit (the science). We don't need an "in popular culture" list that much although mentioning some notable examples (BSG, Outland, 2001) is worthwhile. This is a pretty common sf trope (and is sometimes used correctly, e.g. in Red Mars), but there seems to be little critical discussion outside of some short debunkings of common misconceptions about it. --Dhartung | Talk 00:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge and redirect as above. Merge with space exposure and put a "If you're looking for" note in a spacing page/section talking about the grammatical structure (if/when it exists). While spacing as an individual article may not be "notable" enough for Wikipedia (I'd debate that, but I'll admit that I'd probably lose), I don't see a problem with keeping the information in the article elsewhere. UPDATE: Okay, Qwfp raises a valid point, but I still think that keeping valuable information on a common science-fiction plot mechanism in a related page is preferable to tossing the work altogether. --Kant Lavar (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant plot element--tho I would eliminate the merely threatened ones, this i for the talk page to be discussed. There are probably dozens of additional one--I am not a particular sf fan, but I can think of a few. DGG (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, do not redirect. If I typed "Spacing" into the Search box I might expect to find an article discussing single and double-spacing of text, or whether to put one space or two after a full stop, not an article about a fictional method of execution. For the same reason I believe a redirect would not be appropriate. Qwfp (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge per Kant Lavar to "space exposure", and Qwfp beings up a good point. It's perhaps better to have a real article on "typographic spacing" with a "if you're looking for" pointing to Space exposure, for those wanting this topic. Why, DGG? Because this article's title is a jargon-slang version of Space exposure, and we only need one article on this (admittedly notable) plot device. It'd be like having articles on Red menace, Red threat, and Communist threat. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and disambig - First, let's merge whatever useful info there is into Space exposure. Then, we turn this page into a disambig with Leading (i.e. line-spacing), Letter-spacing (i.e. tracking), and Space exposure. That works, doesn't it? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update - I have now added the non-IPC content into an "in science fiction" section of the article Space exposure. I haven't transferred the "In popular culture" (whoops! I mean "cultural significance") section, as I don't like adding "In Popular Culture" sections to serious articles. Otherwise, this article can now be deleted and replaced with a disambig, as I suggested above, if you want. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a good idea. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 21:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Disambig Looks like the merge is done. When I saw the AFD title I was making internal bets on whether it was about line spacing or Sci Fi deaths. That made me think of Disambig before I even looked at the article. No need for two articles about the same subject. Space exposure is the better article and term. Dimitrii (talk) 17:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dab since merge is done I suspect at some point we'll get to have a reasonable separate article on this. I don't think the underlying history should be deleted because it will be easier to make a new article if we get sources later if we leave it there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, consensus is that the article goes beyond a dictionary definition and is an encyclopedic topic. Davewild (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeman (nobleman)[edit]

WP:NOT a dictionary. Article is a dictionary definition of a Slovak language word meaning "nobleman" in English. Extended with some trivial information copied from elsewhere that belongs to other articles. Any useful content can be moved to several already existing articles. Hobartimus (talk) 22:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Hobartimus (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not a definition, contains encyclopedic content on the title, use, history and social impact. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contains some content true but not on the title. There never was an actual noble class called Zeman, and also we already have the perfectly good "common noble" or nobleman terms in English what is what's the article's about. You could just open up an article on every word of the Slovak Croat German etc etc languages then and lift some content on it's history and usage. The content can be moved to Nobility and Nobility in the Kingdom of Hungary which the article claims "Zemans" are from.Hobartimus (talk) 23:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - perfect article. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - seems to be well beyond a dictionary def. matt91486 (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Seven's Gaelic Football[edit]

Non-notable. A google search for Vancouver "Seven's Gaelic Football" -wikipedia retrieves but 5 hits. Even the text of the article doesn't show any notability. Kingturtle (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with sadness: Non-notable. Houseboater (talk) 23:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article doesn't assert notability, presumeably because it doesn't have any in accordance with the reason for nomination. WilliamH (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - No assertion of notability, and I don't know how a citywide Canadian Gaelic football competition (is that what this is?) can even be notable. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:22, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 13:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DSpeed[edit]

Seemingly non-notable program. The article certainly seems as nothing more than a short advertisement at this time. Jmlk 1 7 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed... not notable. Basketball 110 _{Go Longhorns!} 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no useful content, does not assert notability. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:37, 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. Bduke (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikoo / Noki (Nintendo)[edit]

Article on a video game character of a yet to be anounced game that is rumored to appear in it. The subject might become notable, but for now we don't even know the name yet. So little known yet there isn't real coverage in independent reliable sources yet. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Premature article for a character whose notability is in no way assured. Someone another 23:43, 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 speedy delete G3 by User:Dlohcierekim, non-admin closure. PS <<edit conflict>> Attack and transparent hoax. Dloh cierekim 23:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sterling Ivey[edit]

Transparent hoax, but not clear enough that I'm quite willing to speedy it. —Cryptic 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Paste (talk) 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious hoax, and an attack page as well. Jmlk 1 7 21:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - even if true, it's unsourced attack BLP. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not sure about being a hoax, but fairly non-notable anyway. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 22:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as blatant hoax. Undeath (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete this is vandalism and hurts Wikipedia if you are going to make this page, don't be avndal, delete this page!!!!!!!!!Mertozoro (talk) 23:09, 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. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 05:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tree Frog Radio[edit]

A non notable radio station in every sense. After a 'Google' search one blog found that relates to it. Paste (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, I was about to nominate it myself. I was declined speedy earlier for reasons I don't understand. It's nothing but an advertisement as evidenced by the image of the station schedule and, in any case, it's not notable. Redfarmer (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable whatsoever. Jmlk 1 7 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ as a radio fan I would like to think that all permanent radio broadcast stations are notable enough for wikipedia. But is there a policy on that? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete changing my vote after searching for it, and half the hits are due to wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a permanent radio station but a pirate radio station and previous consensus is that almost all pirate radio stations are not notable. The way you can tell this is a pirate radio station is that, by international agreement, all call signs for radio stations in Canada must begin with the letter "C" just as all call signs for radio stations in the states must begin with either a "K" (west coast) or "W" (east coast). If this station were a legitimate, permanent station with the call sign that it indicates it has (DIRT-FM), then, under the international agreement, the station would be located in Germany as Germany currently has the "D" letter call signs. See ITU prefix for more information. Redfarmer (talk) 08:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it really is a pirate station then I will change my mind, as notability then has to be established in other ways, but the article does not mention that it is unlicenced or pirate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the article doesn't mention it because the creator has been putting a nice spin on it. 10 watt transmitter, micro powered station, radio-free, and community operated are all clues as well in addition to the call sign. These are all really nice ways of saying pirate radio station. It's the difference between saying "secretary" and "administrative assistant:" they're both the same thing but one makes the person sound a hell of a lot more important than they actually are. BTW, my credentials for being able to tell these things are that I've been an amateur radio operator since 1996 and a shortwave radio enthusiast since 1994. Redfarmer (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepI am completely new to this wiki thing. I am a writer (really) and I am trying to describe part by part (article by article) a musical and social sub culture that has developed around my neck of the woods(Vancouver Island BC CANADA).It may seem to some half way around that world (and how quickly too!) that Tree Frog Radio is a "non notable radio station",but with a little loving kindness and patience I think all will agree it is worth the time taken to describe a real fun and meaningful musical sub culture "scene" that developed around Hornby Island (and elsewhere) BC CANADA thanks for listening Ben Wobbles (talk) 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue here is whether it is notable or not, and it seems to fail several Wikipedia policies, especially WP:N and WP:V. To be considered notable, a subject must have received independent, verifiable coverage in secondary source material. Redfarmer (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An unlicensed 10-watt pirate station without the slightest shred of a suggestion of reliable sources or of even local impact? Not even close. --Calton | Talk 16:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia&oldid=154755112#Denman_Island since this page began (List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia) in aug of 2007 there has been mention of tree frog radio, I happened to read this page and decided I had more information to help fill in the gaps of knowledge on this page (List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia)regarding ctfr, I am adding to the pool of info that someone already deemed "notable"(and wikipedia accepted since aug 2007). this is not a vanity thing I am enhancing the amount of verifiable and true and meaningful info on this page(List_of_radio_stations_in_British_Columbia) by creating a page about tfr, someone was/is obviously interested enuf in radio stations in bc to have listed the existence of ctrf since aug 2007, think about it for a minute, how can it be "notable" and ok for someone to talk about radio in bc since aug 2007 (and mention the reception of tfr) and a half a year later when I add to the info you can think it is "not notable". I am directly enhancing information that already exists on wikipedia. this style of thinking ("non notable")is nonsense, and frankly I am surprised that some want to kill this article from day one. what may appear "not notable" in the beginning to some may be historically valuable (significant) info to others, it is a matter of perspective and acceptance. an encyclopedia is for subject that you already know about, it is also (maybe even more so) for subjects you don't know about yet. Let's keep the article and see where we can go from here, how about ? Ben Wobbles (talk) 17:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I've stated before, other stuff exists is not a valid criteria for inclusion. The only way the article can remain is if there are secondary sources establishing non-trivial coverage of the pirate station in question. No one has suggested that the article be deleted because we don't know anything about it. We're saying the article should be deleted because it is non-notable. Redfarmer (talk) 17:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article diff above says that the radio station at 89.1FM on Denman Island was CFTR, which was recently changed to Tree Frog Radio, both the current and the above diff say that it is a community radio station. Neither of these two show up in the list of community radio stations on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission website. An internet search for both of these two show no secondary sources that discuss these stations. Without secondary sources to show notability the article should be deleted. Jons63 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete as above, no notability has been demonstrated. (It might not be a "pirate" station, mind you: we have some funny rules here in Canada. For example, I think First Nations can run 10-Watt community radio xmitters on their land without a hassle.) I'm also concerned that I'm completely unable to find "Denimwood" or "Pentlatch" on Vancouver Island. Someone, please try to prove this isn't a hoax! AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:36, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Padín[edit]

The article has serious notability issues as it stands, with no real assertion of notability other than "is widely recognized as a pioneer and advocate of supporting university student life and an avid curler", for which no source or citation is given. Searches through Google reveal some results, most relating to the university he attended and our own website, but the great majority referring to other persons sharing his name. The article was far worse previously, most information either hoaxes or original research. I believe the subject is not notable, and therefore the article warrants deletion.

See previous state and changes made by me and another editor, and rationales for removing text. Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has been entirely developed by two editors: Compwhiz540 (talk · contribs), who put in the claims about $250 million and Pamela Anderson, and Littlemerman8 (talk · contribs) who contributed the bits about being a trained neurosurgeon and inventing Iams dog superfood. Since each of them contributed obvious rubbish, nothing in the article can be trusted, and it should go. If there is a real Daniel Padín and he is notable, maybe a sensible editor can one day create an article about him. JohnCD (talk) 21:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable person. Probably a hoax or at least an embellishment. Jmlk 1 7 21:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. As it stood before much of the content was removed it was full of what were quite clearly bogus claims including that he somehow managed to perform medical procedures when he was 5 years old and that he managed to create IAMS dog food some 30-40 years before he was born. Doubt has to remain about any of the content that remains in the article given that it was added by the above mentioned editors who added all the content that has now been removed. It should also be noted that an IP user has now started throwing insults (which I have removed) on the talk page.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a notable person. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete there's nothing there to make him more than just some guy. DarkAudit (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. As for whether to split the article, that can be worked out on its talk page without going through the AfD process. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bodie and Brock Thoene[edit]

This was a prod with the nominator's reason of "Very orphaned. That's all there is to it," (emphasis in original.) I felt that the matter needed a full AfD discussion. I did not feel that simply being orphaned was reason enough for deletion, but there are other possible reasons, such as lack of references and questionable notability. References might be able to be provided, but the notability question is a more difficult one. The only claim to notability that this writing team has that would possibly meet WP:N standards is that they co-wrote books that won the Evangelical Christian Publishers Association Gold Medallion Book Award on at least three occasions as confirmed by checking the ECPA website [15], [16], [17], and being nominated or winning individually on several other occasions. Thus, the question seems to turn upon the single matter of whether or not the Gold Medallion is a "major literary award." If it is, then the books are notable and the author team would also be notable and the page should be expanded and referenced. If the award is not major, then the books and their authors are not notable and the unsourced page should be deleted. ~~At present I am remaining neutral on the deletion.~~ OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After further consideration I have decided that the Gold Medallion Book Award is major enough for these purposes. My decision was also swayed by the fact that I once worked at a bookstore for several years and these authors were requested by name from time to time. I realize that is not a criteria for inclusion, but it does help to fill in the grey area between obviously notable and obviously not. The page still needs work, but I think it needs expansion rather than deletion. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 23:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these authors look notable enough, but perhaps should appear as two seperate articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:05, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Writing (Michigan State University)[edit]

Not-notable, fails WP:N. ukexpat (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a directory of academic programs of all stripes at every university. --Dhartung | Talk 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, profoundly non-notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with fellow editors - article is not notable and not encyclopedic content. WilliamH (talk) 12:06, 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. John254 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pine View High School[edit]

Does not establish notability, and seems to attack its subject. FusionMix 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator tagged article for speedy 1 minute after creation and brought it to AfD the ripe old age of 5 minutes. I suggest giving the editor a chance to write the article. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Gene93k. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, I realize that I neglected to check the time of its creation. It was a silly oversight on my part. FusionMix 22:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Schools are inherently notable. I've re-formatted it a bit and delted un-used sections. This article will develope a bit more over time, we just need to give it a bit more time. Undeath (talk) 22:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Since when did schools become 'Inherently notable'. It doesn't say that in the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (schools). It sure doesn't say that in the guideline Wikipedia:Notability. Even Wikipedia:List of really, really, really stupid article ideas that you really, really, really should not create says that 'The high school you attend or used to attend...' can be safely assumed among the category of unnecessary articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I repaired the essay you cited. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. Allow the editors time to establish significance. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep the school is big enough to be notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep High schools are notable because with a little effort RS cites can be found for all high schools of any reasonable size. The article is already developing.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per overwhelming precedent that all high schools are notable, and per recent improvements I have made to the article. You can help! See WP:Edit. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 03:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the page has significant, secondary sources that meet WP:N. Pages should only be brought here where notability cannot be established, not because it hasn't been. Deletion tagging after 1 minute shows the nominator cannot have considered the alternatives listed in WP:DP. TerriersFan (talk) 04:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per the foregoing, unless the nominator cares to withdraw? --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and snow this as obvious by looking at article that it passes notability. Sting au Buzz Me... 07:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While schools are not inherently notable (what a silly suggestion!), this article needs time to develop. CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:55, 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 Merge to University of Nottingham Students' Union. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karnival[edit]

Non notable student charity. Of the third party sources cited, the only one which actually even mentions the subject is the website of a medical/educational clinic that the group funded. Prod was removed by the author with the comment "Removed delete prod as i do not believe it is justified. Am happy to edit this article to make it more acceptable (it's my first time and i know i'll make mistakes!)". The article has now been given a fair amount of time, and several editors have cleaned it a little, but I am not convinced it is keepable. If a third party reference to it being the biggest could be found, I would support keeping, but I can't find any. J Milburn (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing to support notability has been forthcoming. Plutonium27 (talk) 20:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Karnival is Europe's largest student-run charitable organisation and well known in the UK charity scene, not to mention the 35,000 students at the University and the community surrounding it. For more please see: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/public-affairs/press-releases/index.phtml?menu=pressreleasesarchive&code=REC-219/06&create_date=18-dec-2006 Or type 'Karnival' into google - or better 'Karnival University of Nottingham' into Google UK and you'll find over 1,000 returns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.154.247.252 (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the one drag queen event that actually got the attention of the BBC to Rag (student society). Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note the IP comment on the article talk page. J Milburn (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was going to close this, but could not see a way forward particularly since nobody had suggested merging to University of Nottingham Students' Union, which should at least be considered. --Bduke (talk) 10:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Nottingham Students' Union as suggested by Bduke. :) The article needs massive trimming first. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bduke. It's mentioned in UoNSU at the section University of Nottingham Students' Union#Student-Run Services; the BBC notable event could be a paragraph at the end of that section. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 does not have reliable secondary sources to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 17:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression With Violence[edit]

Was prodded, but someone removed it. This is a non-notable band, and the verification is flimsy. seresin | wasn't he just...? 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable at the moment. A google search returns no results (not that it's that simple, but it's a good indication of non-notability) PeterSymonds | talk 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot find any mention about them via google or yahoo. Fails WP:MUSIC. Undeath (talk) 05:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, that one may not be able to find mention of this band elsewhere on the internet, however, this is because the band disbanded in 1994... before Al Gore invented the internet, or at least before the net was as widely used as it is today. The band was interviewed for various fanzines in and around Buffalo, and that is where this article has come from. Those fanzines also became defunct prior to the internet, however there are hardcopies of those fanzines. This band was a strong force in the music scene in Buffalo, and many bands have since sited them as influences in their tapes/cd liner notes. Look at the discussion page and see the curiosity and support people have for this band and page. Jigglyball (talk) 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This band was a strong force in the music scene in Buffalo" - can you provide us with some proof? Like, perhaps scan some copies of those zines and put them online for us to see?

"and many bands have since sited them as influences in their tapes/cd liner notes." - again, can you give us some proof of this? Tell us which bands, which CDs they're mentioned on? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Look at the discussion page and see the curiosity and support people have for this band and page" - yes. That's weird. 4 different anonymous editors have shown up in 2 days and contributed to this article - but no other articles, ever. Then they, and a few other anonymous people who've never shown up before, all post comments on the article's discussion page. I wish an administrator could join in this discussion so that he can look at these people's IP addresses for us. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NMG and general lack of references and fan-site appearance. Stifle (talk) 18:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - unverifiable, probably hoax. Only references on Google are to a demo tape by the band Deprived - who were from Portland. If they were notable in any way in 1994 or afterwards, there would indeed be proof of their existence on the internet. On the other hand, if they were only mentioned in a few local fanzines and then never again after they broke up, that to me is iron-clad proof that they were NOT notable.AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:46, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EmSolid[edit]

Non-notable rapper/producer/entrepreneur with little or no media coverage and no references. Article created and all content contributed by the same single-purpose account. Self-promotional vanispamcruftisement. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:V, and, undoubtedly, more. Speedy deletion declined. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article clearly fails WP:MUSIC, no assertion of notability, single-purpose account, no assertion of media coverage. I agree with the nominator and his compound word. WilliamH (talk) 12:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - WilliamH, you can just refer to WP:VSCA if you feel "vanispamcruftisement" is too big. :-) AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 19:52, 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. John254 00:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Carruthers, philosopher[edit]

non-notable vanity page Notecon (talk) 19:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Notecon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

NOTE I have moved the page to Peter Carruthers (philosopher) to standardise the disambiguation notation. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite and move to "Peter Carruthers (philosopher)". I disagree with the nom. He is a university professor, and the author of several books. POV needs to be removed but it meets the notability guideline I believe. PeterSymonds | talk 20:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Silly nomination by a single-purpose account. The first few Google Scholar hits add up to over 1000 citations, as I pointed out when I removed the prod tag. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Plenty of evidence of notability in the article, plus all the hits in Google Scholar, makes this look like a frivolous nomination. Klausness (talk) 22:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (would probably even support a speedy keep). The article needs work, but the subject is clearly notable. A quick Google Scholar search shows a substantial number of highly cited works by Carruthers and the h-index is unusually high for someone working in a humanitarian discipline such as philosophy. The nomination is obviously incorrect as stated, as this is clearly not a vanity article. Nsk92 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above (in hopes of invoking WP:SNOW) Pete.Hurd (talk) 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above comments Dreamspy (talk) 09:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Carruthers' peers include Papineau, McGinn, Chalmers, Rosenthal, Dennett, Fodor.. and so on... all of whom have personal wikipedia entries. (82.24.202.128 (talk) 14:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete. No independent sources. No secondary sources (about the subject, not the subject’s work). All content is OR (mostly) or (what’s left) directory information. The fact that this person is the author of significant material does not excuse the fact that there is no evidence that anyone has ever written about this man (as opposed to the subjects he writes on). Also note that the biography is not linked from any mainspace article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You could say for just about any biographical article that the sources are about the subject's work rather than the subject. In most cases it's the work that makes the subject notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, but in fact it is exactly SmokeyJoe's point that in his view (I think a rather unconventional one), a BLP article, in order to satisfy WP:N, must cite sources that write about the subject himself rather than about his work. See the discussion at Wikipedia Talk: Notability (academics)#Time to make the merge. Nsk92 (talk) 11:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm not looking forward to the tens of thousands of AfDs that we're going to get for all the actors, musicians, athletes, politicians etc, whose articles are based on sources about their work rather than what their favourite colour is. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, fortunately there only a Snowball's Chance in Hell that consensus will emerge that we discard WP:PROF in favor of SmokeyJoe's suggested alternative, so we don't have to worry about the tens of thousands of silly AfDs that would result. Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst biographical work about an individual is indicative of some notability, be in positive or negative, I disagree with SmokeyJoe's opinion that one can conclude that lack of biographical reference precludes notability. (Mark Pharoah (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

While he is definitely notable in a real-world sense, he fails wikipedia-notability. The article relies on the subjects official website, and appears to have been written entirely by a single author who claims to be the photographer of the subjects official photograph. There is clearly an independence and a conflict of interest issue here, and although I’ll note there is no sense of abuse here, it doesn’t look good. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To answer some of SmokeyJoe's concerns here: The article does not so much, rely on the subjects official website, as use it as the clearest non-technical appraisal of the subject and his work - for the benefit of those who are not fully versed in the philosophy (and who do not wish to delve further). As the author of the article, I wanted to address an anomaly, namely that the vast majority of Peter Carruthers' contemporaries have personal Wikipedia entries whilst the subject, who is one of the most significant philosophers of our time, did not. Until writing this entry, I had never been in contact with the subject, either professionally or personally, and he and I have little of significance to gain by its entry. Conversely, those who have an interest in the philosophy of consciousness will be particularly interested in this philospher and his contributions. Specifically, where does this subject fail wikipedia-notability in a manner that is distinct from the entries of, for example, Michael Tye (philosopher), John Searle, or Fred Dretske? (82.24.202.128 (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"article relies on the subjects official website" I don't want to belittle the importance of WP:COI (which is a "behavioral guideline. [...] that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception."), if the claims are uncontroversial, and there's no real doubt as to their veracity, how is this a deletion threatening issue? Per the nutshell of WP:V "Material challenged or likely to be challenged [...], must be attributed to a reliable, published source". Even if this is WP:COI, I think it still satisfies WP:V. If "it doesn’t look good" means it ought to bode ill for retention, then I disagree; if it means "it gives the appearance of being a flimsy WP article" then I don't really disagree. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep " The fact that this person is the author of significant material" is exactly what notability is about. The high citations are the 3rd party evidence, as 3rd party RSs.DGG (talk) 09:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has been moved to Peter Carruthers (philosopher).

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 the discussion below, there is nothing in the article worth saving. --jonny-m t 16:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Content management systems for school websites[edit]

Unnecessary article full of opinion, no objective information. Nothing here that is not in the content management system article that is not opinion — Frecklefσσt | Talk 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to content management system. Began as spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to remove all of the biased language. I think this page has valuable content that isn't on the content management system page. Trzos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.93.88.94 (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Please specify a) what this "valuable content" is and b) why this "valuable content" cannot be added to the content management system article. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 14:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment'. Please be patient with me, I am new to editing in this fashion. I use a Content management systems for school websites. I was shocked by the idea of deleting this article, but from reading these comments my current opinion is that this should be a separate section under the content management system article. My only hesitation is that this section may then dominate that article, which it should not. Content management systems are used in many areas of webdevelopment; schools are only a small portion of their use. --Ddoering (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and unsourced opinion. Basically the entire article is a list of things an editor thinks that a CMS for a school might include. --MCB (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per MCB. Material specifically on school websites may be appropriate in the content management system article, but there's nothing sourced here to merge. I don't believe a redirect is necessary, as I don't see this being a likely search term. I would imagine that those wanting to know about content management systems will start in the parent article to begin with. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and work on the prose within the content management system article. Blast Ulna (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AMD Family10h[edit]

Mere renamed article, cut and pasted most of the infotmation from old revision of AMD K10 article, and renamed all K10 to "AMD Family10h", citing that AMD K10 is a future chip, whereas AMD official admitted that K10 is actually third-gen Opteron and Phenom quad-core processors, and is recorded by other source [18], therefore the starting of another article is redundant. Did not follow the way that the article should be merged to articles such as "Phenom", as the previous AMD K8 article did to Athlon 64. May also raise the issue that this user (User:Dr unix) has a track record of doing so User talk:Dr unix and may have messed other AMD processors pages related with "K10". The user has also started a page, AMD Family 10h (at time of writing requested for speedy deletion) and redirect to AMD Family10h, which I see is a next place to do the same after the AMD Family10h article is deleted. AMD64 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and discuss the proper name of the AMD K10 article on Talk:AMD K10. This looks like a POV fork. This article appears to be a cut-and-paste move with no edit history preserved (which is normally dealt with at the Cut and paste move repair holding pen). The proper name of the AMD K10 article should be discussed on Talk:AMD K10. If consensus is that the article should be renamed AMD Family10h, the AMD K10 can be renamed AMD Family10h. If consensus is that the AMD K10 article should keep its name, AMD Family10h and AMD Family 10h can be turned into a redirect to AMD K10. --Pixelface (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computers-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr unix (talk • contribs) 00:15, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are talking about something you are as familar with as you should be in order to be making this decision. Unfortunately it requires some knowledge of commercial microprocessor design. Lets address a few points. AMD has offically branded the microarchitecture for Opteron "Barcelona" and Phenom as "AMD Family 10h" processors. See as an example the offical AMD document 'Optimization Guide for AMD Family 10h Processors' at http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/40546.pdf. "AMD Family 10h" is the offical AMD wording used in 'AMD Processor Recognition Application Note For Processors Prior to AMD Family 0Fh Processors' at http://www.amd.com/us-en/assets/content_type/white_papers_and_tech_docs/20734.pdf I could go on, but I think that makes a sufficient case that the Wikipedia entry speaking on the microarchitecture of the Opteron "Barcelona" and Phenom processors should be "AMD Family10h" or "AMD Family 10h" depending on your tastes of spelling.

Now to address that Family10h and K10 are two different things. That is harder to do using only publically available sources. But I think I provided you with some references that should help. One is that Andy Glew worked on the K10 project. He worked in AMD's Sunnyvale, CA design team. AMD alternates processors between Sunnyvale, CA (K6, K8) and Austin, TX (K5, K7, K9 (while it was called that - now Family 10h/Barcelona/Greyhound^[1]^[2])). Andy was working on a processor that is still years away. It takes 5-7 from the time you start to design an x86 processor until it sees the light of day. The things talked about in Andy's CV are things toyed with for K10. None of them are in Family10h. Second too many folks seem to think that design decisions do not change when designing a processor. The very original K8 design was nothing like what AMD brought to market as the K8 in 2003. Design decisions are revisited due to changing marketing requirements, changes in direction by competitors, man power, time to market, experiments, etc... The Family10h/Barcelona/Greyhound< processors were designed by the Austin, TX team. That adds to the public evidences that K9->Family10h. Also the time from Microprocessor Forum 2003 features (http://www.dvhardware.net/article2023.html) to September 2007 adds more evidence that AMD Family 10h is not K10. There are also comments in the AMD_K10 talk page referring to K9/Greyhound and K10 in a manner showing they are two different entities^[3]

Now, if even still you will not accept that K10 != Family10h there isn't much more I can publically use to convince you. However, you cannot argue that the entire article should appear under an entry that matches AMD's offical branding - and that is "AMD Family 10h". So if you do not like how I created and put the majority of the K10 article's content to an "AMD Family10h" article, please tell me the preferred process for moving the article to a better and more proper article title. Dr unix (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If so, then Athlon and Sempron article should be renamed as AMD Family0Fh, am I correct? If you see the Family10h as a BRANDING, then you're mistaken what is a BRAND. Also, the articles you listed are of 2006 and are OUTDATED, shared L2? I doubt it. That's all, I've no further comments. --AMD64 (talk) 06:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC) P.S. Please do not use refs here...[reply]

Comment. Shared L2 is obviously a typo ^{[citation needed]}, if you know much about the Greyhound history. I will email tech pubs at AMD and see if they respond. --Dr unix (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, source please. --202.40.157.145 (talk) 06:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, I'm sorry, I don't know what you mean by "source please". Source for what of the several things above? Note that http://developer.amd.com/TechnicalArticles/Articles/Pages/628200631.aspx has been updated to correct the L2 typo.--Dr unix (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. I mean sources BESIDES THOSE TWO, those you said before but still cannot present here. --202.40.157.145 (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What do you mean "still cannot present here"??

Comment. You are confusing too many things here. There are the processor brands. Two such brands Operton and Sempron span multiple CPU microarchitectural generations (families). For Opteron that is K8 and Family 10h (aka, Greyhound). For Sempron that is K7 and K8. Next there is the branding that AMD puts on the CPU microarchitectural generations (families). They used K5, K6, K7, K8, and now offically "Family 10h" (which comes from the result of the CPUID instruction). For K8 AMD marketing and tech pubs has loosely allowed "K8" to be used, but often uses branding such as "Revision Guide for AMD NPT Family 0Fh Processors". In the K7 days you could see phrases such as "“AMD-K7(tm) Processor”" in AMD's literature. Today, you will only see "Family 10h" as they've squashed other ways to refering to the microarchitecture. So NO, the Athlon and Sempron articles should not be renamed AMD Family0Fh. Athlon and Sempron are brands for packaged, specific instantiations of various microarchitectures. --Dr unix (talk) 01:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then why not incorporate these stuff into pages like Phenom? Why start another stupid page to say about the architecture which sections in pages like Athlon 64 also covers? BTW, Athlon 64 covers only the K8 microarchitecture as per your definition of architecture (At one point the dual core stuff was referenced as "Greyhound", FYI. Maybe that also counts?). BTW the AMD Family10h is obviously not known to a normal reader with NO specific knowledge about the subject matter. Go on this discussion will likely be reopen for more discussion which now we have only two people discussing, one insisting the internal "branding" and the other is "dumb and uneducated", that's me. Right? (It's not safe to login when I am using Wi-fi, so I am that stupid guy who is confusing you of the branding.) --202.40.157.145 (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply, Please re-read what I wrote. Phenom is not an architecture. Phenom is a branding name for a packaged processor (die attached to substraight, pinned out for insertsion into a socket). AMD Family 10h (and K8, ..., K5) are distinct microarchitectures. The same exact AMD Family 10h die is used to make current Barcelona, Budapest, "Stars" processors. While right now Phenom only exists as an AMD Family 10h, there is nothing from AMD that says that future Phenom will be Family 10h. Also that ignores Opteron - which is available being based on more than one microarchitecture. So an entry on just the shared microarchitecture should exist. Perhaps any Athlon 64 microarchitecture text should be merged into the K8 entry and the Athlon 64 entry should just refer to the K8 entry. Dual-core K8 was never refered to as Greyhound. Dual-core K8 is Jack Hammer.^{[citation needed]} AMD Family 10h isn't internal branding - it is AMD's external branding for the microarchitecture. The internal "branding" are things like Greyhound (and Jack Hammer). --Dr unix (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. FYI, the K8...K5 are "codenames" , unlike "AMD Family 10h" as you proposed. The codenames refer to the architecture in development, also I do know Phenom does not refer to the architecture but the processor based on the architecture, so why can't we mention those in an article about a processor based on the architecture? Also it's "Substrate", NOT "substraight", you moron! You need some serious re-education in English. Also for things you claimed which is NOT backed by any source, I'll put up a {{fact}} tag beside it, so that you can actually put up the sources, instead of insisting your point without further sources to back you up.--202.40.157.145 (talk) 09:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Please explain how you feel K8 .. K5 were code names. K8 is an external architecture name. Hammer was K8's "code name" while it was in development. If you look at the Opteron revision guide you still see the abbreviations "SH", "CH", "DH", "JH" for Sledge Hammer, Claw Hammer, Drill Hammer, and Jack Hammer where specific die were "code named" based on the "Hammer" microarchitecture name. By chance do you work for AMD or talk with folks who do?? Phenom is _a_ processor based on the Family 10h microarchitecture, not _the_ processor... You know - it would be really nice if you'd better using your English to impart your meaning... what is the "those" in "mention those"? Do you mean completely describe the Family10h microarchitecture in the Phenom page? If so, my answer is because it would then need to be fully duplicated in the Opteron article. Additionally specifically what claims do you want more source for? Nice how you resort to childish name calling ("you moron") due to a spelling mistake. Is this because you are not well versed in this area to discuss this issue otherwise? --Dr unix (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^ APL Product Features
^ Unleash the Hounds with AMD's Upcoming Quad-core Processors
^ [1]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 19:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appears to be a content fork from article mentioned in the nomination. Does not establish any significant difference between the two processors. BigHairRef | Talk 19:28, 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 Thought Adjuster and redirect the others. Protect all redirects. Consensus is clear that these articles do not demonstrate sufficient notability to stand alone and that the parent article is not yet of quality size to warrant spin-off articles. Two of these articles have previously survived AfD as "no consensus", one in 2006 and one in February of 2008. Repeated nominations may be a cause to oppose AfD in some circumstances, but there is not strong consensus here that this is one of them. Several participants in this debate have suggested merger, although many of those have expressed some doubt as to the quantity of material that can be merged. Thought Adjuster is mentioned as more notable within its parent topic than the others, and it has more unique sourced (albeit primary) content than the other articles. It will be clumsily dumped into the parent article for appropriate trimming by interested editors. If editors believe that it merits coverage in Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book and if that article survives its separate AfD, there is no bar to relocating material there. Editors who would like to merge sourced content from other articles can certainly do so, with administrator assistance if nececssary. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Urantia Book related articles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Thought Adjuster

This is a group of walled off POV-forks of various articles inappropriately split from the main article The Urantia Book which itself is in desperate need of a cleanup. In the future, it may be conceivable that we would content fork the main article, but this is done in the wrong way. It isn't clear from the main article that these are the articles we should have for content forks, but what is abundantly clear is that the text in these articles is not based on secondary sources but is mainly serving as a a Spamicruftizement. My opinion is that we should either redirect all these articles to The Urantia Book or we should simply delete the lot of them and start editing the main article until the point it seems necessary that we need to content fork. The current situation, though, with single-purpose accounts guarding these articles is unacceptable. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD was started at the instigation of both a WP:ANI#Repeated article blanking at Thought Adjuster and other articles and WP:FTN#Universe reality and other The Urantia Book related articles: notice. The general consensus of those discussing the actual merits of these cases is that these articles do not belong as separate from the main article.

There clearly was not consensus that the nominator claims above. Wazronk (talk) 19:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inasmuch as the people who wrote the content (such as yourself) were unhappy with the consensus of outsiders, this claim is correct. However, I have yet to see someone who has not written the content who actually looked at the substance of these group of articles say anything more than "get rid of them". Let's let this discussion play out, in any case. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: While there are different POVs about the fiction/nonfiction status of the book, we would all do well to review WP:WAF, which has applicable suggestions in any case. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect -- I don't really care). Work on The Urantia Book before making content forks. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create protected redirects - obvious content forks of material which belongs, if at all, with the main article. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Eusebeus (talk) 22:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest a merge discussion. Universe reality went through an AFD and was not deleted (two people argued that article was acceptable per summary style) and then it was moved to Cosmology (The Urantia Book) and it looks like you've redirected that article already (as well as Revelation (The Urantia Book)). It looks like History and future of the world (The Urantia Book) is a sub-article of The Urantia Book. Do each of these articles advocate a different stance on the subject? If you don't care if these are redirected or deleted, I don't think AFD is the proper venue. And I'm not in favor of AFD nominations in response to revert wars. --Pixelface (talk) 19:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the consensus on WP:FTN was to redirect these articles. However, certain angry administrators at WP:ANI disagreed. Part of the reason we're back here is because AfD is taken by the community to be a strong consensus from the outside and two different AfDs have happened on these articles. Certain editors (including myself) disagree with the AfD decisions on these articles and other editors (including the true-believers advocating for their perferred content) are using the AfD discussions inappropriately to block the redirects. AfD, for better or worse, is taken to be a good place to get consensus on how to deal with this kind of stuff. Merge discussions tend to not be as well-organized. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was not consensus and it's a violation of WP:DELETE to blank out articles the way you have continually attempted. I have repeatedly said I am entirely open to discussing these topics, declaring people as "true believers" just because they oppose your blanking of articles is petty ad hominem. Wazronk (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you denying that you are not a believer in the ideas presented in The Urantia Book? You are not a paricipant in Urantia Foundation sponsored study groups/sharing of your profound revelations you have gained from studying this work? I'm just pointing out your biases. We all have them. I simply don't think that Urantia-followers should be creating walled gardens of content and treating Wikipedia like a platform ripe for them to proselytize, tis all. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all but Thought Adjuster, which should be redirected to The Urantia Book. Looking at these articles, I don't think they merit a Summary Style exemption at this time. Get the main article in line with policies, and then fork off as needed. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge or redirect). The Urantia Book is clearly a fringe topic, be it fringe religion, fringe science, or something in between. These satellite articles give undue prominence to the topic and therefore break our neutrality POV policy by their very existence. I don't quite understand why SA says they are POV-forks, but I agree that they form a walled garden. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article entitled Cosmology (The Urantia Book) clearly qualifies as a POV-fork of cosmology. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I agree. I didn't think about it that way, I was thinking about whether it was a POV-fork of the Urantia Book article. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wording was indeed ambiguous. I changed it. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that citing a wikipedia essay about "walled gardens" factors into deletion. Policy is what should factor into deletion. On top of that, what keeps being missed, is there has been no "wall" at all to prevent or in any way discourage edits. The people who claim there is a "walled garden" consistently haven't even tried to work on the articles they are discussing or tried to work with the editors who have a history at the articles. As for the suggestion that it is a POV fork of cosmology, that is no more true than it is for any other of the many non-science cosmology articles like Hindu cosmology, Mormon cosmology, etc. Wazronk (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but this is how Wikipedia works. My opinion was based on a policy (NPOV) and a guideline (FRINGE), the latter being based on an ArbCom ruling. Wikipedia is consensus based, and the purpose of policies, guidelines and essays is to make it more efficient to come to the result that will prevail. I see no chance that these articles will survive in the long run. They only survived until now because of lack of attention from mainstream editors. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't consider Cosmology (The Urantia Book) a POV fork of cosmology any more than I would Hindu cosmology, Buddhist cosmology, Jain cosmology or Norse cosmology. I suppose Cosmology (The Urantia Book) is a poor name and could be renamed something like Urantia cosmology. Cosmology (The Urantia Book) began as a description of "universe reality" contained in The Urantia Book — not as a POV fork of cosmology. The cosmology article links to all kinds of different cosmological models. --Pixelface (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those are content forks of cosmology. If they were as difficult to source as the cosmology of this peculiar sect of New Age Urantia Book believers, those articles would be POV-forks. As it is, there are plenty of external, independent, secondary sources that describe those cosmologies in great detail making them strictly content forks and not POV-forks. POV-forks are defined as places where a POV can be expounded upon in isolation from the other related issues as a way of circumventing WP:WEIGHT, for example. Not too long ago, The Urantia Book content was removed from our article on cosmology. That a new article entitled Cosmology (The Urantia Book) is being argued for looks very much like a POV-fork to me. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's because you're only seeing it from your limited view of having only entered into the topic just in recent days. The "cosmology" of the Urantia book has been discussed many times in the past as being possibly spun off. Read the AfD on the talk page. I renamed the "universe reality" article to "cosmology" only the other day to have it become this WP:SS spinout that had been discussed in the past, not at all as anything to do with the science cosmology article or a POV fork. As to whether that is fitting or not as a stand alone article, that's why it's a mess here to discuss, these are four separate articles and the merits of each one has different weights and should be independently assessed. Cosmology as described by the Urantia book could be defensible but I would also understand if it would tilt to not being supported. On the other hand, Thought Adjuster has many secondary sources backing up its relevance as a stand alone topic, and should be a speedy keep. I'd go through the articles one by one but, again, what a mess to have it all done like this. You won't even be able to tease out what is the consensus for each article with some people voting for some and others deciding they see reason to keep others. Wazronk (talk) 20:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the "science" cosmology article used to have a section on the Urantia book included in the cosmology#Esoteric cosmology section. It was removed for WP:WEIGHT concerns. Now I see an entire article was written on the subject. You might want to read about what a WP:POVFORK is before declaring that I don't know what I'm talking about. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure the Cosmology (The Urantia Book) article is a POV fork of the cosmology article, because the creator of that article, Richiar, has never edited the cosmology article (under that username at least). I can't say why that editor created the article Cosmology (The Urantia Book), but it did list several references I'm sure could be used to write a neutral article on the topic. It may be easier to evaluate the content if all four of those articles were merged into the article The Urantia Book though. --Pixelface (talk) 20:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As they say, YMMV. In any case, I have looked at two of the secondary sources listed there. Not only was the cosmology of the Urantia Book not really dealt with in earnest, the small amounts that were mentioned were not included in the article. It is clear to me that the author included these references as a fail-safe to confuse commentators on AfD into thinking that there was good sourcing when there actually isn't. What's more, I see no reason why we shouldn't work on fixing the main article first and maybe seeing if the cosmology of the Urantia Book is really so unweildy as to justify a separate article. As it is, I see no justification for forking other than to present more of the ideas from The Urantia Book on Wikipedia: something Wikipedia is clearly not! ScienceApologist (talk) 20:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or break up into separate AfDs at a minimum. This strangely formed AfD is from an editor who refuses to talk on the article talk pages to have his concerns addressed, and instead has been edit warring to blank out these pages for several days. The reasons listed for AfD are "walled garden", which is from an essay he or she found, not any policy, and "POV fork", which is not at all what any of these articles are. Meanwhile there hasn't been the slightest word from the nominator on what his or her POV concerns actually are, only page blanking. He or she is saying that people have been " advocating for their perferred content". Not true, people have been advocating for discussing his or her concerns on the talk pages and not blanking articles. I totally disagree with how these four different pages are all lumped together and rushed into AfD in this situation where the nominator has been so antagonistic on a topic and hasn't made more than the briefest effort to engage with the editors who know the topics sources. The nominator hasn't evidently read the talk archives, read the sources, hasn't read the book that is the topic of the main article, or even apparently read the main article itself, The Urantia Book, which shows clearly two of the above articles branching from subtopics according to WP:SS despite his claim that somehow they didn't. Wazronk (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I have been on Talk:The Urantia Book. I don't know why you say I refuse to talk on the talkpages. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, still no specifics of what your POV concerns are. Um, that was a post from you only just today after the behavior of yours of blanking out pages had to be reported to admins via the incidents board. Wazronk (talk) 19:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listen, if you can't figure out what might specific POV issues might happen with committed believers in The Urantia Book dictating content about The Urantia Book, then it is unclear to me as to where we can even begin to have a conversation. You are welcome to be a part of the discussion. You are not welcome to own content on the encyclopedia and you are certainly encouraged to avoid single-purpose advocacy. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't communicate your specific concerns, people won't know them. I happen to know a broad spectrum of sources related to the topic, and since it's an esoteric topic, I've found I might as well assist on it. My "advocacy", as you would see if you ever go through the archives, is for strict adherence to wikipedia policy, to me this should be especially true for POV-sensitive issues like religious ones. You don't even realize that the reason I have even come to watch the article is because of the repeated attempts to strip out criticisms by those with believer POVs. I wrote nearly all the criticism material into the article about science flaws and plagiarism and fought repeatedly against multiple believer-editors to keep it present. But that does not mean that I begrudge them their POV or that neutral, plain explanations about the material not be presented. Wazronk (talk) 20:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been exceedingly clear about my specific concerns in multiple venues. It may be that your association with the subject has clouded your judgment. Maybe you are just attached to content you wrote. I'm going to assume good faith and assume that you simply disagree for reasons I cannot ascertain. In any case, the fact is that there does not need to be this group of articles: we should fix the main article first. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have not been exceedingly clear. You've cited "walled garden" as an argument, which is a meaningless essay for WP:DELETE purposes, and isn't true anyhow in this situation because there is no "wall" and all along you've had full liberty to modify and improve on the articles in question. You haven't been interested in editing the pages though or in discussing their content with editors, only on blanking them. You've cited that there's "POV fork", while refusing the repeated requests to actually give what the POV short-comings are in the articles. You should "assume good faith" and assume that I "simply disagree" for precisely the reasons I've been repeatedly telling you. Wazronk (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wazronk, let me preface by adopting full sympathy for your stance. I too am an SPA and have faced these AFDs, I attempted to point out edit wars and invalid arguments, and in my zeal I even got blocked for 3 days. Now, in the shoes of a UB reader (I read the first few pages once-- no, I mean after the TOC), what would I do? Well, first I'd read the handwriting on the wall here and be glad the redirects will spare your original content. Second I'd build from the main article, because the severe content problems of the linked articles are not ready for summary style. Maybe an agreement on ignoring the article length limits would be good while the content problems are solved. And what are they specifically? I personally don't want to take the time for a full list. A couple examples should suffice (unless you really do have problems spotting POV). First, see here for an example of an NPOV attempt, and see the Flat Earth section mentioned there, if only because it's a classic minority view and a well-written example of balance. For more specifics: history and future as alleged "on a typical planet" can be axed completely for notability and being off-topic. "Agondonter" is a word which I wish I didn't know existed; because a nonce word, it might stand with the brief definition "a survivor of a sin-isolated world, in the afterlife", but the rest is POV cruft (full of the passive voice despised on WP) and not definition. The lead of "revelation" should tell me what UB thinks "revelation" is (generally a personage communicating, with the UB being an exception) instead of starting with the UB and not telling us about the personages for awhile.

Now Wazronk, I will now reveal to you and this audience that I am in fact a Zebulun Mentor, i.e., a class of gibborian apprentices to omniscience (incidentally, not mentioned by name in the UB) appointed to assist Urantians by providing programs of demanding psychical-physical challenges. I hereby appeal to your inner will to covenant with me for your nefeshical upliftment. If you assent, you will be scheduled to be subjected to a uniquely tailored program of will-strengtheners. During the waiting periods, you may perceive apparent contradictions from this Wikipedia account or the Homo sapiens associated with it, such as my ostensibly POV edits, my ignoring of all pleas, and particularly my flippancy: know these are all for your well-being. The offer stands on the table. Attributing the offer paragraph to sarcasm would be one (common) indication of refusal and would suggest the necessity for other programs than that of Zebulun. I have already intuited your reply and will continue accordingly. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have absolutely nothing to do with Urantia religious people much less any organization. Seeing as I delete link spam from Urantia Foundation (eg, here), it makes no sense this idea that I'm associated with them, as you said on the other AfD, and as SA has likewise dreamed up. Some people like yourself have looked through my wikipedia edit history and noticed my edits are on this topic, making me an SPA. They have jumped to an assumption and a whole storyline in their head without clicking on my edits to actually see how I've edited. As I've already pointed out above, in fact the reason I've watched the main article so long and become a long time contributor is because of how often criticism would get stripped out and believer POV would be subtly inserted. I happen to have read the book and put my familiarity with the topic to use in becoming a contributor to the article, then over time have read many secondary sources to improve it against wikipedia policies. Knowing the topic, I understand how the side articles have come about, which are the subject of this AfD. I understand how they have serious shortcomings (except Thought Adjuster, which whatever shortcomings it has are minor, and the article should definitely be a speedy keep), but I also understand how they could be seen as potentially valid extensions and improved. I hope people will find fair, NPOV presentation of this not-well-known and unusual topic at the main article at least and be informed to think whatever they would like to think about it, skeptics most definitely included (again, as I've already pointed out, I wrote virtually all the criticisms in the article and have fought many battles to keep them there). Please do consider to not be such an idiotic-sounding WP:DICK next time. Wazronk (talk) 06:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and renominate separately on the following grounds: 1. One of the articles blanket-nominated already survived an AFD challenge less than a month ago and articles must not be renominated after such a short interval, and 2. as noted above the topics are separate enough that they should be nominated separately. This is a procedural "vote" as I have no opinion one way or the other on the viability of the individual articles although I will vote Speedy keep on the Thought Adjuster article as that is the one that already went through AFD 3 weeks ago. 23skidoo (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am finding it very hard to assume good faith about this comment. The survival of the one article was on grounds totally unrelated to the points being brought up here. Are you really going to make me take this through a needlessly procedural WP:DRV for their input? For godsakes, the damn thing was closed "no consensus". Hardly a resounding reason to prevent future AfDs and there are plenty of other instances where "no consensus" AfDs were relisted rather than closed. And now we have a slew of other issues to address. So please stop Wikilawyering and deal with the substance of the issue. Why is it that you can't so much as get a discussion going on Wikipedia without people making ridiculous protestations about procedure like the one above? ScienceApologist (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is because people have misconceptions about how Wikipedia works, and when they find out it takes some time to adjust to reality. (Sorry, sometimes I can't resist answering rhetorical questions.) --Hans Adler (talk) 20:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

23skidoo, did you even look at these AfDs? Minimal participation. One closed as "no consensus" and one as "defaults to keep", whatever that means. The total number of "keep" votes in these two AfDs by people who are not Urantia SPAs was 1 "weak keep". Taking this as precedent just because the closing admins weren't more careful is counter to Wikipedia's consensus principle. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it should probably be pointed out that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thought Adjuster was listed in March of 2006. So it was hardly "three weeks ago." Mango juice^talk 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and merge all sourced content with The Urantia Book. Reasons:

These topics have no independent notability outside the Urantia universe, and " Cosmology", "Revelation" etc (except possibly "Thought Adjuster") are unlikely to be search terms for users searching for the book; hence they are not reasonable redirect candidates.
The main article The Urantia Book, despite its apparent length has too little independent and reliably sourced content for spin-offs to be justified under summary style. A large part of the article is simply sourced to the The Urantia Foundation and is an in-universe description, rather than a critical/encyclopedic appraisal based on secondary sources.

Abecedare (talk) 20:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources establishing notability for Thought Adjuster are especially easy to come by, for example:
Urantia: The Great Cult Mystery by Martin Gardner

New Religions: A Guide: New Religious Movements, Sects and Alternative Spiritualities by J. Gordon Melton and Christopher Partridge

Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality by Bob Larson

Charts of Cults, Sects, and Religious Movements by Dr. H. Wayne House

And the Gardner book was entirely written as an evaluation and critical response to the "revelation" claim. The cosmology topic has been seen as a notable aspect of the book by Gardner and others but to my knowledge on the other hand there aren't as many secondary sources directly concerned with it in-depth. Wazronk (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are all excellent sources to be used for writing The Urantia Book article. However, none of these sources were really used to write the Thought Adjuster article, and they've been of limited use in the main article as well. One thing at a time. Get The Urantia Book article up to snuff, then we can think about forking. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are all sources that establish the notability of the Thought Adjuster topic: "The common theme in the notability guidelines is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence." The majority of sources recognize it as a major concept, and that's why it's a separate article, like how Thetan is a separate article from Scientology and inner light is a separate article for Quakerism, etc etc. This again why I think it's incorrect to have 4 separate articles lumped together as they have been, there is not equivalence between all the articles in applying the different arguments about whether they should be kept or deleted. Wazronk (talk) 21:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not the issue up for discussion here. The issue is proper forking procedures and appropriate sourcing in light of WP:SPA-writing and spamicruftisement policies. Trying to make comparisons to major religious movements is also problematic. The Urantia Book is itself a notable article, but spinning-off other articles needs to be done carefully in light of WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT. That was not done in this case. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability was cited as a concern above by Abecedare, which is what I was responding to, and the notability issue is even from WP:FRINGE: "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory. Even debunking or disparaging references are adequate, as they establish the notability of the theory outside of its group of adherents." There are many such independent WP:RS and WP:V secondary sources that establish notability for the topic as a stand-alone article. "Proper forking procedures"? Huh, talk about wikilawyering. You hardly know this topic, just this morning you were declaring that there were absolutely no secondary sources, which is entirely false. Don't be surprised when people who know the topic better point out sources that led to an article such as Thought Adjuster being created, and yes, it was built up with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V, and WP:NPOV all in mind. Wazronk (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't delete and merge unless an admin also merges the edit histories into the merge target. It's much easier to just leave a redirect if any content is merged. --Pixelface (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are right! So even though IMO there is no content reason for creating redirects, we may need to have them for legal GFDL issues. Abecedare (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to The Urantia Book per WP:CFORK. Any useable independently sourced content can be merged into the parent article. If the parent article becomes so chock-full of quality, well-sourced content in the future that spinoffs are necessary, they could be recreated at that point, but we're nowhere near there yet. MastCell ^Talk 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or perhaps at the outside a slight merge of some and redirect, but only as a poor second. These articles are basically in-universe treatments of subjects which have no provable independent significance, they are inappropriate forks per WP:UNDUE. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect & Protect Nom seems to describe the situation pretty well. In my short time here, this is the best example of a walled garden that I've seen. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 02:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect We should have been able to do this without afd, but from the above contents it seems to be necessary. The alternative, and a good one, would be deletion. Not worth separate articles. DGG (talk) 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect - material that is independently sourced can be merged to The Urantia Book but this walled-garden appears highly promotional, especially with the scarcity of reliable independent coverage. Shell ^babelfish 04:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and protect nothing there worth a seperate article - all useful content to be merged as per DGG and Shell Kinney. --Fredrick day 13:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all and protect. Nothing worthy of separate articles here, obvious risk of editors overriding the redirect.Kww (talk) 13:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all and protect until such a time as the need for separate article is demonstrated according to multiple independent reliable sources. 66.193.210.90 (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Per skiddoo. Afd'ing four article at once, together is absurd. I would vote with delete for three of them anyway- if this was done properly. Thought adjuster appears to have enough sources. It is also a bad faith nomination, in my opinion to afd an article that just survived one 3 weeks ago! Hohohahaha (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean 2 years and 3 weeks ago. Look again. Mango juice^talk 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close this blanket nomination and re-list as four separate AFDs. Articles have quite different characteristics. Agree with 23skiddoo above. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cosmology (The Urantia Book), History and future of the world (The Urantia Book), and Revelation (The Urantia Book), as WP:OR essays about Urantia. Smerge Thought Adjuster to Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book, or if that is deleted, keep it and stubify. The concept of Thought Adjuster is central to this whole Urantia thing, apparently; it's discussed in some independent sources that I found on Google Books. The content there has major WP:OR problems, though... but the topic seems to be notable. Mango juice^talk 17:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all and protect per excellent 100% agreed arguments of Abecedare and their followup by ScienceApologist, and my excellent arguments at Guy's related AFD nomination. It may well be factual to say "The book teaches 1 through 1000", but it not only leads to WP:N problems, it also runs afoul of WP:UNDUE because there is no majority-view commentary on other human knowledge about 1 through 1000 anywhere. None of these articles is any different from another in failing these tests. Move any reliably sourced content that cannot be cast as "The book teaches" into main article-- but then there isn't any, is there? John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add this most pertinent text from WP:WAF: "Editors are cautioned to not immediately create such spinout articles that lack real-world coverage, even if such articles exist for a similar fictional work. Instead, editors should fully develop the main article on the [] work first, locating sources of real-world coverage that apply both to the work and [] elements of the work." John J. Bulten (talk) 22:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and protect per the above arguments. There is always the possibility in the future to create sub-articles on this topic once more established secondary sources are found and the Urantia Book increases in notability. Gizza^Discuss ^© 22:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (if there's anything which is sourced and not "in-Universe") and create protected redirects. I've delayed weighing in after I saw this pointed to from WP:ANI, and that seems the rational move. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment insertion

I don't know where to put this, a consesus looks like it is being collected, but I just today was informed of this dialogue, and invited to post comments, so this is what I am doing:

Pixelface wrote:

"I'm not quite sure the Cosmology (The Urantia Book) article is a POV fork of the cosmology article, because the creator of that article, Richiar, has never edited the cosmology article (under that username at least). I can't say why that editor created the article Cosmology (The Urantia Book), but it did list several references I'm sure could be used to write a neutral article on the topic. It may be easier to evaluate the content if all four of those articles were merged into the article The Urantia Book though."

I wasn't aware of the cosmology article until it was pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago.

I started the Revelation article because the Urantia Book claims to be a revelation. It seemed to be necessary to say what that means. I thought the Urantia Book article was too long and too ackward, so I started a subarticle.

I started the Universe reality article because one of the main topics of the Urantia Book is about the nature of reality (including God). Again, it wasn't in the main article, and it seems that most of the concepts in the Urantia Book are related to the ideas it has of universe reality.

I have reviewed the pov fork policy or guideline--the Revelation article and Universe reality article were not (or not intended) as pov forks, but as subarticles for the convenience of communicating some of the major content of the Urantia Book. As I have reviewed the Universe reality article further,there seems to be some ackward language that should be modified. It leaves the impression of point of view promoting in some of the syntax, but for the most part the article is simply descriptive summarization of content in the Urantia Book. The articles Revelation and Universe reality were intended by myself to be summarizations.

About the Urantia Book article: the topics it presents are major topics of the book. I have always said that I thought the grammar and syntax of the article were ackward, and sounded like point of view Urantia Book promotions. Wazronk and I have discussed this issue in the past. I would propose more simply understood language, as in the Seabird article.

There are so many topics that have come up here, I can't address them all in one message.--Richiar (talk) 20:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and create protected redirects Dlabtot (talk) 22:17, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicksta[edit]

This article has been written by the person it is about and is therefore an auto-biography Olly₁₅₀ 18:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Makes a couple of vague assertations, but not enough to meet WP:MUSIC by any means. Also pretty blatant advertising/autobio. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a self-written bio that's in vio of WP:COI and doesn't meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 18:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not meet WP:BIO or WP:MUSIC even though it is only 8 minuets old I see no way it could be salvaged. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:MUSIC. Macy (talk) 20:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable self promotion. The Dominator (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. Big advertisement too. Undeath (talk) 03:14, 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 merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Will tag accordingly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Coad[edit]

NN candidate. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians as the subject of the article has not been elected and the article has not provided any evidence from verifiable and reliable sources and that the subject is notable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. The article used as a reference isn't even about the subject, therefore the article fails WP:RS and WP:V. nat.utoronto 18:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. —nat.utoronto 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —nat.utoronto 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —nat.utoronto 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election per standard practice for unelected candidates. Bearcat (talk) 18:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by Bearcat. Reggie Perrin (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This was funny. I thought I recognized the name ...and I did from the signs outside last week. Yup, not-elected. Not notable for own article. Merge to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with haste. Should be largely uncontroversial. theProject (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to merge. It would not bother me if this article was kept, however as Ms. Coad was not elected, merging the article would seem to make sense. Note: As a response to the AfD nominator; the citation (#1) on the article is an inline citation that specifically refers to the fact that the seat was vacant, it refered only to that fact, and is a perfectly reliable source. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 21:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Merging to New Democratic Party candidates, 2006 Canadian federal election would be okay, but only if a section were created for the by-elections held on March 17th, 2008; as this is technically a seperate election from the 2006 general election. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 21:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would get a separate subsection, yes. The main reason they get merged to the prior general election is because there's no other suitable redirect target. Bearcat (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me, as a by-election is a seperate election, but is still derived from a general election. Patrick Hennessey (Speak) 18:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN failed candidate. GreenJoe 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Failed candidates do not get deleted from Wikipedia. They get merged into lists. Bearcat (talk) 05:41, 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.

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The K-Factor[edit]

Non-notable student music contest. Hut 8.5 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agreement with the directly above comment. No notable google hits...--Camaeron (talk) 17:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom Non-Notable so delete. --Mifter (talk) 17:16, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domain Names Portfolio Management Theory[edit]

Appears to be OR, no references, un-encyclopedic ukexpat (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly written essay. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic essay. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not an encyclopedia article, no references, WP:OR. You could even Prod this. Oren0 (talk) 18:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not encyclopedic and no references. Macy (talk) 20:04, 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 no consensus to delete and no consensus to merge or do anything else. Hence, the status quo remains. Daniel (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian monarchs[edit]

The Australian article claims that "the sovereign's Australian role is now completely separate from the same person's role as monarch of the other Commonwealth realms". It does not explain how the role is different. But in any case the list of Australian and New Zealand monarchs is identical to that of the other Commonwealth nations that accept the British crown as head of state, so these articles are totally redundant. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Australia & New Zealand have their own 'Head of State', the Queen of Australia & the Queen of New Zealand. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is not identical to all other Commonwealth nations. Some like Canada will list French monarchs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Firstly: per GoodDay and Secondly the New Zealand list and Australia list are not identical. Perhaps you should have actually read them first: Victoria and Edward VII are the first monarchs respectively. These articles are an opportunity for information to be added about the specific states that may not be deemed important enough to be included the list of British Monarchs.

Here are a few arguments to consider:

The realms are sovereign, and as such, deserve might be expected to have would usually have their own lists of heads of state, either within an article on the office of head of state or as a stand-alone list, as per all other sovereign states.
We avoid confusing the distinction between 16 monarchies.
Commonweath realm lists that would consist of one person would follow those new non-realm states which themselves have lists of one, two or three persons.
Redirecting to the UK's list creates the contradictory implication of a foreign office of head of state over sovereign countries.
Context makes separate lists necessary.

Please explain this.--Gazzster (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Camaeron (talk) 17:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the list somewhere, as each country on Wikipedia has a list of its heads of state, regardless of number or duplication. My preference is for a list separate from Monarchy of Australia for purely editorial reasons; 1) list articles tend to be treated differently, and thus separated from, prose articles, and 2) Monarchy of Australia would be, without the list of monarchs there, 92KB long, and thus over the recommended size, whereafter it's advised to split into smaller articles anyway. (The user who started this AfD obviously has misconceptions about the subject matter.) --G2bambino (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a stupid list, but it is a stupid list because it is a stupid constitutional arrangement not because the article is faulty. Nick Connolly (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Now, that's a candid way of putting things. GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The list is unecessary. It is already at Monarchy of Australia; one list suffices for the shared monarchy (the one at List of monarchs of the UK would answer, but list at MoA is fine). Should every CR have a list? If so, 12 out of 15 would have only one monarch, E2. In short, it is inefficient and weird to publish multiple lists of the same monarchs, with the same information. Wikipedia is the only forum where this is done. I would prefer deletion without a redirect.

Comment. Inefficient? WP:NOTPAPER. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Multiple lists replicate the same material for no supportable reason when one list can serve the same purpose. Fewer words, same objective= efficiency.--Gazzster (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the argument that this list is the place to give specific information about the distinctly Australian monarchy I would say that all such info is already at Monarchy of Australia, at length and in great detail. That is the natural place to look for it
To the argument that the realms are sovereign and so merit separate lists I would say that the sovereignty of the realms will vary. Australia became independent between (roughly) 1942 and 1986. How then, should we determine the number of monarchs in the list? For the other realms the no will likewise vary. As said, 12 of them will have only one. One is not a list, and is patently ridiculous to make a list of one.
To the argument that MoA is too long, I would say: Monarchy of Australia is by far a more natural place to look for information than a List of AM; if MoA is too long, why don't we make that more concise, rather than creating yet another article?; what could be said of MoA might also refer to Monarchy of Canada, which is even longer.
As I see it, this is about presenting information efficiently, not about promoting the dignity of the realms. And I would note that to the casual observer, the proliferation of CR articles is bewildering, evwen embarassing. I wouldn't mind betting that most hits on these articles come from us, its creators and editors! --Gazzster (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Obviously one monarch does not contitute a list and thus those type of "lists" are not created...--Camaeron (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At last! Someone has addressed this point! Thank you! So no-one create List of Monarchs of Kitts and St Nevis, please!--Gazzster (talk) 20:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try not to ; p --Camaeron (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Such (one monarch) articles won't be created. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? One president lists have already been created. The list has to start somewhere. --G2bambino (talk) 22:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, G2, in a deletion discussion, we are particularly talking about standalone lists, not sections in another article. Having said that, if I were writing such an article I would mention in the intro the fact that there has only been one, not create a list type section just for the sake of some sort of uniform format. JPD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. I was talking about stand alone lists. --G2bambino (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everytime I take a step ahead? I take two back. It's like being in a giant web. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Gazzster has said, this is about information, not sovereignty, and so any arguments based only on the fact that Australia/NZ are sovereign or that the Queen's role in each is distinct should be ignored. These facts are made clear in the appropriate articles, having yet another one which does not spell it out as well doesn't help at all. There are two possibilities for such an article. Either it is simple duplication of part of the List of British monarchs, or it contains appropriate Australian/NZ context and explanation. In the first case, this article is absurd and vitually useless, in the second case, it wouldn't really do justice to the situation unless it were part of articles like Monarchy of Australia or History of monarchy in Canada (I don't see how it helps to have List of Canadian monarchs separate from this).
If these lists had been suggested/created in order to reduce the length of the Monarchy articles, an issue G2bambino has raised, I would suggest that we consider making it part of a separate History article, reducing the History section as well. As it is, however, it looks like it is simply a badge of sovereignty, a purpose which Wikipedia articles should not serve. JPD (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, plus merge/redirect. I've added some more to List of New Zealand monarchs (the correct title, which this article is now at), to show that it is distinct from other comparable articles... but I still fail to see how this page can provide anything which the more comprehensive Monarchy of New Zealand cannot, and as such I would support its redirection to that page. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no necessary reason why the next Monarch will be the same for Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. StAnselm (talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but it will be, for at present all the realms are in accord over the Act of Settlement. Could the Parliament of a realm theoretically annul the Act in their monarchy? Yes, (theoretically) but rather than do that it would most probably abolish the monarchy. And in practice, a change in succession would depend on whether, say, Prince Harry would accept the throne of Realm X when his papa and brother have been passed over. And it would also depend on whether the UK Parliament would allow Harry (or whoever) to accept his or her new title and leave the UK (always assuming they would want to leave)>. No, it is pretty certain the succession will be the same in all realms.-Gazzster (talk) 06:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —JPD (talk) 23:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To lift the mood in this heavy debate, perhaps we should append this little ditty to every CR article:

She is Canadian!

For She Herself has said it

And it's greatly to Her credit

That She is Canadian

That She is Canadian!

And yet She's a dinkum Aussie

Of the Kiwis, Jamaica, a boss, She

And let's not forget Grenada

Or Saint Kitts or PNG!

But in spite of all temptations

To belong to a single nation

She remains Canadian-

She remains Canadian!

(At this point, 16 flags are unfurled, fireworks explode, the initials ER rise out of the sea, and a bar of God save the Queen plays)--Gazzster (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow it's gonna be great. The biggest party 16 nations ever partied! See you there G2 Bambino! --Camaeron (talk) 12:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'll pass on the invite, thanks. I somehow don't trust an avowed republican to put on a party for EIIR. --G2bambino (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence to Gaz but as a republican he wouldnt be invited... = ) --Camaeron (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll be there- any excuse for a party! (As long as HM is paying!)--Gazzster (talk) 03:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 07:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the monarchs of Australia are different people, constitutionally, to the monarchs of Britain or another state. There is a technical possibility that the lists could also diverge at some point. Monarchy of Australia is a long article, and I feel this is a legitimate breakout article for it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Then why not make MoA more concise? Why buy exactly the same coat as you already have when all you need to do is dry-clean it?--Gazzster (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete After looking at Monarchy in Australia, I don't see that the Australian monarchs article is is anything more than a "colorful poster". What an eerie coincidence. The British monarchs of the 20th century had the same names and reigned at the same time, and the illustrations show that these people were similar in appearance. It's a colorful poster to illustrate something that can be expressed in one sentence, that Australia's head of state is, legally, the Queen of the United Kingdom . The New Zealand article goes a bit further, by adding Maori leaders. However, I can see room for the Australia article to go beyond the "DUH" quality that it has now, with additions to show the Queen's visits to Australia, messages directed specifically to the Australian people, acts of the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen (like the guy who fired the prime minister back in the 70s), and protocol when the Queen visits her Dominion, such as where the royalty resides when they're visiting. As long as the article isn't being guarded by some zealot who thinks that this is "perfection", it might work . As G2bambino notes below, the monarchy article is getting lengthy. If there's a spinoff, these handsome illustrations can be added to that. Mandsford (talk) 17:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the latter half of your comment. However Australia's head of state, legally, is the Queen of Australia not the Queen of the UK...--Camaeron (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per StAnselm--Doug Weller (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Then that would be a conditional delete, as it would depend on future actions at Monarchy of Australia, which is currently already over the recommended length for articles. --G2bambino (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did you just add to Monarchy of Canada?--Gazzster (talk) 20:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because there was information to add to it. Why else? I'd love to take some out of the article, though. Will you help me in getting Canadian Royal Family reinstated as a separate article, Gazz? --G2bambino (talk) 21:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're not going to get busy slimming down CM (which is longer than MoA), you can hardly argue here that MoA is too long.--Gazzster (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"CM"? Anyway, I'm not arguing MoA is too long, Wikipedia tells me it is. --G2bambino (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How? I haven't seen a 'this is too long' tag there. You've said MoA is too long several times, mate. IF MoA is too long, so is CoM. What's good for the goose, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is "CM" and "CoM"? Look at the head of the page when you open the edit window; it says "This page is 95 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size." --G2bambino (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's good for MoA is good 4 MoC, that's all I'm sayin.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uuhh... If you mean by "CM," "CoM" and "MoC," Monarchy of Canada, then yes, you're absolutely right. --G2bambino (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool.--Gazzster (talk) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recreate Canadian Royal Family? Sure, why not? GoodDay (talk) 21:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These lists are useful. The only other idea I would considerer over this would be to merge them all into a new article called List of Commonwealth Realm Monarchs. But I do like the individual lists as they stand, otherwise it would mean that the British list would also have to be merged there. After all they are all independent countries deserving of their own list, even if they do all agree on using the same monarchs. -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Care to explain how they are useful? Useful information would deserve a list, but simply being an independent country doesn't. JPD (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you were a school kid doing research on these topics wouldn't you find them helpful? -- UKPhoenix79 (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How many school kids are asked to research Australian monarchs? If they were, they would go to UK monarchs first, obviously.--Gazzster (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that because I did exactly that the other day... = )--Camaeron (t/c) 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Australian school kids went to a list of British monarchs to research the Australian crown then they'd be poorly educated little Vegemites. --G2bambino (talk) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully our little Vegemites are not initiated in king worship, British or Australian. But we're talking about the List, not the Australian crown. You do try to shift ground when its shaky.Can't blame you.--Gazzster (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just a couple of generations of politician worship. I wonder now, though, who it really is who got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. --G2bambino (talk) 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they were asked to research the monarchs themselves, then anyone with any knowledge at all could quite sensibly look at British monarchs to find the info. You might instead look at Monarchy of Australia, which would be more sensible if, as G2 mentions, the topic was the Australian crown rather than the monarchs. Either way, this list doesn't provide any information that isn't given (often with more helpful context) in other, more obvious places. So, if I were a schoolkid, I wouldn't find them helpful. JPD (talk) 23:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge these and similar articles with Commonwealth realm --Matilda ^talk 23:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Huh? --G2bambino (talk) 23:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A table which said which monarch ruled over which realm could be more useful than a whole series of articles covering almost the sme info. For example the first of the tables in List of Australian monarchs deals with the House of Hanover - information which is duplicated elsewhere in Wikipedia. Why not instead have a table which says Victoria of the House of Hanover ruled over Australia, but indicate she did not rule over NZ; however Edward VII ruled over both. Expanding for the other Commonwealth realms and having clear links back to the other duplicated info in the table elsewhere. To have multiple articles speaks of provincial minds in my view - it is playing with semantics to differentiate QEII for NZ, Aust and the UK - for NZ and Aust she is QEI but you would get nowhere in putting forward that view - not least becuase she is commonly known as QE2. We have a monarchy and an article on that monarchy for each country is appropriate explaining Australian, New Zealand, canadian peculiarities - but treating the one monarch as a different one when it comes to lists like these and duplicating the info seems to be going too far in my view. One list is better annotating variations as appropriate - eg when countries came under the monarchy and when they left.--Matilda ^talk 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate thinking outside the box, and a singluar, pan-realm list has been discussed, I see a problem in that proposal; namely: The UK is a Commonwealth realm, so where would this list that covers all realms begin? --G2bambino (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name it a list of monarchs for Commonwealth realms excluding the UK - ie define it accordingly and link to the list of British monarchs for those looking to a comprehensive list. Otherwise it would begin with the earliest monarch recognised as presiding over a Commonwealth realm other than the UK. If we were talking about only Aust and NZ it woudl be Victoria - I am not talking about only those 2 countries but all past and present Commonwealth countries other than the UK and noting that it predates the formation of the Commonwealth - can one refer to the British Empire these days? --Matilda ^talk 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm... I find that a bit arbitrary; as in, I'm left asking: for what reason is one realm separated out from the rest? --G2bambino (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly arbitrary that the UK monarchy is excluded - it has greater length and it determines the other monarchs - no other monarchy in this system will have a monarch other than the UK monarch while they remain part of the system. Arbitrary means not attributable to any rule or law; accidental; capricious; uncertain; unreasonable - none of these apply to the exclusion of the UK monarch from a list. What I am proposing is we have no more than two lists. With potentially a list for each Commonwealth realm, we have a greater probability of errors and inconsistencies in the lists. --Matilda ^talk 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the UK doesn't determine other monarchs, not for more than 75 years. And why does the greatest length win immunity? So, it's still rather arbitrary - i.e. without governing reason - to remove one realm from a list of realms. It seems even more arbitrary to be okay with two lists but not more. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please point me to the previous discussion where a singluar, pan-realm list has been discussed? Thanks Matilda ^talk 04:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did mention such a thing once, but as something to be avoided.--Gazzster (talk) 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was at Talk:List of Australian monarchs. I don't think it should necessarily be avoided, I just don't think it's possible. --G2bambino (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, JPD says what I want to say with his usual clarity. Cheers!--Gazzster (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You see, G2? The argument for simplification does not come from republican sentiment, but from a genuine desire for economy and clarity. And it doesn't just come from me, JPD and Tharky.--Gazzster (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. I never said it did. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These lists are redundant. Wikipedia does not need multiple copies of this same detailed information, where essentially the copies differ only in that all of them but one are truncated (to varying degrees) in relation to that one. All that is needed is this: In the "Monarchy of..." articles, note when each other national list picks up the British list, give a simple listing of the monarchs concerned, and refer the reader to the British list for fuller information. The politically-based notion that we are affronting national dignities unless we give each of the countries concerned has its own list-article, partially repeating the British list's details about dynasties, consorts and so on, is not a legitimate concern in writing an encyclopedia.
-- Lonewolf BC (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Just curious everyone. If this article gets deleted? does that mean all similiar articles get deleted? GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean List of British monarchs etc. then it's a definate no. Usually only the nominated page is deleted. Occasionally the respective redirect pages are deleted too...but never more than that...--Camaeron (t/c) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and not every case is the same. --G2bambino (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reassurances, people. GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion would of course establish a precedent for deleting the other articles, but, as has been mentioned before, articles stand alone. Decisions for one article are not necessary applied to others. We would have to establish deletion pages for every list and go through this process each time. I would imagine though, that the argument, 'we did it at the Aus list because of X' would throw some weight toward deletion.--Gazzster (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but the same argument in support of having a list for each country somehow doesn't stand? --G2bambino (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning (or evening, or midday, or whatever it is over there), G2! Don't see the similarity, bud.--Gazzster (talk) 21:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Precedent. It was dismissed by you and JPD as a reason to have a list for each country, but now you're saying it's okay as a basis to delete lists. Just making an observation is all. (And it's evening here now; night before a long weekend too, so beer is calling me away from this computer. Damn work!) --G2bambino (talk) 21:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Long weekend here too! Yay for the secularisation of religious holidays! I didn't say precedent was a basis for deleting lists. I said it may lend weight to the argument to do so. And precedent may add some weight to each realm having its own list. But I (and others) don't believe that weight tips the balance.--Gazzster (talk) 21:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary[edit]

Time for a summary. Please note I am not attempting to close the discussion and declare consensus. I am going to make a tally and a summary of the arguments pro and con deletion. My idea is that we get more scientific about this and debate the value of the arguments. But new input, especially from users who have not commented yet, is of course still welcome.

For deletion 4 votes

List repeats list at Monarchy of Australia and other articles. A single list a more efficient manner of presenting info. A redirect,as an alternative, would suffice.
Monarchy of Australia answers the need for info about the distinctly Aus. monarchy well enough.
Confusion between 16 realms is unlikely. The distinction is made clear throughout Wikipedia.
Divergence in lines of succession is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

For retention 7 votes

Each sovereign nation has its list of heads of state, so why not this one?
Doesn't replicate the list of other monarchs of other British/former British monarchies exactly: different first monarchs, and the lines of succession may diverge in the future.
Avoids confusing distinction between 15 former British monarchies and the UK monarchy.
MoA is too long; another article is needed.
Lists should be open to the addition of non-British persons; thus the lists will not be copies of each other.

Merge 2 votes--Gazzster (talk) 22:19, 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 Will ^(talk) 22:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Academy Television Awards 2008[edit]

Not Notable Ctolson (talk) 17:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NOTE critera as it does supply independant third party sources asserting significance, and a with quick google search one would find that the information in the article is verifiable. AngelOfSadness talk 17:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I created the article I'm not going to vote, because that's something I just don't do, but anyway. First off, if you're going to AFD this, then why not all the other BAFTA ceremony pages as well? And why not all of the Emmys ceremonies pages? Does the fact that they're an American award make them more notable than this (the main British TV award)? Or perhaps it's the fact that they haven't taken place yet? I don't know, but what exactly makes it "Not Notable"? Props for a quick AFD creation though, I went away for ten minutes to make some toast and came back to find it already up for deletion. It would've probably taken me half an hour to properly create an AFD. Gran² 17:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets all applicable criteria – ukexpat (talk) 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep We got colour TV as well! Please let's sort this now. Before more Brits get in from work/finish their tea/homework and see it.... Plutonium27 (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is plenty of coverage in reliable sources to easily establish notability, good start to the article considering it was only started a couple of hours ago. Davewild (talk)
Speedy keep. Very notable event in the UK. And as the nominations have been announced it's perfectly viable to have an article on the show if it hasn't been broadcast yet. I also feel the nominator provides insufficient rationale for nominating, as it looks like a case of WP:OSTRICH as it now stands. Why do you feel this major event is somehow not notable? 23skidoo (talk) 19:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: Clearly notable. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I think others have said it all really.--Michig (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep reason is quite obvious really! per everyone else. TheProf | Talk 21:35, 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 delete A7 by User:Rudget, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHORT-ART[edit]

Almost nonsense. Appears to be OR, no references, un-encyclopedic ukexpat (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nominator pretty much sums it up: Nonsensical, unreferenced OR. Marasmusine (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A7 speedy delete, tagged as such for lack of any assertion of importance or significance. In fact, this long winded collection of gibberish asserts nothing at all and takes several pages to do so. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 17:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 17:25, 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. There was no need for AFD in an obvious case this like. Friday (talk) 17:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Mallar[edit]

Delete: Vanity. non-notable person. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is established on the page. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Query: Praytell, just where and how is notability established? —SlamDiego_←T 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Vanity page; non-notable. —SlamDiego_←T 16:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete non-notable, self-promoting Jasynnash2 (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, as notability now demonstrated.--Kubigula (talk) 02:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teesside Park[edit]

Non-notable shopping center Hellno2 (talk) 16:12, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No secondary sources, and no assertion of notability, so fails WP:CORP. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. —Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - exceptionally notable for its architecture. see here. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 12:18, 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Designer loo or not, I still see nothing that meets criteria for reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per addition of sources, now asserts notability. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability, no 3rd party sources. As to the claim above that it's notable for its architecture, you need more than a photo in the BBC to make that claim. Do you have any sources that claim that? Oren0 (talk) 18:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you not notice the actual Article that goes with the photo essay? Does a University website stating that the Centre has the largest multi-screen cinimas in the UK help? How about Channel4 saying the Centre is the best thing in the area? I tend to believe that Universities and News outlets are WP:RS's Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 20:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability not asserted in article, nor reliable sources. Dimitrii (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has multiple sources and asserts notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think addition of sources fulfils the requirements of claim to notability. Keith D (talk) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it looks notable to me. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP The subject of the article possesses more than just notability as a business. As a subject of a BBC photo-journal essay (which clearly shows the exceptional aesthetics of the park), it is in fact some sort of readymade art. The "Designer loo" title caption of the BBC photo-essay is obviously an allusion to Fountain (Duchamp), telling us that this park is one hell of a Duchamp-inspired readymade. Perhaps the biggest ever. --Firefly322 (talk) 03:29, 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. This is a tricky one. Although the keep votes vastly outnumber the delete votes, the arguments made by the delete votes are greater than those made by the keep votes. Looking over reasons for sources proving notability, 13 out of 18 are from the site itself, Ref 7 doesn't work, two more refs only link to sites that have it in a directory, and the last two are from other sources that could establish notability but fall just below the line. The majority of keeps are per previous consensus (I closed that one also), and claims that other less notable subjects have articles. Neither of these address the issues list in the nom or by opposes. Therefore, although the votes say keep, the strength of arguments say delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Church of Google[edit]

This is a joke page that reflects the opinions of a joke website. It is not encyclopedic. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not where it states 'Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information'. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article was accidentally CSD deleted on March 15, because the February 2008 AFD notice had not been added to the article's talkpage (hence it was a legitimate mistake). The article is was in a bad state still, hence it's back here at AFD. See background discussion at User talk:DGG#The Church of Google. Thanks.

Comment. This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multiple AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universal Church of Google - 18 Jan 2005 - DELETE
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 December 20 - 27 December 2006 - DELETION REVIEW ENDORSED DELETION
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google - 9 February 2007 - DELETE
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) - 29 February 2008 -KEEP

Thus, the consensus of consensus (a meta-consensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no such thing as a meta consensus on WP. — Becksguy (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Becksguy (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Ok I think people are just getting offended that is no reason for deletion. It is notable there is a site and a church with real everyday followers Why is this getting more heat the FSM or IPU? are they really that notable? This has been on news and other places also it is well on its way. --drgoofymofo (talk) 12:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.234.81.129 (talk) [reply]

Keep - For Google's Sake people! Why is this even being considered for deletion? It's not noteable enough? What the hell is so wrong with the article? Someone is upset cause it's a parody religion? Well same with The Invisible Pink Unicorn. Oh and please, let us not forget The Flying Spaghetti Monster. This is just stupid that the CoG's article is being nominated for deletion (AGAIN!). Seriously, just keep it. It's notable enough....shit here is a quick definition of the term notable: "noteworthy: worthy of notice; "a noteworthy advance in cancer research"" The CoG to me is definatly noteable...--rzm61 (talk) 12:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems notable enough WP:N...--Camaeron (talk) 17:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep last time round was a keep, and it was only 3 weeks ago. The last one is the one that matters--how is this different from repeated delete nominations?? WP includes internet jokes and memes if they are notable enough. This one is.DGG (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as the previous nomination resulted in keep less than a month ago; consensus has obviously changed to be on the side of this article for Winter 2008. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. WP:NOTAGAIN. I don't see any notability problems. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not which is official policy: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." I can't find any reputable seconday source like an article in the LA Times. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS does not specify the size or scope of news organizations that may be cited from Wikipedia. It is perfectly normal, in the absence of mainstream news organizations like the LA times to cite a number of smaller or web-based news organizations such as these. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While the previous nomination was a month ago, the AfD history of this article was not properly noted on the article's talk page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In any event, renominations in under a month seem like Wikipedia:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The only existing sources are primary sources or blogs. How is this notable then? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For a sub-article on Google, primary sources are perfectly sufficient for establishing notability. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, that sounds an awful lot like 'Original Research'. See Wikipedia:No original research which is also official Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline and not policy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Original research offers forth some kind of thesis or experimental results never before published. Matter of factly repeating information from primary sources about a notable topic is consistent with encyclopedic tradition. The article is not arguing anything, nor is it some kind of original scientific theory. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources are sometimes acceptable for verifiability but are never acceptable to prove notability. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A good number of primary sources are sufficiently acceptable to prove notability. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever the status of sourcing for notability was before, primary or whatever, there certainly are sufficient independent, third party, and significant reliable sources now to satisfy notability and your concerns, TPH. Please reconsider. — Becksguy (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but cleanup. There do seem to be quite a few reliable sources (see my reply below), ~~however they are mostly in the "external links" section~~. It would be best if the blog sources were removed and primary sources were lessened. (I've never edited the article, nor have any interest in it. I simply saw it removed from {{Irreligion}} and was curious.) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand where all you guys are getting the idea that this is notable. Has anyone actually examined the refs? Sure there are 24 refs, but 14 are to the churchofgoogle.org page itself (first party, doesn't count for much), 2 are to something called gozkino.com, which doesn't load for me, one is this, which isn't a source for anything, and five are to blogs (see WP:SPS). That leaves one "page of the month" mention on about.com (worth something, but not every page that makes that list gets a WP article) and a CNN op-ed about Google being God that doesn't even mention the subject of the article. What makes this notable again? Oren0 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I foolishly assumed the links at the end of the external links were pointing to these google news archive sources, which I had seen mentioned in the previous AFD. The primary and unreliable sources should be replaced with these more reliable sources. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per Oren0 (I'd be inclined to put this in the WP:NFT category, in fact). Half the references are primary sources (which FWIW do NOT establish notability), and none of the others are reliable sources. I'm not too sure about about.com either -- it's pretty much a Wikipedia mirror these days. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep ~~Procedural Speedy Close~~ - With a Keep AfD only three weeks ago, this is out of process and seems pointy to me. It makes absolutely no sense that consensus would change in three weeks. Come back and renominate in three months, if you still think it should be deleted. There was some discussion (I can't remember where, but I don't believe it made it to guideline status) that it would be a good idea that renominations should have a mandated minimum period before the renomination could take place to avoid this kind of issue and forum shopping. For this article, the closing rationale in the 2nd AfD was: The result was Keep. Both sides make good arguments here, but in the end, this does have sources and as as much of a "meme" as some of the other faux-religions that have articles on Wikipedia. To me, the delete arguments here and before seem to boil down in the main to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. And that's not a valid reason to delete. In any case my !vote is Strong Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN and several keep arguments here and before, especially by DGG and LGRdC. It's a perfectly valid and encyclopedic article that can be cleaned up, as many articles can be and should be before being nominated for deletion, per WP:DP which says: If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Becksguy (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) —— PS: Changed from Procedural Speedy Close to Strong Keep for clarity, since first !vote seems moot at this point, only since the AfD is almost over. However, there is still a major process issue, as explained, with this nomination. — Becksguy (talk) 23:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree there: this debate should NOT be speedily closed as consensus is not clear at this stage. The delete arguments are nothing to do with WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:NOTAGAIN but because the sources cited have been scrutinised more closely and found to be insufficient. Maybe a deletion review may have been more appropriate, but we're into another AfD anyway, so we might as well just let it run. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 20:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAGAIN is a procedural and process issue, as it's unreasonable and disruptive to renominate an article three weeks after a keep AfD close, although I'm AGF. Why let it run? Don't we have more AfDs than we can handle or that anyone can even reasonably keep track of? Yes, WP:IDONTLIKEIT was applied to the deletion arguments. However, to repeat, having poor references is not a reason to delete, it's a reason to look for good ones. And we did have consensus in the 2nd AfD. — Becksguy (talk) 20:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but per WP:SK the fact that there are now three of us in addition to the nominator having given "delete" !votes renders this discussion ineligible for a speedy close. And granted, the discussion may have started off on an IDONTLIKEIT footing, but since then it has highlighted the fact that the so called "reliable sources" that got it through the previous AfD are nothing of the sort, and this does need to be taken into consideration now. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 21:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage from reliable sources. The only reference to a reliable source isn't even about the subject. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Primary sources can be reliable, sometimes even more so than secondary sources. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This may or may not be true in practice, but WP:N is quite clear that they are not sufficient in and of themselves to provide evidence of notability. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 22:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - They are sufficient when dealing with sub-articles. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — significant coverage by multiple reliable sources? No, I'm afraid not — this church is not notable. Come back with sources (which appear to be unavailable) and I'll reconsider. EJF (talk) 23:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Sources - I agree with the deletionists that the sourcing for this article is horrible. However, it's simply not true that there are no reliable sources. One just needs to actually look in more than a casual way. After bypassing the self referential citations and blogs listed in the article, I find that there are more than sufficient reliable sources, including several newspaper/magazine articles I located via Google (CoG?), and a couple provided by Quiddity, as listed below (and added to the article):

Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008). "Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue". Norwitch Bulletin. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - From GateHouse News Service.
Matheson, Hilary (January 17, 2008). "Web Worship: Spaghetti Monster, Google touch a nerve on all sides of the religious issue". Tauton Daily Gazette. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help) - From GateHouse News Service.
Sweas, Megan (February 1, 2007). ""Blessed art thou amongst search engines"". U.S. Catholic Magazine. Retrieved 2008-02-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Google Finds Religion". Security Pro News. May 4, 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
Ohrt, Andreas (November 1, 2006). "CURIOUS TIMES". Boise Weekly. Retrieved 2008-03-19. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"The Apotheosis of Google". Pandia. April 27, 2004. Retrieved 2008-03-20.
"The Church of Google". Atheists and Agnostics, University of Alberta. Retrieved 2008-03-20.

Is it as copious a list as appeared in the article, no, but it's more than sufficient. If I find more, I'll add them. — Becksguy (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Added refs ~~#8 & #9~~ Now #6 & #7 — Becksguy (talk) 07:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Removed Chicago Sun-Times from list as not sufficiently RS, leaving 8 references. — Becksguy (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Removed Tech Republic as a blog, leaving 7 references. — Becksguy (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of these sources, [1] and [2] are the same article. [3] and [5] don't say anything about it and seem to be stale links or something. [4] and [6] are unattributed. And [7] is not evidence of anything. That leaves us with one article only two months ago. This is not notability; it is an attempt at promotion. It belongs on Wikipedia only after it becomes a phenom, not as part of the strategy for getting it there. Tb (talk) 20:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are a good number of mentions of this topic. While most are blogs, there are also more solid sources. The Open Directory Project, GateHouse Media, and Chicago Sun-Times are enough to provide verifiability. The article still needs work, but the topic has attracted enough attention to be notable. SilkTork *^YES! 10:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Alright, here we go. First, as mentioned, we had a AfD for this article 3 weeks ago. For wassup to just delete it was wrong. I'm glad that it has been restored. Second, again, a "meta-consensus" does not work, because they were consensuses for DIFFERENT ARTICLES. The Church of Google != Universal Church of Google, and each CoG article was different. Yes, right now the article needs work, and definitely more reliable sources. But it is in now way the worst article on WP. 12.35.116.194 (talk) 16:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep while I still consider this religioncruft, they've got the sources to back it up and, as said, this is way too soon to renominate. JuJube (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As far as I can tell, the only coverage in RS is of the 'isn't this funny' kind, such as in the US Catholic, or in passing, in the Chicago Sun-Times. Lack of detailed coverage in reliable sources spells delete for me. Mostlyharmless (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Mostlyharmless: I think you missed the point. The two sources you mentioned are at the bottom of the list in terms of amount of coverage on the Church. The Gatehouse articles (in at least two newspapers) have 797 words on Church of Google. That's rather significant coverage. The newly listed Pandia article is 544 words, and the Tech Republic article is 413 words, to pick the articles with the most coverage. Our job to to find significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability and then improve the article. There clearly is more than enough here for notability, even as noted by others. I even just added two more references to my list, which total nine now. Saying that the coverage is of the "isn't this funny" kind is original research, in that's it's an interpretation of the sources. The totality of the sources just don't support your delete !vote, and I ask you to reconsider. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 07:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm standing by my delete nomination despite these sources. To be quite honest there are far too many articles these days that scrape through AfD on only a tiny number of sources, and it is making Wikipedia look like a joke. A small number of sources can be justified in some cases (e.g. for subjects in categories where receiving any coverage at all is rare) but my personal opinion is that where coverage is as thin on the ground as this, there needs to be some convincing reason as to why the article should be kept. (You may wish to see User:Snthdiueoa/On notability for a more thorough outline of my opinions on what should and should not be kept in these cases.) —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, may not have met standards before, but has reached them now IMHO, despite Snth's fine essay. Also per JuJube and Becksguy. More background from parody religion would be nice. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Now neutral ~~So there are apparently two reliable 3rd-party references, so~~ we've almost got borderline notability here. But I am very concerned that we are being played here. The references section was purposely puffed up with fluff to make it look more notable than it really is, and the author is now pseudo-spamming all the other "fake" religions (Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, Church of the SubGenius) with See Also links to this article. I am worried Wikipedia is being exploited to bootstrap the notability of this "phenomenon." I don't like to see Wikipedia creating information out of thin air, so I'd rather just see the article go, and let these fine folks establish unquestionable notability all by themselves. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea how you come up with only two RS from a list of nine that I complied: including several newspapers, Pandia, Tech Republic, and a university. All with significant, independent, and all but Chicago Sun Times with more than passing mention. One would hardly expect a Catholic publication to go into much detail about a religion that pokes fun at them, and yet, even it has 140 words, significantly more than a passing mention. It's a small article but it qualifies as RS. And WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not an valid argument. You are correct that the extensive self references is an issue and I was debating deleting all them, except for a few external links, and I guess I will now. In addition, the article is in poor shape, but those are issues that should be addressed by editing, not deletion, per WP:N. BTW, the term is parody religions, not fake religions, from a long tradition of parodies and satires in our culture. The word fake implies deceit when these are parodies. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater here, as this article has more than sufficient RS. Edit the article rather than destroy it. Deletion is an extreme last resort only justifiable when there is no intrinsic notability, clearly not the case here, as even you admitted. — Becksguy (talk) 18:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the "fake" vs. "parody" thing, I didn't mean to be disparaging. For the record, I think those parody religions are cool. heh... That said, your reply doesn't assuage my feeling that Wikipedia is being exploited here. I'll strikeout my characterization of the # of RSes, but I still don't get warm fuzzies about this article. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And at least some of your nine "reliable sources" are blogs... I haven't clicked on every single one, but at least some of them are questionable. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was nice of you. I'm removing the Chicago Sun-Times as it's a mention in passing and therefore really doesn't qualify as RS. But I bypassed all the blogs, and there were hundreds listed in the Google hits and a bunch listed in the article. That leaves eight in my compilation, and I didn't see any indication that they were blogs, but look for yourself. You should of seen the ones I threw out. As to the article: If the self referential citations and links you are worried about were removed, would you feel better about the article? Because I don't like them either and think they don't belong there. The article does need an overhaul. — Becksguy (talk) 19:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The techreview article is also a blog, as far as I can tell. I guess you are right about the others, though... I have struck my "weak delete" vote. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair and thank you. Now I'm going to work on the article and get rid of as many problems as I can. Come back and check in a bit. — Becksguy (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about Tech Republic, Jaysweet. I got it mixed up with a technical news aggregator, but it's a blog. Good catch. I'm removing it from my list and from the article also. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the author of which the above speaks of spamming. I just wish to make clear that I thought that the CoG fell under the same category as those other religions, and so I thought it appropriate to add the links. I am sorry if this practice is frowned upon on WP. Honestly, I didn't know. I just thought that since like does with like under "See Also," trhat it would be appropriate to add links there. No fluffing intended. Actually, no fluffing realized. Sorry. Oh, and same goes for the references. I wasn't going for a bunch of references, but rather to more easily organize the article. Again, I wasn't trying to fluff. Just Accidentally misusing the system."The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 17:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's certainly more notable than many other articles on wikipedia and so many other parody religions get an article. Why not this? 83.254.37.112 (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under Googlism. That name seems to be more suitable IMO. --Brand спойт 09:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Not notable. The only external reference to "googlism" is the existence of a single student group at one university, where it is not even clear that the group exists. The other references are to the page itself. This is clearly something someone made up someday. There is nothing wrong with Wikipedia documenting a parody religion, but Wikipedia is not to be used as part of the parody, which is what's going on here. Tb (talk) 17:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is for The Church of Google, the article is entitled "The Church of Google", the Church refers to itself as the "The Church of Google" (or CoG) on their website front page. All seven reliable sources (plus all the sources I didn't use as they were blogs or passing mentions) refer to it as "The Church of Google". Even the single article you mentioned from the University of Alberta refers to it as "The Church of Google" both as the title and in the lede. The term Googalism may refer to their belief in much the same way Catholicism refers to that belief, but not necessarily to the Catholic Church, which is one of the churches whose members profess that belief. Googlism is not the subject of this discussion. The Church of Google is, and is very well documented by multiple independent third party reliable sources as I described above. You have completely missed the point here and you are !voting on an article not under discussion. — Becksguy (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for putting "googlism" in quotes. When I went through the refs, I didn't find references to a group--under any description--except the one I mentioned. Can you perhaps help out by putting clear and unmistakable links here, from third parties, which refer to the "church of google"?

I am also disturbed that several of the references are to articles which do not exist or cannot be read. Tb (talk) 20:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did, about half way up this page in a comment with the lede Comment - Sources dated 19 March at 6:21. All those links work. I complied them in one place to help everyone check the sources themselves. The article itself is in poor shape and you should have seen the stuff and links I already threw out. I'm still working on it and the links there. But that an editing issue, not a deletion issue. Thanks. — Becksguy (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of those sources, [1] and [2] are the same article. [3] is unreadable (i get about one sentence). Number [4] is by "staff writer" from an often self-written rag. [5] is an article titled "X-Men Wanted" about Uri Geller. [7] is the aforementioned student group. [6] is again not authored. It seems to me something should be a phenom before it is on Wikipedia; and it is completely bogus to see Wikipedia as part of the way to make something a phenom. Tb (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items #1 & #2 are from the same news service, true, but appear in different newspapers. That qualifies both of them, since any newspaper can run a news service article or not, depending on their judgment and oversight, in the same way that The New York Times can run an Associated Press piece or not. And if the Washington Post also runs it, that counts as an additional reliable source. The US Catholic reference, #3, may be an abstract or a short article of 140 words, in any case significantly much more than a passing mention, and acceptable as a RS. As to #4, there is no requirement that articles be signed and it's not a blog. Staff writer is acceptable and often used. #5 is a group of short pieces from the Boise Weekly, a newspaper, and the CoG is the fourth down with 110 words. Yes, it's short, but also more than a passing mention and acceptable. #6 is from Pandia, a news aggregator. And, again, articles do not have to be signed. Many aren't, even in mainstream newspapers. Two articles are dated from 2004, so this is not an overnight internet meme. If there was only one reliable source, I would agree with you, and I wouldn't have spent the multiple hours working on this, but taken together, there is more than sufficient support for notability. I don't see anything bogus or anything to indicate that Wikipedia is a party to strengthening this phenomenon, as you claim, as all we are doing is reporting what reliable sources are saying to indicate it's notability. And this church is no more or less appropriate or valid, than any other church, mainstream or not, serious or not, parody or not, whether there are 2 million members, 2 thousand, or 20 (and no, I have no idea how many members of CoG there are, not that it matters). God manifesting himself as a burning bush, or as a search engine, is just as valid or not, as believable or not, as any belief by anyone. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a acceptable reason to delete. — Becksguy (talk)

I think this is a serious problem in the discussion here. Deleting the article is not saying it's "not valid as a religion"; it's saying it's not a notable religion. The criterion is notability not "validity". I think the problem with an unsigned article, precisely in a contentious case, is that it makes it impossible to tell the origin of the story. Newspapers who carry a wire story are not necessarily making any independent judgment of accuracy or notability, just "ooh, this is cute and trendy"; likewise, an unsigned column is an indication of a lack of commitment to the story. But I'm worried that you have suddenly brought up "validity" or "believability" as if those were criteria. You seem to be saying "this religion is as believable/valid as those other ones", which is not the standard. Tb (talk) 04:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that it's about the notability of a church not it's validity. I lost my train of thought at the end of my comment. My intention was to say something like this: Although any church (or religion) is as valid as any other, I'm concerned that there is a tendency to think that this church is less valid, and therefore also less notable. That is, a negative halo effect. But after some verbiage on this church's validity, I left out the crucial part of my comment. My apologies. My criteria is still notability, same as everyone's. And notability been more than adequately demonstrated here. — Becksguy (talk) 03:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.. WP:IDONTLIKEIT has been mentioned several times. This is an essay. It is not official Wikipedia policy. It is not a consensus-based guideline. It is 'just' an essay. It holds no water in a deletion debate. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, as Tb pointed out, I think Beckguy's mention of the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay is off the mark anyway. I do like it, heh... I think the whole idea is pretty funny. But I am not voting Keep (I was eventually convinced to retract my Delete vote, but I will go no further than that) because the 3rd party mentions are really teetering on the borderline. When I read the Delete votes, I don't see any indication that people are doing so because they are offended by or dislike parody religions. --Jaysweet (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's true that IDONTLIKEIT is an essay, but it's perfectible acceptable as an argument in an deletion discussion, or elsewhere, and I have seen it used in a great many discussions, which establishes it's legitimate use via precedent and implied consensus. It is a shortcut for a particular argument, saves time and space, and also has a WP shortcut, which also additionally supports it's valid use. — Becksguy (talk) 23:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:NOTE, lack of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seem that significant coverage has been established to demonstrate notability throughout the discussion, though. Happy Easter! --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree: we have a tiny number of old references, and a lot of self-promotion. Tb (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Simply not true and a misrepresentation of the references. The references I listed here—and most of them are incorporated into the article—are independent reliable sources, and they are significantly and well in excess of the requirements to show notability. WP:RS calls for multiple reliable sources. Two sources would satisfy that requirement, and I have listed seven, after weeding. I'm assuming good faith, but you are attempting to raise the notability bar on this article way above any reasonable or policy/guideline based requirements. For example, I have seen a article on a movie, still in production, pass an AfD with ONLY two trade magazine articles (no mainstream newspapers) that essentially did nothing but list the production data, such as principal actors, director, title, genre, etc, without any critical or otherwise significant coverage. It was essentially an IMDB listing in prose form and yet they were deemed independent reliable sources for a movie no one had even seen yet. Where is the consistency across articles in applying notability? And no, this is not an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, this is about fairness and consistency in criteria application with an example. Returning to this article, the only "promotional" references are in the article itself, which is appropriate when describing the Church of Google's own beliefs or themselves. I removed all the the blogs and similar references I found from the article because they were not reliable sources. — Becksguy (talk) 22:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - I may add that the Church is also runned particularly in Russia. Isn't the fact that thechurchofgoogle.org exists noteworthy? --Brand спойт 09:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. Wikipedia does not have an article just because someone created a domain. Tb (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - A good solution is to wait and see how all that stuff will look like. --Brand спойт 20:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per last AfD, we have independent reliable sources talking about the Church. So keep. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although consensus can change, it is way too soon after the last AfD to show me that it has. MrPrada (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is a detailed, source-abundant and interesting page. What more do you need? Phalanxia (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in the article seem to indicate that it's gotten some press coverage, so I'd call it notable. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dick's Cabaret[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Dick's Cabaret

Procedural listing of an article about a club. It's speedy deletion per CSD A7 was overturned at Deletion review on the grounds that a connection to a notable person is a claim of importance. Tikiwont (talk) 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete or merge - if the person the club is linked to is notable than a brief mention in his article is all that is required. The club on its own is not notable enough for its own article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dick's Cabaret itself is not notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable club Dreamspy (talk) 09:39, 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. Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nic Minor[edit]

"world-renowned" "video game designer" with NO non WP/WP mirror google hits? Claims he "worked on" various games - could mean anything. I'm always wary of articles which have to be beefed up by informing the world of the subject's dog's name... Camillus (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete as self-promoting, non-notable, and probable spam. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete per Jasynnash2 – ukexpat (talk) 17:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The total lack of hits has me thinking this is a WP:HOAX. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:05, 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 keep.--Kubigula (talk) 02:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Walery Cyryl Amrogowicz[edit]

Article does not assert notability nor does it provide references to support any claim of notability. Ozgod (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Donating artifacts to a museum does not confer notability. The museum has a brief profile and there are some mentions in various sources but there does not appear to be much in-depth coverage of this otherwise obscure collector. --Dhartung | Talk 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reference better, there are many sources in Polish. Your not an obscure collector when people write about you, and there seems to be enough sources in Polish under the variations of his name. I can translate a bit but a native Polish speaker should be adding the references from the Polish version. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. If references are better and someone is willing to do the research, allow them to expand the article and assist in establishing notability. Dusti^{talk to me} 18:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has an article in Polish Biographical Dictionary; hence notable.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 16:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Biographical Dictionary entry. Piotrus, please add a cite to the article and I think we're done here.

-- BPMullins | Talk 17:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I would like to have access to PSB, I don't have it (although I could request it, I know a Polish editor who does). I do have an index and he shows up on it.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability depends on whether references in reliable sources exist, not on whether they have been put in the article. If one of English Wikipedia's most prolific and well respected editors says that he has an article in the Polish Biographical Dictionary then we should assume good faith and keep this article. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I didn't mean at all to question Piotrus's assertion. I accepted it - but if he'd had the reference handy (I thought he might from his comment) adding it would have made the quickest keep of the day. -- BPMullins | Talk 23:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Piotrus, based on Polish Biographical Dictionary entry. Visor (talk) 10:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Polish Biographical Dictionary needs 30 minutes to open, still good source of information - if he's there per Piotrus the inflexible historian, he's notable. greg park avenue (talk) 17:03, 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. Bduke (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: Exile[edit]

Recreated article (see Guardians of Ga'Hoole Book 14: The Exile) that still doesn't meet the criteria for a book article set forth in Wikipedia:Notability (books). Notability is not inherited. Pairadox (talk) 17:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article looks to be of good quality and makes up a set of similar quality. The book appears to be widely available. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - latest entry in a notable novel series by a notable author. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

n.b on above concept - "Notability is not inherited" - Drivel, of course notability is inherited. Overwise we would have to say "Farmer Giles of Ham" is not notable "primarily" because J. R. R. Tolkien is the author and he is the author the "The Hobbit" and "The Lord of the Rings". To assert otherwise is avoiding natural logic. Extreme example to show basic principle! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 14:06, 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, consensus is that this list is valid but needs clean up. Davewild (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of radio shows with a focus on the paranormal[edit]

Very cluttered and poorly defined list; is a sea of red links and external links galore, with very few blue links to be seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The idea is ok, the execution is poor. If the author can fix things up its worth another try.Golgofrinchian (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. I dont see this article either being necessary or improved to the point it's useful.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Too many red links" is a poor reason to delete a list. Wikipedia is not a finished product. That having been said, this needs to be cleaned up. A consistent format (a table of uniform information about each show would be nice), a less clunky title, and of course more blue links. Keep. — CharlotteWebb 17:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above, with a big cleanup tag added. Add "Talk Back with Bob Larson" and mention of Art Bell under his show, and some content taken from the other wikilinks, and delete a lot of the rest under standards to be established for individual notability at the talk page. I would likely change my mind on a relist with no activity. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists, i.e. a disrcriminate and verifiable list is consistent with a specialized encyclopedia or almanac on the paranormal or radio shows: [19], [20], [21], etc. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:44, 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 Delete. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 05:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Colour chess[edit]

No evidence that this chess variant is played outside the website ([22]) which published the game. There are several notable chess variants, but they tend to receive some coverage in books such as The Oxford Companion to Chess or Pritchard's Popular Chess Variants. I cannot see any evidence that this game has that kind of coverage. Since the article is fairly old, there might be something I don't know which could affect notability, so I am putting this on AFD rather than PROD. (I have prod-ed a couple of other chess variants today as well in case anybody wants to review them.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable; fails WP:N and WP:NFT. Percy Snoodle (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. An easy black-and-white choice. I vaguely remember Afd'ing a very similar article (maybe Color chess). Clarityfiend (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. SyG (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and article doesn't make any sense. Mm40 (talk) 20:00, 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. Daniel (talk) 09:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CC Martini[edit]

Notability Tenacious D Fan (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless sources can be shown for chart claims (she doesn't show up at australian-charts.com), fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - There is this short blurb on her single. The assertion of chart success looks weak. The AIR is some sort of independent chart, and I'm not sure of how notable a chart that is. The ARIA chart claim is for hitting #68, but I cannot find any sources to confirm this. The ARIA site does not appear to have an archive and provides only the top 50 for the current week. As this point the article fails verifiability, and having been tagged for lacking references for a year, it seems the information cannot be verified. -- Whpq (talk) 19:29, 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 notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosts of the Antipode[edit]

A writer's organization which has had some online activity, yet all their publications are done on a wiki website. I see no independent references to this organization which would satisfy general notability requirements. For an example of the problems in the article, an "argument" referred to in the "controversy" section lacks any sourcing as to who is arguing what, is unsourced, and probably original research. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:WEB. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not established through secondary sources. None of the 26 discrete Google hits provide reliable third-party information on which to build an article. Deor (talk) 23:59, 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 --Haemo (talk) 21:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Loyd[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}}.

Yet another non-notable political candidate. Compare to current AfD debates on Peter Myers and Noah Iemas. Prod removed by IP addy. Wikipedia is not the place for political campaigning. IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources to support notability. Does not meet WP:BIO or WP:BLP Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge (per User:John J. Bulten below) - article misspells South Dakota. Also, no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources, and no claim to inherent notability. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the closing admin: I suspect that some or all of the following participators in this discussion may be sock puppets (possibly good faith socks, since they're all new users who may be unaware of policy). I've taken it up on all of their talk pages, but in case no response is forthcoming I list them here so that you can make your own evaluation before closing:

Follow-up: Ccb2115 and Cbenton2679 are admitted socks (again, presumably good-faith ones) but deny that the others are the same. Jbogs3 denies that any of the other users are the same. I've asked about off-site canvassing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I already had this article speedily deleted in May 2007. I noticed it showed up in my watch list again. The author should come back and try again if Annie Loyd actually gets elected. Otherwise, this article is a transparent attempt at promotion. =Axlq 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I must say, there sure are a lot of single purpose accounts that came out of the woodwork to post emotional arguments here. Just see below. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Readers might want to skip to my suggestion below. :D John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete In the beginning of February, I attended an event called “An Independent Night” at Columbia University. It was there where I met Annie Loyd who is currently running for congress in Arizona. One thing about Annie Loyd that separates her from many other politicians is that she represents a party that many remain unaware about. As a resident of New York and a political science major at Columbia University, I was embarrassed that I didn’t know that much about the Independent Party. It took someone all the way from Arizona who cared enough to reach out to us. This is not a campaigning article. This is an article to inform others that the two heavy weight parties of our corrupt political system are not the only way out. There are other options. That being said, not only is this article very relevant and helpful in many ways, but I would discontinue using Wikipedia because it would be doing a disservice to everyone by withholding useful information.--Ccb2115 (talk) 04:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Ccb2115 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of the previous paragraph is relevant to the discussion here. Your feelings about Annie Loyd or political corruption or your use of Wikipedia aren't at issue. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Also if Congresspedia, the Arizona Republic and FEC recognize her why can't wikipedia? Honest people with questions about her can use Wikipedia to link to valuable voter resources through this article. Please clarify what a notable candidate is as this is subjective. Notable to you? perhaps not . . . to someone in Arizona. Yes. Does the impact stretch beyond the border to an Ivy League institution. Yes. Simply claiming her to be non-notable because you don't know her is a poor argument for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbogs3 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Jbogs3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Poor argument. Anyone can run for an office. That doesn't make you notable. Heck, in the last gubernatorial election in California, over 100 candidates came out of the woodwork to run for governor, and most of them had nothing notable about them except that they were candidates. That isn't sufficient to warrant an article. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The Speedy Delete by Axlq as of May 2007 was for the e-zine "one planet." This is a different article about her running for Congress. If you think that the article is full of bias promotion of her as a candidate please research her and edit the page first before you delete it or at least understand what article you are deleting. This is a recognized congressional candidate, not some lady from north phoenix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.105.154 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.223.105.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Wrong. The speedy delete was about Annie Loyd, not the e-zine. She was a non-notable publisher of a non-notable e-zine, and now that she happens to be running for office, that makes her notable all of a sudden? We have higher standards for biography articles on Wikipedia. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi. A few things. I think you're not understanding the purpose of Wikipedia or its guidelines for biographical articles. Biographical articles must meet notability guidelines for biographies. Please read that page. Read it twice. It's not about opinion, and it's not subjective. Simply running for office does not make a person notable. It just doesn't. Wikipedia is not a voter's pamphlet, and it is not a means of distributing "valuable voter resources". This may be disappointing for supporters of political candidates who don't meet the criteria, but Wikipedia isn't the place for politics. It does not allow essays on the corruption of American politics. You can't have a Wikipedia page to use as your own personal webspace just because you are running for an office somewhere. Take a look at the two politician bios I listed at the top of the page. They didn't meet the criteria either. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 05:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete A woman who is half cherokee, gay and running for office is notable it is of interest as the notability guidelines for biographies asks. Besides it is exceedingly more interesting then your project on the fauna of california. Hey?! guess what? That's already in an encyclopedia. This isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.223.105.154 (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 72.223.105.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Easy there, friend. No need to get personal. If you're not going to read and comprehend the notability guidelines I don't know what else to tell you. If your candidate gets elected she might make it but until then your time would be better spent describing plant species... which are notable. Cheers, IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 06:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I disagree completely - what makes notability? Annie Loyd is very well known in the Phoenix area. She is highly regarded, and she's not "yet another non-notable candidate." We in the Native American community are watching her candidacy with great interest. especially as we have another Native American candidate running in Arizona's Congressional District 1. Loyd is also running against John Shadegg, the incumbent Republican who like his soon to be former colleague Rick Renzi - has what could be termed "questionable ethics." Access to interesting people, finding them on Wikipedia is what makes Wikipedia so valuable. If I wanted to look up people who can be found in Who's Who, or any of the online biographical websites, I would. But Wikipedia is vibrant, and cutting edge. And because you don't know who she is, or you are ill informed, or you simply feel that a little power is worth wielding -- that's no reason for deleting this entry. And as regard the notability guidelines: Annie is notable in that she is an activist. She is certainly one of the most well known activists in Phoenix, and there are few in any camp, Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Gay and Hispanic who don't know Annie Loyd. She is a commanding presence. Your guideline says: Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such a person may be notable for other reasons besides their political careers alone --- and Annie certainly qualifies. Or do you have a bias against Native American, gay women? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Janziff (talk • contribs) 18:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't help your argument to attack the motivations of those who want to delete. The article must stand on its own merits. And right now, it doesn't have any merits that warrant its keeping. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete I totally agree with the last post. An article is “notable” if it is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." This is exactly who Annie Loyd is. If you take away the diversity of knowledge from Wikipedia, Wikipedia will be looking at many more problems down the road. Just because four or five people have nothing else to do but look for articles that they deem “insignificant”, doesn’t mean it should be removed. Even if only one or two people voice to keep the page up, that should be enough. This is not a majority rule. The article stays.Also, Wikipedia has many articles that they should deem insignificant before looking at Annie Loyd. Porn stars are not notable figures. But what will happen if you take away those articles? People who find them interesting will riot. The same thing will happen if you remove this page. Even if you stop one person from posting this page, there are thousands more who find this article interesting enough and will just post it on their own. So if you want to fight a losing battle, go ahead.--24.188.95.178 (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — 24.188.95.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- This isn't a vote. This is a discussion. The decision to delete is based on the merits of the arguments, not whether "one or two people voice to keep the page up." As to your claim of "thousands" who will post it on their own, and your threat of a losing battle, see WP:POINT. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Jon Lasech, Will Sahfroth, Betsy Markey, Roy Carter, Amy Sue Mertens, Peter Gutzmer, Robert G. Abboud, Jonathan Bedi, and Cindy Purvis are all candidates running for Congress. (Their links are listed below respectively.) Why have their articles not been flagged for deletion? If this bio page has to go, then the other 9 must go as well. I am sure there are more as well. One would have to find them all first, not just single out one or two. There are info box templates for Congressional Candidates, so obviously articles about them are allowed. If there is something offensive or “wrong” with an area of the biography, edit that section, and the creators will work around it. Deleting the entire article just does not make any sense.

- So? If those articles don't establish notability for their subjects, propose them for deletion also. Here, we are talking about the Annie Loyd article, and no others, evaluating the article on its own merits. =Axlq 23:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete You are making a point above that the article, based on others deleted, should also be deleted. Now when we demonstrate significant articles that are less credible you claim this to be an invalid argument. This article is worthy of being on Wikipedia. Your personal attempt to delete a page that came up before or whatever bias you might face in light of an extensive effort to show the notability of this woman aside, if you are going to delete this page, YOU need to delete the others. The sources are verifiable, the content interesting, and transpartisan politics itself is an article on wikipedia . . . stick to your argument. Stop picking on this page because you don't like it from before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 2008-03-19 — LAMAJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Do Not Delete if Axlq wants to delete this page he should totally do the others like the comment said . . . plus who cares if this is majority vote? these are people saying that this is a noteworthy article. it should be kept because it has met all the other reasons why it should be deleted. nobody that has proposed deleting it has tried editing it or giving suggestions. follow your own rules and edit before deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 2008-03-19 — LAMAJB (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

- Oh, look, another single purpose account and possibly sockpuppet of the other "do not delete" contributors here. You totally miss the point above, read it again. If articles are less credible, propose them for deletion too. Your arguments about my motivations are irrelevant. What are the merits of the article that meet the conditions of Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BLP that warrant keeping this article? You want suggestions? Find some sources that establish notability, beyond saying "this is a candidate, she's gay, she's Native American" etc. =Axlq 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The user Axlq is known for doing this and has been accused of violations himself. Because of this, I do not think he has any authority to even participate in this discussion. Because he is involved in clearing "nonsense" from wikipedia, i'm sure he has other problems to be focussing on. Like Wikipedia says, "Do not bite the newcomers." He is an experienced user and should offer advice, rather than just try to get it deleted. Because he cannot do this, he no longer needs to participate in this discussion --Cbenton2679 (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - What violations? You can't establish sufficient merits to keep the article, so now you resort to personal attacks? See the policy WP:NPA. Point taken about biting newcomers; in this case so many single-purpose accounts appeared with such similar arguments that they seemed to be from the same person, and I lost my patience with these seemingly obvious sockpuppets/meatpuppets. I have offered advice - see my comment immediately above. I have ample authority to participate here, but you're right, I don't need to. I will continue doing so as long as people post non-sequitur responses that don't address the issue at hand. I'll note that nobody has so far offered an argument to keep this article that is grounded in Wikipedia policy, and we already have Wikipedia policies about notability and biographies that indicate the article should be deleted. =Axlq 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like this article will be deleted, but it seems more for personal reasons which is just cruel. Shame on you guys.--32.137.194.218 (talk) 01:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC) — 32.137.194.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Of the oppose reasons given ("no sources to support notability", "no evidence of significant coverage by reliable third party sources", "a transparent attempt at promotion", etc.) which strike you as personal? Not only do I not know Annie Loyd (which I would think would be a requirement to have a personal grudge against her), I'm actually very inclusionist when it comes to articles on politicians. Quite often I find myself arguing keep on articles that are deleted anyway. That I'm in the delete camp on this one is, I think, telling. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you have. Why is so much time being spent on this and not the others? Just seems weird, especially given Annie's diverse background. You dont need to explain yourself. Just seems a little off.--32.142.156.196 (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So much time is being spent on this one because of an eruption of single purpose accounts opposing deletion without any grounding in Wikipedia policy. Generally speaking, articles like this one are deleted without opposition, which is why so little time is spent on them. You also haven't explained your "for personal reasons" remark. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to explain. If this article is against Wikipedias policy, then it just weird as to why you have not offered any of the other candidates up for deletion. Some of their pages have been up for quite some time, almost as if its not that big of a deal. So, it just seems weird that so much time is being spent on this one article when it is true that you devote your lives to search for articles like this. It just seems weird. But as I said earlier, do what you need to do. Cheers--32.138.60.97 (talk) 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain that (and note that I'm not the one who nominated this article for deletion). In general, editors only nominate articles for deletion if they stumble across them and consider them somehow unencyclopaedic, or if they see them on new article patrol (very few editors actually "devote theirr lives to search for articles like this"). For that reason, plenty of articles that probably don't belong in Wikipedia survive here for extended periods of time. In that regard, the Annie Loyd article was indeed "unlucky", but that really isn't evidence of any kind of personal vendetta. As for the "so much time" bit, nominating an article for deletion is pretty quick. I monitor AfD for discussions about politicians (mostly to make sure there aren't any appropriate articles being deleted, but when I see one that should be deleted I'll chime in with a delete vote) which is also pretty quick. As I said earlier, things only become time-consuming when you've got a wave of opposition. Still waiting for either an explanation or a retraction of the "for personal reasons" remark. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do. I will not retract my statment. You know what you are. There is no need for an explanation. You are an admin, so there is no use discussing anything with you. It would be fighting a losing battle. --32.138.232.138 (talk) 03:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can i ask what makes you want to delete this article so badly? why this one? is it really going to effect anything? Are you going lay awake tonight thinking,"Damn that Annie Loyd article! It has plagued the good name of Wikipedia!" Relax bro. Find someone else to annoy! There are so many worse articles out there talking about so many "non-noteworthy" things. Let the audience be heard and let the article stand! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LAMAJB (talk • contribs) 03:40, 20 March 2008
Merge and redirect straightforwardly into a new section: Arizona's 3rd congressional district#2008. Trim to two paragraphs, or less if the hinted reliable sources don't materialize, and add two paragraphs from John Shadegg (and anything else useful). Then the community can sort it out there. Use my work at TX-14 for ideas. This neatly resolves both sides, the "don't delete" and the four very weak deletion arguments ("misspells" is not up to Sarcastic's usual debate standards). I think y'all can vouch for my standing as a defender of underdogs and jump aboard a merge proposal; of course the Loydites still need to learn a lot about WP but we need not WP:BITE. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC) If notability fails at the AZ-3 article, the coverage can calmly dwindle to zero, just as it did for andymann2008.com, who used to be in the Ron Paul article until his campaign failed to materialize. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure the "misspells" part was a joke, but I'm not really sure what was supposed to be funny about it. Sometimes my humour is so inaccessible that not even I get it. Regardless, thanks for the compliment re: "usual debating standards". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little confused. This debate has gone on for more than a few days now and no conclusion has been reached. We want to continue to work on the page and we cannot do this if it will be deleted, and we cannot work on the merge if it is not approved. When will a decision be made? --Cbenton2679 (talk) 06:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ignoring the non-arguments from the single-purpose accounts that sprung up just to post here, the conclusion seems to lean toward delete, but I would be in favor of merging the material into another article that's actually about a more notable subject. Arizona's 3rd congressional district#2008 would be a reasonable choice for Annie Loyd as well as for all those other articles about non-notable people who happen to be candidates. Therefore, if there is no objection for another couple days, I recommend this debate be closed and the article not deleted but merged into Arizona's 3rd congressional district. =Axlq 14:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete both, consensus is that the articles have crystal ball problems and currently fail the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful Spiritual (album)[edit]

WP:PROD removed. One myspace source not really good enough. Article lacks any helpful information. For me it fails WP:Crystal. For these reasons, I have to vote Delete. TheProf | Talk 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I actually had an edit conflict with TheProf as I was attempting to nominate this for AfD. I've included the article for the title track as well. Both the album and song have little or no media coverage and fail WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:MUSIC#Songs, as well as WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - No significant coverage in reliable sources provided or found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep all. While there are several contributions from IP address editors, and the discussion is somewhat confused by being about several different distributions, there is clearly no consensus to delete any of these. Bduke (talk) 07:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ark Linux[edit]

I am nominating several articles for linux distributions. The articles have been tagged with the need for references for over six months and none have turned up. All of the distributions tagged have notability issues due to lack of third party coverage. Wikipedia is not a directory of linux distributions.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have withdrawn from this list Sidux and OpenSuse due to new sources. I still feel that KnoppMyth is only notable for MythTV which already has an article.

Formatting I have moved some of the multiple bold keeps to their own sections under headings for those users, as many of them were unsigned and I want to eliminate confusion as to how many individual editors are discussing the AfD.

The following articles are also included in this debate:

ALT Linux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Annvix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Caixa Mágica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
KnoppMyth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
VectorLinux (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
PLD Linux Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 16:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral on VectorLinux -- looks like it has one or two sources, but it is on the very edge of notability. Delete all the others as unsourced. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 19:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought all of the Vector sources were first party sites, press releases and directory listings. Did I misread them?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, we don't generally delete articles for being unsourced. We delete them for being non-notable. Not having sources in an article does not mean the sources do not exist. It's a subtle, but important point. If a piece of software has been the subject of multiple independent published works (such as reviews), then it is notable, even if the article doesn't reference those works. It's our job to fix such arcitles. -- Mark Chovain 22:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Knoppmyth.[23][24] I'm neutral on the rest, but feel it may have been better to raise these as separate AfD's. The issues surrounding each are clearly going to be quite different. -- Mark Chovain 20:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could place those new references in the myth article, it's currently very lacking in third party sources and my searches didn't bring much up.Both of those are good references.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm going to put them in, I'd rather incorporate them properly, so it will need to wait a bit (busy at work at the moment). It's not all that important to an AfD that the references actually be in there (the topics need to be notable, but that notability need not be established in the article). BTW, for reference, I googled "knoppmyth review" to pull those up. -- Mark Chovain 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that unsourced does not mean not notable, but sourced doesn't mean notable. It runs both ways.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All. These articles are of very high importance on Wikipedia. --Fixman (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All, it is worth while have articles on these. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ark Linux, ALT Linux, PLD Linux Distribution, VectorLinux: Ark Linux is a pretty notable distro, and the three others have been in existence for a very long time, and are still maintained. Vector and PLD were released 10 years ago, and ALT was there for the past 7 years. There is absolutely no good reason to remove them. ---AM088 (talk) 18:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to mention that VectorLinux is 21st on DistroWatch, with 328 hits per day from DistroWatch site only.---AM088 (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FROM USER 85.182.18.211

Keep KnoppMyth a well known linux distribution, maybe article needs cleanup, but no reason for deletion

Keep VectorLinux also mentionable and a useful article

Keep PLD Linux Distribution Article is not great, but no reason for removal, because subject is important enough - at least in poland —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.18.211 (talk) 07:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KnoppMyth a well known linux distribution, maybe article needs cleanup, but no reason for deletion

Keep VectorLinux also mentionable and a useful article

Keep PLD Linux Distribution Article is not great, but no reason for removal, because subject is important enough - at least in poland

Keep Annvix an active linux distribution dont need to be thrown away

Keep sidux looks good - seems as if the article was revised. Must have many users.

Keep ALT Linux based mainly in russia, but there is no more cold war - so dont delete!

Keep Ark Linux if 50% of wikipedia articles would contain so much information, wikipedias volume would grow by 20% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.182.18.211 (talk) 07:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:85.182.18.211(contribs) has made no other edits outside this AfD.

FROM USER 80.108.89.38

Keep http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?go=Go&search=sidux While sources are important and needed (and have been added recently), the lack of external sources is not the single objective for non-notability (which would be the sole reason for deleting an article). Most AfD people do a very fine and important job thanks for doing this nasty work, but please stick to a topic where you have serious personal competence in order to be able to decide on non-notability. slam 08:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep Ark Linux, KnoppMyth and VectorLinux - those are well known, established Linux distributions with a global user base and notability since several years. slam 08:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:80.108.89.38(contribs) has made few edits outside this AfD.

DISCUSSION ABOUT WITHDRAWN ARTICLES

Keep openSUSE as definitely a notable distribution. Neutral on the others. the wub "?!" 16:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep openSUSE] per the wub. Clearly notable. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed openSuse from the AfD, sorry about that. No one ever removed the references needed template from last year.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 18:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sidux . References were added on 03-18-2008. Please remove from this list, not from wikipedia. wwwolf3 22:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sidux . [25] Some external References came up (distrowatch donated to sidux, mentioned on lwn.net, etc.). --84.164.135.195 (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per all above. I'll try to extend ALT Linux article ASAP. --GreyCat (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. Lacking sources is funny as a reason: you don't believe that they exist? But all the information about distributions of free software is perfectly verifiable: download the binaries and check that it works, download the source code and check how it works! Notability, well, I know and consider them notable: ~~Ark Linux,~~ (confused with Arch Linux) ALT Linux, PLD Linux Distribution (and OpenSUSE, but that's not discussed anymore already).
- As for ALT: ALT Linux Team has been contributing to many software projects and is notable also for that: alt linux international projects.--Imz (talk) 15:29, 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 Cathedral of Fresh Fire[edit]

The result was Delete - non-admin closure, article was speedy deleted per CSD G12 Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some (faint) suggestion that there may be notability hidden in the article, but insufficient sources to effect a rescue. 9Nak (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete More concerning is that this is a direct copy and paste from this link here. I'm going to boldly add a CSD tage for a copyvio to this article as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:26, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pixel farm music[edit]

No assertion of notability; Google News reveals no mention in secondary sources. 9Nak (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as an A7. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No context, not notable. Basketball 110 _{Go Longhorns!} 22:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the Red Line[edit]

Speedy deletion was overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_March_12#Beyond_the_Red_Line as unwarranted exploitation of CSD A7. Game software specifically excluded from said speedy criterion. Procedural relisting to allow sufficient debate. I abstain --PeaceNT (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the rationale for deletion would be Notability? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability issues are to be debated. There are a few sources pointed out in the DRV, so now AfD is a good venue to discuss the legitimacy of those references and find out if there more. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. What was the original rationale for this deletion nomination? "Notability issues are to be debated." By whom? Is that the central issue of this deletion request? Drakkenfyre (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oops, i got the wrong word. it should have been "listing", not "relisting". Fixed. This is the first AfD; I listed it here because there were sufficient concerns about notability raised in the DRV. For the original rationale for deletion, which was subsequently overturned, please see the deletion log. :) Sorry for any confusion. --PeaceNT (talk) 07:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreleased software. Only source is it's own page. No reliable, verifiable, and independent sources to show notability or to verify claims. DarkAudit (talk) 14:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: AfD participants are encouraged to read and examine the sources (there is a good number of them) listed at the relating DRV. Thank you. --PeaceNT (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I would agree (to a point) that those are legitimate sources, I would submit that those sources belong in the article. Most editors, especially those coming in late, would not know that the DRV occurred, or that these sources were provided. It is not the responsibility of the reviewing editor to go digging two, three, or four levels into wikispace to find sources that aren't where they should have been all along. The subject may be notable, but the article and the sources it currently provides fails to convey that. DarkAudit (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree. Sources have been shown; they are there. Voting to get the article deleted saying that no source exists or giving similar non-notability claims would be in bad-faith. If an editor would like to argue for deletion, s/he has to discuss the merit of those sources and explain why they do not adequately verify notability for inclusion. That argument will hold good, whether the sources are presented in the article or not. --PeaceNT (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sources may have been shown, but after this AfD is over and all the templates and tags have been removed, who will know where they are if they're not with the article where they're supposed to be? How can a nomination or a !vote for lack of sources be in bad faith when a future editor has no idea that sources were provided in a long-forgotten and buried DRV? DarkAudit (talk) 16:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - When the AfD is over, if article is kept, this discussion will certainly be linked from the article talk page. I'll note the links to relevant sources on the talk page so it might be more convenient for future editors. :) Still stand by my point above, though. AfD is meant to discuss the merit of the subject, not the temporarily incompetent state of an article (which is a reason for adding some cleanup tag rather than outright deletion) --PeaceNT (talk) 16:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have tried to add the listed sources into the article so that the criticism of not having the sources mentioned elsewhere listed shouldn't any longer be an issue. As for actual voting.. as i have taken part in the making of the BTRL i feel i need to abstain from the actual AfD decision - Wanderer602 (talk) 14:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not party to this in any way, however may I suggest an alternative. The content of this article might easily be added to the article on the game freespace 2, upon which BTRL is created. This article contains the story of the release of the source code to the game and even a mention of BTRL. With some simple modifications to each and adding the redirects from BRTL's article to freespace 2's the wiki may be cleaned up, made more complete and readable. --Stringkarma (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being an unofficial modification of another game does not by itself disqualify the subject for having an article - Counterstrike started that way. The sources that have been added to the article after the start of the AFD have me convinced. To those of you who don't speak Finnish, Pelit is Finland's primary gaming magazine with a fondess for the unconventional, and its coverage of BtRL is surprisingly extensive. --Kiz o r 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see references to PC Gamer UK and Popular Science. It appears to be notable. --Pixelface (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Kizor. User:Krator (t c) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article and Kizor. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements to the article Eltargrim (talk) 03:45, 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 A bit of clarification: although a few editors here have valid claims that external sources (independent, reliable ones that is) exist, the cliams seem to have been refuted effectively by those wishing this to be deleted, specifically User:Blast Ulna. The "keep" advocates prefaced with "weak", meaning, IMO, that they felt this could go either way. Weighting those !votes along the research done by the delete proponents, I feel this article should be deleted as not meeting WP:N and WP:RS. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R4eGov[edit]

Fails WP:ORG with a mix of WP:COI, WP:V, and WP:SPAM mixed in. Looks like it had previous PROD on it before, but was deleted. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per nomination reason. AndreNatas (talk) 16:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the article to show in the references that R4eGov is cited on the European Commission's website, among others, to address the notability issue. I will be adding more. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do.
Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 10:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly, the alphabet soup level of this nomination is one of the worst I've ever seen. Verifiability is easily established by a Google search, and one could make a notability claim on the same grounds. The other concerns are editing and cleanup issues. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:GOOGLEHITS don't establish notability. I never claimed that this was a hoax nor that it didn't exist, but that it doesn't meet the requirements of WP:ORG. As far as the other "cleanup" issues, they are completely valid to discuss in an AFD, especially if the article fails to meet the notability requirements in the first place. If notability can be established, I have no problem with it's inclusion. Finally, in regards to the "alphabet soup level of this nomination"... don't be a dick. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 11:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's just mean. If you read the page on how to make a nomination, it says "To avoid confusing newcomers, the reasons given for deletion should avoid Wikipedia-specific acronyms.". And, if you read WP:DICK a little more carefully, you might have noticed that the last line is "Telling someone "Don't be a dick" is something of a dick-move in itself, so don't bandy the criticism about lightly." thanks Beeblbrox (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - oh and if you weren't claiming it didn't exist, could you explain the reference to WP:V in a more clear manner? Beeblbrox (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment I'm aware of what WP:DICK says, and I'm not concerned with being labeled anything, especially after I'm reacting to someone else's rude comments they were made towards or about me. I'm also well aware on how to make an AFD nomination, but it's perfectly acceptable to do it in the manner that I did regardless of what the procedure recommends. Thanks for pointing it out, though. As far as the WP:V: there are no reliable sources in the article. I wouldn't personally consider any of the current references as meeting the criteria set forth by WP:V or WP:RS. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 11:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please tell me if the article is still up for deletion? And if yes, when will it actually be deleted, and what can I do to stop it from being deleted?
Many thanks
Emmanuelle

Emmanuelle Martinot (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to address the verifiability and notability issues, I have added some more references. Most of them are independent from the project. One of them is actually the website of the European Commission, where it confirms that the project is partly funded by them. R4eGov is additionally mentioned in other websites which are devoted to eGovernment issues. I hope they count as reliable sources.

I think that the article should not be deleted, because Wikipedia aims at having "no practical limit to the number of topics it can cover". Any search in google for r4egov will turn up a large amount of hits, all related to the project, and many of which we (i.e the R4eGov consortium) had nothing to do with. The eGovernment community knows about the project, so it seems logical to me that the next step should be to have an entry in Wikipedia.

Many thanks

Emmanuelle

Weak keep - it's such a mess, but appears to have enough external links that could be references. It's tooo much work for me now. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and clean up massively. ELs do appear to suggest it's widespread, but the current tone reeks of WP:SPAM. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it appears to be a funding agency for R&D for information technology, so it has some chatter in university and IT sites. However, its budget of 11.4 million Euros and its expiry in April 2009 suggests it is a pilot project. The external links are for the collaborating entities, so are not independent. I looked through all 193 g-hits, and there is not a peep about this agency in the regular news media. If it gets mentioned in Der Spiegel, or on the BBC or wherever, then the article can be recreated. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. faithless (^speak) 07:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hanwell (band)[edit]

Unsourced article about apparently non-notable band. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 14:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating an article about the band's debut EP:

Delete both. Probably could have been speedied (and I think still could be). Absolutely no assertion of notability whatsoever.--Michig (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. —Tim4christ17 ^talk 19:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Several minutes of research yielded no coverage in independent sources. Band appears to be of purely local interest at this point.--Kubigula (talk) 21:47, 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 merged and redirected to Nicky Byrne. While the consensus was for deletion, since the material was merged, the GFDL requires us to leave a redirect in place to preserve the article's edit history. --MCB (talk) 06:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgina Ahern[edit]

This woman appears to be notable only for being the daughter of the Taoiseach and the wife of a popstar, which seems to me to fail WP:BIO. The article offers no evidence of an independent claim to notability. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO for notability on own merits. (Specifically: "Relationships do not confer notability.") Also article reads like a "Hello magazine" summary, while not asserting any independent notability. Guliolopez (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not inherited. Otherwise this article is just about a wife and mother. Millions do the same thing every day, but don't get an encyclopedia article about them. DarkAudit (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the article is deleted, may I suggest that sone of the material be moved to the article on her husband, if it's not already there? We don't need the precise times of the children's births, but the wedding was a celebrity affair and probably merits more coverage than the brief mention currently in her husband's article. (He clearly is notable, and a quick copying-over of text would expand his article a bit). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've acted on your comments and moved the info over to her husband's page. --Cahk (talk) 19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ ~~Delete~~ Neutral. I wasn't sure why I was notified by the bot about the deletion. My contribution to this article was simply by adding a pic and added citations. Keep or delete makes no difference to me. --Cahk (talk) 18:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep and possibly merge. This was more clear cut than I thought at initial glance. It appears that there is 1)no consensus to delete, and 2)differing views as to what exactly to do with the information/history of this article. Since there is no consensus to actually delete, I'm closing this as keep. However, there is also a strong sense that this information should belong in a different, existing article. (hence the "possible merge") Interested and knowledgeable parties (of which I am admittedly neither) should open up the talk page(s) of relevant articles to decide what to do with this valid information. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suburbs of Thuringowa City[edit]

Listing was incomplete. Neutral. SilkTork *^YES! 23:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the City of Thuringowa no longer exists - merged with lga City of Townsville ROxBo (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to rename the page to Former Suburbs of Thuringowa in an effort to keep some of the history alive, as almost all of these suburbs have been named by the people that uesd to live in this part of Thuringowa, Plus when i tried to add a very small amount of History into the Suburb pages it was or will be deleted, also as one other editor said, lets wait until the dust settels and see what is going on with the name Thuringowa Eg : there were talks by both Les Tyrell and Tony mooney that the Area that was Thuringowa may keep the name and becaome a community, region etc...what is the big rush. Thanks Thuringowacityrep (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In practice most of Australia has pages/templates per region (in fact, in most, this would simply be a section in the LGA's article - see for example City of Stirling which has 1.5 times the combined population of Townsville/Thuringowa) - we've tended to create pages for regional cities. The relevant one here is List of Townsville suburbs. There is no real problem with regards to "keeping the history alive" as the region is still called Thuringowa (it's a former LGA, not a former region), so in the breakdown on the Townsville page one could have, say, "Inner Townsville", "Southern Townsville", "Urban Thuringowa" etc as section headings. Orderinchaos 03:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see how this LGA being merged means that this article shouldn't remain. These were the suburbs in a significant council region. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per User:Nick Dowling above. The fact that the city no longer exists in a legal sense is no reason to delete the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Please note the page is in fact a list, not an article. All the internal links are now incorporated in the Townsville page - the new LGA after merger with Thuringowa. Is wiki supposed to be a list of all levels of historical local government?ROxBo (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No...but how often does a city of 63,000+ population and a 128 year history get wiped off the map? if this page is to be deleted then the list needs to be added to the main Thuringowa page in the history part, so the people that do want to know about Thuringowa's history can see what suburbs were in Thuringowa. Thuringowacityrep (talk) 12:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a reasonable suggestion.ROxBo (talk) 12:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...but i would like this page to say if it could.
Delete The main article - City of Thuringowa can cover this ground quite adequately. Perhaps a merge with the main article would be appropriate. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to let you all know, (but some of you would now already) that the Suburbs of Thuringowa used to be listed in the main City of Thuringowa page, but i was told that this didn't belong here and kept it getting deleted, so that is why i started this page (the suburbs one) and now i'm being told that the City of Thuringowa page will "cover this ground quite adequately".....can someone please tell me why it wasn't ok back then but now it is the best idea. Plus i am more then happy to have this list on the Thuringowa page as long as it doesn't keep getting deleted. Thansk Thuringowacityrep (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say for sure, as I can't get a good idea from the history, but it looks as though they were deleted because they are existing suburbs of a no longer existent city; by definition, they would be suburbs of the current city, which would be Townsville. As for what to do here, merge with List of Townsville suburbs, and make note there of which suburbs are former Thuringowa suburbs. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with City of Thuringowa page. I do appreciate from Thuringowacityrep's comments that this was previously the case; however, with Thuringowa now being a former municipality I don't think the suburb list warrants separate treatment. I do favour it being merged into the Thuringowa article (rather than being deleted entirely) only from the perspective that the information helps define the boundaries or constituency of the former municipality, although perhaps the treatment could be briefer. A relevant example might be the brief suburb listing for the City of Hawthorn. Murtoa (talk) 06:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the City of Hawthorn example is the best way forward. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 09:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per Mattinbgn.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, this article was up for AfD very recently. There have also been several sources added confirming album release. GlassCobra 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cassie's second studio album (2nd nomination)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Cassie's second studio album (2nd nomination)

An album that has no title, no official tracklisting and is not very notable. Similar articles that have been deleted are: [26] - The Return (Cassie album), which has been deleted six times and [27]- Still Cassie, which has been deleted three times. I think that it should be created again in the near future. Surfer-Boy94 (Talk) March 18 10:34 (UTC)

Comment A big difference is that this article is based on a Billboard magazine article devoted solely to the album. Also, there is no speculation (other than the assumption that the album will be released). Note that this article was recently AfD'd as Connecticut Fever and passed (AfD closed March 6); it's a little soon to try again, don'tcha think? I'll refrain from !voting as I usually prefer more coverage but this is too close for me to call. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 13:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak merge - Unlike the previous versions, this one seems to be free of fancruft and other unsourced garbage. However, one source is a weak basis for an article. Move the content to Cassie and when/if additional reliable coverage surfaces, build the article anew. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now for the exact same arguments put forth by Mdsummermsw. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep! This article has been nominated a million times! If it survived every other nomination, then there must be a reason that it was kept. So I say keep. Corn.u.co.pia Discussion 05:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If by "a million" you mean "four", then you are correct. But in two of the the three past nominations, it was deleted. And of the one it passed—surviving an AfD does not inoculate against future deletion. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 10:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, good source available. Everyking (talk) 17:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article states a title now. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 09:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That is the old unsourced title and has been reverted. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:14, 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.

Multitorrent[edit]

The result was speedy deleted as repost. Jon513 (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:Notable, WP:WEB. Google and other search engine shows nothing regarding of this site. SkyWalker (talk) 04:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Look at Youtorrent... The same situation was evalueted, but finally was not deleted. Try to be equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.5.232.90 (talk) 18:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Well, this was deleted just five days ago, although many people did say "do not delete" in that AFD — but they were all IPs. Now, it could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#G4. I think the editors should have taken it to deletion review instead of re-creating the article. The article currently reads like an ad so I'm going to say delete. --Pixelface (talk) 18:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep article is useful and similar to other articles that have been decided to keep. Elhector (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Recreated deleted, as well as looking like an ad does not help the article whatsoever. Jmlk 1 7 20:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G4 - so tagged (by an anonymous user). Enviroboy^Talk_Cs 07:05, 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. Considering the article and the website, no assertion of notability has been made. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plentyoftorrents[edit]

Fails WP:Notable, WP:WEB. SkyWalker (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough independent reliable sources.-Wafulz (talk) 06:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. Great website and very clear description. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John109096 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should check out our guidelines for articles on web content and independent verifiability.-Wafulz (talk) 01:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are you asking me to verify? that the website exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by John109096 (talk • contribs) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read WP:Notable, WP:WEB?. The article you have created fails all the requirements. It fails in notability. In other terms the website is not notable enough for the article to exist. One more last thing it is pure advertising. Iam sure the owner of the website would be you. Am i right john?. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 08:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Her primary claim to fame appears to be that she is part of "Bang babes", which does not have an article and is of questionable notability itself.--Kubigula (talk) 21:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexa Heart[edit]

nn "interactive adult show" model. I would have expected "one of the Alexa HeartUK's leading models" to have bigger ghits. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn adult-oriented model. JJL (talk) 14:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete She's got big something, just not GHits. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:43, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lauretta Lewis[edit]

Vanity article for non-notable actress who fails WP:BIO, most clearly in that there are no outside sources for reference material, and googling turns up only her own webpage, most of the contents of which are recreated here. Bit parts only, no notability established. Lenky (talk) 12:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No notable roles. Appears to be an autobiography. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable, per IMDb and Google. JJL (talk) 14:13, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

W.a.n.t.e.d.[edit]

No independent verifiable sources provided, so claims of notability cannot be evaluated. Name makes Googling for confirmation difficult, so can't find any corroborating cites from reliable sources. The Anome (talk) 12:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly writted, unreferenced and inconsistant work. Possibility for rewriting with better writing style.ANHL (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources to back up notability. I originally CSD'd this (but was declined). -- Naerii 02:44, 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. --MCB (talk) 21:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes on Indo Pak Tank Battles[edit]

Article is nothing more than a brief collection of loosely affiliated quotations from secondary sources (fails WP:DIRECTORY). Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete delete per nom. It doesn't help that people have helpfully gone in and edited the quotes already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote Will ^(talk) 22:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikiquote Buckshot06 (talk) 08:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 07:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's a bizarre sort of non-encyclopedic fancruft on a specialized topic. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didnt create the article , but merely hived it off from another article as it didnt fit there. I agree it does not add value in either form jaiiaf (talk) 02:31, 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 author's request. Pegasus «C¦T» 14:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SIP Magazine (Philippines)[edit]

nn giveaway magazine. Article was tagged for speedy G11 several times and prod several times, but tags were repeatedly removed but SPA accounts. Also appeared as SIP Magazine (CSD#G11'd at least twice). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that "Editor-in-Chief is Mark Milan G. Macanas" and article creator is User:Markmacanas, as well main editor was User:Sipmagazine. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 11:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. The only citations are from the magazines blog and the magazine itself. The LeviStrauss citation only directs to a worldwide list of company offices. Major editors to the article have overt conflicts of interest. Lordjeff06 (talk) 12:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete appears to fulfill role of both G7 and G11 and in the absence of a speedy, the article appears mainly to be either a vanity page or a page acting as advertising. There are precious few citable sources and the ones there are tend to be from the magazine itself. I'm not against self citing but when it's the only cites it tends to worry me. This page might not be irredeemable but it would need some editors who will use NPOV more than the main contributors on this particular page. BigHairRef | Talk 12:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm inclined to delete as not notable, I've attempted to help out with this article but I'm afraid it just doesn't meet the standards. I don't think speedy deletion is valid as it is a contested speedy and contested PROD. If reliable sources are found, I'd be happy to change my vote. The Dominator (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable publication. Seems to be a SPA created marketing piece. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note also new editor Lighthouse hero (talk · contribs) and this recently added ref: "http://lighthouse-hero.livejournal.com/338986.html Mark Macanas' Site" Can someone please speedy this and block the three users (aka Mark Macanas) involved in this fiasco? Please? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like everyone is too eager to delete this entry on a legitimate and well-known publication in the Philippines. Yes, I am the editor-in-chief and being so, I took it upon myself to create this entry here -- thinking that Filipinos would also want to read about SIP magazine in Wikipedia. But after experiencing all the hassle in creating an entry here, being literally 'attacked' by unsupportive admin (given that this is our first time to add an entry to this this site) and finding out for myself how this site is being run, I must admit: it was a mistake to even think of adding an entry here for our readers' perusal. So please delete this entry without further ado. Thanks.

Lighthouse hero (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:COI, WP:V and WP:RS. The Dominator (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable, as above. I made a fairly reasonable effort to find sources for the article, but was unable to come up with anything. -- BeezHive (talk|contribs) 22:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given the nature of the article and the author's request above, I've tagged it for speedy delete. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:34, 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) 22:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Allen[edit]

Lack of notability. Please compare the current version of the article with how it used to be (here) before I checked each one of the four references given. The first, to the subject's own website, did not reproduce the quoted sentence. The rest simply did not mention him at all. That leaves us with a stub listing his academic degrees (without references), but two interviews in the external links (one to Wired magazine, the other to a blog-magazine) which I don't believe confer much notability for our purposes, but do pass WP:V. ➨ REDVEЯS is a satellite and will be set alight 11:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – David Eppstein (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found Jamie at the Spark Festival and evidence that he is an adjunct professor at NYU here. However he still does not meet WP:MUSIC or WP:PROF. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertion of notability Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough there..sorry..Modernist (talk) 01:28, 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 07:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRAMATIC THEOLOGY[edit]

Delete Fails WP:RS, full of WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non notable. No WP:RS and looks like original research. Sting au Buzz Me... 10:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an essay, not an encyclopaedia article. Grutness...wha? 10:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Text-dump of someone's thesis. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 11:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and also Dramatic Theological Methodology, and DRAMATIC THEOLOGY METHODOLOGY by the same author with what seems to be the same content - Personal essay rather than an article - Peripitus (Talk) 11:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Original research, and a wall of impenetrable text. - 24.235.22.24 (talk) 13:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) (That's me. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Delete per all the above. – ukexpat (talk) 18:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay, WP:OR, POV ... take your pick. 23skidoo (talk) 19:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, or cut and paste, unwikified mess. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:23, 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. Nom has actually withdrawn here. A merge or something similar can take place without this AfD. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Dukes (radio personality)[edit]

~~Non notable local radio host on a mid-day show on a single station. No significant history or career. References are all to this person's myspace page or station website.~~ Rtphokie (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I've added several references from reliable secondary sources, including an in-depth article about the person in question and his broadcasting career to that point. - Dravecky (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This broadcaster is not notable enough to warrent his own article, perhaps it would be better to merge this information into Big O and Dukes. That article needs serious help anyway.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY, WP:V. Bearian (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hank Bergman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

A non notable boxer. The article seems to be created by a personal admirer with unreferenced biased information.

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are about non notable kickboxers created by a personal admirer with a biased and bogus information. It seems to be here since 2005 and is way overdue to be deleted:

(Marty Rockatansky) (talk) 08:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Can you provide examples of the #1 personal admiration, #2 biased information, #3 bogus information? The amount of references in the article now would lend me to believe there is inherent notability here, so the onus is on you to disprove the massive comment below. Also, would you be willing to answer why you have nominated so many kick boxing articles for deletion at this time? I am sure there is a good reason, but it would help provide context. Mrprada911 (talk)

Please provide a link/URL for the newspaper stories for WP:V. Thank you. Mrprada911 (talk) 04:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Context[edit]

Transcribed from the talk pages of Marty Rockatansky and east718. Mrprada911 (talk) 09:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sophisticated vandal[edit]

Hey how's it going EAst. There's a guy who's been creating all these biased articles on some obscure kickboxers, all of them relate to the guy named, Sherman Bergman. On Bergman's article, he lists tons of references, all impossible to check, which is probably what keeps it from deletion. There used to be a fighter named Sherman Bergman who was supposedly knocked out by Jean Claude van Damme back in 1976, if you google his name, pretty much all you can find is what is been created here on wikipedia by this guy. [28], [29]

I believe its the same guy with different user names like Special:Contributions/DavidToma, Special:Contributions/Royalfleming, Special:Contributions/Eugenejerome, Special:Contributions/TimBaker1941, Special:Contributions/PainlessPeterPotter, Special:Contributions/LeifSchumeucker, Special:Contributions/BusRiley1965, Special:Contributions/CliffHarper, Special:Contributions/RenoDavis1967, Special:Contributions/Lennybaker, and probably more

- Note. Special:Contributions/Kikiloveslegwarmers‎, Special:Contributions/Eddiecoyle1973‎, and Special:Contributions/Legwarmers1980‎ have also contributed to these articles. Mrprada911 (talk) 09:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles he's created: Hank Bergman, Walter (Von) McGee, Morsak Muangsu, Alejandro DasCola, Gilberto (Gil) Diaz, Carlos Andino, Christopher Allen, Wilver (Rio) Johnson, Bernardo Jua, Frank(Happening)MaHarris, Cornelious Drane.

i've never came up against anything like this but i believe the whole Sherman Bergman article is bogus. Look at the dates and weights on his "fight record", the whole thing doesn't make any sense. Have you ever heard of anyone having a pro record of 53 wins all by KO's, no decisions and half of them in less than 30 seconds all in round one??? there's no birth date on the guy, but it says he was an amateur in 1973, ok he was born some time in '50s then, according to his "record" he fought in 2000 at 202lbs, and then for whatever reason dropped down to 149 lbs in 2004 as a 50+ year old fighting 3 Argentinian guys all in one day....Brother whenever you have time if you don't mind to check it out. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, Marty. I'll take a look at this tomorrow morning - if those sources are real, they'll be trivial for me to find. I do agree that it looks really fishy at first glance though. Sorry I haven't found time to work on the unified infobox, I've been pretty inactive for the past six weeks or so. Take care! east.718 at 09:20, March 7, 2008

This guy is demented, he's been doing this since 2005, creating all kinda bs misinformation. Man, i wasted 4 hours tonight just to find out that all these articles are complete bullshit. Everything you're trying to find out on those guys Hank Bergman and Sherman Bergman on www leads back to wikipedia. Have you ever heard of "Sling-shot punch"? there was actually a thread created in sherdog about this, after people reading about it here. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 11:08, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I spot-checked a bunch of the sources; none exist. I'm going to do a little more digging, then delete all the articles and post on the administrators' noticeboard as to what to do with the accounts. Great job on finding this and blowing it open! east.718 at 18:51, March 7, 2008

He had a long laugh, creating all this. We might need some kinda protection on List of male kickboxers, thats how i found it, going thru all the names. thx. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:51, 7 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Hey, Marty. I took one last look at this, and it turns out that a few of those sources (such as the Miami Herald ones) do exist - but some of the others still don't. Go to newslibrary.com and search for "sherman bergman", and you'll get results which match the titles in the article. The only three where the blurb mentions him are the "Neighbors MB" article from September 29, 1988, which reads as follows...

Sherman Bergman Sherman Bergman is on the comeback trail. Bergman, an adult education teacher at Fisher-Fienberg Elementary, has returned to the sport of kick boxing after a five-year layoff and improved his record to 14-1 with 14 knockouts.Since his comeback Sept. 15, he has had four matches.Bergman, 30, retired from the sport to focus on teaching. He returned for a much different reason."Sherman came back only to show that through hard work and strong motivation...

...the "Teacher Gets His Kicks in Classroom and Ring" article from September 22, 1991...:

Sherman Bergman uses kick-boxing in the classroom. No, he doesn't jump around the class, but he shows students that his devotion to the sport can be applied to them.Bergman, 33, teaches English as a second language at Fienberg-Fisher Adult Education Center.He retired from the sport in 1981 to teach full time. But in 1988 he resumed kick-boxing, in part, to inspire his students."I try to show them that if you practice and dedicate yourself, you can do...

...and the "Kickboxer Inspires Students" article from July 12, 1990:

Sherman Bergman, who teaches English as a second language at Fienberg-Fisher Adult Education Center, tells students they can succeed at anything through hard work and motivation. Bergman, 32, uses kick-boxing an example.He retired from the sport in 1981 to take up teaching full time at the Miami Beach school. But in 1988, he resumed kick- boxing to show students that his devotion could lead to success the same way they could succeed in school with motivation .As he made his comeback,...

Additionally, I found an IMDB profile written by somebody without any other authorships on that site, for what it's worth. I'm starting to think that we're not dealing with hoaxes here, but rather a walled garden of non-notable people that's being promoted by a fan club or somesuch. east.718 at 00:11, March 8, 2008

He's not creating the guy up, I knew there's used to be a kickboxer by that name back in '70s who fought van Damme but the whole cult status thing, a sling-shot punch and the unbelievable fight record lost it for me as a credible evidence. It could be the Big Train self-glorifying and having fun, like i said i don't know what to do with it, how can you prove he's not notable or notable enough? (Marty Rockatansky (talk)) —Preceding comment was added at 05:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll think about sending a couple to AFD after doing a bit more research. Frank(Happening)MaHarris has already been prodded and will disappear in a couple days. east.718 at 09:20, March 8, 2008

AfD Discussion[edit]

Keep. THIS ARTICLE SHOULDN'T BE DELETED! This article has nothing really to do with being a famous boxer. It's about a Baltimore, Maryland war hero who happened to be an amateur boxer. If anything, if the fact that Bergman wasn't a famous boxer, just delete that category from his article, but don't delete the whole thing. Bergman is a notable person from the Maryland area & his military service to his country is something not easily dismissed. This article has support from references such as Soldier of Fortune Magazine, The Evening Sun, and the Miami Herald; all respected publications:Legwarmers1980 (talk) 03:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. On the island of Guam, Christopher Allen is a local legend. Remember, we are talking about Guam here. Aside from Chris, the only other noted MMA fighter was John Calvo. Allen is noted internationally. His 3 fights in two pay-per-view SuperBrawl promotions were seen world wide. Allen's kickboxing record was 16-4 & was supported by both SuperBrawl videos. If you delete him, then the majority of fighters listed under the categories kickboxers or male kickboxers should also be deleted. Just because a fighter doesn't fight in K-1, UFC, or PRIDE, doesn't make them less well known. Allen had the kickboxing background to earn his entry into SuperBrawl. He is as known to the general public in part because of his fights in Superbrawl. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Legwarmers1980 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject appears to be notable (based on the sources given in the article) in his own right, regardless of whether he's notable as a boxer. Scog (talk) 07:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This Article Should Not Be Deleted. March 17, 2008: First off I totally disagree with the reasons that this article should be deleted. Let me address the questions stated here by Mr. Rockatansky.

1.) He says that Sherman Bergman is a "non-notable" kickboxer. How does he come to this conclusion: Clearly Bergman was not a world champion, but that doesn't make him "non-notable". To begin, Bergman was considered "One of The Best new fighters (Kickboxers) on his way to the top". This is a direct quoate from OFFICIAL KARATE writer Barry Harrell in the November 1984 Issue in the Southern Exposure Column. Bergman's career has been highlighted in The Miami Herald Newspaper (He has appeared in this paper approx. 40 times & the Herald is not a rinky dink newsletter). Bergman's career has also been written about in Official Karate Magazine, Black Belt Magazine, News For You Newspaper, The Trendsetter Newspaper, and EDWORKS Newspaper. He also appeared in South American Newspapers: Fundacao Brasil & Argentina Hoy. His fight with Frank MaHarris was reported on television, and he appeared on WLRN Channel 17 on South Florida television.In other words, would a "Non-Notable" kickboxer receive Local, National, and International Coverage, if he was a total nothing. I don't think so. This proves that Bergman was indeed a kickboxer of note & it's a fact (supported by newspaper, magazine, & T.V. reports) that he was noted for his impressive string of first round knockout victories. 2.) Biased? How is the article biase. Read it. It not once says that Bergman was the "greatest fighter", "The hardest puncher", or "The most feared fighter". It simple states the facts of his career. There are basically no adjectives before or after his name. 3.) Bogus Information! I'm sorry, but this entire article is supported with concrete facts supported by legit & highly respected sources. Examples: 1.) Official Karate Magazine (November 1985, page 14) printed the results of Bergman's 23 second knockout over Thailand's Morsak Muangsu. It's in the magazine & is not a figment of my imagination. This fight was also reported in an article by Johnny Diaz in the Miami Herald, and by Verna Lins Ferst in the Brazilian paper, Fundacao Brasil. Bergman's first round KO over Alejandro DasCola was printed in the Trendsetter, Vol.2, No.1 Sept/Oct.1989,page 5. In the report, DasCola is listed as 22-0. Bergman's 1988 comeback was highlighted in the Miami Herald. Bergman's 18 second KO over Wilver (Rio) Johnson & knockouts over Mario Wilfredos also appeared in the Miami Herald & Fundacao Brasil. Bergman's loss to Gary Daniels was printed in Miami Herald Sports Section in 1980. Also, Bergman's ring record is confirmed by newspaper & magazine articles: Examples: Official Karate Magazine: Nov.1985, Bergman was listed as 13-1 (13 first round knockouts. Miami Herald, Sept.29, 1988, Bergman was 14-1 (14 first round knockouts), Trendsetter 1989, Bergman was 18-1 (18 first round knockouts), Miami Herald, July 12, 1990, Bergman is listed as 19-1 (19 first round knockouts), Black Belt, Sept.1998, Bergman is 25-4 (25 knockouts),etc. etc. As far as anything I posted nothing was biased or bogus. Bergman's complete kickboxing record is open to debate. He is definetly 53-6 (53 knockouts). However, the STARSYSTEM had Bergman as 14-0 in 1983, while OFFICIAL KARATE had him 12-1 at the time. Some of his victories are clearly missing. Also, some of his fights were fought under Full_Contact rules & no kickboxing rules, so it's difficult to sometimes figure out if these fights should be counted in his over-all stats. For all of these reasons, I feel that this article, supported by a wealth of legit references & about a kickboxer known not only in South Florida, but Nationally, and interally as well, should not be delected. Thank you:DavidToma (talk) 03:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. DavidToma, and Legwarmers1980, I noticed that the majority of your edits here are to the articles listed above, and their AfDs. You make a fairly good case in the post above. However, while I don't expect you to discuss your personal affiliations with the topic, might it be possible to provide a direct respond to Marty's charges that the articles contain #1 personal admiration, #2 biased information, #3 bogus information with regard to the allegations of WP:SOAP and/or WP:Fancruft above? So far, your sources seem notable and verifiable, although without the aide of an online archive, I cannot say that 100%. Mrprada911 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I added a reference to his being awarded the Silver Star. Maybe if we check him out using his given name, Hyman Bergman, we'll be able to find more information? BWH76 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*INVESTIGATE After trying to verify any of these names through an online historical news database, I agree with Marty Rockatansky's nomination. I do not believe that these are authentic. Notwithstanding the oddities that Rockatansky found within the context of the article, I found nothing to indicate that Sherman Bergman, the kickboxer, ever existed. There was a middleweight boxer named Gil Diaz, but he was at the height of his career in 1962. The name of Hank Bergman turned up in a list of results from a bowling league, and the name of Von McGee turned up in a report of a softball game. Carlos Andino turns up as the name of a government official in the Honduras. I don't find the names, however, in association with kickboxing. I'll be more than happy to show the search results to any of the administrators at Wikipedia. I expect that the administrators would provide the article creator with the same opportunity to show the sources. Mandsford (talk) 13:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC) No need to investigate anything except why this was nominated. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - unable to verify the sources. The Miami Herald has an active archive site. A search for the articles or even the authors of the articles did not produce the results that are needed. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just because these (and/or additional) sources cannot be verified online does not mean that they cannot be verified / do not exist. Many of these sources are decades old - it is highly unlikely that we'll find them online. Verifying does not only equal sitting in front of a computer to do a Google search. BWH76 (talk) 16:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More info: Johnny Diaz, the author of the Miami Herald articles is a former reporter for the newspaper; here is at least one of his articles. BWH76 (talk) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not a google search. It was an archive search from the Herald which should produce sources. However based on the actual images of articles produced I will change to Keep Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You've established that there is a Johnny Diaz who worked for the Miami Herald. I find it significant that Gtstricky can't find anything in the Miami Herald archives that matches your bibliography. You've cited a long list of forty Miami Herald articles from 1980 to 2007, and not one of them turns up in an archive search? Mandsford (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC) My apologies to BWH76, David Toma, and anyone else. Sorry that I doubted you. I don't know what Grtstricky was looking at. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The online Miami Herald archive does not go back as far as the articles listed as references, so we can't rely on it to verify the sources. The authors of the article have pointed to "Newslibrary.com" where they claim a few of the sources exist, and also two Pap-Per-View SuperBrawl cards which include some of the fighters. I am still waiting for the authors, and the experts(Marty & East) to weigh in here before I decide how to vote. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the dates and weights on Sherman's listed "fight record", it just doesn't make any sense. I've never heard of anyone having a pro record like this, all by KO's, no decisions and half of them in less than 30 seconds all in round one??? And then finishing his career as a 50+ year old fighting 3 Argentinian guys all in one day. It can't be true. What makes it more suspicious is the guy who created all these articles has more than 7 user names. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Strong KEEP I've never had an "Oh shit!" moment quite as awful as this one from the newsbank search. I apologize to DavidToma and to BWH76. If anything was bogus, it was the statement that a search of MiamiHerald.com didn't turn up anything. I'm an idiot for assuming that someone actually did a search for the sources. Mandsford (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did the research but only on the Hank Bergman AFD. I checked the first three references. Which were in 2004 and 2005, I search for the title or the author within a week of the date the article was suppose to have been written on. I was not able to verify any of them. I used the advanced search at the Miami Herald archive and was not able to produce any results. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - certainly reads as notable with plenty of references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extensive talk page details have been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Hank Bergman (2nd nomination).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mrprada911 (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Mandsford, appears to be notable and thoroughly referenced via multiple third party publications. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the Bergmans, no opinion on others. So the sources check out -- OK --- but there's still a lot of inflated importance here, probably a sresult of the fairly obvious WP:SPA/WP:COI creation. Needs trimming and rewriting. The Silver Star is arguably notable, the CIB is a pretty common award, though, and it's treated here like an MOH -- probably because the boxing career aint' all it's cracked up to be. --Dhartung | Talk 22:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Curious as heck, how do YOU define notible. Saying that being awarded a Combat Infantry is not "notable, but fairly common, has me shaking my head. I think any combat veteran who received this award is "notable", darn notable!DavidToma (talk) 23:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure you're proud of (apparently) your relative, but military notability standards suggest that we should generally have articles for persons awarded their country's highest military award (in the case of the US, the Medal of Honor). While certainly other criteria can come into play, and there's no reason not to mention an award in an article, if it isn't a MOH it really does not factor into biographical notability. --Dhartung | Talk 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not my relative, not even a friend, someone I don't even know personally. Anyhow, I understand what you're saying & I agree the Medal of Honor is clearly #1 in criteria, but I don't agree that other awards like the Silver Star or the Navy Cross,etc. aren't notble as well:DavidToma (talk) 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's It For Me[edit]

I've uploaded 22 articles on the career of Sherman (Big Train) Bergman. The articles date from 1980-2004. It lists his record from 14-1 (14 knockouts) in 1988 to 47-5 (47 knockouts) in 2004. I uploaded his fight with the late-great Gary Daniels. I have other interests besides Sherman Bergman. I rest my case. I leave it up to the managers here to decide. All I'd like to say is that I've shown that through hard work off the net, research is possible as well. And Please remember: The "experts" here first swore up & down that the entire Bergman article was bogus & a hoax, that he was a figment of my "demented" mind. The "experts" beraded me & swore that all my references were hoaxs & fakes. Then when I proved them wrong, they totally ignored what I found, never admitted that they were 100% wrong & continued to say I was a fake & fraud. Also, that the Miami Herald in which over 200,000 people read every day & over 300,000 people on Sundays, was a paper in which a person being profiled meant nothing. And that Official Karate Magazine was nothing as well. Well, if a person getting full-page write-ups in a paper read by a quarter of a million readers a day is not notable, well then I guess I don't know what notable is. I've found this whole-experience is bad taste. I worked hard on a number of pages here & came up with concrete references & not once did I receive a "good job". Also, I was bashed brutally by people here who help run this place & that tells me a lot. Peace & Love:DavidToma (talk) 03:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a delete comment left, they are all keeps so.... Let me be humble and the first to say, Good job. Cheers Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 12:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based upon the sources provided, etc. This is an interesting case study in the challenges faced by articles that primarily rely upon non-digital sources. I've run into similar situations where content has been doubted due to the fact there's nothing online to prove it exists. Try adding new titles to the IMDb these days if there's no website devoted to the film you want to add ... 23skidoo (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still with Delete. This guy has never held any titles of any kind, not even his own State. For me as a hard core kickboxing enthusiast he's the perfect example of nobody being hyped up as a local living legend by a personal friend, relative or Big Train himself. There's only one person contributed on the page using 7 or more usernames. All these KOs as a 50+ year old guy, knocking three guys out in one night... Sling-shot punch and all the fans yelling "Get the comb" after each fight... its complete bs. People of no knowledge of kick boxing read it and believe it, good luck.

I've asked the author to provide locations of these fights, or any more details, no response, only two of his amateur boxing bouts. I hate to waste time on this, but i'll ask Florida State Athletic Comission if there was fighters license issued on Bergmans name coz according to his fan club he fought at Central Florida Muay-Thai Boxing Open Tournament in 2004. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 07:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Additional information Bergman is an amateur fighter. It's clear from the news stories listed. The World Full-Contact Championships is an amateur tournament, as is the Sunshine Tournament. The Golden Gloves is an amateur tournament. No mention of a professional fight in any of the stories. Jean-Claude Van Damme was never a pro, watch his video with Teugels-wearing a Gi. That's the problem here. The guy is holding trophies not a belt. The changes should be that These guys should be listed under amateurs, not prosIdidnttab (talk) 16:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is not an active Wikiproject Kickboxing we need to go in according of WikiProject Boxing or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts. Guys with no professional fights will be deleted, only exceptions are notable Olympians. All these news stories and clippings are nice and beautiful, the fact remains Bergman is not a notable professional kickboxer. Besides that he is presented here as a living legend with an unreal fight record, its misleading for everybody reading the article, specially for people not that familiar with the sport. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I suggest to add this discussion under Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts and Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts as well that guys with more knowledge of the sport can decide whether keep it or not. (Marty Rockatansky (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

One more thing, if Bergman would work as a kickboxing trainer, manager or be active of any kind in the sport, i would have different feeling aobut all this. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned Up & Made Corrections[edit]

I went over the articles I have & noticed that many fights listed on his record were full-contact, & sport karate matches. I deleted them. Most were exhibitions put on at karate tournaments. Moved Daniels/Van Damme to Full-Contact, as they were clearly fought under Full-Contact Karate rules. I errored in some dates & cleared that up too. Happy Easter to all. Peace on Earth:`DavidToma (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like i said, it was not meant to be a personal attack. I love this sport, and have all the respect in the world for these guys. I know how hard work it takes and i hate to see if someone gets credited or hyped up like that. Seems like u won this round... Easter to u as well. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 06:47, 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 Redirect to Gargoyles (TV series). The Placebo Effect (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Sevarius[edit]

No secondary sources to establish notability or provide real world context Jay32183 (talk) 08:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gargoyles (TV series). The only news article I could find was an interview with Tim Curry, the voice. --jonny-m t 08:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per jonny-mt. JuJube (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Redirects can be created after an article is deleted and the need for a redirect is not a reason to preserve content that would otherwise be deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Also, if it's going to be redirected anywhere, it should be to List of Gargoyles characters. --64.136.26.235 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List of Gargoyles characters and expand slightly the short mention there. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Already listed at List of Gargoyles characters#Anton Sevarius; doesn't seem to be notable beyond inclusion on that page. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And the argument against redirection is? JoshuaZ (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think people may want to Delete, then create the redirect, to reduce the temptation for fans to restore the content as soon as nobody's looking. Blast Ulna (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Change to redirect; JoshuaZ, I didn't think a redirect was needed, but on second thought, redirects are cheap, so might as well go with that. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted by Jmlk17. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Florfel Alboroto[edit]

Questionable notability, no references, can't find anything substantial on this person at all. Closedmouth (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for lack of assertion of notability and so tagged. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Wain Lee[edit]

Cricketer yet to play at a fully professional level and has not yet played first-class cricket; thus does not meet WP:CRICKET notability guidelines. Mattinbgn\^talk 05:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Mattinbgn\^talk 05:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hasn't played at a high enough level, and references have nothing but incidental coverage (a couple of basic "profiles", and some reviews of 2nd grade games that he's played in) -- Mark Chovain 06:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not satisfy criteria at WP:BIO, section on Athletes, because he has not played at the highest level of the game. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe he'll come back properly one day. But not as he stands Johnlp (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hardly Warren Lees - yet, at least. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 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. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gucci Gang controversy[edit]

Article seems to be built on innuendo, allegations, suspicions, and gossip. Almost all the refs are from one source - Philippine Daily Inquirer. While I can't claim to know much about PDI, the fact that over half the refs come from that one source, with two more coming from Blogger.com, throws serious doubt on the Notability of the article. Furthermore, the event happened two weeks ago - we have no way of knowing how significant the event might be - a flash in the pan, or not? SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 05:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the issue is very insignificant. the article was clearly made for personal motives.. i don't think wikipedia is a place for gossips because people go here for relevant information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.163.207.161 (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC) — 202.163.207.161 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a significant article. The only reason this hasn't been covered more widely in Philippine media is that the people involved come from prominent families with close ties to the Philippine elite. They have been able to shackle most of Philippine media and stop them from reporting on it. If there's a Wikipedia page you should move for deletion, it has to be the entry on Tina Tinio it's nothing but a praise release. Why is it still there? Is it because she is a Cuenca? I suspect she wrote it herself. --Julius — juliuslindo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, there are references from Manila Standard Today and The Philippine Star, not just the Philippine Daily Inquirer. Notability does not specify that there shouldn't be a majority source, but instead specifies that there are multiple sources, which the article seems to meet. As for the "built on innuendo... gossip" well, the whole subject is a gossip event so that's unavoidable. I'm not for the retention/deletion of the article; I'm just replying to your points that I don't think has a substantial bearing on the worthiness of the article's existence. --seav (talk) 06:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article meets notability guidelines and independent sourcing. The reason why other Philippine newspapers do not dare tackle the subject is because some of the people mentioned in the blog work as lifestyle columnists in such publications (i.e. Celine Lopez and Tim Yap for The Philippine Star). Controversial news topics have also become Wikipedia articles within weeks after the issue "exploded", check Edison Chen photo scandal. Starczamora (talk) 07:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's been covered by the local media. PDI is the widest read newspaper in the Philippines. If it's covered by Inquirer, it's notable. The nature of the internet in terms of news is its ability to be viral, hence in just a short amount of time the attention and publicity is intense. It could be a flash in the pan but that is the nature of viral picks. Berserkerz Crit (talk) 09:26, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aside from PDI, another widely read Philippine newspaper, Manila Standard Today, has published an article on the said controversy (footnote no. 9). A Wikipedia article about a controversy is not claiming that the issue is true, it just states that there is such a controversy of public interest. The blog concerned has also gained a phenomenal number of hits, which means that the issue cannot be ignored or excluded from history. Lenoil odarama (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOT#NEWS -- a single bout of news coverage does not make a topic notable. If it proves to be more than a flash in the pan, it can always be re-created, or reconsidered at a deletion review, but per WP:CRYSTAL it shouldn't be allowed to stay on the assumption that this will be the case. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 14:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is not it weird that the nominator was anonymous? If the article clearly was written with personal motives, I would have not included the Legal issues and Criticisms on freedom of speech in blogging sections. Starczamora (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I nom'd this article. The IP wrote their comments above mine. I've moved theirs to clean up the header and prevent confusion. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Starczamora (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of verifiable notability. It's a messy subject, yeah, but if one can't go to Wikipedia for an encyclopedic report on this sort of crap then where can one go? This internet phenomonon or whatever we want to call it may be (as an editor above states) "a flash in the pan" but so are various obscure military commanders, investors and artists whom history has forgotten but Wikipedia hasn't! - House of Scandal (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews, that's where. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to all the "keep" nominations. Granted, there are reliable sources and the subject matter is verifiable, however, as I said, it still fails Wikipedia policy that Wikipedia is not a news source. This article should really be transwikied to Wikinews, if it is not there already. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 14:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes this article fail WP:NOT#NEWS but other articles like this do not? The individuals involved may not be notable to American standards, but this should not be a basis for unfair views. Starczamora (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect example of WP:BIAS indeed. Starczamora (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Your comparison of this event with 9/11 is stretching the point to the limit. If there is any bias against WP:NOT#NEWS it is against events that are a flash in the pan and six months later are all but forgotten. Whether this turns out to be such an event or not remains to be seen, but in any case there is another, more serious concern, namely that because the nature of the event is so riddled with gossip and innuendo, the whole article is a complete WP:BLP disaster zone. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep More than just a news story given that it has serious ongoing coverage and apparently has raised serious questions about relevant countries libel laws. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing? Has there been anything else since the initial postings? I haven't seen anything since the AFD went up, truthfully. Google search for the past week == 0. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- From sourcing I see coverage over a 15 day period, so ongoing in this context might be a bit strong a term but it wasn't a 15-minute jaunt. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Please do note that additional information has been added since AfD was put up, and if you look hard enough maybe you would get an update on Brian Gorrell. Also South China Morning Post has an article about the controversy as well. Starczamora (talk) 13:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; referenced in the media, yes, but no demonstration that this is of encyclopedic value and anything other than an ephemeral celebrity gossip/scandal. --MCB (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Belongs -- at best -- on Wikinews and maybe not even there. Not the slightest sense that this turgidly detail bit of tittle-tattle will be remembered next week, nor any reason to hope so. --Calton | Talk 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep This incident has not only become about the controversy but a comment on multiple aspects of modern life in Manila. Tagasilab (talk) 19:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a commentary on aspects of modern life. --MCB (talk) 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for a while per Tagasilab as amazingly well-sourced. There are always such incidents that take on a life of their own, and this seems like one of them. Meets WP:V, WP:RS, and although I'm not 100 % sure about its "staying power" beyond this month's news, I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Bearian (talk) 22:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 currently fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Grant[edit]

Non-notable footballer who has never played a first team professional game. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Born 1990? Seriously? NN. ~~Speedy this under A7~~ Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 07:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The player may not be notable but being a member of a professional football club is definately an assertation of importance/significance. Also there are likely hundreds of articles on athletes aged 18 and under who easily meet all requirements for inclusion (for example I'm guessing Michelle Wie born 1989 has had an article for a lot longer tha a year). Guest9999 (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it doesn't really assert notability either. Maybe it's apparent for Brits, but I live in the US. I have no idea what a "professional football club" is and why a teenager would be in one. The article doesn't quite assert that he's in a professional football club either, it just says he's in Gretna. This is probably just a matter of bad article writing, or maybe because I'm horrible at sports. In any case, since it seems that (for some people) this article does, in fact, assert notability, I'll retract my speedy request (not that it changes the outcome anyway.) Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 04:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With the state Gretna are in, he may well make a first team apperance before long, but under the current criteria, it has to be Delete. - fchd (talk) 07:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion in the encyclopedia at this time per WP:Athlete. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of significant coverage by reliable sources that would establish notability.Guest9999 (talk) 15:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GiantSnowman (talk) 17:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, he's a youth team player. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 12:18, 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. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magillem[edit]

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to Magillem Design Services . Was speedied under WP:CSD#G12 after author twice removed request for speedy ( WP:CSD#A7 and WP:CSD#G11). Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 05:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N and WP:CORP. Unable to find coverage of the company, and although there appears to be some coverage of the product in a number of different sources, most of them are press releases, and others resemble press releases. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination: yet another software business using Wikipedia for promotion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lack of reliable, independent secondary sources for the company; existing coverage of the product appears marketing/press-release in nature. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Johnson Phone Experiment[edit]

Non-notable experiment. Jmlk 1 7 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for checking your contribs after you nominated an article on my watchlist, but I don't understand how your statement "non-notable" reconciles with an experiment that has been covered by "CNN, NPR, BBC News 24, The Rachael Ray Show, The Today Show, the Art Fennell show, several local news channels, as well as a number of national and international newspapers, magazines, and radio stations." That would seem to inarguably establish notability. --JayHenry (talk) 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I redacted some unhelpful commentary. Apologies. --JayHenry (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The experiment had coverage over a couple of months. I'm sure it was on the lighter side of the news, but seems to meet the notability guidelines. The article, appropriately covers the event, not the person. -- Mark Chovain 06:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Several sources on the web can be found, as well as the appearances and coverage in other, traditional media. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep despite personal feelings to the contrary. Much as I loathe and abhor this whole phenomenon wherein some random guy posts a YouTube video, it becomes viral, and he becomes famous for being famous, it was featured in some major news sources and that makes it notable. "In the future, everyone will be world-famous for 15 minutes." --Andy Warhol OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC) 16:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete I am the creator of this article. Looking back, I don't even know why I decided it was worthy. Qaddosh (talk) 19:34, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 22:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raegan Payne[edit]

Non-notable actress. Jmlk 1 7 04:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A minor character in the series with no outside coverage. --JayHenry (talk) 05:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BIO states for actors, "With significant roles in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." Clearly falls short. If Till You Get to Baraboo gets widely distributed, then perhaps revisit, but I doubt it even then. -- Mark Chovain 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to lonelygirl15. Hut 8.5 18:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Goodfried[edit]

A non-notable web producer. Jmlk 1 7 04:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest redirect to lonelygirl15. Her role in establishing the series has been documented, such as in a lengthy feature by Wired magazine [30]. But she hasn't done anything outside the project, so can be covered comprehensively in the lonelygirl15 article. --JayHenry (talk) 05:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per JayHenry. Google News only gives three hits for her, all in relation to lonelygirl15. --jonny-m t 08:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: only notable for lonelygirl15. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 13:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lonelygirl15. Best to redirect it towards the one thing the subject is notable for. -- Experto Crede (talk) 07:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW, also notability is established. Non admin close. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KateModern[edit]

A non-notable web series. Jmlk 1 7 04:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Suggest withdrawal of this unresearched nomination. dozens of reliable sources available from a simple google search -- dozens more if you look in google news archives. I know the articles around lonelygirl15 stuff is a mess, and a lot of the actors and stuff probably can be cleaned out, but please at least do a google news search before nominating. --JayHenry (talk) 05:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why wouldn't it be able to be kept. It is on the front page of Bebo, do a to some sort of partnership. It definately shouldn't be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Baitt (talk • contribs) 05:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — definite notability MSNBC, The Guardian, The Scotsman, The Wall Street Journal; as well as references to it in stories about AOL's takeover of Bebo — KateModern is mentioned in New York Times, Washington Post etc. I hear there is a forecast for icy precipitation? EJF (talk) 12:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep although much of the article is unsourced, sufficient reliable sources can be found to ensure notability. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Kalina[edit]

A non-notable web video producer. Jmlk 1 7 04:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Everyday video Kalina created gained significant traction in the media and was even parodied by a Simpsons episode. Also over 75,000 Google hits. Andrew73 (talk) 04:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Everyday (video), definitely notable video, but the person himself hasn't been covered by reliable sources, while the video has. The Dominator (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the more notable web videos, and one of the few to gain wider media coverage. Or move to Everyday (video) per above and re-focus the article. (Full disclosure: I am the article's creator, and have no ties whatsoever to Noah.) --Czj (talk) 08:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Everyday (video) for reasons cited by The Dominator above. TheMindsEye (talk) 18:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was looking for some info after seeing Simpsons episode. This alone makes it worth to keep, seems to be smth that can be referred to.

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

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

The result was Merge into Skrull which has already taken place. Davewild (talk) 08:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cadre K[edit]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tiptoety ^talk 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

The result was redirect to Lonelygirl15. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Goodfried[edit]

A non-notable web producer, linked with the Lonelygirl15 series and that's it. Jmlk 1 7 04:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the least redirect. His role as a creator of the series is well-document in Wired, in dozens of other reliable sources, and when the series was first outed he was featured, along with the other creators, on national news programs, on major newspapers, etc. Personal notability is a bit iffy since I can't recall him being the actual focus of any of the coverage, but there'd be no reason not to keep the history of the article and redirect to lonelygirl15. --JayHenry (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lonelygirl15. Best to redirect it towards the one thing the subject is notable for. -- Experto Crede (talk) 07:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to lonelygirl15. Not independently notable at this time. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 22:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Glick[edit]

A non-notable "actor". Jmlk 1 7 04:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A minor character who received no outside coverage. --JayHenry (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not widely notable, even in the context of the lonelygirl15 "universe". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - not notable. Macy (talk) 20:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:31, 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 merge to Ferdinand Magellan. If an article about the circumnavigation voyage is created, it may more appropriately host some of this material. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martino de Judicibus[edit]

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

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

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

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

Messico, 1985, p.268

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Tiptoety ^talk 04:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

The result was keep. John254 00:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Day[edit]

A non-notable actress, with her only claim to fame as a YouTube video producer. Jmlk 1 7 04:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She had a notable part on Buffy, which, BTW, has given her more than enough attention in the media and on the web. I get 28000 hits on Google for "Felicia Day". -Duribald (talk) 14:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've expanded the introduction to establish notability + added filmography. -Duribald (talk) 08:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creator, star, scriptwriter, and producer of a web series that has now won three notable awards. Hqb (talk) 21:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She's a notable actress with a large CV. I don't even see why this is up for discussion. 24.196.229.149 (talk) 19:59, 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 Keep. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 18:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Guild (web series)[edit]

A non-notable online sitcom. Jmlk 1 7 04:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no reliable third-party references that would indicate that this is a notable series yet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Not voting, since I don't have an account, but please bear in mind it just won an SXSW award. That alone should establish notability.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.109.134.228 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 18 March 2008
The show is also nominated for 'Best Series' in the 2007 YouTube Video awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.104.10.143 (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominated for best series on YouTube constitutes notability in itself +SXSW award per 12.104.10.143 above. -Duribald (talk) 08:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SXSW is a notable event and the award confers some notability. I added a cite from the News & Observer, which is a reliable third-party reference, regarding the award. Incidentally, the other awards it's up for are set to be announced within the next few days; while we can't build notability on speculation, there's certainly an argument to be made for watching how those turn out.Lawikitejana (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: FWIW, won the YouTube Video Award in the series category (39.9% of the vote, of 5 nominees), though I haven't seen YouTube give any figures yet for how many votes that represents, and also won the Yahoo! Video Awards in the series division with twice the votes of its nearest competitor (60% of 22,226 votes).Lawikitejana (talk) 19:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now up to three respectable awards, which will most likely attract further press attention in the next few days as well. Hqb (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, The Guardian just published a story about the fact that "The Guild" beat out a series that starred Paul Rudd: YouTube awards celebrate buffalo battles and bouncing baby.Lawikitejana (talk) 07:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable. Smokizzy (talk) 16:26, 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 defaulting to Keep. Cannot find any consensus in this discussion between those who feel it should be kept and just needs more referencing, and those who feel it fails WP:NOT or should be on wikiquote. Davewild (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of political catch phrases[edit]

Survived one AFD in 2007 due to no consensus; an overlong, unmaintainable list of miscellaneous political slogans, statements, gaffes, and even noises (see the "Dean Scream"). Wikipedia is not an indiscriminant collection of information Ryan Delaney ^talk 04:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix the second nomination while you did the same thing. My bad. With that in mind, Delete as an unmaintainable list of loosely associated topics per nom. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unreferenced, and once it is, should be broken up amongst those who said the phrases on Wikiquote. Mrprada911 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is not indiscriminate. It is not too long either and could easily be divided by country if it did grow too long. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but source for notability purposes. This is particularly one of those list articles it's handy to have for things that don't deserve articles, and it certainly is organized by country, so it's more useful than a category of the bluelinks. --Dhartung | Talk 09:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs more references, but a useful, well-categorized List. Klausness (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful, reasonably consistant and apparently accurate list. Needs more references though.ANHL (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not encyclopedic. Should be in Wikiquote. Yours, GeorgeLouis (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add references. I feel this is a viable and useful topic. However I'll borrow a bit of GeorgeLouis' comment above and suggest adding links to applicable Wikiquote articles where, uh, applicable. 23skidoo (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Needs references, but it is useful. Macy (talk) 20:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikiquote Will ^(talk) 22:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as discriminate and encyclopedic list. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Certainly requires improvement (references, etc.) but I came across it researching for pol. sci. and found nothing like it elsewhere. I went on to contribute. Excellent insight into political culture of different countries. It is essential Wikipedia survives not as if it were a closed paper encyclopaedia. This article not non-compliant with any of the five pillars and its deletion would remove a source of knowledge not easily replaced by any other sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by YuriBCN (talk • contribs) 09:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- further references required however. - Longhair\^talk 09:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --cultural memes of significance. Handy list. ArizonaShine (talk) 17:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's full of quotes, so it belongs in Wikiquote. Martarius (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But it belongs on Wikipedia because of the historical context. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#DIR #1. Deor (talk) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Randomly picked selection of incoherent phrases. Leftfoot69 (talk) 08:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article is however not random and focuses on coherent phrases. Typing in "political phrases encyclopedia" on Amazon.com actually gets hits: [31]. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straightforwardly given the existence of Category:Political catch phrases as a funnel for all the article's usable content. The article adds nothing to the category; if a catchphrase is notable enough to get its own article or redirect, then categorize and/or subcategorize it (see also Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects). For instance, I am not a crook redirects to Watergate; the redirect, but not the article, should be categorized. New redirects to explanatory sections can be created as well. Once that is done there is no reason to maintain its article status, which makes it a mother of POV magnets and nonnotability. However, someone might want to move it userspace before closure so this can be accomplished. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC) I forgot: this is the English WP and very few non-English quotations will be notable here. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even in a worse case scenario the article should be redirected without being deleted as it is clearly a legitimate search term. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agreed. I've done a number of these phrases now (see my history to give you some examples). My review of the "keep" arguments yields: "not indiscriminate" (but it should be more discriminate, many say "references required"); "not too long" (but it is, considering non-English); "could easily be divided by country" (the category already is, and can be more so); "handy", "consist[e]nt", "accurate", "encyclopedic", "excellent insight" (and so is a category); "well-categorized", "more useful than a category" (a category functions slightly differently in that it creates new breakouts when there are a significant number of subitems, not just one; aside from that, neither is any more useful); "nothing like it elsewhere" (except in the category); "I went on to contribute" (sorry, Yuri, this is actually a prime liability of the list version as a nonnotability magnet). Hope this clears it up. :D John J. Bulten (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki - Seems to be a very arbitary list. I'm sure there are hundreds of catchphrases that could be added that for each country that are of equal significance to the ones currently in existence. Also, this is a list of quotations - exactly what Wikiquote is for. If this type of content is appropriate on Wikipedia, I totally fail to see the point in Wikiquote. Just because it is useful or interesting does not mean that it is appropriate for Wikipedia - if that were the criterion then there would be no Wikiquote, Wiktionary etc. because all content included on those projects would be part of Wikipedia. I agree it's interesting, but it is clear that it would be most appropriately located on Wikiquote. ^Tom_Phil 00:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per the First pillar, phrases are consistent with many published specialized encyclopedias. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Off the point, your majesty. The books you cite on Amazon are specialised — much like Wikiquote is specialised. To repeat: Delete from WP and move everything to Wikquote. Yours in repetition, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Actually totally on point. Per our First pillar, Wikipedia IS a specialized encyclopedia and thus we need to Keep the article accordingly. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:41, 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 speedy delete all per A7 group criteria. Optimous, please note that while I'm sure they're great bands, they need to fulfill certain guidelines to have pages. Same goes for the record label. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like help. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tragic Hero Records[edit]

Doesn't seem to be a notable label; distributed by major labels but that doesn't make it notable itself. The only artists on the label are either red links or not notable themselves.

And speaking of those other artists, here they are:

Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation why it should stay I understand that the bands on the list are small time bands but the growing popularity of the groups and the over all record label demand a page for information on the label and the bands on the label. The bands pages are not to the full wikpedia standards yet but are being constantly updated. The ones that need to be updated will be by me and will be up to wikipedias standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Optimous (talk • contribs) 04:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, coverage found in reliable sources during AFD appears to establish notability meeting WP:MUSIC. Davewild (talk) 08:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Morning Of[edit]

Makes a couple of claims, but none are enough to satisfy WP:MUSIC. SmartPunk and PureVolume are not major record charts, so those claims certainly don't qualify under criterion #2. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No notability, failing WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. Jmlk 1 7 05:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, was able to find a couple of what appear to be third-party sources for this band: ([32], [33]). Could be enough to tip them over the WP:N line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. The Times Herald-Record article that Lankiveil found is sufficient, I think - band passes on coverage (the two articles) and the tour that's mentioned in the article. There's also a (short) bio and a review at allmusic [34], [35]. --Michig (talk) 13:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)...and a couple more reviews:[36], [37].--Michig (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Definitely adheres to WP:MUSIC - band has received coverage and reviews in secondary sources, especially allmusic guide which is generally considered notable. The other articles are either borderline and meet criteria sufficiently. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 03:30, 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.

Brian Thornton[edit]

The result was speedy delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 19:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sweat (2009 film)[edit]

Pure crystal balling. It's been announced by the network. That's it. It's not even set in stone when it will be released. I say recreate when there's more known. Redfarmer (talk) 03:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd tend to agree, I really can't find anything on google regarding this movie except for this article itself Q ^{T C} 03:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NFF, WP:CRYSTAL, etc etc. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia shouldn't be a place for press releases by corporate behemoths. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Major Delete, No way this should be here. --Yankeesrj12 (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Way too soon to be added. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 03:05, 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 Withdrawn by nominator with consensus to keep. This is proof that if you don't know the first thing about a subject, you should probably give it the benefit of the doubt. Just a simple mistake on my part. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary cognitive task[edit]

Tagged as A1 (no context); speedy declined by Legalleft (talk · contribs) with reasoning "no, this is a needed topic". A search for sources turns up only ten hits, none of which look relevant; therefore, this seems to fail the acid test for neologisms. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No idea where I got this figure of ten GHits from. Apparently I had it confused with another article I tagged around the same time. Thanks to Legalleft (talk · contribs) and Nick Connolly (talk · contribs) for addressing my concerns; I withdraw. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a term of art in psychological research. Google search for returns 400 hits, predominately scholarly. [38]. Not a neologism. --Legalleft (talk) 03:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any proof that it's a widely used term, however, nor do I see anything which clearly gives it a definition. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:56, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article precisely because it was a term that was occuring in discussion about IQ tests which had no Wikipedia article. ECTs are commonly refered to in the literature of IQ testing (eg search back copies of the journal Intelligence [[39]]). The term isn't a neologism as it has been in US for several decades. ghits of "elementary cognitive tasks" gives 355 hits including [[40]]. Go on be nice to it :) Nick Connolly (talk) 03:53, 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, crystall ball concerns and fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tangled But True[edit]

No verifiable info exists on this album; composed mainly of unsourced rumours. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:41, 12 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)} 02:37, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article has no WP:RS compliant references, and consists largely of unverifiable speculation and rumour. WP:CRYSTAL could also be invoked in this case. OlenWhitaker • ^{talk to me} or _don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC) 03:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Crystal ball and beads. Utgard Loki (talk) 14:18, 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, —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Relisted mainly because the AFD tag was removed from the page. Please keep an eye on the page. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFF? This isn't a film, it's an album. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, partly confirmed or not, it isn't notable. Lord Uniscorn (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:CRYSTAL. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:34, 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 Redirect to album by nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nettie Moore[edit]

Non-notable songs; weren't released as singles, didn't chart, don't seem to have inspired anyone, etc. etc. In other words, they fail the notability guidelines for individual songs. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:37, 18 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)} 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to Modern Times (Bob Dylan album) as it fails the WP:MUSIC critera for songs and merge the remaining text from Workingman's Blues to the Modern Times album article AngelOfSadness talk 02:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to the album, they fail the WP:MUSIC criteria for songs. Merge the sourced text from Workingman's Blues to the album article. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 12:31, 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, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Vinyard[edit]

Subject does not meet WP:PORNBIO criteria; has not won any awards AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 15:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:PORNBIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Aleta ^Sing 05:38, 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 Speedy delete G7 by User:Master of Puppets. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lindsey Rietzsch[edit]

The subject is non-notable, fails WP:BIO as none of the information can be verified with any reliable sources even after a quick google search. The only mention of the author in external links terms are the websites mentioned in the article itself. It also seems there might be a conflict of interest issue aswell. AngelOfSadness talk 01:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Author has tagged for speedy deletion (CSD G7). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G7 tag placed by author on page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. This article has undergone significant expansion/improvement since nomination, and as pointed out in the related AfD which I am closing shortly, the concept is not original research as indicated by the references provided herein; any OR existing in the article can be cleaned up. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:16, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Mothers[edit]

The article is unsourced and reads like original research. It doesn't really have much content anyway, other than a blurb and a list. Wafulz (talk) 01:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsourced, OR. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced original research, lacking in context. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Le Grand Roi de Ican'tspellthatlastword seems to know what he's doing. I say that the subject is indeed verifiable and can be improved; however, either this needs a merge to Absent Mothers in Disney Films or vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and the above users. --On the other side ^Contribs|@ 02:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually think this could be reworked into a decent article. The absence of mothers in Disney films is widely discussed in books - see [41], [42], [43], [44], [45]. I don't see anything to support the last sentence of the lead, though. Zagalejo^^^ 03:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could easily be an article topic per Zagalejo, but would need significant work (and the title is not the best). Disney did not invent the concept of the absent mother in children's literature but it is interesting that the company's products (during and after Walt) have relied so heavily on this device. --Dhartung | Talk 04:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This stub is a start for an article on a subject with some potential. Google Scholar reports 67 hits on searches with Disney and "absent mother", a fairly substantial number. This thesis attempts to relate the phenomenon to traditional tales from the Grimms and Hans Christian Anderson, along with a lot of grad school pop psychology. There does seem to be a fair amount of room to improve this stub. Whether this should be about Disney specifically, or about the absent mother theme in folktales generally, are beside the point; the subject is valid, and the content worth saving as far as it goes. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A couple of unsourced sentences followed by a list. If an actual article can be written about the topic, it should start from scratch as there is nothing worth saving here. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 20:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure - no suitable content at the moment but I think there could be enough reliable sources (such as [46] and [47]) which discuss the topic to support an article - although that would require someone finding them (and I haven't been able to). Guest9999 (talk) 02:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existence of reliable sources and assertions of notability as indicated above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR. Redfarmer (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not original research when the topic is already covered in reliable secondary sources, such as Geoff Shearer, "Disney keeps killing movie mothers: DISNEY is continuing its tradition of being G-rated entertainment's biggest mother flickers," Courier Mail (March 07, 2008); Ashli Ann Sharp, Once Upon a Time in a Single-parent Family: Father and Daughter Relationships in Disney's The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast (Brigham Young University, 2006); Aisha Sultan, "What does Disney have against mothers?," ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH (03/15/2008); etc. Plus, we should give the article a chance as the article is only a couple of days old. There is no deadline on Wikipedia and the article has already improved since its original version on the 17th of March 2008 versus its current version. If at least three or more reliable, scholarly secondary sources were found in just two days, and the lead written in a prose fashion, I think the article clearly has realistic potential and should be given more than two days to expand further. Also, per our First pillar, articles on Disney characters are consistent with over thirty published specialized encyclopedias. Finally, various types of women and how they're depicted in Disney films have been the subject of book length studies published by University presses, such as this example. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to be a new duplicate article of this one with a more descriptive name at Absent Mothers in Disney films. I have merged my improvements to both articles. Thus, per the GFDL, we should keep one of the two and redirect the other one without deletion. We should maybe consider somehow merging the two AfDs, as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep one, merge one No strong preference which way but Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles shows that this is an easily notable topic. JoshuaZ (talk)
Keep at least one of these per "Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles" and JashuaZ. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research by synthesis. This is not an encyclopedia article, it's an academic essay with a POV grounded in synthesis of a number of scholarly and media sources. --MCB (talk) 22:02, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and re-title, per WP:HEY, WP:RS. Much improved, better sourced, scholarly and popular interest. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Stephenson[edit]

Non-notable person, per WP:BLP. Hellno2 (talk) 01:40, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to fall far short of WP:N. JJL (talk) 01:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Um, WP:BLP doesn't really concern notability, does it? Do you mean WP:MUSIC? Has performed with very notable bands, needs more references, but not unsalvagable. --Canley (talk) 01:50, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep agree has performed with notable people/bands but notability is not catching! Paste (talk) 21:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N seems to be missing. --Stormbay (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:BIO, not BLP. Fails BIO and fails MUSIC. BLP is not the claim. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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/KAL 007 and the Russian Ramming Attempt

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - copyvio of http://forums.military.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/320102485/m/9710099641001. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KAL 007 and the Russian Ramming Attempt[edit]

Completely uncyclopedic, POV, and mostly consisting of a book entry. This title and the content are being used to push an agenda. No reliable sources are being used. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy as copyright violation, otherwise just delete per nom. <eleland/talkedits> 01:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete essay, likely copyvio. JJL (talk) 01:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, if it isn't speedy deleted per copyvio A Rather Hot Donkey Named Bob (talk) 01:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The poster says he has permission from the author - but even so, this isn't appropriate for Wikipedia... WhisperToMe (talk) 01:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep - appears to be a consensus that the subject is notable, if the article is poorly sourced. Unsourced material can be removed until source. Wily D 16:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Valentin Radu[edit]

Where to begin? First off there are many leaders of small chamber groups, and many random Romanian musicians, who in both cases are not renowned enough to merit a wikipedia article. A quick perusal of the article shows that those who constantly update the page are prone to hyperbole to make him seem more famous, for example claiming that Devon Prep's musical productions which he directs are locally known when in fact they are no better known than any other Philadelphia Catholic high school, if at all. A brief lookover of the history of updates makes it clear that this page makes a mockery of wikipedia as on a regular basis students of Dr. Radu drop by to write jokes and outlandish statements about him, only to have them reverted and then another take its place. I see no reason for why he is famous and believe this should be promptly deleted. Vartan84 (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a peaceful little page that's been on my watchlist for ages, since it's vandalized by his students once every other month. Frequency of vandalism is not normally considered to be a reason for deletion, and in fact this is a very low frequency. He has two albums listed at allmusic.com that are released on the Lyrichord label. This seems to satisfy the requirements for notability under WP:MUSIC, so I'm not sure where you got the technical term 'godforsaken' that you used in the edit summary. No evidence has been offered that God is displeased with him. I'm not in a position to evaluate the 'Grand Officer of Cultural Merit' offered by Romania. Since no reference for that claim is provided, perhaps it should be removed from the article. But the record releases seem to establish notability. The Lyrichord label doesn't have its own article but it's referred to in 16 other Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 20:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are misrepresenting my points. Constant vandalizing is obviously not a reason for deletion, but it's clear that this page is used as one big joke by his students and that they constantly use unsupported hyperbolic statements as a reason to keep it. Also your logical leap of "a few other people who have released an album with Lyrichord have wikipedia pages, therefore all people who have released anything on Lyrichord are automatically famous" is a fallacy. Not all Lyrichord-releasers are created equal or equally famous, and as mentioned below it is hardly a major label to begin with, hardly complying with the wikirules as you say it does. Vartan84 (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to the issue of whether Lyrichord ought to be taken seriously as a record label. Note this wording from WP:MUSIC, when discussing notability of a performer: Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable). According to its website, Lyrichord has existed since 1950, so it meets the requirement of 'more than a few years.' Having a roster of performers, many of which are notable, seems to be satisfied by this list of musicians who have Wikipedia articles, and thus may be considered notable, and have works published by Lyrichord: Verna Gillis, Alejandro Planchart, Liang Tsai-Ping, Ephat Mujuru, Shafaatullah Khan, Laxmi Ganesh Tewari, Colin Turnbull, The Jolly Boys and Guilherme Franco. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that most of those artists' articles are either stubs or contain paragraphs and paragraphs worth of unsourced claims. It makes one wonder whether Lyrichord itself isn't creating these pages for its artists, which would constitute a gross disregard of wikipolicies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.5.144 (talk) 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The guidelines state two or more records released by a renowned / reputable label. Lyrichord is hardly such a label. The article should at least be revised, and if nothing else, the claims that lack citations (most of them) should be deleted, as well as the overly dramatic statements involving Devon Prep. Once all of those things are deleted, we'll hardly be left with any article at all, so why keep it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.2.129.155 (talk) 20:46, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 01:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feeling encouraged by the dialog here, I removed some promotional statements from the article. I removed the note about the 'Grand Officer of the Cultural Merit' of Romania, since it's unsourced and is anyway not an award documented in Wikipedia. I wouldn't mind if his work was evaluated on the same basis as other classical musicians, but it would take some research to check how others are treated. Having 12 CDs released should count for something, and recognition within the relevant circle should be considered, though I don't know who else is in that circle. Determining that would take actual research. I agree that the status of Lyrichord as a label makes a difference to WP:MUSIC, ~~so that would take still more research.~~ EdJohnston (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

See my note higher up that seems to establish that Lyrichord is 'one of the more important indie labels' according to the standards of WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The links you gave to other Lyrichord artists is hardly compelling. I had actually checked them myself when this first came up and found most of them to not really belong on wikipedia either. One actually has a notion that the profile was added by the subject's son, another is just a huge listing of songs and recordings without any real information, and all of them are without citations just like Mr. Radu's (I mean Dr. Sir Maestro Count Grand Duke Superstar the Great). What I think is funniest is how the person you are debating with and who first questioned the famous status of this person is a former student of Mr. Radu's and knows him personally. Meanwhile you apparently have no apparent connection to him and yet are defending his being kept on wikipedia vociferously. Not to accuse you of anything, but if you have any connection to the subject I think it bears admitting now for the sake of fairness- especially with so many of his former students running around here. I just don't understand why someone with no connection would have been keeping close watch over this page for a high school music teacher with a couple of Lyrichord CDs. Just sayin'. Vartan84 (talk) 00:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I have no connection to Mr. Radu. I didn't even know he was a recorded conductor before this AfD. The article first came to my attention a long time ago since it was being vandalized, and I reverted that. I don't have strong feelings whether this article is kept or not; I hoped that by researching this a little bit, I'd learn more about WP:MUSIC. EdJohnston (talk) 00:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keepand source better. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EdJohnston, subject appears to be mildly notable within his field. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:31, 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.

[1] APL Product Features

[2] Unleash the Hounds with AMD's Upcoming Quad-core Processors

[3] [1]

[1]

[2]

[3]