Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 19

<March 18	March 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:21, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mysore Education Society Kishora Kendra School[edit]

No claim of notability. The page itself is apparently semi-protected, with a history of vandalism. Montchav (talk) 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I live in the city of Bangalore, where this school is located and it is fairly well known among the populace of the city. I have cleaned up the article now and have provided citations to reliable mainstream newspapers to assert notability. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions. -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 15:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Cleaned up by Amarrg. Plenty of news mentions. utcursch | talk 12:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 12:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 13:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - this is notable, major school that educates through to pre-university. The article includes multiple, reliable secondary sources to meet WP:N. TerriersFan 19:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems notable Noroton (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as significant coverage in reliable sources has not been produced to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 19:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland Nicholson[edit]

Unsourced for any of the claims that are made. And those claims made still do not rise to the level of notability, IMHO. TexasAndroid (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find lots of stuff for Roland Nicholson Jr. but most of them are minor sites. The article needs to get som WP:RS... even then it dosen't quite seem to pass WP:N. If it were better referenced I'd say merge it into Electoral Reform Society --Pmedema (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I understand that Roland Nicholson has been involved in the monitoring of elections in Africa and the Balkans, but my reason for inclusion has to do with his role as an opponent and international spokesperson against capital punishment. I first saw him on a BBC program where he spoke out in support of the EU maintaining the ban on capital punishment among EU members. He invoked the late Hon. Nigel Nicolson and made a stirring call for the universal abolishment of the death penalty. This is why students in my country and others study his writings and the path he took to his position.

{User Guyana Barrister} —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyana Barrister (talk • contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This page seems to be about Roland Nicholson, Jr., A page that has been deleted twice per CSD A7(Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance. There is less information in the current edition of this article than in the previous two that were deleted.Triple3D (talk) 01:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is also a page, Roland Nicholson,Jr., that has been deleted and locked by an administrator because of numerous attempts at recreation.Triple3D (talk) 02:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In that case it needs to be deleted and salted.--Pmedema (talk) 16:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Delete/wait I am currently in discussion with the articles' creators. They say they have severatl sources. I have told them the areas they can look up in WP to help with citation and such. I propose we wait until further action by them to try and source the article.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 21:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would not object to a relist for another five days if there does indeed appear to be progress on sourcing his notability. But even if the article is deleted today or tomorrow, I would gladly userfy it for you and the original author to continue to work on. - TexasAndroid (talk) 12:45, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets see what comes up in the next 5 days. No problem here. --Pmedema (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really, neither you nor I will make the descision on relist or not. That will be up to whoever comes along to close it. We can, and effectively have, expressed our opinion that it should be relisted, but someone else will make the actual choice. - TexasAndroid (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know that we do not, I am asking whoever is in control here to give it 5 more days.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 06:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Okay. You got your extra five days, Daedalus969. Make the most of it. :) - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope I can, I haven't yet obtained a response. Neither from the article creators, or something that my response has been noted, such as sources on the article in question. I may end up moving the article to my own userspace until the article creators can find links to the sources. I honestly don't know what to do here, I'm just trying to help them.Dædαlus T@lk\^{→quick link} 06:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have googled the heck out of this article and could not find links to any of the "other writings" talked about in it. I did find letters that Nicholson wrote to newspapers that were apparently published, but no published "works". He seems to be a good guy, but nothing that notable that can be found on the web. There is no evidence that he was even the chairman of the Fortune Society, though he currently is a board member. Triple3D (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.... again - EAGHEAGHEAGH! The buzzer has sounded! Nothing done. ~~To the editor who wanted time to source the article... please don't waste peoples time like this.~~ Sorry... it was Daedalus who was trying to get the editors to fix it up but they didn't respond. --Pmedema (talk) 13:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Sigh* Oh well, I tried. It seems they didn't have as much commitment as I thought they did. Even though the timer is up, I still hope they respond at some point in the future to the messages I left on their talk pages noting that I copied the article into my own userspace for them to source without having to worry about the deletion. Thanks for giving them one more chance dear admins, I only wish the creators could have used it.Dæ dαlus^{→quick link} / Improve 17:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyana Barrister (talk • contribs) 07:27, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion A7 as a group without a shred of asserted notability. —C.Fred (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaziz[edit]

Contested prod. Can't really tell what's going on here, but at least the article doesn't meet WP:BIO, and the source cited in the article is seemingly non-relevant. The last sentence "Please submit any information to Sir Ronald MacDonald so we can expand this article" also smells hoax-y. Nsevs • Talk 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SUPERMASSIVE HUGE DELETE random crappy article on a couple from manchester righting biased irrelevant unotable nonsense about themselves.XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 00:02, 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. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 23:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bad Girls: Extra Time episodes[edit]

This article refers to a fan made video on internet site You Tube, which is allegedly a 'spin-off' from ITV series Bad Girls. The makers of the show and the station are NOT involved with the video, which features on-screen text only, referring to what the fan would have liked to have happened in the TV series. The site also offers NO references or sources. The article originally claimed the show was made by Shed productions who made the original TV series, thus being a lie. Therefore i see no purpose for this article other than to advertise the makers videos in a bid to receive more hits on the external site. This i believe constitutes not only a hoax but Spam. And i see no evidence as to why this article would be of interest to the reader, or for that matter what the purpose of it is. It is certainly not worthy of an article in an online encyclopedia in my opinion! Lisabutcherhill (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The YouTube series doesn't have a page, nor does it seem to be the subject of any sources. Therefore, this supposedly inaccurate and unsourced list has no place on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom as non-notable web content. This is indeed a fan-made series consisting almost entirely of on-screen text. Basically, it is fan fiction with occasional music and frequent misspellings. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral! the article does seem unencylopedic, but it could be cleaned up to a formal look. Dwilso (talk) 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleaning up the article's formatting doesn't address the verifiability and notability problems, though. Delete as non-notable fan-made media. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - List is completely unencyclopedic..not in format, but in content. There are no references, no hints at notability, and fails WP:INTERNET. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral With a lot of work, it could be made into a substantial article. --Shark face 217 02:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- And like I said before, reformatting this article still wouldn't fix the verfiability and notability problems of the subject. This series hasn't been covered in reliable sources, so the article's got to go. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NeoChaosX and all above. JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TenPoundHammer. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 05:35, 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. Singu larity 23:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leejay Abucayan[edit]

This is a self-promotional, vanity entry by a teenage rapper without any verifiable national, state, or local notability whatsoever. The article was previously tagged by other editors as having notability issues and being completely devoid of supporting references of any kind. The article, which was created by a Single Purpose Account, is in fact nothing more than a cut-and-paste of the teenager's MySpace page, as can be seen here[1]. Overall, the article dismally fails WP:MUSIC. The guy has never had a record deal of any kind and does not make a living through music. According to his website, he still lives at home with his parents. We can't have every teenage rapper/beatboxer repasting vanity MySpace pages here and calling them encyclopedia articles. With too many of these young musical kids who repost their MySpace pages to Wikipedia, the "encyclopedia articles" are still up long after the "musicians" have had to abandon music to grow up and get real jobs, unrelated to the music field. The earlier editors who tagged the problems with this one were right. Leesome (talk) 23:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete crappy vanity article copy n pastes off myspace XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a far cry from WP:N, and notwithstanding the COI drama. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a commentary on the long statement below by the article's subject. I'm going to try to say this with as much sensitivity and respect as possible. I sincerely believe that it is the personal responsibility of every human being to live with as much integrity as possible. Certainly, Mr. Leejay has the right and opportunity to complain about all of the deletion votes, as he does below. Unfortunately, I don't think he advances his cause, however. Sometimes in life, the best thing to do is not to complain. I wish that this counsel had been followed in this matter, for now I must come to the difficult part of the post. The point I wish I didn't have to make. Mr. Leejay, sir, you say that you are not the author of the article in question. And yet, these are the facts: The article is a word-for-word cut-and-paste of your own personal MySpace page. I want to make clear that I am not calling you a liar, sir, as the article may have been nothing more than a misguided copyright violation on the part of a third party, a friend or a family member or someone else. However, it is important to remember that by becoming so defensive, you may have called your statements into question. I am going to assume the best of faith, however, and suggest that this article was simply a copyvio and is therefore deletable on that score. Thank you. Leesome (talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Leejay here. This "article for deletion" post was strangely brought to the attention by my mother, who randomly received an email with this link. First of all, whoever emailed my mother, I have no idea how he/she got her email address.

"You're going to wish you never started this business. You can argue if you want to, but you're going to wish you never started this stuff. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Leejay_Abucayan#Leejay_Abucayan"

Secondly, let it be known that I did NOT create this page myself -- it was created by a fan. For anyone that is upset with "crappy vanity articles copied off Myspaces," perhaps Wikipedia itself should crack down more on posts that are being published. Whoever posted this seems pretty bitter towards these "vanity" pages of "teenage" musicians, however, keep in mind that I took no part in the creation of my Wikipedia page -- it was in the hands of a fan.

...and just for the record:
-I started as a teenager, but I am currently 21 years old
-Beatboxers are not the same as rappers -- get your facts straight
-I'm on an independent label called "The Luna Co."
-I am, in fact, "grown up" and working three "real jobs," and I've never "abandoned music"

Maybe if that's not enough...
http://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/Content?oid=oid:16144
http://www.sacmag.com/media/Sacramento-Magazine/Best-of-Sacramento/2006-Editors-Picks/index.php?cp=2&si=1
http://www.beatboxbattle.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=9
http://www.humanbeatbox.com/beatboxer_interviews/p2_articleid/142
http://www.philippinefiesta.net/old/leejay.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO7nvsf1n08
http://www.leejaybeats.com/video_gooddaysac.html
http://www.leejaybeats.com/video_studentscholar.html

Are these good enough as references?

Delete the Wikipedia page if you must. I didn't create it. --Leejaybeats (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For not meeting the guideline set in WP:MUSIC. That said, the nom was a little more harsh than really necessary. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:MUSIC and the sources given above by the subject are not reliable Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 15:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Certainly does read like WP:VANITY, but I'm reluctant to make the allegation. However, what's relevant is this :[2] - Completely non-notable, both WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 16:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with the editor above who pointed out that none of the "sources" provided by Leejay Abucayan are reliable for establishing his "notability." Most of the material in the sources is self-generated. What little third-party material he has provided fails the standard. Look at the "article" about him in Sacramento Magazine--it's not an article at all, it's just a short blurb, and it shares the page with short blurbs about a hair salon and a car-repair shop!! Obviously, we're not going to have articles here about hair salons and car-repair places. That's NOT what personal notability is about, and that's not what an encyclopedia is about. Mr. Abucayan, please read WP:RELIABLE so that you will understand what kind of sources you need to provide to us. Leesome (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Just delete the page already. I'm not arguing with anyone. I've said countless times... this was a fan-created Wikipedia page. I never asked him to create it. I never even intended to have one made. A fan copied-and-pasted my bio onto a Wikipedia page without my knowledge. When I discovered its creation, I figured no one was going to look at it anyway, but it turns out, it has caused quite a stir, to English professors and general Internet browsers alike. If I wanted a Wikipedia page, I would have made one for myself a long time ago. "Leesome" -- I don't know if you're trying to prove anything to me, or get back at me (or my family) for anything, but if it makes you happy, have my page deleted already. What came off as my own defense to keep the Wikipedia page was simply a rebuttal to what seemed like harsh personal jabs at my career/hobby. For the last time, I didn't create it. If I'm not "notable" enough for Wikipedia, have it removed -- I'm not even fighting to keep it up. You've got my vote for deletion. Everyone wins. --Leejaybeats (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal attacks are not allowed on the project. Yours have been removed. Please see WP:ATTACK. Thank you. Leesome (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sadly fails WP:Notability--Shark face 217 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:Notability. Wish the lad luck, hope he can establish notability and have an article some time in the future. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 23:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chucky Chuck[edit]

This article has no real claims of notability at all. It merely describes him as a rapper and a clothes designer without expressing what accomplishments he has made that would be considered notable. No 3rd-party references are given for this article, and I've made a search for reliable sources that mentioned him and have found none. A search for news stories about him has come up dry. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:B, WP:V, and WP:N. -- Atama ^chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Atama ^chat 23:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to have some ok references now, but it definately needs a format cleanup XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 2 references from Subnoize, one reference from MySpace, one reference from DGAF, all of which are primary sources and violations of WP:RS. The only 3rd party source that is claimed, and it is a dubious one, is to a supposed Sublife Magazine article about Chucky Styles but when you click the link, it doesn't take you to an article about him. Again, this article has zero credible references at all, and again there are no notability claims that satisfy WP:MUSIC. -- Atama ^chat 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On further investigation it looks like "Suburban Life Magazine" is the magazine for Suburban Noize Records, so it's not even a third-party source either. -- Atama ^chat 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references are terrible. Even if they weren't, the subject isn't notable enough to warrant an article. Hierophantasmagoria (talk) 00:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a completely self-contained culture that isn't notable at all. All of the references are basically advertisements or a page with no information. B3nnic33 (talk) 00:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The whole Suburban Noize Records thing is a massive walled garden with some (cough) enthusiastic fans. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also checked for sources in a database of newspaper and magazine articles, and found nothing. Delete per Atama. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and B3nnic33. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:V, WP:BIO. --Shark face 217 02:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing compelling. No WP:RSs available, no news coverage. Just marginal myspace, blots, forums, lyrics, free downloads etc..etc.. [3], [4], and [5]. Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:15, 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. Nomination withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Stevenson (academic)[edit]

non-notable academic, appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:PROF. No evidence of any substantial independent coverage as required by WP:BIO BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article is one of a series of similar stubs on staff at Dublin City University which I PRODed. This PROD was contested with the comment that "head of department should pass WP:PROF". However, being head of department is not part of the notability criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

- Nomination withdrawn per discussion below. Since there are no delete !votes, I suggest that the AfD should now be speedily closed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Four books published by reputable publishers and being a Professor in Ireland, looks good enough notability for me. --Bduke (talk) 00:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 00:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to her vita here, of the four books listed in the article the first two were coauthored by her, and the last two were coedited by her. As to whether these, along with her journal articles, establish notability, I'm reserving judgment for the moment. Deor (talk) 01:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The Dublin City University bio [6] claims that she is the first chair of mental health nursing in Ireland, which seems a significant claim to notability. She has also co-authored or edited five books, several with highly reputable publishers. On the other hand, the highest citations found for her work in Google Scholar [7] are 41 & 23 (the other C Stephensons appear to be different people), which seems to me rather low. Not my subject so willing to change my mind if new evidence is brought. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient publications. One doesnt expect high citations in this subject. DGG (talk) 01:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As well as the points made above, her research into suicide has received press coverage as shown by the first shown by the first snippet displayed by a Google News search. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Many thanks to Phil for finding that piece.
  I have a subscription to the Irish Times website, so I have read the article in full ("Professor leads research into suicide attempts". The Irish Times. 27 September 2005. Retrieved 2008-03-20.). The research referred to is actually a bid for funding rather than a report of completed research, but the article is a substantial (945-word) account of Stevenson's analysis of the state of suicide-prevention work in Ireland North and South. It's the only ref I could find for Stevenson on the Irish Times website, but so far as I am concerned, that one piece of very substantial coverage clearly meets the notability requirements, so I will withdraw this nomination and expand the article using that source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Head of department in the UK , and universities elsewhere patterned on their system, is not just an administrative post, butthe senior academic position, corresponding approximately to a Distinguished Professorship in the US. 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
- I know, but some heads of department remain deeply obscure. Although the job is actually largely administrative, most people get a professorship only after making a substantial contribution to their academic discipline; but we still need evidence of that contribution. The professorship is no more than a good indi8cation that it's likely to be worth looking for that evidence. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even in US universities, the chair always goes to one of the most important senior professors present. The main distinction is that in the US it usually rotates among them, rather than one person having it as a career position. (Reasonable, since the key part of the job is to attract new faculty & administer the promotions of the present ones) At all places I've known, its done by an election of the faculty, approved by the Dean or provost, who almost always accepts their recommendation. I think in the UK, being permanent, it implies even more than that. Now, the question is whether this particular university is of such as standard that the senior academics in a department there are likely to be really notable, and whether their election of someone is a guarantee of importance in the profesion. In a major university like, say, Berkeley or Oxford, there would really be no question about notability of a professor & chair. At others, yes, it can well happen that none of the full professors in a college are in any way academically distinguished. The rank only means something in terms of the rank of the school and the department. I do not really know this university, and I definitely don't trust the spam-ridden WP article on it. But from [8] it might be. Or might not. At a really major university all the senior people would have even higher publication records than some of them here do. But I think she qualifies as notable individually on the basis of her record. DGG (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to have notability and the article has been cleaned up greatly. --Shark face 217 02:49, 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. Nobody has spoken in defense of the article. Wily D 17:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimonT Hockey Simulator[edit]

No indication or notability or sources to verify such notability. PROD contested without comment by page author. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Could have probably been speedied. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An A7 speedy was declined earlier this year, as it doesn't apply to software in general. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This software is about an Fantasy Hockey Software. Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fantasy_hockey#Simulation_Hockey_League

What I did is copy this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NHL_Eastside_Hockey_Manager (Who is a Fantasy Hockey Software also) and change the text.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimonT-Pycos (talk • contribs) 18:02, March 20, 2008

Comment I'm surprised that this wasn't speedied. --Shark face 217 02:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Nothing 444 20:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable software. Not a speedy, as software is not eligible for A7 and I'm not sure what other criteria this would meet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 valid concerns that this is about two people with the same name, neither of which are adequately sourced, hence the confusion. However, Rosencomet, you've brought up some very strong assertions of notability that would seem to fit our notability guidelines with sourcing for the Hawai'i writer, perhaps a new, sourced, and accurate article could be written? I would be happy to help any way I can. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pamela J. Ball[edit]

Writer of some new age self-help type books, 75 unique Google hits, all book sales blurbs or lists. No obvious biographical sources, and most of this article is just a book list. Foulsham is a respectable but niche market press (I used to do contract work for them a long time ago). Guy (Help!) 22:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is a long list (90% or so of the article) of non-notable books. The only link is to the article subject's personal website. Mattisse (Talk) 22:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Quite a few books, but no reliable sources to verify the content or (for the most part) that the person even exists. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above commentz XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the Hammer. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus. --Shark face 217 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I really don't even understand these comments. This author had two novels set in Hawaii that were best-sellers: Lava and Floating City. They are not "non-notable books". Her books show a career as an author spanning at least ten years. She has over ten books published, some by Random House [9] (10,000 Dreams Interpreted, The Complete Book of Dreams and Dreaming, and The Power of Creative Dreaming), according to their Wikipedia article "the world's largest English-language general trade book publisher", and some by Foulsham [10], a publishing company that's been in business since 1819; these are MAJOR PUBLISHERS. A google search on her name (don't forget to try Pamela Ball, rather than just Pamela J. Ball) shows her to be on the faculty of a university and to have made public appearances as an author. She's also a winner of the Hemingway Short Fiction award. What do you MEAN when you say there is no evidence that she even exists? What do you mean "verify the content", for that matter? What needs "verifying" about the content for her to have a Wikipedia article? And ALL bibliographies are lists of books; how can their length be anything but a GREATER support to the subject's notability? I just don't get this nomination; where are you setting the bar for an author's notability? Rosencomet (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added more biographical information. Please review the article before making a final decision. For instance, she has novels published by the Penguin Group and W.W. Norton, holds an M.A. in English, is a winner of the Hemingway Short Fiction Award, etc. Rosencomet (talk) 00:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as revised, subject appears to be notable for reasons mentioned by Rosen Comet. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there seems to be two Pamela Balls written about in this one article: one from Hawaii who writes fiction, and the other (J.) from Britain who writes self help books. The lack of enough reliable third party sources is the reason they were confused - another good reason why encyclopedia subjects should be notable. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-23t09:00z

I can't find any record of a Pamela Ball or a Pamela J. Ball who was born in Britain or who currently lives there. Some of Ms. Ball's books on dreams and other spiritual & metaphysical topics use the middle initial "J", and some do not. Some of her books were published in the U.K., and some both in the USA and the UK, and of course some have been translated into other languages. None of the publishers of the books I have listed describe her as being from Britain. I would expect the information on the websites of Florida State University, University of Hawaii, and Foulsham Publishing to be pretty reliable. Please point me to this Pamela J. Ball from Britain that you believe there's some confusion about, because I haven't found her anywhere. And how can the author of 18 books, none self-published, not be notable? Rosencomet (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jeandré. Daniel (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject would appear to not meet our current notability standards for inclusion, observed by the lack of independent, reliable sources. NonvocalScream (talk) 14:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the level of source material available doesn't make it possible to distinguish between two similarly named people they are probably not good candidates for inclusion. - cohesion 18:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cohesion said it better than I could have. Avi (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I would have thought winning the Hemingway Short Fiction Award to be a notable achievement. Is it not? Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I apologise if I'm incorrect, and please correct me if I am, but the Hemingway Short Fiction award does not seem to be a major competition/prize/whatever. A Google search only turned up a thousand or so hits, and most of them were polluted with references to Hemingway's own fiction. Apart from that, basically what User:Cohesion said above, I do not see that there is enough information on this person/people available to write a verifiable article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Juliya Chernetsky[edit]

Not notable. Infact i think all the templates give a better reason! Vote: Delete - TheProf | Talk 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep copious ghits, no news hits; some press (see fan site link), [11], [12]. JJL (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Weak keep or Merge to Metal Asylum, which she was the host of. I would imagine that most television hosts are probably notable, but given the apparent lack of sources, I wouldn't rule out a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge as it stands to Metal Asylum per the Duty Otter (above) Been looking thru the ghits but nothing solid enough for a Keep Plutonium27 (talk) 15:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to have established notability. --Shark face 217 02:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per User:Plutonium27. The person does not appear to be notable outside of the context of the television programme "Metal Asylum". Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep According to the article, she had stints on a couple of other shows, albeit brief. JeremyMcCracken (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete unless she gets her tits out 81.149.250.228 (talk) 15:31, 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. Wizardman 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

La Trobe University Student Representative Council[edit]

Non-notable organization. Has a few editors who won't even allow a notability tag to remain on the article. No sources, and has been tagged for them since December 2006. Fails WP:ORG. Paddy Simcox (talk) 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all such student union bodies must have the secondary sources needed to meet WP:ORG. It hasn't, and doesn't. TerriersFan (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And what steps have you taken to find them that you can make such a sweeping statement? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My suspicion is there is sufficient rich history of this organisation throughout the 1970s in particular that could make this entry notable. Verifiable secondary sources may end up being offline which would make the effort greater, but could well be worthwhile. Murtoa (talk) 04:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral More work could make this article meet WP:ORG. --Shark face 217 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but cull - The organisation is probably notable (despite a total lack of sources), but just about everything is uncited and/or unencyclopaedic. So my vote would be to reduce the article to a stub until one of the regular editors can be bothered expanding the page in a helpful way. However if, as has been said above, the editors just keep reverting changes, a delete might be more appropriate. --Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A significant student union involved in many political campaigns both inside and outside the university itself. A visit to the library would certainly find adequate sources for this article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 23:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Sidney[edit]

Unsourced non-notable spammy biography, vandalized or otherwise. tomasz. 22:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, spammy and quite obvious in its failure of WP:MUSIC (no major label albums, no chart singles, no reliable sources, etc.) Note that the links for his albums actually point to novels of the same name. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG DELETE one of the worst and most spammy articles ive ever seen XCharltonTilliDieX (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's not just for breakfast anymore. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JCGoodman- I am Joe Sidney's cousin, this is a real person, a real artist. He may not have a huge single or a major label, but he is a valid artist, and this is a true entry, not a fan page! This is his bio, whether he likes it or not! Would we find Velvet Underground's bio invalid in 1965 because they hadn't met Andy Warhol yet?? I strongly discourage deletion, and would prefer an edit to wikipedia's liking. It is not fair to exclude our community's greatest living songwriter and performer.—Preceding unsigned comment added by JCGoodman (talk • contribs)

Delete Not even close to passing WP:MUSIC (based on albums, tours, sales, etc.). Being a real person doesn't make one notable (in fact, it's not even a prerequisite). Bfigura ^(talk) 03:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could notability be established if the Hurricane Katrina claim is verified? --Shark face 217 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The article is here that covers it. Note that Great Neck musician Joe Sidney presents his Concert for Katrina Relief, Saturday, Sept. 17 at 6 p.m. at Levels in the Great Neck Library. which really says it is very local community coverage of a community event.

Delete - no reliaqble sources to establish notability. The Katrina thing seems to be rather minor, and although a wonderful thing to be doing, appears to be a minor community fundraiser much like many others that happened about that time. -- Whpq (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Bfigura...--Comet styles 10:37, 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, DGG's research has persuaded some that he meets the relevant guideline but others remain unconvinced that he does. Davewild (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tia Keyes[edit]

non-notable academic; no evidence of independent coverage, let alone substantial (as required per WP:BIO). Fails WP:PROF. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2008

(UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above; if after nearly 2 years notability can't be asserted and backed up, then it likely never will be. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per DGG's research, it seems notability of sorts exist, though I am unsure whether given publications are sufficient enough for a good claim of article inclusion, hence I withdraw my delete vote and take a neutral stance. I'm not saying I think it should be kept, but merely that my vote for deletion is no longer as strong, and I lack adaquate knowledge to give any credible opinion. Maybe the next step would be to properly integrate such publications into the article rather than just link or barely reference them. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article makes no claim of notability. Check of CV on University Website and of citations on Google Scholar suggest a typical academic publication record, not "significant" and "well-known" academic work as required for WP:PROF. BRMo (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment – I remain unpersuaded by DGG's findings. Despite the recent edits, the article's lede still fails to claim notability. Her 56 published articles may meet the alternative standard mentioned in WP:PROF of "more notable than the average college instructor/professor," but that standard is not universally accepted and I personally disagree with it. If this article is to be kept, I'd like someone to explain in word (not in counts of publications or citations) why they think her work is significant, and also add that explanation to the article's lede. BRMo (talk) 14:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nomination and per BRMo's comments. Clearly fails WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Unsure per DGG's comments. I'd like to hear more about citation rates in physical chemistry. It sounds a bit strange to me that the number of publications of Keyes is quite high (54), while the citation rates appear somewhat low. Nsk92 (talk) 20:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Lecturer, not professor, with only 2 co-authored publications above 10 citations in a Google Scholar search (30 & 25) [13]. The single book has only a few citations. I see no evidence that the subject yet meets WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to Weak keep, per DGG's research. I think 50 co-authored papers with only a handful having citations above 20 is fairly borderline, particularly for someone who is still at the lecturer level, but I concede that I don't have a great handle on citation frequency in physical/inorganic chemistry, and I can't see that the current article (with DGG's additions) is harming the encyclopedia. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BRMo. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing the search in Web of Science, there are 54 peer reviewed papers, of which the highest have counts of 44, 39, 39, 35, and 24 respectively. 4 of these 6 were in Journals published by the American Chemical Society, the most prestigious in the subject. . This is sufficient for notability--physical chemistry is not a field with a very high density of citations. Google Scholar should not be relied on to find all references., especially for papers published before 2000, and especially for work in chemistry Many papers from ACS publications have in the past not been included there do to lack of agreement between ACS and ISI. The results here are a clear demonstrations of it. I will do a limited number of WoS searches if no one else interested has it available. I have added her most cited papers to the article. DGG (talk) 17:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you add a list of the individual highly cited papers, either here or in the article? I didn't realise that ACS journals didn't appear in Google Scholar, and agree that they are the most prestigious in the field. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please provide some context — for example, among tenured physical chemists at research universities who have been publishing for about 15 years, would her publication record place her among the top 5 percent? 20 percent? 50 percent? Also, the article's text is pretty generic and doesn't establish that her work is notable. (In other words, similar text could be written about most academics, with the exception of the publication count—which shouldn't be the sole evidence of notability.) Would it be possible to add a sentence or two summarizing parts of her work that are "significant" or "well known"? — BRMo (talk) 22:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Note also that Lecturer in the Isles includes most people who in America would be called Professor. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 19:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think your interpretation of the Lecturer position is correct. From what I know about the British/Irish academic system, they have three types of positions: Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Reader, Professor. My understanding is that Lecturer roughly corresponds to Assistant Professor in the U.S. plus a little higher (probably cutting into the Associate Professor range a bit), while Professor in the British system generally means something higher than Full Professor in the U.S, with Reader being somewhere in between. Nsk92 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not aware of any Irish Universities having a "Reader" grade of academic staff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are right! I thought that Britain and Ireland have the same academic rank system (Britain does have Readers), but I was wrong about that. I just looked up Reader (academic rank) and only UK, Australia and New Zealand are mentioned as using it. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 23:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I'm aware, Reader is not universal even among UK universities. Many would just use Post-doc, Lecturer, Professor, Head of Department. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per above posts. --Shark face 217 02:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the rationale provided by DGG, subject appears to be notable within their field. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, would appear to meet the WP:PROF notability guidelines, particularly #4. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, the sources provided during the AFD have perusaded some that it meets the notability guideline but not others. Davewild (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaua‘i+County+Police+Department[edit]

I have placed a speedy deletion tag on the page, but it has been contested and removed (along with the {{hangon}}) at least twice. The article in question seems to fail WP:NPOV and possibly WP:COI Gawaxay (talk • contribs • count) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No idea why the "AfDs for this article" is garbled. Anyway, this article fails the notability guidelines for organizations, not to mention WP:V, dashed with some likely WP:COI. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, though I'm sure it's frequently in the local papers. JJL (talk) 22:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article itself is notable and falls under WP:WikiProject Law Enforcement. The author is very new and is unaware of some of the policies governing notability. Let's try not to bite the newcomers. S/he has also created Hawaii County Police Department, which I have cleaned up to keep it within WP:N. The author is very adept at adding valid photos and text to this wiki. Give me a chance to help the author wikify the article, take out some of the COI/advert tendancies, and add references. Thanks!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 02:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE, I have notified the author about WP standards on his/her user talk page. I have revamped the article to remove POV, COI issues. Removed the advert-sounding recruitment section, added references and third-party citations. If anyone can see anything else that needs changing, please let me know. Aloha!--Sallicio ^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second Sallicio's motion. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Kauai County, Hawaii. I do not think that the department is notable enough for a stand-alone article, but, with Sallicio's improvements, this information would be a good addition to the article for the county.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per above. Notability exists, but this article may fit best as a subsection under Kauai County. --Shark face 217 02:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I see no reason why it fails notability. Sure, people all around the world don't know about the Kaua'i Police Department, but if you delete this, then why not Honolulu Police Department? Both are police departments of the state of Hawai'i that have equal importance. I believe it may fit under Kauai County, but I think that someone should create the page Police Departments of Hawaii or something of the sort and merge this article there, should it be deleted. Info on HPD and the others may be merged as well. –The Obento Musubi (Contributions) 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly there are reliable and verifiable sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kauai County, Hawaii. This police department does not appear particularly notable or interesting as far as such organisations go. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa Lennon Blunt[edit]

unreferenced stub article on an apparently non-notable author, no evidence of any independent coverage BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - references do not establish notability. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It does not appear that notability has been established. --Shark face 217 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, appears to fall well short of the notability criteria under "Creative professionals" on WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete by nom (page was blanked by only author). Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Richards (actor)[edit]

Non notable actor. Article claims he has appeared in many large films, but it seems that this is as little more than an extra. No reliable sources, no incoming links. We have fairly good articles on many of these films, and none of them mention him. Apparently written by the subject. J Milburn (talk) 21:38, 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. Singu larity 23:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Chavez & The Crayons TBA[edit]

0 non-wiki ghits for the group; album may never have been released. Possible WP:COI issues. Prodded in 2007, but prod was contested at that time. Not eligible for prod again, so taking to AfD Fabrictramp (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The artist doesn't appear to be notable at all; therefore, neither is the album. (I'll say it again -- in cases where the artist gets A7'd, A7 should extend to their albums as well.) I can't find any reliable sources at all for "Alan Chávez & The Crayons" either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely unverifiable, possibly a hoax. The article about 'Alan Chavez' (who is 16 iirc from the infobox) was speedy deleted (CSD A7) last week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hammer don't hurt em! /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Per Hammer, consensus, precedent, etc. --Shark face 217 02:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC given all this time. Non-notable album. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pakelika Presents: Another Cult Classic[edit]

Non-notable album by non-notable artist (whose article was deleted via AfD) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the artist isn't notable, than neither are their albums. The All Music Guide link isn't quite enough to satisfy WP:RS either. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. --Shark face 217 02:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not encyclopedic enough. Dwilso 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if the band is not notable, then the records probably are not either. This doesn't appear to be an exception. Fails WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Denis Casavant[edit]

Canadian radio sportscaster. Unable to verify claims in the article with any independent sources. No references. It does not meet the WP:BIO guidelines. Only source I could find was his bio on his blog page. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking independent sourcing. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Both CKGM and RDS have articles verifying this article Hirolovesswords (talk) 19:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources need to help verify his notability not just his employment. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 02:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as non-notable. Pluswhich (talk) 03:03, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be an unremarkable broadcaster. Fails WP:BIO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default keep). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Ralph[edit]

Non-notable person; only editor doesn't seem to know or care what the requirements are - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:33, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability criteria for singers -- heck, for anything at all. Doesn't seem to be the subject of any sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with St Winifred's School Choir, not notable enough for her own page but the choir seems notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless any of it can be evidenced using external sources, in which case merge them with St Winifred's School Choir and then delete anyway. -- Roleplayer (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An uncredited contributor to a song recorded by a school choir does not pass the requirements for WP:N of a member of a group. Appeared briefly as a talking-head on a couple of one-hit-wonder/worst-songs-ever list-type C4 TV shows a few years back, which may account for editor's assertion of notability in the hope than some of us were watching. Plutonium27 (talk) 21:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Did any of you people piling on with your delete comments even bother to check for sources? It only took me a few seconds to find the ones that I just added to the article. Of course the lead singer on a Christmas number one is notable. Hers is a voice that everyone in the UK over about 35 would recognise, even if most of us would be too embarrassed to admit it. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't think it matters - the artist at the time wasn't "Dawn Ralph and the St Winifred's School Choir", it was "St Winifred's School Choir", therefore, seeing as you have provided references, I say merge with St Winifred's School Choir. -- Roleplayer (talk) 23:53, 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has sources per above. Catchpole (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reliable sources...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with St Winifred's School Choir, subject does not have independent notability. Half the article is explaining how happy she is NOT being in the music business. --Dhartung | Talk 22:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You have shown in that comment that the article is about her, rather than the choir, so you are in fact giving an argument in favour of independent notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think that Dhartung is talking about the Wikipedia article, not about any article that is used as a source.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with St Winifred's School Choir. BRMo (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's already mentioned in the choir's article, and the only sourced information in this article (other than her role as soloist with the choir) is that she is married and has a child, which hardly seems worth merging. I could also support a redirect without merging. Deor (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & Delete - subject herself is not independently notable, redirect unnecessary. Merge any relevant info into parent article. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to St Winifred's School Choir. The two sources are really about the choir, not about her. It is possible that some of this information could be merged into the article on the choir.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The Choir seems notable enough. --Shark face 217 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic isn't encylopedic enough. Dwilso 18:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Encyclopedic and notable enough for Wikipedia. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some very divergent opinions on this AfD! I will go for Merge and Redirect to St Winifred's School Choir, as this person does not appear to be notable outside of her achievements with that group. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Merge and redirect to St Winifred's School Choir , seems to be notable more distinctly as a choir .--@ the $un$hine . (talk) 23:04, 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. Singu larity 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nutrilayer[edit]

User Mlamb1 (talk · contribs) has put in a series of articles about products of the Eastman Chemical Company. A speedy on this one was declined as a borderline case, with the suggestion of taking it to AFD "if article still appears as advertising". There are are clear COI issues - this user's only edits are to Eastman Chemical and its products - and the only references are the company's website and an external link which is a story written by "Nancy E. Kinkade Ph.D. – Eastman Chemical Company". Although the article reads like a product catalogue entry rather than a blatant advertisement, it is still promotion - out to explain the product's advantages.

I suggest that we Delete this and the four similar articles I have listed below, because they do not demonstrate notability for these products, and we should not let Wikipedia become an Eastman Chemical product catalogue. JohnCD (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I originally nomd this for speedy and was surprised it was declined. To my mind clearly spam. – ukexpat (talk) 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-notable product spam. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Delete all as non-notable and spam. Dawn bard (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SPAM. --Shark face 217 02:59, 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 (nomination withdrawn). (jarbarf) (talk) 02:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wally Bear and the NO! Gang[edit]

Unlicensed NES game, probably NN. Only possible claim to notability is it's review by the Angry Video Game Nerd, but that per se may not be a valid assertion. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, per USA Today review, should be cited in article if possible. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Slartibartfast1992 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a licensed game, nor the subject of any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this nomination is honestly a bit baffling to me. We have articles on other unlicensed NES games that have survived AfDs (Spiritual Warfare and other Wisdom Tree games) and this one is certainly more notable than they are. Homebrew games are one thing, but this one was actually published and sold in stores. JuJube (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This game has been discussed in well-known online sources, including Seanbaby's website (see [14]). Here's another review from a website that has been around for over 10 years and that I would generally consider a reliable source on NES-related issues. I'm sure some published sources could also be found if someone has access to video game magazines (not Nintendo Power, obviously, since they only covered licensed NES games) from the era when the game was released. *** Crotalus *** 12:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cover for the game was also ranked fifth by in a list of top ten worst covers by Gamespy.[15] --76.66.189.163 (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't qualify as non-trivial coverage Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 23:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "non-trivial" or any permutation thereof does not appear in the verifiability policy you cite here. *** Crotalus *** 02:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Was an actual published video game... appears to be notable enough. --03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Simply being published is not an assertion of notability. Not all published books and films qualify as notable, why are video games any different? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 21:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This game was notable for keeping young children away from recreational drugs. Someone should be working hard on this article so that it may become a featured article someday instead of being deleted. GVnayR (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I don't understand what licensing has to do with it. Actually, I'd say that any non-homebrew NES game (i.e., was developed by a company and sold commercially) is going to be notable. This one especially has plenty of coverage; in addition to the modern retro reviews, I found a USA Today article about the game from 1991 (it's difficult, of course, to find print sources that are that old, especially in video game magazines where we'd expect to find the most material). This surely qualifies. — brighterorange (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is no citation for the claim that a Nancy Reagan trademark affected the naming of the game. This topic does not have more than transient interest. Racepacket (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But notability is not temporary... — brighterorange (talk) 00:10, 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. If anyone is prepared to write an article on Etna software that uses reliable sources, then feel free to set it up in a sandbox and list it at Deletion review. Otherwise, it stays deleted. Spebi (talk) 05:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Etna software[edit]

After extensive searching in both English and Russian languages, sources can't be found which would establish notability of this Russian company, thereby it fails WP:CORP Россавиа ^Диалог 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Россавиа ^Диалог 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Unsourced article about a non-consumer software business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:COMPANY --Shark face 217 03:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. if more reliable references are added. Dwilso 03:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article has no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability, and as a consequence, reads like an advertorial. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vaguely promotional in tone. Wouldn't be a problem if reliable secondary sources were available which mark this company as being noteworthy or remarkable in some fashion, but I was not able to find any. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 noted below, vandalism will be dealt with as a wholly separate issue. (This discussion failed to mention the previous AFD in 2006 which can be found here). — CharlotteWebb 13:19, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameRanger[edit]

Probably doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (web), no references, no indication of significance or importance. Polly (Parrot) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The inability to keep the page accurate due to the persistant vandalism should also be noted. Simply look at the logs.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 08:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7: "web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" and block the users who keep removing the AFD tag. Percy Snoodle (talk) 09:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete if left in its current state, with just one independent source; Keep if the sources mentioned below are added to the article. Percy Snoodle (talk) 11:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per Percy Snoodle. Article has suffered from heavy vandalism and is probably unrepairable. Article also has no citations and contains potentially libellous content (probably added as part of the vandalism).--Gazimoff (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - [16] Trivial mentions at apple.com and other freeware download sites. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC) Changing to Keep per google news articles. Definitely establishes notability. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Plenty of sources (http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=GameRanger+mac&btnG=Search+Archives&ie=UTF-8&um=1) and vandalism isn't a reason to delete. Please do a web/news search before voting to delete. Remember we are looking for notability of the topic not of the article. Hobit (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a search for material, however the article is being continually vandalised by Rrybellows, Demons2oo5 and Wing44 with the insertioon of libellous comments. Any attempt to correct the article is instantly reverted. WP:CSD#G3 is my argument in this case - if an article can be created on this topic, it is probably better to do it elsewhere as any effort to correct the article is highly likely to be reverted.Gazimoff (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are other tools such as blocking and page protection which can be used to deal with vandalism. If we delete an article because of vandalism then the vandals will have won. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page was vandalised again by another new user. If possible, it may be worth looking at those blocks and other tools you mentioned, as the situation is getting a bit ridiculous.Gazimoff (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Per Hobit, sources. This is an established service dedicated to servicing those who plays old games on Apple machines. --Shark face 217 03:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We've already been through this, and it passed even before the google news articles. GofG _|^|_| Talk 22:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is now demonstrated within the article, vandalism is irrelevant. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:42, 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 keep. John254 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bambu rolling papers[edit]

I won't go as far as calling this spam outright, otherwise I would've listed it with {{db-spam}} but this product appears to be non-notable in that it lacks anything that resembles a reliable third party source, let alone multiple sources about the product. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here's a review in a magazine called "Roll Your Own" magazine (NB: i haven't a clue if the latter is notable/reliable, but in mitigation, i also imagine it might be reasonably harder to find sources on illegal-drug paraphernalia than on quite a lot of other subjects). Here is notice of a "lifetime achievement award" from High Times magazine, who i believe are quite the big-shots in the world of the marijuana. I also think the detail of Cheech & Chong seeing fit to appropriate the design of the Bambú packet for the cover of what is apparently their most popular album (plus giant 12"-sized paper - Rolling Stone review, Aug 17, 1972) may well indicate these things were of some substantial popularity in the '70s. This Penthouse cover story from 2000, covering Draconian drug policy, makes fleeting mention of candy stores getting busted for carrying these papers. Here's a mention in the first chapter of what seems a reasonably notable novel. Don't particularly know (not being a lawyer, etc.) what notability court cases might bring, but here is one the company fought over Big Bambu papers in the 80s. Might also be worth noting that apparently one of their competitors has been doing some stealth editing... tomasz. 23:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The new sources looks very solid.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and suggest that this nomination be reconsidered in light of edits. Bambu rolling papers are something of a cultural icon. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:NOTABILITY. --Shark face 217 03:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve referencing within the article, the subject itself meets Wikipedia standards for notability. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:42, 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 Keep. Tikiwont (talk) 09:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Martine Vik Magnussen case[edit]

Just another murder... Fails WP:N. Biruitorul (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing to indicate anything notable, though it might pass the "Skittles" test of making an article about something that happened in the past week. Mandsford (talk) 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Currently 20800 hits on Google on "Martine Vik Magnussen". There are probably articles which don't mention the name too. It is notable in Norway, and probably the UK, (in Yemen too?) but probably not very notable worldwide. Bib (talk) 21:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Potential to become notable case, but many of the claims of importance don't stand up, like having been on the same dance floor as P Diddy or having gone to the same school as the Crown Prince of Norway. Uh, wow. --Dhartung | Talk 22:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First, from Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.. So the article is notable, because it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, even if a majority of these are Norwegian sources.

However, here's text from Wikipedia:What wikipedia is not News reports. Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews.

Since the article is about the case, The Martine Vik Magnussen case, it does not matter that the person according to wikipedia rules is not notable.

It does say that timely news subjects not suitable for wikipedia may be suitable for wikinews. But that is what we're discussing here, is this timely new suitable? It says Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. This news is beyond that IMO. I might be wrong, and I might change my vote to delete if someone explains it with some other wiki rules, or another interpretation on these wiki rules. Bib (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, put it this way: just because an article can exist, should it exist? Biruitorul (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know Bib (talk) 19:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the question, it already does exists. The question is: should it be deleted, and the answer is: not unless there is overwhelming evidence and consensus that it violates policy. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is a valid question! (Unfortunately we don't have "proposed articles - people just go ahead and create them, and if they're unfit, others try and delete them.) If only people reflected on that point before creating articles, we wouldn't have 2.3 million of them, of which a hefty proportion is rubbish unfit for an encyclopedia calling itself that. So again: possibly policy allows for this article (though I still contend it fails WP:N), but really, what encyclopedia contains an article on some random murder? Just because something is permissible doesn't make it right. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be an interesting question, but for a different forum - this is a deletion debate. Personally I have many times had great use of articles that others might consider "rubbish". Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. No, the existence or non-existence of this article is immaterial to the advisability of its existence. An instant before User:Pauly04 created it, it was unworthy of existence, and an instant afterward, it remained so. Merely coming into being did not alter its fundamental lack of encyclopedicity. 2. I take your point: one man's trash is another man's treasure. However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have some standards. That doesn't imply the "significant news coverage-->article" equation must always be true. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Aftenposten is not considered tabloid press, and neither is BBC. This case is notable, and to say otherwise just shows an Anglo-Saxon centrist bias. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. I reject that silly accusation wholeheartedly, as I vigorously pushed for deletion here. 2. The murder happened in London, so obviously the BBC would cover it. I don't care whether the victim is British, Norwegian, Malay or Zulu - the bottom line is that this is a routine murder of an ordinary individual and the fact that the press has covered it indicates that the press is doing its job, not that her murder deserves an entry in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul (talk) 21:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing routine about this case at all. The international aspect and the status of the missing witness has made it a cause célèbre, like it or not. To call it a "routine murder" is like saying that Rodney King was just another reckless driver. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, Lampman, let's not exaggerate here. Was she a member of the Royal Family? Were UFOs involved? Has Norway mobilised its Navy in the North Sea? No: the victim was a regular person killed in a none-too-uncommon fashion - such things (sadly) happen every day. The only possible circumstance making it slightly out of the ordinary is that the alleged murderer's father is a billionaire. But so what? Granted, had it been Warren Buffet or Bill Gates' son, OK, but this guy has <$10 bil (he's not on our list) and made some money in the hotel and cola industries. Just because his son allegedly killed someone doesn't confer notability on the case.

Oh, and Rodney King: spare me. [17] vs. [18]. Lasting cultural impacts vs. (at this point at least) none whatsoever. Biruitorul (talk) 04:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there's the bias again. There is nothing in Wikipedia guidelines that demands notability on an international level, national notability is enough. It just so happens that American notability normally equates international notability, but this guy's father is the Buffet or Gates of his country. In Norway, the case is notable in itself simply because of its uniqueness: it hardly ever happens that Norwegians get murdered abroad (never mind quite possibly by a Yemeni billionaire's son). As for Rodney King, I am in no way equating the two, I am simply trying to make the point that cases which per se may seem trivial can gain notability exactly because of the media attention they get.

But look, the current consensus on this matter is quite clear:

A criminal act is notable if it receives significant coverage in sources with national or global scope.
While the victim(s) and perpetrator(s) of such a crime are often not notable on their own, this does not preclude the notability of the criminal act itself.

and that, I believe, says it all. The delitionists here seem to be arguing how they think Wikipedia should work rather than how it does work. But as I've said before, that is a debate for a different forum, this is a deletion debate relating to a specific article. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 14:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your claims of bias are absurd. I happened to pick Buffett and Gates, but I could as easily have picked Carlos Slim or Lakshmi Mittal. The guy's father (and, by the way, notability is not inherited) isn't even in the top 100, so he can't be that significant. Sure, Yemen has a wealthiest person, but so do Haiti, Malawi and Sierra Leone - that doesn't mean they're especially rich by global standards. Of course the case is going to garner some attention in Norway: the media loves these kinds of stories. That doesn't mean (and, might I add, WP:N/CA is merely a proposed policy) every transient and, all things considered, trivial episode merits a place in an encyclopedia. If I see some lasting impact in half a year (or better yet a decade) I might revise my opinion. Biruitorul (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you're just confirming what I suspected. You seem to imply that notability can only exist on a global level, and that notability - for entrepreneurship or other things - on a national level in Yemen, Haiti, Malawi or Sierra Leone is somehow worthless. This way you are only promoting the systemic bias that Wikipedia tries so hard to counter. Surely you can't deny that if global notability was to be the criterion for inclusion, then the article mass would be unfairly slanted towards the US? And yes, I know that WP:N/CA is only yet a proposed policy, that's why I used the word "consensus" and not "policy". At the moment, however, it's what we have, and as for your suggested policy of not creating articles on anything more recent than ten years, I fail to see what that is based on. It certainly would cancel out one of the main advantages we have over print encyclopedias. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 19:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify my comments. a) If (say) a Yemenite amasses a $50 billion fortune, by all means write an article on him. We have articles on billionaires from Nigeria, [Naguib Sawiris|Egypt]], Brazil - great. No problem with me. We have an article on the man who was once Romania's wealthiest, and on her wealthiest man today - but not so much because of their wealth (not that impressive globally) but because their other activities made them notable. I myself wrote an article on a Romanian murderer, but mostly because of his crimes' lasting cultural impact. b) I certainly don't suggest waiting a decade for everything; a few months is usually enough. Of course some things one knows right away are going to have a lasting impact and so creating an article on them immediately isn't a problem. But it's this rush to start articles on events that could well be forgotten quite soon that is disturbing and damages our reputation. Biruitorul (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with you about the damaged reputation. I don't recall any external sources complaining we cover too trivial topics, but I have seen a lot of them commending our coverage of contemporary issues. Here we have an advantage over print encyclopedias in our up-to-date coverage, but also over internet news sources in that we contribute background and context (like the beautiful map on International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence; you'd have to leaf through a quite a few newspapers to find anything that clear and comprehensive).

Ultimately this is a matter of philosophy and personal opinion. My belief is that even if the subject is trivial (which this one certainly is not, with an international incident brewing over extradition issues) the article is not so, as long as it is well written and sourced.

Anyway, these are larger issues. The only issue at hand here is: does this article violate policy? I think the obvious answer is "no". Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 02:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again back to the philosophical can / should dichotomy - I don't think either of us will convince the other at this point, but it's been an instructive debate. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The case seems to have garnered significant international attention. --Shark face 217 03:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And...? That entitles it to a place in an encyclopedia? Really, let's think about the bigger picture here, let's maintain some sort of standard higher than "it was in the news a lot, so, hey, let's have an article on it!" Biruitorul (talk) 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that be a standard which is too low? —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I like to see some sort of lasting impact, or potential of one, in an encyclopedic entry. Personal opinion, I know, but it informs my interpretation of WP:N, which is why I made the nomination. Biruitorul (talk) 02:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, we can always delete it later on. —Nightstallion 16:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Albeit perhaps not in the limelight in the U.S., this remains a public case in the UK, Norway and Yemen, and should thus qualify in all means to a Wikipedia entry. --Lipothymia (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I agree with others that although the article passes Wikipedia:Notability, it also fails WP:NOT. So here's why I think it presently it should be kept - because if we delete it, it will only presently be added back by another Anon. Secondly, the longer term issues of extradition between the UK and Yemen, let alone the diplomatic pressure Norway will bring to bear, would easily push this past a News point to an issue of excellent encyclopaedic note. In example, I'd say look at the Alexander Litvinenko article - initially news of one person dying, now an ongoing diplomatic issue clearly worthy of encyclopaedic inclusion. Let the Anon's edit and add as the news piece ebbs and flows, and review in a months time once its significance (in light of the police report) has been established or not. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - one of the main advantages to Wikipedia is that we are broad in our coverage. This is a well written article that complies with all Wikipedia policies. We need to welcome more like it. Johntex\^talk 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If "it's policy-compliant" is your standard for article retention, fine. (To which I ask, again: just because an article can exist, should it exist?) But if we keep, and it looks we will, might we find a better title? The "the" is sub-standard, for instance. Biruitorul (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the title should change, definitely. As to your other question, my answer would be Yes. If an article complies with policy then it should be allowed to exist. If someone takes the time to write a reasonably well-written, reasonably well-referenced, policy compliant article, then we should keep it - plain and simple. We need more articles like that, not fewer. Johntex\^talk 21:00, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A shooting spree that killed 1? A 3-hour blackout? (I hear Iraq's had quite a few of those in the last 5 years.) A dozen non-fatal cases of measles? (As opposed to the 70 who died of measles in Afghanistan in 2000.) 4 dead in small planes? (Cessnas crash all the time.) Skittles? Turbulence? This murder? If that's what you want from an encyclopedia, well, I guess you're in the majority. But if any of this had happened outside the English-speaking developed world, or before ~2004, you can bet they wouldn't have articles. Now I know your answer will probably be "let's create articles on those other episodes rather than deleting these", but it's unfortunate people don't consider the probable lasting impact of a current event before dignifying it with an article purely because the press has covered it (which, I will remind you, is, after all, the press's job - to cover big news stories, whether or not they'll matter beyond next week). Biruitorul (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are exactly right that my reply is to go improve the coverage of other parts of the world if they are lagging behind coverage of events in America. If all the effort that went into trying to delete well-referenced articles went into creating more good articles we would be far better off. It would be a wonderful thing if Wikipedia had existed in 1900 and we had 100 or 1000 murder articles from period of 1900-1910 so that readers could compare those articles to the crimes of 2000-2010.

The mistake you make is assuming that we have not considered the consequences. The consequences of such articles would be that people have a resource that provides a more complete understanding of the world we live in. So, perhaps you should heed your own advice and give some consideration to the lasting impact of that?

If people want to write policy-compliant, well-referenced articles on recent events then we should applaud their efforts, not discourage them. The Skittles article you dislike so thoroughly is 3x better referenced than Elephant shrew or Aardvark. Maybe the Aardvark and elephant shrew articles are important animals, but the Skittles incident and its themes of nutrition, school discipline, and zero tolerance enforcement are of interest to a number of Wikipedia readers. As is this article on the Martine Vik Magnussen case. There is no reason to deny them the ability to learn about these topics. Johntex\^talk 03:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a question of priorities. If people prefer devoting energy to video-game reratings or some football team (OK, just kidding there) rather than important buildings or composers, then we can't stop them (or I should say those of us who would like to can't).

I honestly didn't know you were the Skittles author, but my position remains the same: it's a nice "offbeat news" sort of story, but I'd prefer if we didn't head down that slippery slope (seems we're doing so, though). Of course it's well-referenced: you're a competent editor and know how to source articles properly. That doesn't mean (in my view) that the animals you mentioned shouldn't receive more attention, because in a years' time, aardvarks will still matter but the Skittles incident will be long forgotten.

To address your question on impact: I think with some events, the impact is obvious right away and it's good to have an article at once. (Examples might include the Indian Ocean tsunami or Kosovo declaring independence.) With other things, though (this article being a good example), I don't think it would kill people to wait six or even three months to see if indeed there's something more than transitory about a subject before enshrining it here. And yes, I do consider the impact of the articles I create and those I seek to delete - I see an encyclopedia as a general resource on subjects of scholarly interest, not as a repository for everything. Granted, we here have a much wider scope than print encyclopedias, and I'm genuinely grateful for that, but just how wide that scope should be remains a matter of contention. Biruitorul (talk) 04:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can all agree that the Aardvark is an important animal and our article on the Aardvark deserves to be improved; my mention of it is designed partly to point out that we have much work to do in lots of places. But also partly to show what you have just said - people will write about what they want to write about. That is not perfect, but it is a pretty good system, given that we have only volunteers to rely on. Besides, our readers and our authors are overlapping populations. We have to imagine that the things our writers want to write about will also largely relate to what our readers want to read about.

I am glad you mention this 2007 football team I helped write about. 100 years from now will not be considered of the all-time greats of the sport, or even of the school. The school boasts 1, 2, 3 national championship teams that we have not written about. Why? Partly because people care about recent history. Partly because it is easier to write about things while references are fresh and available. Partly just because it is interesting. If no one beats me to it I may write those other articles someday as well.

I also did a lot of work on October 2007 California wildfires. We wrote the bulk of that article in October/November when the events were fresh and I am glad we did so. Again, sourcing is easier at the time of the events. Does it need a copyedit now that a few months have passed? Absolutely, but the article is still better for being primarily written when the events were occurring and people cared deeply about the topic.

Current event articles on Wikipedia are a very good thing. The idea that they will evolve over time as our perspectives change is also a good thing. But lets not delete them - let's let them mature and evolve alongwith our perspectives. Johntex\^talk 05:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess we'll just have to wait and see, right? Who knows where we'll be in a decade's time - maybe we'll have collapsed under our own weight, or maybe the 2006,7,8 current-events articles will indeed be appreciated then. I look forward to finding out. Biruitorul (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fair. I can't claim to know the future so I could be wrong about whether people will appreciate these articles. I am pretty confident though, that if the articles ever pose a true risk of us collapsing under our weight, that we can always delete or split off articles at that time. Thanks for your open dialog about this question. Johntex\^talk 17:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure, and may the deletionist-inclusionist war remain civil! Biruitorul (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Murder of..." seems to be quite standard, see Category:2007 crimes or Category:2005 crimes. Lampman ^{Talk to me!} 22:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (If I may chip in as an occasional contributor, that is) I can only compare this to "just another crime" that has turned into a substantial wikipedia entry, namely the Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. The London murder may not have received the same coverage yet, but as others have pointed out, there is a diplomatic dimension that makes it more than just another murder. The latest in this regard is that Yemen might refuse to cooperate in order to avenge itself for Britain's refusal to extradite Abu Hamza al-Masri, the hook-handed cleric.[19] My feeling is that this will not go away soon. If it does, the article can always be removed. (toufoul) 21:14, 25 March 2008 (GMT)

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:06, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Flores[edit]

Non-notable singer. Signed to Sony at a young age, released 2 singles that failed to chart, and her planned album was shelved. Fails WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if she is in fact signed to Sony Music I think that alone meets criteria for inclusion. I suspect this article just needs some improvement, which should happen naturally over time. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Being signed to a major label isn't one of the criteria; it's releasing two albums on a major label—she hasn't even released one. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no prejudice against recreation once she charts (if she does). She hasn't put out an album or singles yet, so she seems to fail WP:MUSIC right now. Given that she is with a major label (anyone know which division of Sony?), she probably could meet some criterion in the future, just not right now. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. If someone can locate reliable sources of these two singles then I think this is a fairly solid case for inclusion if they were released under the Sony label. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears to be Epic Records.SonyBMG site using AllMusic data I've found a 404'd article in The Age that suggests, as of last August, her album This Girl still hadn't been released. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence that she meets WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, if this artist is signed but has yet to actually release anything, and no valuable third party publications are available, we may as well remove this for now (without prejudice) until such sources do become available. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Appears to be a notable actress. --Shark face 217 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There's only one role listed on IMDb, which doesn't meet Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers.

An actor can be notable for only one role. This person has done more than act in that MTV film anyway.--Oakshade (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wikipedia:BIO#Entertainers says different: "Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions." —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice until better sources are published about the subject. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Signed with a major label like Sony does make this person notable in addition to having a principal role in a MTV film. --Oakshade (talk) 07:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment WP:MUSIC does not include being signed to a major label as a criterion for notability. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 09:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to be notable either as a musician or an actor. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Singu larity 00:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Cars[edit]

I am at a loss to know where to start on this article that begins with telling us where 'Britian' is! It then goes onto mention two seemingly arbitrarily chosen motor manufacturers, states that the headquarters of Daihatsu is in Britian when its in Japan and then goes into a complete nonsense passage about 'Britian plates'. Paste (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both as redundant info to existing articles. I added German Cars, another similar nonsensical page by the same user. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good idea, bad article..page need a complete refurb. --Camaeron (t/c) 20:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So THAT's where Britain is located. I was figuring somwhere north of Canada. And it's home to over five automobile manufacturers. But is it home to over six automobile manufacturers? I'm pretty sure this article has been done elsewhere, and it can be redirected to there. Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, I just added List of Japanese Cars, which is very similar to the other two. All they seem to do is take the first few lines from each of the manufacturers in the country and duplicate the info in the respective article. With a description of where the country is and license plates from the country. Jons63 (talk) 20:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, per nom and subsequent delete comments. – ukexpat (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the British Article, as it is to plain and mundane for the brain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.51.45 (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I don't know what the passage "Britian plates" is talking about about - not British license plates, anyway. JohnCD (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not about British plates, it is the paragraph from the List of Japanese Cars article. Jons63 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That says it all about the standard of fact-checking/editing here! JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, mish-mash messes. We have articles like Japanese automobile industry already. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think i can see what the author is trying to get at but these articles (especially German Cars) are stylistically and factually greviously all over the shop. I am doubtful if they could ever clean up re WP:HEY as any resultant sourced info would still amount to nothing more than a repetition of parts of existing articles as they pertain to a subjective view of the Japanese market.Plutonium27 (talk) 23:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See also British cars by the same editor (and British motor industry, which isn't) --Dweller (talk) 23:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per most everything above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All or Merge All of this could probably be stuck under automobile. --Shark face 217 03:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although the tables of production - probably the only salvageable elements - could be folded into the relevant

automotive industry by country article. Gr1st (talk) 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Thais article has no use because the wikipages of british car makes cover this. Iwilleditu^Hi :) 00:03, 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. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alec Michod[edit]

Gets several google hits, but was written by a user named Amichod. Take a look at his userpage. Coincidence? FusionMix 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing on the user page which says that a similar user cannot author an article; since this is not spam or advertising but encyclopedia-worth fact, it should be included, if in an edited version. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amichod (talk • contribs) 20:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read our conflict of interest policy to determine how you should proceed in future. While it is not strictly forbidden, it is always a problem when you edit your own article. (As your user page names you as the subject, I feel free to make this association.) --Dhartung | Talk 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - While author may have a COI, seems notable. There is secondary source coverage of his work by the Village Voice here, by the Chicago Sun-Times here, and another here. He also writes book reviews for the New York Times. See here and here. KnightLago (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per KnightLago. It appears that WP:NOTABILITY can be established. --Shark face 217 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, borderline, but there appears to be sufficient coverage to establish notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BIO notability guideline, that article has no secondary independent sources. It's basically making an advertisement about the author. Alec Michod is not "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded." ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:45, 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 No consensus. Most of the delete opinions amount to the list being redundant, not useful and possibly misleading. They are offset by arguments to keep the content and its edit history under some title, at least in the form of a useful navigational aid, index or disambiguation type page. In any case the incoming redirects should be checked and possibly replaced by more specific ones. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of monarchs in the British Isles[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. It is also entirely unreferenced and confusing, ultimates completely redundant. --Camaeron (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Camaeron (talk) 20:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Administrator who closes this AfD: A wikipedian notified other wikipedians of the same opion as him/her-self and thus the concept of popular consensus has been breached. I have taken the liberty of "marking" the individuals with a small comment underneath their votes. --Camaeron (t/c) 18:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Camaeron, I can understand if you feel under attack over this issue. But, to be clear, what happened was that a longstanding and well-respected Wikipedian informed everyone who had contributed to the last AfD, and put a note, right here on this AfD, to say that he had done so. I have turned it red below, for greater visibility. (Also, for the sake of openness, I'll mention that I was informed, too, and you missed me.)

Having said that, I'm not very clear why those engaged in this discussion have become so vociferous about it. I've explained at (...what felt like great...) length below how Camaeron and TharkunColl can achieve the result they are asking for. If my posting wasn't understood, then please feel free to discuss at my talk page. Best, AndyJones (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

I dont feel the slightest bit "under attack", as you put it. It was just rather odd that all of a sudden lots of "support" votes turned up out of no where. Especially as they came from people who themselves arent willing to maintain the page and havent been seen on the pages for ages! Myself and TharkunColl both fully understand what AfD's are for and are fully capable of deciding whether we think the article needs to be deleted or not...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry: I'm interpreting your apparent defensiveness as a sign that you feel under attack and I apologise if I'm misinterpreting you. With respect, and this is NOT a personal attack, I think you do have at least one lesson to learn about what AfD is for and what it is not for, and it's this: MERGES ARE SIMPLER AND BETTER. That's because:

Any editor can do them: no Admin required.
There's never a GFDL problem.
There is no need to start a discussion, and wait five days - repeatedly defending your position along the way.
There's no need to involve outside editors: whose opinions you clearly don't respect anyway because they work on other pages.

In short, you just go ahead and do them. That's what you can and should have done in this case. So however this AfD closes, please at least take that lesson away with you. AndyJones (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm just a defensive person. My comments do sometimes come accross more agressive than intended. The reason I put this up for discussion is..I dont believe this page should exist under any circumstances. Not even as a redirect. I am fully aware that I could have merged it at any time. In fact I initially put a merge Template on the page and stated a discussion but then I changed my mind: After all there arent any other monarchy pages, going by geography (see List of monarchs of Europe, List of monarchs of Asia, List of monarchs of America...--Camaeron (t/c) 10:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator...--Camaeron (talk) 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As long as the above mentioned articles remain seperate? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where it might be a navigational aid, but I agree that this stuff has been covered elsewhere. Mandsford (talk) 20:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As was noted at the previous AfD, and again today, the article can serve a purpose. If articles can be fixed, they should not be nominated at AfD: deletion is the last resort. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant list serving no purpose other than to repeat content that is already elsewhere. – ukexpat (talk) 21:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after merging anything that isn't already in the three other articles. Agreed this is redundant and is better served as separate articles. 23skidoo (talk) 22:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Material is covered adequately in other lists.--Gazzster (talk) 23:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - while stricly this article is not necessary, I can see more reason for this list than some others which look like being kept. It can be helpful to have an overview of the historical relationships between the various monarchies in that part of the world, leaving the more detailed lists separate. It is like an index for the other lists, and could be made even better. JPD (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and redirect to List of British monarchs. Links on that page will direct to England, Scotland, etc. TharkunColl (talk) 00:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect per TharkunColl. There's no need for this fork. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As in the last Afd. The article needs a make-over but it could actually be useful if worked on. A redirect as suggested wouldn't be appropriate as British Isles ≠ Britain. Bill Reid | Talk 10:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this point I notified everyone who took part in the first AfD. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sign, then drive. I mean, Merge, then delete. Bearian (talk) 12:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If I were an admin I would close this per WP:SNOW...--Camaeron (t/c) 12:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: "Merge then delete" isn't an option: it would amount to a GFDL violation. If you merge, the source page has to be kept in order to preserve its edit history. There are work-arounds (such as a protected redirect or a move out of article space). However in a normal case like this one a regular merge is fine. That would leave this article as a redirect to one of the others. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm a bit amazed to see anyone trying to invoke WP:SNOW on a good-looking article that's previously survived an AfD and already has several keep votes and favourable comments. Be that as it may, I'd support a keep or a merge to the other three articles. Has anyone from the relevant project, or anyone who has worked on this page, come along to comment, yet? I'd like someone who knows the topic better than me to comment on whether all the potentially useful information here has already been merged into the other lists. AndyJones (talk) 13:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: By several keep votes you mean just the one do you? I dont know how this page survived its first Afd! Nobody (yet) has given a proper answer as to why it should be kept in its current form! I have edited English, Scottish, and British Monarchs articles and even created the article about the Irish ones. However I have never edited the article that is nominated for deletion as info that could be added there is already at the other previously mentioned pages...--Camaeron (t/c) 13:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was counting Angus as a Keep, FWIW. AndyJones (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
List of Irish monarchs is largely a duplicate of List of English monarchs (a cut and paste to the point of listing two English rulers who were apparently never Lord of Ireland) and List of Lords of Ireland and List of British monarchs. Were I to act as you did, I'd have nominated it for deletion, beginning with the phrase "This article doesn't cover any material that isnt already covered on ...". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 14:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - can be improved, but don't throw baby out with bathwater. Deb (talk) 16:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand the reasons for deletion, but I think the list of all monarchs should be kept. PeterSymonds | talk 19:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb and the baby's bathwater. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a disambiguation page only. This has not got any better since the last AfD. I think it has a useful purpose but only as a disambiguation page to all the other articles on monarchs in the British Isles as suggested on the talk page as indicated above by Angus McLellan. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and cleanup. This is a different list to the List of British monarchs which only covers monarchs since the passage of the Act of Union in 1707. It might be worthwhile to merge the lists but that can be done after discussion on talk pages than here. Capitalistroadster (talk) 23:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list itself is fine. Only the text before the list requires some attention and clean-up. There is no need to delete this article--it just needs a handful of dedicated editors. Caponer (talk) 02:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this user was notified about the Rfa --Camaeron (t/c) 18:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has great potential. --Shark face 217 03:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's the betting that a bunch of people who have never worked on these articles will tip the initial overwhelming consensus to delete in favour of keep - so long as radical work is done on it - and then somehow that radical work never actually gets done? TharkunColl (talk) 08:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the problem here is that we're having this discussion in the wrong forum. AfD exists to deal with articles which somehow abuse the encyclopedia, and it exists for establishing, by discussion, where the boundaries are of what material Wikipedia covers. If you put up an article like this one which is squarely within the boundaries of "encyclopedic", which is comparatively mature, well-thought-out, superficially accurate and enlightening, and with a long history of edits dating back to June 2002, it is hardly surprising that most drive-by editors will see this as a very, very obvious no-brainer keep. Whatever the shortcomings of this article (light sourcing seems to be its main one) I can quite literally show you a million which are worse, just by teaching you how to use the Random Article button. (Also, FWIW, I don't thing any of the keep voters above have voted conditional keep - wikipedia is a work in progress, after all.) What actually happened here seems to be that a small group of editors who work on British history stuff had a brief discussion (which can be seen here). It produced a local consensus that the article was less useful than the other three articles and should perhaps be merged there. Then here's where it went wrong. You could all have taken Camaeron's point seriously: "All the information here could be merged (if it hasnt already been) to the respective pages", which would have led to a considered process of checking the articles against each other over the course of a few days, moving any valuable information to the merge targets, fact-checking them and adding their sources along the way. Then, a discussion would have proceeded on whether the existing page should become a DAB or a redirect, that discussion would have reached a consensus too, and it would have been fixed. The whole thing could have happened fairly quietly and be done by a few hard-working editors with an enthusiasm for the subject. The question of a possible GFDL violation wouldn't arise because no deletion would have occurred. Unfortunately, that's not what happened. Instead, out of misplaced enthusiasm, the matter got brought here to AfD, where - unsurprisingly - the case you considered so overwhelming for deletion didn't strike the community the same way. The AfD opened on the same day as the discussion, and when other options were only beginning to be considered at the atricle's talk page. Of course this is now going to close as no-consensus: where else can it go? The good news, however, is that once this has closed, all the editorial options that were open to the page's editors before this discussion still are: and clearly an editorial solution to the problem will get found. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We come to this stage very often because many editors are just too uninterested in putting the research in to improve articles. We are often very keen on voting 'keep' as long as someone else does the work. And of course the article continues in its dilapidated state because we continue to ignore its flaws. For myself I favour deletion because this particular article replicates list than can be found on their own in other places and where a reader is more likely to search. As a stand alone I will admit it is an interesting overview but I don't know that it justifies itself because of that. We might also note that because these sorts of lists attract a lot of discussion, the talk page for this list will be largely a replication of talk pages on the lists for the separate British monarchs. But I do not like deletion without an interesting fight! And so far all we have heard is basically : 'keep, refer to last Afd'. Come on guys!--Gazzster (talk) 11:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with Gazzster. --Camaeron (t/c) 12:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that this article undermines Wikipedia quite badly. Because it's quite old, it has a very large number of links to it from other pages, but someone following such a link looking for a simple, straightforward and infomative list will be sorely disappointed. After wading through loads of introductary and largely irrelevant verbiage, he finally comes to a list that hasn't been updated in any meaningful sense in years, because its eccentric formatting prevents anything but minor changes. A redirect to List of British monarchs would solve all this, because not only is it clear and straightforward, but it also has dablinks at the top to the relevant English and Scottish lists. It also presents portraits and biographical details, something else impossible on this one. And finally, the title of this one is just plain absurd. TharkunColl (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Why do you think the title's absurd, mate?--Gazzster (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not a "list of monarchs in the British isles". It only includes the kingdoms of England and Scotland (and Ireland only where identical to England). No other monarchs of any other historical kingdoms are listed. Indeed, this would be impossible - hence the absurdity of the title. TharkunColl (talk) 12:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Gotcha. Yeah, it should include a list of Lords of the Isles, Kings of Mann, Grand Poobahs of Warzoan-on-Bogg, etc.--Gazzster (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not intended to be a "list of monarchs in the British isles". Its original title was "List of British monarchs". So it only includes monarchs of mainland Britain. It should never have been moved to its current misleading title. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge per my various comments above. AndyJones (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Gazzster - the title is absurd. Very unencyclopedic. The British Isles is a geographical term, while monarchies are political. Let's not mix the two, or it will only add to the confusion. Bardcom (talk) 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bardcom. Ireland, Scotland and England, and following the Acts of Union, the United Kingdom, have had monarchs. A group of islands doesn't. The existing articles listed by the nominator cover the subjects perfectly well. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom, or merge if no-one disagrees, otherwise list at "controversial merges" page. special, random,Merkinsmum 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as for norm.--Padraig (talk) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Any administrator closing this would do well to look at the article histories with the order in which they were created firmly in mind, so that it is clear which is a fork of which.

List of monarchs in the British Isles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2002-06-20 (or earlier?)
List of English monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2002-12-23
List of Scottish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2004-10-08
List of British monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2007-09-20
List of Irish monarchs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- created 2008-03-19

Interesting, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The List of monarchs in the British Isles page may have the same data that other pages already contain but it is a different packaging of that data, therefore it should remain with some minor editing to be undertaken. I concur with the editor above who referred to this AfD nomination as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater." Let's allow it to remain and make it a featured list in the process. --Jhohenzollern (talk) 14:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A closing admin should also take note that the primary argument for keeping the article British Isles is the fact that it is upheld as a geographic article, and that the term British does not denote ownership (contested). It is stressed that British Isles is not a political term. If this article remains as is, it will lend a lot of weight to the opinion that the article British Isles should be radically overhauled to reflect the fact that the term, while intended to be geographical, is in fact political, and therefore factually incorrect. Bardcom (talk) 15:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article should be judged on its content and usefulness (existing or potential). To recommend the deletion of an article on the basis of its name would be wrong. This article name could be re-directed to some other name, say List of monarchs of Britain and Ireland. Bill Reid | Talk 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Which would be pretty ridiculous - why not have an article about two other random countries also, say List of monarchs in Belgium and Sweden? Britain and Ireland are seperate countries - the point is that mixing geography and politics is not a good idea, especially when there are already articles in place with the appropriate content. You ask that the article should be judged on it's content and usefulness. That is also my point - why duplicate content using a contentious term? No content will be lost. Bardcom (talk) 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do Belgium and Sweden together form a distinct geographical and cultural region with a long shared history? Have they had the same monarch for over 800 years? No. Remember that this lists all previous states as well as current ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Britain" isn't a country; it's an island. There has never (outside mythology) been a country called "Britain"; perhaps you're thinking of the United Kingdom (etc.)? As for mixing geography and politics, what's your opinion on articles such as Geography of Sweden? EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title List of monarchs in the British Isles was not the original title of the article, and was apparently chosen in a misguided attempt to be all-inclusive. It has gone through many, many changes of title - another sure indication of its cobbled together nature. I would first favour deletion. If that doesn't happen, I would favour redirect to List of British monarchs. If not that, how about turning it into a simple disambiguation page, like this User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (it's probably not complete, by the way, as I'm sure there are some lists I haven't found yet). TharkunColl (talk) 17:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your sandbox suggestion isn't a bad idea and does what Angus Maclellan said above. I could go with that. Bill Reid | Talk 17:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I oppose merging this article with List of British monarchs. Why? The English monarchs & Scottish monarchs correctly end in 1707. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So do I! I was talking about his sandbox suggestion (without the British Isles bit which will never grow wings, but perhaps with Britain and Ireland as a substitute) nothing more. Read what I said. Bill Reid | Talk 19:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bill. I was responding to Tharky's idea; I know you oppose merging. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . "List of Monarchs of the British Islands" would be an acceptable alternative since the British Islands have a status in law. --Red King (talk) 17:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment That would be wholly wrong, because it also contains references to historical states, including the Irish ones. TharkunColl (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: I don't understand: Red King are you advocating deletion of the article because its name is wrong? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ResponseYes, the current title is erroneous and therefore destroys the basis of the article. It's a "when did you stop beating your wife" title - the basic premise is false so everything that follows from it is unfounded. [I withdraw my suggested compromise - as TkC observes, "British Islands" is a modern term so can't be used retroactively. --Red King (talk) 23:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term B Isles did not exist for most of the period covered here. This is WP:Synthesis. As per Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What? Sorry, I don't understand this vote at all. Have ArbCom ruled that the British Isles doesn't exist? If so ArbCom needs to get a grip ;-) Can you explain your point a bit more clearly? AndyJones (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Arbcom have ruled that using terms to refer to events that were not used at the time of those events is WP:Synthesis. The term "British Isles" was not in use before 1700 or some such date. Therefore to refer to events in, say 1600, as having occured in the "British Isles" is, per Arbcom, WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 20:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - OK, assuming you have reported that correctly, and even though it's not remotely relevant to this discussion I'm going to say this anyway. ArbCom's view is bunk. No-one used the term Paleolithic in the Paleolithic era, yet we have an article on that. History of North America does not start at the date when the term North America was coined, and it would be stupid if it did. The number of articles I could cite that would be rendered ridiculous by this bizarre ruling is huge. AndyJones (talk) 21:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm sorry. Arbcom may be bunk but it's the Law around here. Applying terms that were not in use in times past to events in times past is WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        No, it isn't. If a rule is that stupid, we ignore it. WP:IAR is policy: it's above ArbCom ;-) AndyJones (talk) 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmmm. Sadly an Arbcom ruling is even more above the law than that. You may ignore all rules, but not all Arbcom rulings. Sarah777 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sarah's characterisation of the situation is bunk, I'm afraid. North America contains a history of the area from long before it was ever called that. TharkunColl (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Not too hot at analogies are you? In 1600 things happened in North America but not in the United States. Either way, the Arbcom ruling renders this discussion redundant. Sarah777 (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yes, clearly the rule as it's been presented here would be absurd to the point of being inconsistent with writing an encyclopedia, which is the core aim of this project, and it therefore could, should and would be ignored. However, is there any meat to this point? Does anyone know which case we are talking about, and can link to what ArbCom actually said? I have trouble accepting that their ruling actually covered my reductio ad absurdum examples above, but it might be helpful to know whether it might impact on this AfD. AndyJones (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Sarah777's spurious argument relates to an Arbcom ruling on the Great Irish Famine article, where she had been attempting to insert PoV claims of genocide by the British against the Irish. Ruling here. This obviously has no application to this case. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 11:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry guys; nothing "spurious" about consistency. Arbcom ruled on the nature of WP:Synthesis. This is clearly exactly what they were talking about. Events pre-1700 cannot be referred to as having occured in the "British" Isles. Period. Sarah777 (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article is deleted, we would then have to create a new one with the same name simply as a redirect to List of British monarchs, because there are lots of links to it [20]. Still, that's easy enough. Either that or just make it a redirect without deleting. Either is fine. TharkunColl (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The title does not match the content, as Tharky has said before. If the article is to be redeemed, lists of monarchs of all the states that have existed in the British Isles would need to be added. Unless anyone is going to put up their hand to do that (which I doubt, since it has survived an Afd unchanged) it should be deleted. At present it repeats lists at other articles. So far no-one has explained why this repetition is useful. I can understand there may be some ownership issues here, but seriously, we need to slash and burn, slash and burn. I wouoldn't even have a redirect here.--Gazzster (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the above comment that the title simply does not match the content. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I gave my !vote above, but I am really puzzled why the suggestion, that I supported above, for making this a disambiguation page has not been supported. We even now have an example of how it might look here, although I think putting the Isle of Man under Scotland is not correct. This suggestion has received some small support but nobody has said what is wrong with it. This article was the oldest of now many articles. It has effectively outgrown itself and should be just a disambiguation page. --Bduke (talk) 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know why others haven't supported it. But for myself, I see that the article doesn't do what it purports to. So even as a disambiguation page it is pretty useless, I'm afraid.--Gazzster (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why, there are lost of different lists for monarchies in the British Isles. A general disambiguation page may be useful and does no harm. Why delete a long history when it can be left with the disambiguation page. Deletion get rid of a lot of contributions with no record, when they could be preserved. --Bduke (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The title of the article may need to be refactored but I believe the list holds encyclopedic value. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain that last point.--Gazzster (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems perfectly clear to me. Bill Reid | Talk 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Hi jarbarf, have you any suggestions for the title? If you keep the article, are you also suggesting that information is duplicated between this article and the other individual articles? Bardcom (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is and clean up. -- Secisek (talk) 13:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for all those who are voting "keep and clean up". Will you be doing the cleaning up? Because that's exactly what people voted for last time, and yet nothing happened. I seriously doubt that any of the editors who regularly work on British monarchy lists will want to or be able to do it, because the formatting doesn't allow any substantive change without messing up the entire list. So even if we got rid of all that useless pedantry at the beginning, the basic list would remain unchanged in its current untidy and confusing state, complete with the same POV and OR it has been burdened with ever since someone had the bright idea of nicking it from the French Wikipedia in the first place. TharkunColl (talk) 14:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix any content problems. Article is useful for a huge range of purposes. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to fix them? TharkunColl (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I can try to. I would envisage a large dab-type list page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, just like the one I suggested above and created here User:TharkunColl/Sandbox (though it's probably not complete yet)? TharkunColl (talk) 17:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, something like that, though I personally would prefer something more chronologically orientated. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As probably everyone has noticed, Angus's idea was nicked by TC. -Bill Reid | Talk 18:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep, though possibly rename. I appreciate that a lot of hard work has gone into this list, and had expected to say "nonethless delete" ... but I have chnaged my mind after studying this and the other lists. There are two things I like about this list: a) the dab list of monarchies at the top, and b) the side-by-side timeline of the two monarchies before 1603, which so far as I am aware does not exist anywhere else on wikipedia. That parallel list is nicely presented and I found it surprisingly interesting, and it clearly serves an encyclopedic purpose.
However, the content doesn't reflect the name: the list-of-other-monarchies at the top describes the size of the gap, and the main problem of this list is the gap between content and name. I suggest a discussion on the list's talk page to try to find a more appropriate name .. but even if an alternative name cannot be agreed, I would not want the list deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- It will of course have to be speedily deleted after this Afd (or earlier if this isn't resolved in 16 hours) as it is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. Regardless of what transpires on this page - unless the name is changed. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the speedy criteria would that be under? Just so we are clear? --Bduke (talk) 00:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article in toto is in breach of an Arbcom ruling. This is a WP:SNOW job, in all honesty. Not a single counter-argument yet after 9 hours. Sarah777 (talk) 01:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, as you know, I am only a humble urban peasant, a refugee from a Viking city pillaged by tower-cranes, so I'm a bit slow on the uptake. To help me out, please can you provide a precise link to the arbcom ruling in question, so that I can read the ruling for myself? I hope that if I see what arbcom said, I might understand more clearly how the ruling has such far-reaching effect. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah has gone to rest her weary head, I assume. However, perhaps I can help. The remedy Sarah is referring to is Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Great Irish Famine#Sarah777 engaged in original research. The inference being that because the description as the famine as a "genocide" was dismissed as WP:SYN during the RfAR, thus anything that uses retrospective descriptive language must be an example of WP:SYN and not permitted according to that ArbCom ruling. Since the "British Isles" was not so described during the period that some of the listed monarchs were ruling, in Sarah's opinion it falls under that ruling. QED. My personal suggestion is that, before anyone attempts to use this as a precedent, they bring it up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Clarifications and other requests to ensure they are interpreting the remedy correctly. Rockpocket 04:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: per Deacon and BrownHairedGirl. --Jza84 | Talk 03:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Bhg, Angus McC and others. However the article should include links near the top to the more detailed British/Scottish/Irish lists, which I don't think it does at present. Ideally the side by side timeline will be extended backwards. It is odd the nominator does not see how much the Irish monarch list he has created would benefit from similar treatment. Johnbod (talk) 05:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC) (brought here by seeing a comment by Sarah777, before you ask)[reply]
Keep - having come fresh to this debate a short time ago, and going simply by [WP:N] and common sense - it should stay. Useful to present this information in this format. Caveat about references noted, and I appreciate that it is tedious to put them in, however they should be given. Springnuts (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rename Following the example of BrownHairedGirl, I've reexamined the article and I also see value in the side-by-side table comparing timelines of Scottish and English monarchs over time. Some refactoring may be needed on the article as a whole. I've started another discussion on Title renaming. Bardcom (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussion now started on the articles talk page. Bardcom (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and make into a disambiguation page; either something like TharkunColl's version or, as the Deacon suggested, a chronological version. (Which approach to use can be left to the article talk page.) I think the primary value is as a disambiguation page to point the reader to the other lists; there would be too much duplication if the actual content of the lists mentioned were to be repeated here. The value of having a "British Isles" version of the list is because historical kingdoms spanned several of these boundaries. I don't see a synthesis problem with the name because it is natural for an article about the history of a geographic entity such as the British Isles to use the most common current form of the name. (It might be different if the article only covered a historical period in which the term "British Isles" was not in use.) Mike Christie (talk) 13:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with appropriate changes to reduce duplication while preserving the value of a comparative timeline. There's nothing wrong with having a political article with a geographical scope that today doesn't constitute a political unit; to argue otherwise is presentism. Anyway, all history is geography, especially that of the region under consideration. EdC (talk) 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC) (note: I was notified, but was watching the page already, as my edit history will bear out.)[reply]

Keep in order to prevent violation of the GFDL: this is the original Wikipedia article on rulers of different parts of Britain. If it were to be deleted then we would lose the history of material which has since been duplicated in more recent articles such as List of British monarchs, List of English monarchs and List of Scottish monarchs. We are obligated to keep that history under the GFDL. The original title of this article was List of British monarchs. It should be moved back to that title and non-duplicate information from the more recent article "List of British monarchs" should be merged back into it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:22, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Henry II, James V, Charles II (for example), were not British monarchs. Up until 1707, it was Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Charles a European monarch? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated in Europe. Was Charles a Scandinavian monarch? No, he wasn't because neither the Kingdom of England nor the Kingdom of Scotland was situated in Scandinavia. Was Charles a British monarch ? Yes, he was because the Kingdom of England was situated on the island of Britain. In fact the Kingdom of Scotland was also situated on the island of Britain, so he was the monarch of two British countries. Thus there are two good reasons why he should appear on a list of British monarchs. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we take every monarch that ever lived & put them in an article called List of Earth monarchs? Charles was never King of Europe (no such position) nor King of Great Britain. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to produce such a list, feel free. After all we have a list of all the countries on Earth, which is not that different in concept. However I probably won't be contributing to it, so I'll leave it to you. I am glad that you understand that Charles was never King of Great Britain. I hope that means that you understand that "European king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Europe"; that "British king" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "King of Great Britain"; and even that "American president" does not necessarily mean the same thing as "President of the Americas". -- Derek Ross | Talk

My point is, we've already got an article called List of British monarchs, which correctly omits Monarchs of England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is a very fine list of "Monarchs of the United Kingdom". Perhaps it should be renamed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had (a half-hour earlier) proposed changing it to List of Monarchs of Great Britain and the United Kingdom, but then I pulled-back. Why? cause we would then need to propose those other articles be changed to List of Monarchs of England, List of Monarchs of Scotland, List of Monarchs of Ireland & List of Monarchs of Wales, which the article List of Scottish monarchs have & would again reject. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that historians never use the phrase "United Kingdom" to refer to Great Britain 1707-1801 - even though the people at the time did, including the Acts of Union. TharkunColl (talk) 16:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move[edit]

I have archived this section for the following reasons. Speedy moving a page on the basis an interpretation of ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject is generally inadvisable. Doing so during an active and robust AfD discussion is not going to fly. The closing admin will, I'm sure, take this proposal under due consideration at the end of the discussion, but lets wait until then.

Secondly, the discussion has turned tangential at least and has begun to get personal. They may not be personal attacks, per se, but denigrating countries, states, nations or peoples, or their politics or histories, is not conductive to a civil discussion. Lets keep this polite and on topic. Rockpocket 01:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom comments regarding a completely different subject - hardly. The Arbcom ruling I an citing refers to the subject of WP:Synthesis. Or are you saying they regard WP:Synthesis as OK on some cases? Sarah777 (talk) 01:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that the middle of an AfD is not the time nor place to unilaterally invoke a tangential ArbCom remedy under threat of a ticking clock. To those people who put time into this article, process is important. Let the AfD run its course, then if needed, debate the implication of that ArbCom decision on the title. Rockpocket 02:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. The move, though well-intentioned, I'm sure, could be interpreted as attempting to close the discussion and declare consensus. The debate was still going on yesterday and showed no sign of finishing.--Gazzster (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In this case I'll defer to your greater wisdom, not least because I don't appear to have any other option. Clock is stopped. But I really think that we can't just keep dismissing the Arbcom ruling on the nature of WP:Synthesis on the basis that "it applies here and here but not there and there" in an arbitrary manner. (For example the same Arbcom WP:Synthesis reasoning is also a fundamental rule in the "List of Massacres" article). It appears to apply only in a way that facilitates suppression of "non-Anglo" value judgments and is ignored as "nothing to do with" any article where it might frustrate Anglo-pov. This is simply not acceptable. Sarah777 (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you ask ArbCom to clarify what they meant. As others pointed out, their "ruling" cannot be broadly applied to its logical conclusion, or else we could not refer to anything that existed before language. There has to be some context. I have no idea what that is (by itself, the comment from ArbCom itself seems rather bizarre to me), but surely the correct process would be to find out from the horses mouth, rather that attempt to interpret it piecemeal. Rockpocket 02:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've read WP:Synthesis. I don't see how it applies here. If we interpret Sarah's point as strictly as that user seems to, we could not have any articles on dinosaurs, Neolithic humans, Homo erectus or Classical Architecture. All of which, in any case, detracts from the pertinent reason for debating the existence of this article:does it serve any useful purpose? --Gazzster (talk) 06:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gazz, I was gonna say those things. Indeed the pre-historic articles wouldn't exist, as there was no known language spoken. PS- the cavemen probably used a few 'grunt' & 'growls', though. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well if we're going to play "who said it first?" then I did. See my paleolithic comment above! ;-) AndyJones (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah hah!, so you have. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Douze points - you are all correct in this case - the Arbcom ruling was nonsense concocted to deal with a desire to prevent use of the term "genocide" in relation to the Irish Famine and if applied consistently would destroy Wiki! Still didn't stop them using it to build some sanctions. But unless they change it I'll have to keep it in mind and apply as I see fit - surely it is up to Arbcom to change it? Either that or we can ignore it on the grounds that it is crazy - in which case I'll revisit the Famine article and refer to you guys in support. Sarah777 (talk) 22:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take care please, you may want to reread Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. The post above weakens your case . -- Secisek (talk) 22:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read them. Not relevant here. All they say is that the rules are sacrosanct and breach of the rules will lead to blocks and bans unless the Wiki-establishment/majority finds the rules don't suit in which case anyone trying to apply the rules consistently may be persecuted. You should give those essays the finger too. My case is watertight - though the Judiciary may well be corrupt. Sarah777 (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it amazing how often phrases like "take care", "warning", "be careful" crop up in free and friendly debate in the Wiki...eh..."community"?! Sarah777 (talk) 00:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the other two members of the court - so, more like the Special Criminal Court than a Diplock Court? - but I'm at least as incorruptible as a British journalist. Does that make you feel better? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jumper Bumpers: Can we please wait until the AfD has run its course. On behalf of humanity, let's wait (PS- Am I overdoing it?). GoodDay (talk) 00:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are waiting - the clock was stopped last night. Yes Angus, of course it does - as does that British sense of "fair play" and "love of the underdog" and whatever other stuff they feed the kids! Sarah777 (talk) 02:03, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Based on the Arbcom ruling regarding the nature of WP:Synthesis I propose to move this article to "List of Monarchs in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales". Anyone objecting please state precisely why you believe using the term "British" to refer to Kings of 1,000 years ago isn't WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 15:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will allow 24 hours for further debate and then enforce the Arbcom Ruling. Sarah777 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a moment: Changing to List of Monarchs of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales isn't fully accurate. There were (after 1707) Monarchs of Great Britain & then the United Kingdom. GoodDay (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As Sarah is fully aware, the term "British" doesn't refer to the kings, but is part of the name of a geographical entity - just like North America, the article for which contains a history of the place from long before it was ever called that. We are here to delete the article and/or turn it into a redirect, not subject it to yet another pointless and politically motivated name change. TharkunColl (talk) 16:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles is a geographic term akin to Hawai'ian islands or Solomon Islands. It is a geographic, not a political expression and WP:Synthesis has nothing to do with this. -- Secisek (talk) 17:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah is aware of no such thing because "British" is a political term which came into being in the 18th century. It may be mis-applied to these islands by British Nationalists today but it is WP:Synthesis to refer to anything before 1600 as happening in any British place. Arbcom decision. There are less than 19 hours remaining. Sarah777 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sarah, do you have a link to the Arbcom ruling you are referring to please? Bardcom (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, this potential disagreement would've been mute; if this article was 'deleted'. GoodDay (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all references to the Romano-British, for example, are incorrect according to Sarah? If she tries to change the name just to make a political point then it will simply get changed back, that's all. One might just as well say that words like "Ireland" and "Irish" should never be used to refer to that island prior to the introduction of the English language there, since they are both English words. TharkunColl (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So all references to the Romano-British, for example, are incorrect according to Sarah? Not according to me. My views don't count - Arbcom would regard that as WP:Synthesis. Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree fully with Tharkun...British (at least in this case) is only a reference to the geographical islands...(also known as the British Isles)...in this case it doesnt mean anything political atall. At least not since the split...But anyway why are we arguing about this? --Camaeron (t/c) 21:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that since the preferred or likely outcome of all this will be a simple redirect to List of British monarchs, if Sarah messes about with the title beforehand then any such redirect will create hundreds of double redirects, which she will be responsible for fixing. TharkunColl (talk) 22:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem at all with "List of British Monarchs"; not because it wouldn't still be WP:Synthesis according to Arbcom (it would); but I could then remove the Irish Monarchs and frankly, I couldn't care less whether you choose to break every rule in the book with a British article so long as it no longer involves Ireland. That would be between you and Arbcom - if anyone was sufficiently interested to involve them. Which I doubt. Sarah777 (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had bothered to check, you would see that List of British monarchs does not include Irish ones. TharkunColl (talk) 22:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now why would I bother to go anywhere an article like that! Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Sarah, I just don't see where the Arbcom's ruling applies here. GoodDay (talk) 22:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it simply does. Perhaps Arbcom hadn't thought through the implications of their ruling? If they were to change it that would be a different matter I guess. Do we need a referral here? Sarah777 (talk) 22:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What Arbcom ruling? You haven't given any links to any case that mentions the British Isles at all. TharkunColl (talk) 22:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again: it is about WP:Synthesis and what constitutes same. And what constitutes same is the use of terminology that wasn't used at the time of any events being described. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it's the Wikipedia: Requests for arbitration/The Troubles ruling. GoodDay (talk) 22:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Yep, G'Day - that's the one. Sarah777 (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

No it isn't! It was a ruling on the Great Irish Famine. Check Bastun's link above somewhere. Sarah777 (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So calling Ireland "Ireland" before the introduction of the English language is also prohibited, then? TharkunColl (talk) 22:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. But don't blame me. It is all about WP:Synthesis. And what constitutes it is the use of terminology that wasn't used at the time of any events being described. The ruling has been linked above by Bastun. Specifically, the ruling said that calling the Great Famine "genocide" would be WP:Synthesis even if it met fully the modern definition of the word because nobody at the time used that exact term (it didn't exist). Thus the term "British Isles" cannot be used as a location for any event in 1600 because nobody in 1600 referred to the location as such. Now, you and I might both thing this ruling is asinine - but that doesn't repeal it. Sarah777 (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that your interpretation of this ruling is not likely to be shared by Arbcom or anyone else. As for the genocide question, it wasn't genocide as the British government didn't set out to make the Irish die by starvation - they just didn't help (very much). Whatever that may be, it obviously isn't genocide. TharkunColl (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is not WP:Synthesis. Using the term "genocide" that was not in use at that time is one thing. Using a geographical term is quite another. Let us keep drama out of this and resolve the AfD. --Bduke (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Object to the pointy proposal. Follow process and don't disrupt the article because of your own feelings on Arbcom or its decisions. There is an ongoing AfD, let that resolve. The article can't qualify for a speedy move anyway. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez Thark - Arbcom had no view on whether it was genocide or not. What they said was (and yet again I repeat) that even if it met fully the modern definition of the word that would still by WP:Synthesis. This is not about whether the famine was actually genocide or not. (Though clearly it was). Bastun, couldn't care less if you object. Retract your WP:NPA on both myself and Anon and I might pay the slightest attention to your pov ravings. 17 hours to Speedy. Sarah777 (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take your nationalist politics somewhere else please? We're trying to do something useful here. TharkunColl (talk) 22:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a) If you think I have attacked you, provide the diffs or retract. b) "I might pay the slightest attention to your pov ravings." is a personal attack. c) You cannot speedy move the article during an AfD - especially after an objection has been recorded. Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I can. I have a precedent for that. And my civility, right up to my last remark, is predicated on the supposition that some Admin will intervene when incivility is directed at me. But they seem to appear only when reply in kind. Where is your apology? Sarah777 (talk) 22:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I've done something warranting an apology, I've apologised. I'm still waiting on the diffs. Where's yours? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 23:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would that be where you made a copy and paste move from Irish Potato Famine and lost the page history and archives? Bastun^{BaStun not BaTsun} 22:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which way is the AfD looking right now to a closing admin? I reckon it's heading for a Keep based on no consensus? Is that the result that people want here? This speedy move suggestion is not helping. Sarah, can I suggest we keep the speedy move proposal seperate from the AfD for the moment. Bardcom (talk) 22:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, let the AfD run it's course. GoodDay (talk) 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK; if you are right Bardcom there will be no need to stop the clock on the countdown to the Speedy. Sarah777 (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting Arbcom ruling - "Sarah777 has repeatedly engaged in anti-British invective in an attempt to use Wikipedia as a battleground along national lines"' [21]. TharkunColl (talk) 23:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - they got that one wrong too. But as all you folks seem to think their rulings count for nothing its hardly worth mentioning - is it? What triggered that was my comparison of the British Empire to the Third Reich (unfavourably, btw). They found that unacceptable! Which is a clear and unambiguous attack on free speech on Wiki and the crassest example of political and cultural bias one could imagine. I think they have belatedly come to realise that. I think that while they are a bit slow they aren't stupid. Sarah777 (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well criticise the Romans for spreading civilisation to similarly god-forsaken hellholes as Ireland was when the English - under orders from the Catholic Church - intervened. Oh well - you hate us, but at least you are largely civilised now. Our work is done (except in the north). TharkunColl (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Tharky, no need for comments like this. Other hateful comments were removed by an admin earlier. Bardcom (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howabout we settle on the fact: Wikipedia is not like Wendys - we can't always have it our way. Trust me, I know this as a fact. -- GoodDay (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - but they can't seem to grasp that. A legacy of imperialism I guess. Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

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

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

The result was Delete as incorrect, unsourced original research. —Travis ^talk 18:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Nations Controlled by the United Kingdom[edit]

It would appear that this list is original research. Did the UK ever have sovereignty over Cuba? Laos? Vietnam? Tanzania definitely not (Tanganyika was a protectorate, as was Zanzibar, but Tanzania is an independent nation). Nor Timor Leste? Has been unreferenced for 9 or so months. And the word controlled is not defined within context. Россавиа ^Диалог 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It needs a lot of improvement; i.e, not referring to the colonies as the United States, but I think most of this can be sourced and done properly. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this list is OR nonsense on multiple levels. "Nations" and "controlled" are very vague. Minorca, Flordia and Bermuda aren't nations. And, I'm sorry, but when did the British ever "control" Italy? Japan? Senegal? Give me a break. Finally, the notion that the United Kingdom "controls" England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is absurd - those four nations are in voluntary union. Biruitorul (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Painful to look at. It's not just original research, it's uninformed/ignorant/don't know what you're talking about original research. It's an indiscriminate list that looks like someone putting check marks by a list of nations. There was a time when the sun never set on the British Empire, but it was never this sunny. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bad list (uninformative) with bad criteria (minimally misleading), and no real organization to make sense of it. Yes, there were multiple competing claims for e.g. Cuba, but the British never convincingly controlled even a fraction of that island. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, absolute rubbish, some of these have never been states. --neonwhite user page talk 02:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A bare list like this is not useful; if this kind of article is going to be done as a list, it would have to include sourceable indications of when the UK controlled each country in order to avoid spurious claims like some of those mentioned above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Try as I might, I can't fit a single consistent definition of "nation" or "control" onto this list, which backs up the claim of OR, and I don't think the author really could either. The article would appear to be a combination of vaguely-grounded facts (yes, the UK did administer various parts of Africa, the Caribbean and the Pacific in years gone by) and some inspired guesswork (it's early in the morning here, but the closest I think the Brits got to "controlling" Lebanon and Syria was having TE Lawrence running around the desert, and Iceland and Laos seem very unusual). BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR. --Shark face 217 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. John254 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Futurekids[edit]

Once the misleading edit summaries are sorted through, the article reads like an advertisement. Article claims that Futurekids is "recognized nationally and internationally for school technology solutions that work," but the citation for that "recognition" is self-generated, and was removed from BNet (the claimed source). In short, this is nothing mroe than an advertisement masquerading as an article, and the author has seemingly used some deception in maintaining the masquerade. Justin Eiler (talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I find Futurekids pages in many languages and countries using Google, but nearly impossible to locate unibased third-party notable coverage. I suspect that an organization this big/widespread might be notable per WP:CORP, but without proper sourcing through reliable sources, and with the persistence of SIWC (talk · contribs) in using non-neutral prose it may be impossible to keep. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am a third party writing about Futurekids, and not in anyway related to the company. This is my first attempt at posting on Wikipedia. I have researched articles on other companies and followed the format accepted for them. In actuality, there is promotion of products at a high level on some of the sites I reviewed which have not been challenged. I will remove the offending citation. However, the article was reposted as written due to vandalism of the page with a reloading of an early, incomplete version of the page that was accidentally created before I realized there is no way to actually save the page while working on it. Futurekids is a worldwide supplier of technology training and courses used in many school districts. However, it is a small company and works behind the scenes, thus not attracting the attention of a wide number of independent sources of review. Futurekids works with a number of major technology vendors, as noted in the article. Their role in several major educational efforts are noted within the article and contribute to the overall notability of the company. I am not trying to be difficult, but I am struggling with understanding why this particular company page has been selected for deletion. Thus, I request more specific information on the specific language (other than the above noted citation) that is offensive, and what can be done to change this. SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SWIC. What you might want to do is create the incomplete article in your user space, say at User:SWIC/Futurekids. That way, you can craft the article, make sure it satisfies notability and does not violate neutral point of view, and you'll have time and space to work on the article. Justin Eiler (talk) 01:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've read your comments on my talk page. Unfortunately, I spent a lot of time studying the policies and felt I had followed them. As a social psychologist, I do know that individual perceptions of events and documents can cover a wide range of viewpoints, with none being totally right or wrong. Hence, the request for more specifics since in my viewpoint it follows the criteria. As noted, the Futurekids page is less promotional than many other company pages I reviewed. Thanks.SIWC (talk) 00:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. The goal here is not to challenge legitimate material, but make certain that we properly cite verifiable reliable sources, usually nontrivial unbiased third-party sources which have notability of their own (e.g. Bob's website would not be considered reliable even if it is unbiased). - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional thought. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for inclusion. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 19:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This subject clearly has enough mention is second party sources to pass WP:COMPANY criteria. I can see no valid reason to suggest deletion or assume bad faith as the nominator has done. --neonwhite user page talk 02:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Keep in mind that when this was nominated it was singing the praises of the organization more than a Libyan press secretary just before a 1980s Qadaffi speech. No bad faith was presumed at the time of the nomination. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 12:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator has made accusations of deception which are incivil and inapropriate in a deletion discussion. --neonwhite user page talk 14:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this side-conversation needs to continue, then we need to take it to a talk page rather than the AfD. Justin Eiler (talk) 23:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are enough sources to indicate that it is notable. It needs rather drastic editing though. I've started removing some oft he puffery.DGG (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have established WP:NOTABILITY. --Shark face 217 03:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:20, 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 (non-admin closure), withdrawn as I'm sick of being abused. Collectonian (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operational sex ratio[edit]

Fails WP:N and has been orphaned for over a month. Seems to be a name for just one scientists concept or theory rather than a wide reaching topic. Collectonian (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep very, very, far from being "just one scientists concept or theory" but is in fact a technical term very much in use in several subdisciplines within biology. Every undergraduate student in ecology or evolution ought to be able to recite the definition. Entering "Operational sex ratio" into Web of science returns 32 pages of hits. Entering the phrase, in quotes, into google scholar [22] might have been worthwhile prior to nominating for deletion... Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note, wikipedia needs an article on Sex ratio theory, there's a wee bit at Sex_ratio#Sex_ratio_theory, and some more in Unbeatable strategy, W.D._Hamilton#Extraordinary_sex_ratios, but I would think a redirect of this term to such a page (if one were to exist, but it doesn't) would be appropriate. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the Google Scholar results alone should dispel any notion this is a fringe term. --Dhartung | Talk 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the nominator has (re)placed a prod tags on Tim Clutton-Brock 10 times today, then placed (and removed) a "notability" template. The Tim Clutton-Brock article's creator has been blocked for disruption in removing the tags, which seems very harsh considering the unreasonableness of a prod tag on the bio of an FRS. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral with a comment, despite the deviation from the current discourse. a clarification: it was a speedy tag repeatedly removed, and as the admin who ultimately removed it, considering the combativeness of the editor involved in repeatedly removing the tag despite warnings and explanations, the block is quite appropriate. (And shorter than I'd have levied, but that's neither here nor there.) Collectonian saw no notability in the article, and I can understand that viewpoint; opinions differ, which is why we tend to be guided by consensus-building. Since then, she has recognized the inherent notability of that subject, through the work of other editors, and has accepted it; chances are, if this discussion focuses on proof of notability instead of on the nominator, she would be happy to reconsider her position. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is a very false and misleading statement. I placed a CSD on Tim Clutton-Brock, not a PROD. As such, the creator removing the tag violated policy, refused to stop removing it despite more than 5 warnings, and was blocked for that and being completely uncivil. An admin removed the CSD after the creator was blocked, and I tagged for notability until it was clarified that WP:PROF gives blanket notability to FRS. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that at all. I find your bringing that up here extremely inappropriate, particularly when you are making very incorrect statements about it. It is beyond uncalled for and has nothing to do with this at all. Collectonian (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously. The notion that it's just one scientist is nonsense. The exact phrase gets 2,540 on google scholar, occurring mostly in titles of papers, by many many different authors. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is certainly a term I've heard from evolutionary biologists, without even mentioning Clutton-Brock. -- Mithent (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Espresso Addict (talk) 23:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I have added several references that explicitly discuss the term. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the references in the article and hits on Google Scholar suggest this topic is notable. --Pixelface (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's an idea: try doing some research before you imply that it "seems to be a name for just one scientist's concept or theory rather than a wide-reaching topic." Since you're not a scientist, stick to making contributions to the Christianity pages. Otherwise, perhaps I might feel one day like pretending I know a lot about Christianity, and mark some articles for deletion.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should I even ask why you said anything about Christianity? I don't make contributions to Christianity-related pages, and making threats of retribution is not appropriate. As a side note, this comment is that users first and only contribution. Collectonian (talk) 00:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amount of contributions is irrelevant to my initial point. Please don't mark articles for deletion unless you've done your homework on the subject.Vanheusden (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. If the article doesn't make its notability clear and gives the impression it is a pet theory, has been tagged for multiple issues for over 3 months without being touched, has only one source and little context, then I will view it as lacking notability and nominate it for deletion. People don't want their articles nominated, they should do a better job starting them. Collectonian (talk) 00:22, 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. faithless (^speak) 07:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mic Little[edit]

Non-notable musician with little or no media coverage and no references; sole single almost charted in the US ("Bubbling Under"). Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence that he satisfies WP:MUSIC or WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Why wasn't this speedied? --Shark face 217 03:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:05, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bracketology[edit]

"Bracketology" is a fake word created by Joe Lunardi and ESPN solely for their marketing. It is not "the process" of "predicting the field of the NCAA Basketball tournament" nor is it "the" process of doing that for any other tournament.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasDawg (talk • contribs) 15:46, 19 March 2008

Keep - Search for Bracketology yields 504,000 results, and use of the concept (which it has morphed into) in articles from CBS, the Chicago Sun-Times, The Guardian, and Atlanta Journal-Constitution just for starters. KnightLago (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Google search would produce similar results for countless other non-words that aren't notable and don't merit or have Wikipedia entries. -- TexasDawg (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here is an article about two math professors who researched the subject and then wrote about it in the New York Times. Here is a book about the subject. Here is an economics essay on the subject. As I stated above, this concept has morphed beyond ESPN's original creation. KnightLago (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The numerous articles that discuss this seem to refer to a similar, if not identical, process in sports competitions. Even if it was a fake word created at some point, it now has a wider, more broad meaning now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, neologism with plenty of secondary source coverage. --Dhartung | Talk 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per KnightLago. Also, it seems somewhat poor form to me to describe an article in an AfD nomination and then edit the article to coincide with that description. Maxa megalon 2000 23:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ... per the NYT, bracketology is defined clearly in Wikipedia:

Nowhere is the growth of the bracket's prestige more evident than with the proliferation of bracketology, a concept defined in Wikipedia, not Webster's.

It is no longer enough to wait for the field to be announced and fill in the bracket with predicted winners. It is now sport to spend the regular season predicting which teams will win bids to the tournament, how they will be seeded and where they will play. source

How ironic if it were not to be found in Wikipedia. Calwatch (talk) 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Has anyone looked at WP:NEOLOGISM? --Shark face 217 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. "Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I believe multiple articles about it, an article by scholars, and a book qualifies. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The proposal for deletion is an agenda-related movement by a person who is outwardly anti-establishment. Frivolous, agenda-driven.
Weakish keep This could be better. But It's O. K. Mm40 (talk) 18:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agreed with Calwatch in the topic subject. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:21 AM US EDT Mar 2 2008
Keep. The word is no more real or fake than any other word used in language today. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:21, 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) 22:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midst of Lions[edit]

Likely non-notable band. Prod removed by an anonymous who cunningly added the line "notable band from Detroit, MI"; i'm not sure that's enough to sway me to keep, though. tomasz. 19:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, fails all aspects of WP:MUSIC utterly. I searched for reliable sources but found nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails all relevant guidelines. – ukexpat (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. Chris (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Simply fails (see above). --Shark face 217 03:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. (jarbarf) (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the user removing the prod made a persuasive argument, I'm still not sure that the subject of this wall of text meets WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

Chuggo won in the end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.144.144.91 (talk) 19:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete per lack of reliable sources or demonstrated notability in the sense of WP:MUSIC. Tikiwont (talk) 10:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chuggo[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}}.

A very short biographal article based around a man who featured in just one youtube video, which is the only reference to him in the article, this has no or very little notability at all. The itself video that this person features does not appear to be very notable either. AndreNatas (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:BIO/WP:BAND (Is he a band?!). Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 23:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Chuggo is about to blow up. Really big. He's got an album out, he's a recorded artist. He's got the internet going nuts.Kbhoyt (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to prove a word of it. The picture could be any guy anywhere without a citation. DarkAudit (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the video you will see it's the same guy. http://www.mcgilldaily.com/view.php?aid=5396, http://www.rapdict.org/Chuggo, and http://www.hiphopcanada.com/_site/entertainment/interviews/ent_int289.php Kbhoyt (talk) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just not notable. Polly (Parrot) 00:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. If he is "about to blow up", we'll need to wait until that happens. Maybe then an article can be written. But for now WP:CRYSTAL. freshacconcispeaktome 00:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm also wondering if this is partially a hoax. He was tried for bottom-grabbing? And this is punishable for up to 20 years in prison? I'll need see where in the Canadian Criminal Code that gem lies before I believe it. freshacconcispeaktome 00:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That part was edited out of the article by another editor. I guess it was an attempt at humour. freshacconcispeaktome 17:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Y'all wanna go against Chuggo? Yo, FUCK. THAT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.208.9.47 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep First the heptacorn, now chuggo??? — 68.33.74.121 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep The kids buy his shit, that's how he gets cash. — Masrith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Strong Keep - Chuggo is a legitimate rapper from Toronto. He's a Toronto staple. Just because he's not notable in other circles doesn't mean he's not notable. Chuggo is to Toronto is what Cadence Weapon is to Edmonton. The next big thing. Saying he's not notable is like saying a town with a population of 175 such as Czar, Alberta(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Czar%2C_Alberta) isn't notable. More people have heard of Chuggo than Czar.Ohinabus (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2008 (MST) — Ohinabus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note to closing admin - Above few comments seem strange? Scarian ^{Call me Pat} 12:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —freshacconcispeaktome 00:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Comment. I semi-protected the Chuggo article for five days due to an unusual wave of IP vandalism that seems to have started today. If any IPs participate in this debate, and they want to change the article, I hope someone will assist them. EdJohnston (talk) 02:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Notability cannot be established. As Wikipedia is not a democracy, I'm sure the closing Admin will disregard those comments and take the proper actions. --Shark face 217 03:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is notable enough to go beyond small circles. He has done a lot more than one record and has been interviewed by a popular Canadian hiphop site. Are you saying that normal indie artists cannot be notable? Klichka (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice until such time that multiple, reliable non-trivial works are published about the subject. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:MUSIC and WP:CRYSTAL. BWH76 (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Chuggo's influence over the internet, and in real life, is spreading. His video has been viewed nearly 80,000 times on youtube, and various parodies made [See Here]. Also, there are pictures to prove that the picture in the wiki page is Chuggo, as it is featured in his interview with Hip Hop Canada [Here]. Also, his album is for sale currently, on itunes at least [Here], although trying to find a link to any HMV or other listing was impossible for me. His notability is growing every second. For these reasons, i suggest a strong keep of this article... it is due to grow large folks, mark my words. -HoZKiNZ2 (talk) 00:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If it's due to grow large, there will still be a place here when that finally happens. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note, i signed my above comment. Nonetheless, whether or not Chuggo is due to become larger than he already is is not the issue, he is already notable for his influence in the Hip Hop culture in Toronto, as shown by his interview, and his already large prescence on the internet. I was merely stating that he is going to become larger. This article should remain here based on his current notability, and will continue to grow as more information is learnt about him, and he becomes even more notable. -HoZKiNZ2 (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had signed. My mistake. Must have been an edit conflict. I've replaced your original signature. Sorry about that. --Onorem ♠Dil 00:28, 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 Keep. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:06, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Laughter in Literature[edit]

I don't see how this, despite the reference, can be anything other than just a list and/or WP:OR. ukexpat (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this page is definitely still under construction I have probably put it online prematurely (it's the first page I create). it's not meant to be original research I have for articles about this subject lying in front of me atm. More progress should be made in the following hours and weeks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aavw ru (talk • contribs) 19:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this is now far from comprehensive but the topic has been studied in depth. A History of English Laughter Laughter in Crime and Punishment reduced laughter A related term is "comical discourse". This is much more than comic literature or humorous literature. --Dhartung | Talk 22:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should any Wiki-projects be notified about this discussion? --Shark face 217 03:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep good start. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Wizardman 16:00, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

America, Fuck Yeah[edit]

fails WP:MUSIC did not chart, no significant history Rtphokie (talk) 19:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. TexasDawg (talk) 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Team America: World Police. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above, though it is a shame. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valid article. Catchpole (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Noneforall (talk) 21:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Mattbuck. Books! JuJube (talk) 09:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The song isn't independently notable. 23skidoo (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Merge Per consensus. --Shark face 217 03:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Soundtracks are not encyclopedic, --Dwilso (talk) 03:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep far better sources for this topic than the horribly sourced things kept after discussions like Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Okashina_Okashi_-_Strange_Candy. San Francisco Chronicle February 3, 2008 "You'll be singing "America, F- Yeah!" for a week." The Guardian June 30, 2006 "look to the movie Team America and its lusty litany of the country's contributions to the world - "Rock'n'roll, fuck yeah!/The internet, fuck yeah!/Slavery, fuck yeah!" - encased in a flawless parody of gung-ho, Simpson-and- Bruckheimer coke-rock." Statesman Journal February 9, 2006 "I still am bitter that "America, F*** Yeah" from "Team America: World Police" wasn't nominated [for an Oscar] last year." Sydney Morning Herald December 13, 2005 "The 2004 tune, much of which we can't print here, was penned by the creators of SBS's animated South Park series and - give or take a couple of vowels - its chorus goes a little something like this: America, fork yeah! Coming again to save the motherforking day, yeah!" Ottawa Citizen July 29, 2005 "Team America -- specifically, the anthemic theme song that accompanied any military action: America, F--- Yeah! Comin' to save the motherf---ing day, again! Yeah!" So we have reputable sources in the US, UK, Canada, and Australia for this and can actually write a verifiable, neutral article about it. --Dragonfiend (talk)06:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Links? PC78 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article needs better sourcing but an AfD is not a call for improvement. - Dravecky (talk) 03:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the sources provided by (the unsigned) Dragonfiend can be used to write a neutral article. --Pixelface (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An icon of our generation! __earth ^(Talk) 10:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FUCK YEAH! (it had to be done) -mattbuck (Talk) 13:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - FUCK YEAH! __earth ^(Talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In fact, here's a whyole song - Wikipedia - FUCK YEAH! -mattbuck (Talk) 14:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge - as per nom AND the fact that this is original research. BWH76 (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Dragonfiend. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy and put under Category:Wikipedia humor. No assertion in the article that it is independently notable but it is funny. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the film article - Does not assert enough notability as is to be its own article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:38, 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. I'm just gonna redirect it though, the mergists can re-add in content. Wizardman 16:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm So Ronery[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/I'm So Ronery

fails WP:MUSIC did not chart, no significant history Rtphokie (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Team America: World Police. PC78 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Noneforall (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. --Shark face 217 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't bother trying to merge anything. No useful info - a good song, though. :) —97198 talk 13:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and WP:OR. BWH76 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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) 21:47, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Revermann[edit]

I've checked claims and added a couple of links but I am still sceptical that this person is notable enough for an entry. Paste (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO, no reliable secondary source coverage. KnightLago (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NOTABILITY. --Shark face 217 03:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It fails if not more two of Wikipedia's article guidelines. I say delete as it has no notable content. Nothing 444 14:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this article is deleted, I will lose three edits. Interactive Fiction Expert/Talk to me 08:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. BWH76 (talk) 15:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Oracle Fusion Middleware[edit]

The result was Keep (non-admin closure), nomination withdrawn as article rescued. Bardcom (talk) 16:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poorly written article on a subject of questionable notability. Tags were placed on this article last October and December, but very little improvement since. Basically the article is written like an ad, has no references, and is therefore original research. Bardcom (talk) 18:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Thanks to Michig for rescuing the article and thanks to Celarnor for help and advice Bardcom (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- non notable, advert. AndreNatas (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Being poorly written is no reason for deletion. The various components are in some cases very widely used, and have been the subject of several text books written and published independent of Oracle. I disagree that it's written like an ad.--Michig (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, there are plenty of news articles([23]).--Michig (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a ref. to a Gartner paper that discusses amongst other things the revenue Oracle receive from OFM, which I think makes it clear that the subject is notable. By all means slap a {{refimprove}} tag on the article, but there's no way it should be deleted.--Michig (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be notable by news coverage. If the nominator has problems with the way the article is written, he/she should be WP:BOLD and fix it rather than throw it at AfD. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor, if the article is notable, it should have references and stand on it's own two feet. Numerous tags were added to the article, and the article remained poorly written. I nominated the article because of this. Perhaps if you have a problem with articles being "thrown" at AfD, you can be WP:Bold and fix it yourself. I wouldn't know where to start with it. Bardcom (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Searching Google and Google News is always a good start in determining notability, although lack of hits on either would not necessarily indicate a lack of notability. In what way is the article poorly written? I don't want to spend too much time on this article but if you have specific concerns I'll have a go at addressing them.--Michig (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of thinking indicates a deep, deep misunderstanding of how wikipedia works. Something isn't notable because of what's written in an the article, things are notable based on what's in the real world. And I would be out fixing articles such as this if I wasn't spending all my time on AfDs trying to keep them from getting deleted. My point is that before putting something up for AfD, you should either research it yourself or refer the article to the article rescue squad. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celarnor, I respectfully disagree. A stub article has a certain period of time to reach a level of quality - editors can write the article and search for verified sources to back up claims. Articles that do not meet this level of minimim quality usually indicate a lack of notability. This article has been tagged for a loooonnngggg time, and still fails to back up any claims made. Don't wag the finger at me for nominating the article - look instead to the editors who created a poor quality article, made numerous unsubstantiated claims, and ignored the polite tagging reminding them to address the issues highlighted. Perhaps the product is notable, but the article should stand alone and not require readers to verify this fact for themselves. A discussion has been started on the article talk page. Bardcom (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DEADLINE, Wikipedia has no deadline. AfDs are not about the article. They are about the subject. If the subject is notable and sourcable, than it does not deserve deletion. Per the news sources given higher up in the AfD, and the ones already on the page, and the numerous technical reviews and whitepapers as well as winning awards, there's really no reason to delete this; reason to improve upon it, sure, as many of these things are not listed on the page, but not to delete it. AfD is not forced cleanup. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is not a consumer level product, but it is notable. It's quite easy to find sources. The article could use more of them, and a rewrite to make it more accessible, but it does not need to explain everything in layman's terms (middleware being, by definition, software that acts as the glue or conduit between two other unrelated pieces of software). --Dhartung | Talk 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable enterprise software. The article could use some work, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 23:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

V-zine[edit]

Uh, it's a website. Or a CD. But definitely a buzzword – none of which makes it a notable definition. 9Nak (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks awfully spammy to me. DarkAudit (talk) 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Beyond uncyclopedic, non-notable, and overall unneeded. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- per all above. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. – ukexpat (talk) 21:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Came across this via Special:Random and would have nominated it myself. I was too slow, so am offering my vote instead. Callmederek (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Neo-spamcruftisement. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEOLOGISM. --Shark face 217 03:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail the WP:NEO notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PhilKnight (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mendicity[edit]

This entry consists of (a) an (inaccurate) dictionary definition, and (b) a hoax description of an "International Committee for the Introduction of Mendicity in the English Language" which does not exist because it does not need to: the word "mendicity" is already in the English language - see any dictionary - and has been (according to the SOED), since the Late Middle English period, 14th-15th century. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Tagged as such. User:Mendicitor is the author, and is their only edit to date. DarkAudit (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as hoax, could be original research. AndreNatas (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom Bardcom (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per DarkAudit (talk · contribs), appears to be a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per near unanimous consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elaine Kelley[edit]

Non-notable individual failing WP:BIO. Prod contested by article's creator Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:BIO. No secondary source coverage focusing on her. A search for her and Daniel Pipes, who she is supposedly notable for misquoting, yields 16 hits when omitting duplicates. The misquote part might not even be accurate. She is a Palestinian human rights activist according Washington Reports (which has its own POV), and Pipes appears to be on the other side of the issue. I recommend deletion until there are reliable secondary sources without POV. KnightLago (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there also appears to be a "Sister Elaine Kelley" involved in Middle East issues who doesn't appear to be the same person. I found nothing in Google, Google News or Google News Archives. Fails WP:BIO by not having multiple, reliable, independent sources that have substantial coverage, and it doesn't look like it will ever meet that standard. Noroton (talk) 00:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not appear to have notability. --Shark face 217 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral More sources needed--Dwilso (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are added quickly. Deb (talk) 15:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per KnightLago. BWH76 (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete - non admin closure, article was speedy deleted. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Velossa Raptors[edit]

Completely non-notable band - no coverage whatsoever. [24] Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as a completely non-notable band, and have added CSD tag to page as such. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 17:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yeah, I tagged it for SD before - but then it returned with some..err.semblance of notability claims. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to see where the notability is myself. A band that just formed in 2008 and hasn't released a single, and smells like something that was created at school all point to a quick and clean deletion. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BLP - no assertion of, nor evidence of, notability through verifiable secondary WP:sources. If such do become available, re-create it then. Seems like a nice family man and a good businessman, but so what? Bearian (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark hurwitz[edit]

The article lacks reliable sources verifying that this person meets the notability criteria, and I wasn't able to find sources with a google search. Prod removed without comment by creator. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Something tells me this'll end up WP:SNOWclosed. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 18:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Providence Journal ref apparently checks out. A Google News search indicates that Hurwitz is known at least among the vintage car community.[25] I have no reason to doubt the Hemmings reference. More than zero, but I'm not convinced on notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I found this article focusing on him. Beyond that I couldn't find any other secondary source coverage. His only claim to notability appears to be that he runs a car show and collects cars. At the moment I am leaning toward deletion. KnightLago (talk) 19:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources. --Shark face 217 03:23, 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. --MCB (talk)

The Worst Towns in the U.S.A.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Orphaned article, no assertion of notability, book author has no wiki article, primarily a list of cities grouped together on a POV basis. Tomdobb (talk) 17:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NB, no secondary source coverage, awards, etc. KnightLago (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In researching further I found one single mention here from the Wilkes Barre Times Leader. KnightLago (talk) 19:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this the second nomination, where is a link to the first? I'd like to read those comments. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first nomination was when the article was titled slightly different. It's located here. Part of the reason I put it up for nomination again was there were so few comments on the original nom and because the article seems to not have significant updating since then.Tomdobb (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was having the same trouble in trying to link that first debate. If the book had been notable, it might be an interesting article. It doesn't appear that anybody wanted to shell out a bunch of pounds sterling to find out why some foreign guy didn't like these particular places. Mandsford (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any other secondary sources? --Shark face 217 03:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Could add more references, and possibly also could rank the cities from least to worst!! Dwilso (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't appear that the book is organized that way. Apparently, it is a state-by-state guide with Author Crow listing cities both small and large; without knowing what pissed Mr. Crow off about Beverly Hills, or Cheshire, Ohio, the article itself is useless in the extreme. Mandsford (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing 444 20:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there doesn't appear to be enough secondary sources to establish notability for this book. I also agree that without knowing why the author didn't like these towns, the article is somewhat useless. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per nom and KnightLago. BWH76 (talk) 15:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Socialism[edit]

The label "Republican Socialist" has been widely used, but the article provides no evidence to support the claim that it is a distinct ideology. A reading of James Connolly et al might provide some underpinning to support an article on the subject, but this disorganised stub contains so little material that it is not worth keeping even as a starting point. I suggest deletion without prejudice to recreation if someone wants to try writing a proper article on the subject. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Delete without prejudice per BHG. Mandsford (talk) 17:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; no sources indicating distinct studying of the concept, rather than use of the phrase. Relata refero (talk) 18:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Guliolopez (talk) 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and fix Consider sources such as [[26]]. The term is notable, the article needs work.Nick Connolly (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe the fix-it fairy will transform the article during the night. Mandsford (talk) 20:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no objection to someone writing a decent article on the subject, even a decent stub, so long as it is properly sourced and offers some evidence that the concept of "republican socialism" is as claimed an ideology rather than just a label used by several groups with varying degrees of similarity.
    However, the current article is so awful that it's not worth keeping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. For the Irish version we have much better articles at Irish Republican Socialist Party and Irish Republican Socialist Movement. The history of the term suggests greater importance in early socialism (prior to 1848, say), when nascent socialist movements found themselves opposed to bourgeois republican movements who wanted to get rid of the monarchies but not so much redistribute the wealth. Also, the term has US modern uses that are akin to corporate welfare. I think this is an unnecessary and potentially misleading article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Needs more sources for notability reasons. --Shark face 217 03:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, Could add more information, make it plausible!!--Dwilso (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change in female labor force in the United States and the introduction of the contraceptive pill[edit]

This article reads like an essay and the topics discussed in it have already been covered elsewhere. -- Naerii 17:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further: The creator, User:Iloveca, has the article copied to her user page also. Not sure if it should be MfD'd? -- Naerii 18:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a very good essay at that. It looks like a book report. The book is The Quiet Revolution, by Claudia Goldin, and these are some notes that were taken down. Mandsford (talk) 17:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Its not a book, but a paper by Goldin, the controversial Harvard economist. The information's useful and should be incorporated elsewhere, so I guess merging would be best. (Note coverage of issue =/ coverage of this research). Relata refero (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The subject could possibly be notable, but it would require more than one reference. At present this just looks like a precis of a single paper. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOT, WP:ESSAY. --Shark face 217 03:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the #Social and cultural impact section of the Combined oral contraceptive pill article. I'm sure that article could cite the book in question. I see that article already mentions Claudia Goldin, the author of the book this information came from. --Pixelface (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:Toddst1, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Merabtene[edit]

Seems to be a hoax. This is a multi-millionaire that runs 170 companies, yet he only has three mentions on the net - and those are all blog posts using similar language as the article. Fredrick day 17:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete:: Hoax Toddst1 (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to AEK Athens F.C. (non-admin close) RMHED (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Georgios Toubalidis[edit]

I nominated this one for speedy and it was declined. In my view being president of a football (soccer) club, however famous that club may be, is not per se notable. Article's creator is in the process of creating stubs for all of AEK's presidents, so this is a wider issue than just this article. Seeking consensus. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources as required by WP:N. BRMo (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I have no doubt that sources can be found to confirm that this guy was in fact AEK president. My point is, even with sources, is merely being AEK president notable? – ukexpat (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the key adjective here (which I originally omitted) is "significant." A reliable source saying that he was president would be enough to verify a sentence about him in the club's article, but doesn't provide the basis for an independent biographical article. — BRMo (talk) 23:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am having difficulty finding sources. --Shark face 217 03:26, 21 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, ukexpat (talk) 21:18, 27 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, ukexpat (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect There's a whole serires of these little articles linked one to another. Put the information in the Main club article, or a list. -- Kipof (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, David Eppstein (talk) 01:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Kipof. The subject of this article is not notable enough to have a separate article. Cunard (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect per Kipof. Not notable individually. Lookslike the best one can hope for is a list in the club article. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 06:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:25, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to AEK Athens F.C. as suggested above. Just being an otherwise unremarkable president doesn't make someone notable, but its probably appropriate to include his name in a list or something on the main article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Merge & redirect - have a list of presidents on the club's main article; no need for a seperate article. Giant Snowman 11:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect this and the non-notable others to AEK_Athens_F.C.#Chairmen_history. Break out in summary style only if notable - for example: Demis Nikolaidis. SilkTork *^YES! 13:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as list of presidents/chairmen already exists in AEK Athens F.C. Quentin X (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 15:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Aldana[edit]

Simply put the article shows no evidence that the subject is notable. Notability - as layed out in WP:NN - is defined by a topic having "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Of the sources provided in the article, only two look like they might provide significant coverage (not just trivial mentions), one[27] is from a tabloid and the other[28] from what appears to be a blog written based on the "facts" in the tabloid article. Neither tabloids or blogs are reliable sources and they shouldn't be used to source information about living people. The other trivial sources are no better being blogs[29][30], a youtube video of a chatshow[31](Vanessa's Real Lives) and two unreliable sites based on user generated content [32] [33]. These are actually used well in the article - they are not used as sources for any facts about the person only as sources to show that the sources themselves exist - however without any reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject or form a verifiable base for the article to be built on I don't think how they are used is relevent. I have no problem with the subject matter - there are likely hundreds of articles on Wikipedia for people noted only for the size of there chest - in this case it just does not appear that the sourcing exists to allow us to write a verifiable encyclopaedia article. Guest9999 (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Guest9999 (talk) 16:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The result was delete. Nandesuka (talk) 12:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Australian Grand Prix[edit]

Prod removed. Per discussion at WT:F1, this is pretty much a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Although it is contracted for 2009, the FIA has yet to release the calendar for the 2009, so there is too much speculation at this point for the article to be developed properly without knowing the full details. D.M.N. (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no worthwhile information on this article at the moment. - fchd (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is nothing more than filler for an event a year off, with no actual relevent information. Wait until there's actually something to write about. The359 (talk) 17:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – ukexpat (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now too much crystalballism for an article at present. With the comments made over the last few months by Bernie Ecclestone, there's a chance there may not be an Austrailian GP next year. DarkAudit (talk) 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but rewrite to get rid of "crystalballism"...--Camaeron (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ...which would leave what? - fchd (talk) 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing to say about the Grand Prix whatsoever. Created about nine months too early - Linczone^Talk^/^Watch 18:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion - The nominator is abusing WP:CRYSTAL. The WP:CRYSTAL does not have that meaning. I found no information is crystalballing. Raymond Giggs 04:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- How am I abusing WP:CRYSTAL? It is crystalballing - have you seen it say anywhere "the FIA have confirmed the 2009 Formula One season calendar?" No, so therefore it is crystalballing. D.M.N. (talk) 19:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay. So all articles about new grands prix are crystalballing too. Abu Dhabi GP will not take place too. Okay, you win. ("Ok, you win!" means "nonsense" in Hong Kong.) Crystalballing means the grand prix is still not confirmed. However, Australian GP is confirmed to be held at 2009 regardless the schedule is not confirmed. That is, just the date is not confirmed only. But your speech seems meaning Australian GP will not take place. Anyway, I would Reject Delete. Raymond Giggs 14:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - As often as Belgium has been removed from the schedule in recent years, I would suggest that anything about a future race is tenative until the lights go out on Sunday afternoon the day of. DarkAudit (talk) 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, okay. I won't vote on it. Raymond Giggs 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unsurprisingly contains nothing of note (or anything really) regarding next years event Murtoa (talk) 04:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (no useful content, in fact virtually no content at all) or Redirect to Australian Grand Prix, so that anyone typing in '2009 Australian Grand Prix' would at least go somewhere useful. 4u1e (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there's alot of press coverage about the 2009 race. 70.51.8.110 (talk) 09:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you serious? The 2008 race has only just occured, so I strongly doubt your statement. D.M.N. (talk) 21:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I take you did notice Ecclestone's threat about not having a night race and losing the GP, no? There has been alot of press coverage about the future Aussie GPs, starting with 2009 70.51.8.110 (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But in that case, the only thing we could possibly write yet about the 2009 Oz GP is that it might not happen. 4u1e (talk) 08:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. ----SpeedKing (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The contract runs through 2010, so there may yet be a 2009 race. Still, at this point last season, an article could have been written about the tenative 2008 USGP. A couple of months later, it was off the schedule. If the Singapore night race experiment is unsuccessful or worse, Australia could be off the schedule for as long as Bernie runs FOM. DarkAudit (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find good sources for articles relating to the 2009 race. --Shark face 217 03:28, 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. — Scientizzle 16:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Humphrey[edit]

This article was proposed for deletion but the article creator objected on the talk page. Essentially this article fails WP:BIO because it's about a non-notable pastor. The argument made for keeping this article was that he is a "recognized author" and he is a major leader in the House of Prayer movement. That illustrates the problem with this article; writing a book doesn't make you notable unless the book is notable, and being notable within a certain group of people (IHOP) isn't enough if you are not notable at large. All sources in this article are primary sources. No notability outside of his "flock". -- Atama ^chat 16:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Atama ^chat 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - entirely non-notable local pastor whose achievements are no more than one would expect from any other evangelist cleric. nancy ^(talk) 09:33, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO pretty bad. That, and WP:NOTABILITY. --Shark face 217 03:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the person is not "important" enough for wikepdia standards. Dwilso (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would appear to fail WP:BIO - not notable in the wider world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Terraform (album)[edit]

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 16:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No substantial coverage provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 18:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't contest. Jay (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lack of references would seem to make this a case of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Bfigura ^(talk) 03:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW. --Shark face 217 03:30, 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. — Scientizzle 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008 in video gaming (North America)[edit]

This article is a content fork and should be redirected to 2008 in video gaming which has been refused by author of article a case of WP:OWN here too I think. So delete as there is already an article covering this topic. BigDunc (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I agree with BigDunc. --SkyWalker (talk) 15:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Se also discussion on my talk page, where I note that if we start a system of lists tracking the entry of products into particular markets we risk a flood of trivial lists which are of little encyclopedic value. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We can't really need separate articles for individual markets, just so different release dates can be dealt with. Pointless content fork, should be covered in the main article. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article is clearly a content fork, and a redirect would be more appropriate. WilliamH (talk) 16:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - content fork. The creator even states on the talk page he created it to avoid a dispute on the main page. There is a mass lack of consensus for this information and I trust the rest of the editors on the main article to decide in a civil matter if a fork page is actually necessary or not, and it seems they've decided not. Canterbury Tail talk 22:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's unnecessary duplication. 2008 in video gaming covers the initial release, while each article shows the breakdown for releases by region and platform. There is a lot of potential for different release dates - with three major regions and four platforms, a game could potentially have 12 different release dates. Creating and managing separate articles for each seems like over duplication. Gazimoff (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It would appear that as per everyone above the article is simply a fork of the main artilce which is duplicating info. It should not need a redirect as it's unlikely that anyone will search for the specific term with North America in brackets. BigHairRef | Talk 19:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per consensus, WP:SNOW. --Shark face 217 03:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary duplication. Information should be in 2008 in video gaming. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:35, 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. Wizardman 16:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UEFA Cup 2009-10[edit]

Absolutely useless article- just a list of "Association #", without telling you what these assosiations are. This article is not necessery yet. PROD contested OZ OO 09:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but include changes to the competition structure from this season onwards, rather than "Association #"s. AR TYOM 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is hardly any useful or verifiable information about it as yet. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 09:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there will be information soon. Worthy of staying. _{WEBURIEDOURSECRETSINTHEGARDEN} ^{tell me a joke...} 22:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with the aim to recreate/restore it only once there's enough information on the subject. --Angelo (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - makes no sense at this stage. Either that or some substantial re-working needs to be carried out. Peanut4 (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment having already voted, I just realized that some people might not be aware of the changes to the UEFA Cup format from 2009-10 season onwards, and wanted to point to the article regarding them [34]. AR TYOM 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pointless. Punkmorten (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Artyom, some changes are coming up, let's keep this one BanRay 16:42, 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 divided but the article remains without any substantial WP:V and WP:RS showing her notability. The closest claim seems to be her one-time appearance in a role on an award-winning TV series. She doesn't appear to meet the general notability for actors through that one appearance. Notability is not inherited. Pigman☿ 20:13, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Boudreau[edit]

Minor journeyman actress, earning a living playing bit/guest parts in those filmed-in-Vancouver low-budget productions. PROD tag added, but removed. No sign of actual impact on film world or even the Vancouver film community, nor any reliable sources suggesting in the least otherwise. Calton | Talk 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern:

In answer to your deletion notice, in defense of Carla Boudreau, I looked at the articles for deletion and none of the reasons seem to apply here except possibly, due to lack of notoriety, but I don’t believe there is a valid claim for that, since she has received substantive coverage from several reliable sources online. These sources include the following:

Scifipedia, as herself: http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Carla_Boudreau

Scifipedia, as the television characacter Oma Desala which she played on Stargate SG-1: http://scifipedia.scifi.com/index.php/Oma_Desala

Internet movie data base or IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0099178/

Gate World as the Stargate SG-1 character Oma Desala: http://www.gateworld.net/omnipedia/characters/links/omadesala.shtml

TV.com: http://www.tv.com/carla-boudreau/person/41634/summary.html

BFI film and TV database: http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/individual/965322?view=credit

Geos TV: http://www.geos.tv/index.php/credits?pid=8678

Fancast: http://www.fancast.com/people/Carla-Boudreau/356284/main

If you type her name into Google she is listed on no less than 20 different unrelated websites, independent of herself, including the above.

She has achieved notoriety as the original actress to play the character Oma Desala on the hit television show Stargate SG-1. Stargate SG-1 was Scifi network’s number one show for eight years on a row according to Scifipedia and was nominated for Best Syndicated/Cable Television Series every year of its’ run from 1998-2007., and won in 2000, 2004, and 2005.

Reference IMDb http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118480/awards

Oma Desala was a regular character on the show Stargate SG-1 in seasons 3, 5, 7, and 8.

Reference Gate World, Stargate SG-1 episodes. http://www.gateworld.net/sg1/index.shtml

Michael81753 (talk) 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A whole lot of links adding up to very little. They certainly don't rebut "No sign of actual impact on film world or even the Vancouver film community, nor any reliable sources suggesting in the least otherwise", though perhaps I should have specified "non-trivial" before "reliable sources". --Calton | Talk 05:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the references in the article provide sufficient information to meet WP:N. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bit parts" = "notable"? Interesting equation, there. --Calton | Talk 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you add enough of them up. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 14:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete From what I can tell, her main claim to notability is playing Oma Desala for a single episode before the role was recast. Furthermore, she does not appear to have any lines in that one episode.[35] I see no evidence of notability.--FreeKresge (talk) 17:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize in advance, and please understand that I mean no disrespect here, but to say that it wasn't even a speaking part shows a lack of understanding of the material and acting in general. For what it's worth, she is listed in the credits as a 'guest star'. It was NOT a bit part. Oma Desala was a main character in that episode and she spoke with her eyes and through telepathy, but played a prominent role in the plot. In the end, she saved the main characters from destruction and left, taking the Harcesis child away to safety.
Can't a mute or a mime still play a vital role in a plot? That is to say, isn't that still acting? (possibly even more difficult than a speaking part) Whether that is enough to be labeled notable is still up to you all to decide, but please - let's give credit where credit is due here.

Thank you.Michael81753 (talk) 21:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Above, you said that the character was Oma Desala was a regular character. Now, she is just a guest star. Furthermore, you said that she was a regular character for several seasons while neglecting to mention that Boudreau played the character in only one episode. It is possible for a mute character to play a major role, such as Ada McGrath in The Piano, and I admit that the screenplay that I cited was not as descriptive as it could be. However, the screenplay strongly hints that, onscreen, Oma Desala was little more than a deus ex machina in the one episode in which Boudreau appeared.--FreeKresge (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 20:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UTP (group)[edit]

Non-notable rap duo; associates of Juvenile who have appeared on a few of his album tracks. Little or no media coverage, no hits, no references. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - surprised it was not nominated for speedy. Not notable per WP:Band. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:23, 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. Wizardman 17:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreleased Songs by Cher[edit]

Unencyclopedic fancruft, unreferenced, some non-neutral POV comment ukexpat (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No assertion of notability not to mention no sources to verify any of the content.♦Tangerines♦·Talk 17:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, see also This_Good_Earth from same editor. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Cher discography (not the main article as that's already long) and add citations. Cher is notable enough that a list of her unreleased recordings is a legitimate topic for discussion, but not necessarily as its own article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree if these were sourced at all. As it is, all refs currently point to the same Geocities web page listing a Sonny Bono album which was released on Rhino. Without doing any research, my suspicion is that these are likely either undocumented, or actually released on re-issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless reliable sources can be found so it can be merged into discography. —97198 talk 13:34, 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. — Scientizzle 16:08, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreal Tournament 3 Tweaker[edit]

This article was up for a prod but the article creator objected on the talk page so I removed the prod. This article is written more like a manual for the software and less like an encyclopedia article. It is unverified as it has no reliable sources at all, and fails to establish why it is notable. Essentially this article is about a mod for a popular game written by a fan of the game, one of countless available and there is nothing to distinguish it from all the other fan-created mods and tweaks available for the game. -- Atama ^chat 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. —Atama ^chat 15:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a place to advertise your software. Possible speedy delete per A7 or G11. Percy Snoodle (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, per Percy Snoodle. – ukexpat (talk) 17:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant advertising. Biruitorul (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 15:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article reads like a guide or manual. There are no sources included to indicate verifiability or notability and a quick search indicates there is unlikely to be. While there's a lot of forum discussion on the topic, I haven't been able to locate any reliable sources on it. Gazimoff (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson USA[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Unable to find coverage of this company in reliable secondary sources. A Google search for "Grayson USA" -hotels -accommodation (weeding many irrelevant hits) returns only 228 results, most of which are unrelated. The only relevant hits I could find were sites related to the company, a couple of press releases on third-party sites and content sourced from WP. Nothing on Google News about "Grayson USA" either. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and is linked to a number of other WP articles that are trying to self support each other. --Pmedema (talk) 16:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Merge considered, but no sourced information available to merge. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jakob Trollbäck[edit]

The notability of this person is doubtful. This has also been discussed in the Swedish version of the article. No citations, only external links. About 300 Google hits. See also Trollback + Company. Vints (talk) 15:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'd say he's notable as the founder of Trollback + Company, which seems notable. Some of the google results (2860, not 300 as you said) can assert notability; [36] seems to, as could [37] and [38]. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In google search you must go to the last page to see how many actual hits there are. See [39]: "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 280 already displayed."
  - OK, so I'm wrong on that count. What about the sources provided? dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion the external links only indicate that the company might be relevant. Vints (talk) 06:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - With full citation, he'd demonstrate questionable notability, as it stands, it's a puff piece about a minor design principal wiht no significant notability. ThuranX (talk) 13:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Trollback + Company. Fails WP:BIO and seems to have no notability apart from the company. Collectonian (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge Through his company he has some notability but he has not received coverage on "reliable secondary sources" as the article itself shows. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 19:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 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. — Scientizzle 16:07, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Psychoanalysis today[edit]

Reads like an essay then becomes a directory; possible OR. ukexpat (talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing here that can't be put in the article psychoanalysis, but I don't see anything to merge. Perhaps it's more accurate to say, "nothing here". Mandsford (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to see here. Move along. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This entire article was copy/pasted into Psychoanalysis a day later. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:52, 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. — Scientizzle 16:06, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grayson DNA[edit]

Fails Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have been unable to find any coverage in reliable secondary sources for this company. 29 Google hits for "Grayson DNA" - most unrelated, those which are not are related to the subject (company websites, press releases). Nothing at all for the same search on Google News. External links and references in the article itself are either non-specific, or primary sources connected to the company. Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- this, and Grayson USA, Mosley Guitars and Colonel Robert Morris have been added by User:MI Historian who is writing a book about the music industry.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and is linked to a number of other WP articles that are trying to self support each other. Perhaps they should be merged here in AFD or are they being weight on each of their own merrits? --Pmedema (talk) 16:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable. Original author does have a history of writing promotional articles as well. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Green[edit]

Non-notable record label founded by barely notable artist. Little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:CORP and WP:V. Previously deleted by prod, speedy deletion declined. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this article does provide any context, content, analysis or reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:33, 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 G1 speedy delete. Non-admin closure. – sgeureka ^t•c 16:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yak-poo-poo[edit]

Delete as per WP:V. I didn't find any CSD criteria for this entry but it should be speeded. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete pure vandalism Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 14:36, 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. Wizardman 17:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHAPE EU Project[edit]

Fails WP:V, WP:ORG, WP:N. I can't find a single Google News hit regarding this and only three Google Search hits (minus the Wikipedia article itself). Although, it's not a hoax, it certainly doesn't appear to be notable. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, as above it's not a hoax, but if anything to establish notability pops up, I will change to keep. FusionMix 14:29, 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. Although this person was in a program that typically launches people into notability, he did not rise to meet our notability standards. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michael McKay (astronaut)[edit]

Does participation in an astronaut program automatically confer notability? This person never flew in space. He resigned two years after entering the Canadian astronaut program. Nothing else in his career seems notable. Suttungr (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, and WP:BIO. FusionMix 14:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:BIO and WP:NPOV, V and OR as there are plenty of reliable sources available. GoogleNews & Google DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yet there's not a single source in the article itsownself. Google hits are NOT a substitute for actual reliable sources, and, pray tell, how can this guy pass "WP:BIO and WP:NPOV, V and OR" without those? --Calton | Talk 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I never claimed ghits as a keep reason; those links show links to actual, reliable sources. I agree he seems a pretty minor person and I'm not interested in expanding the article but that's a WP:BIAS; it passes the inclusion criteria, so keep. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BIO: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Has he? yes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, you've provided nothing other than a link to Google results, which is nothing more than handwaving. Provide ACTUAL multiple non-trivial reliable sources and then you'd at least have a start. --Calton | Talk 01:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not the slightest sign of any real-world impact, notability, or notice. Being in the astronaut program =/= being an astronaut. --Calton | Talk 15:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If he'd actually gone on a shuttle mission, I'd obviously say keep. But he didn't, and simply participating in the astronaut program isn't sufficient. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and nominator...--Camaeron (talk) 18:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Calton. GreenJoe 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a number of independent, reliable sources exist - satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. BRMo (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 00:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find sources that mention him, but I do not see any independent reliable sources about him. The ones cited in the article itself appear to be about his company or about the Canadian space program in general.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What did this person ever do? I simply don't understand why this article was created in the first place. (!) (jarbarf) (talk) 02:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. The WP:BIO guideline is clear it says "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention." There is nothing significant about his life apart from the fact that he failed to go into Space, which is sad. ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom and WP:BIO Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 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. First of all, let me say that I am not Serbian, Croatian, Bosnian, or of any European ancestry. Anyways, this article was deleted due to NPOV concerns expressed by many of the delete comments. From the comments here, everyone agrees that the existence of Serbian propaganda in the Balkan wars is not in doubt, but the presentation of them in this article is questionable. The most policy-conforming proposals were to delete the article and perhaps rewrite from scratch, or to merge into Serbian nationalism as proposed by User:Dbachmann. By deleting this article, it is hoped that the article conforming with all Wikipedia policies and guidelines can be rewritten from the ground up. However, if a merge into Serbian nationalism is desired, then anyone can drop a note on my talk page for the contents of the article to be merged. Kurykh 20:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serb propaganda in the Yugoslav wars[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This article is still a major WP:COATRACK and dumping ground for many things anti-Serbian with much material being copied over from other articles related to Yugoslav Wars that don't really have a lot of context within this article (such as Markale#First_massacre being copied word-for-word from its original article into a section in this article). Since the first AfD which yielded no consensus, no improvement has been made to promote the neutrality of this article and it's still very POV. Most of the material in the article itself has been introduced by editors who are politically rather that Wikipedially motivated. SWik78 (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Keep, just because it has severe POV issues does not mean that it should be deleted. FusionMix 14:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was created on December 4, 2007 and the first AfD was closed on December 13. 4 months is plenty of time to fix outstanding POV issues. SWik78 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think that articles like this are encyclopedic and they should not be part of Wikipedia, regardless who were bad guys. -- Bojan 14:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - per fusion --Camaeron (talk) 18:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article.It shows the tactics of Serbian military intelligence during the Yugoslav Wars.War and hate propaganda against other ethnicities and people's in order to get international support so a genocide could somhow in a sick way be justified.

THIS WAS A IMPORTANT PART OF THE YUGOSLAV WARS,BECAUSE THE WAR SITUATION WAS CREATED BECAUSE OF THIS.

There are so many academic studies that have coverd this topic.

I know Serbian editors are now going to mobilize at least 50 people.

Serbian nationalists don't like this article because it shows the other side of the conflict.

I think this is an important article from the military point of view and should be known and studied.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sigh, we might as well WP:SNOW this as no consensus because that's how it always winds up. You have a trickle of uninvolved or semi-involved editors voting delete, and a flood of nationalist editors (half of whom are probably sock/meat puppets) voting DELETE THIS ANTI SERB PROPAGANDA and KEEP THIS VITAL TRUTHINESS, and it closes no consensus. The article's crap, it's never going to get better, see User:Moreschi/The Plague <eleland/talkedits> 19:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So you think that Harvard and other universities,european and american media United Nations and NATO are all involved in anti-serbian propaganda? LOL These wide-spread false informations were a war tool,a weapon to commit mass-murders and genocides.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but the article has many characteristics of an opinionated essay instead of an encyclopedic article. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

well.noone wants to help,while on pages about Croats,Bosniaks and Albanians Serb editors are more the busy.The only contribution from Serb wikipedians on this article was deleting it.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on the article and not the editors. SWik78 (talk) 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page. — 89.111.207.103 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - an eventualist approach is justifiable in many situations, however in this case, the article's problems haven't been fixed in over a year. PhilKnight (talk) 20:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this reads like an encyclopedic topic to me, even though it is a contentious one I should hope that our editors can meet the standards of neutral point of view. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While some people have a problem with having something they agree with being described as "propaganda", it's an acceptable word for describing the communications issued by any organization. If it can be verified that statements have been made (and in this case, there are plenty of sources), then we can't delete it from the record just because someone might be offended. Where we're talking about claims that were made by someone else, there will always be some point-of-view observed in the writing. I'm not sure that someone could write an article about the works of Joseph Goebbels with complete neutrality. POV problems are not a good reason for deleting factual information. Mandsford (talk) 21:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is a point of view (POV) fork article with a lack of full citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Babic (talk • contribs) 00:08, 20 March 2008

Fix-up or DELETE already, its been half a year look at this statement "The NATO criminals' officials have admitted in Brussels that their criminal warplanes bombed the convoy of Albanian refugees. Serbian TV, April 16, 1999"

NATO bombing of Albanian refugees near Đakovica The claim was true. Also, it was considered illegitimate since it the bombing was against the UN charter Legitimacy of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. This is original research

In my opinion, the article has not been updated in a while. So, lets get working, or delete the darn thing.

Mike Babic (talk) 06:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, propaganda doesn't have to be false. Propaganda is simply a negatively connoted term for efforts to influence opinion. That's one of the problems with this article - the judgment of what is and is not "propangda" is extremely subjective. There was a tremendous amount of "propaganda" produced, for example, by Bosnian Muslims and their sympathizers in regards to Srebrenica, although of course the basic story was true. <eleland/talkedits> 06:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a coatrack article at least in parts, namely where it talks more about the various atrocity events themselves rather than their reflection in propaganda. Delete mostly as per PhilKnight above: the argument "POV problems are not grounds for deletion" is fallacious. Some articles are so problematic in terms of NPOV that we have to weigh the harm they are doing against the likelihood that they will be cleaned up within a reasonable amount of time. This likelihood is too low in this case. I wouldn't be as strongly opposed to a general article about "Propaganda in the Yugoslav wars", dealing with activities of all sides (don't tell me the other parties in the war did not engage in them). Picking out one side as it has been done here will always make an article problematic. Or else, treat notable propaganda incidents (like those that have been discussed in the court cases) in the articles dealing with the respective events that triggered them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other sides didn't have time for such things.They mostly concentrated on fighting with hunting rifles etc.While Serbia had the 4th army of Europe back then.If there was some propaganda on Croatian,Bosnian of Albanian side,don't you think that it would already be in there?

It's impossible to write this kind of article with NPOV.Because this was used to ethnicly cleanse whole parts of countries..--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the above response to Future's reasoning is the perfect example of why it would be impossible to make the article conform to NPOV. It is nearly impossible for an article be written to represent both sides of the story when GriffinSB is basically telling us that the second side to this story does not exist. SWik78 (talk) 13:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addition to last comment An editor who advertises this on his user page might not have neutrality as his principal objective. SWik78 (talk) 13:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep- za dišpet! neka se znade istina. — Mortitia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 08:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - We all know that Serbian Government during 90's used newspapers and TV-stations, mostly RTS, to feed their people with propaganda. Newspapers such as Politika were very close to the government and wrote the things Milosevic wanted to read portreing Serbs as superior to Albanians, Croats and Bosnjaks. Most Serbs know that RTS during 90's was a mic for the government of Milosevic. The article should stay. --Noah30 (talk) 10:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.Thank you.ICTY also delt with the Milosevic propaganda describing it that everything Milosevic said it automaticlly had to be the official truth.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is,everything that Milosevic and Serbian army were responsible of was called "western propaganda" by Milosevic himself.And that still reflects on the 45% of the Serbian nation who still vote on the most extreme party in Serbia,The Serbian Radical Party and their leader and warcriminal Vojislav Seselj. --(GriffinSB) (talk) 10:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - such succesful war propaganda machinery deserves to be recorded in Wikipedia. Zenanarh (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep- Like it is possible to see in December 2007 I have writen my bad thinking about this article [40] . This thinking has not changed but we need to have similar but more neutral article. I do not know if this neutral sort of article will be possible in future but if wikipedia and here administrators are allowing this and this sort of changes and articles nobody can question reasons for keeping this article. I think that this article need rewriting and then it will be OK.--Rjecina (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Criminal_Enterprise

"This article looks like it has been written by Vojislav Seselj himself.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the relation of the above link to this discussion? SWik78 (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is possible to write an encyclopedic article on this topic. However, this article is so riddled with NPOV violations that I do think it can be salvaged. It would be better to rewrite the article from scratch.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From my knowledge how Balkan related articles work it is not possible to delete article and rewrite the article from scratch. I have tried to do this with another article but it has been deleted because of wikipedia speedy deletion rules. In theory administrator need to see diference between recreated and deleted article but if they are speking about similar things (example:Serb propaganda) recreated article is deleted without discussion.--Rjecina (talk) 18:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article does seem fishy in numerous things, but I will be neutral and not vote since that would be violation of WP:CANVASS, since technically, I have been invited to vote, as there already are invited viotes present in the article right now. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 22:37, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve sourcing even further. No valid reason was given for deletion, any possible POV issues should be fixed but Afd is not the place to fix 'em. Hobartimus (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The current article is not only of limited focus and biased, but actually intended to be so, as illustrated by GriffinSB's comment above (08:04, 20 March 2008). Instead of explaining the topic established in its title, the article basically restricts itself to provide a collection of examples -as far as I can see assorted by the article authors themselves- specifically aimed at showing how bad certain people were/are. It is a classic coatrack article, and as such hopelessly biased from its very inception.
  Although it is true that a proper and quite interesting encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, the article's development since the last deletion proposal of December 2007 and general experience so far have demostrated that Wikipedia is incapable of maintaining this kind of articles in line with its core policies.
  The only possitive outcome of keeping the article is that it may, hopefully, eventually, perhaps, attract the atention of an unbiased and knowledgeable editor willing to fix it. But the drawbacks of keeping it are significant, current and very much assured of remaining with us for a long time:
1. Providing biased and low-quality content to our readership.
2. Exemplifying how our core policies can be blattantly ignored.
3. Disrupting the editing environment with the bad blood and conflicts among editors that this article is sure to generate.
4. Diminishing some good editor's enthusiasm and willingness to contribute to Wikipedia, by showcasing how futile too many attempts at removing biased nationalist content appear to be.
  In short, keeping this article would be a net negative to Wikipedia both as an encyclopedia and as a volunteer-based collective enterprise. — Finally, I fully endorse Eleland's comments above (19:31, 19 March 2008). - Ev (talk) 12:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whould you please explain how is it biased when everything is sourced by 3rd party and NPOV.--(GriffinSB) (talk) 08:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if every individual statement, considered in isolation, was properly sourced and unbiased (they aren't), the resulting "article" as a whole can still be unbalanced, misleading, tendentious and biased. Read carefully our Neutral Point of View policy and the Coatrack essay. - Ev (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely a notable topic. Needs some major cleanup, but that's not a reason for deletion. Klausness (talk) 16:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unencyclopedic and definitely not representing NPOV. --Avala (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - That propaganda deserves an article (and more). Great example of propaganda to study. --HarisM (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - I was there when Serbian propaganda started rolling, there's no war without propaganda preceeding it. It is important for people to recognize war plans before war starts. — Marcellus2907 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 16:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]

Comment: 1-edit user; administrator attention needed. --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per all the excellent arguments. --demicx (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep very detailed explanation of a behaviour among Serbs just before and under the war. — 83.209.134.34 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Rename proposal I am aware that IPs aren't entitled to vote in requests for deletion but I'd still like to have my say. Personally I think this article oversteps the line on POV and should be deleted. However I accept that consensus is very unlikely and individual votes will be lost in the middle of those voting pro-Serbian and anti-Serbian messages. Maybe this article could be renamed to something like "myths of the Balkan wars" and be expanded to include "myths" and unproven facts about Croats, Bosnians and Albanians as well as just Serbs? The article is not very verifiable and entirely negative and the fact that the article focuses on "propoganda" seems to give editors a license to type anything without significant sources. 217.202.111.99 (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
— 217.202.111.99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

~~Strong KEEP~~ this subject definitely needs to be well documented. If Joseph Goebbels has its page, serbian propaganda machine fromthe 1990's also needs it. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Er, Goebbels was a living person. ;) --PaxEquilibrium (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. We allready have Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia. "Serb propaganda..." article should be merged into this one. Also, some NPOV parts of the article should be cleaned up. --Ante Perkovic (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is one of the worst I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Many examples it gives are not propaganda at all. For example the Pakrac Massacre - a newspaper reports that it happened, a few days later state TV issues a retraction - what's the propaganda there? General Michael Rose, the British head of UNPROFOR, revealed in his memoirs that three days after the blast he told General Jovan Divjak, the deputy commander of Bosnian Army forces, that the shell had been fired from Bosnian positions.[53] The Serb propaganda supported the claim.[54] - how the hell is it propaganda when media report about a statement from the person who is the authority on the matter? Nikola (talk) 10:26, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For anyone else who would still like to join the discussion I would just like to point out that voting to keep the article for the reason of the topic is notable or the subject is important is not being very constructive in trying to improve this article. The reason for this debate is that the article is suffering from many problems not related to the notability or importance of the subject rather it is, in my opinion, very poorly and un-objectively written. Since it was created, there have not been significant improvements in its neutrality (or quality in general) even after it was once nominated for deletion where these issues were brought up. These are the things that need to be fixed or, again in my opinion, the article should be deleted if it doesn't stand up to the quality standards of Wikipedia. The Yugoslav wars were important/notable, yes. The Serbian media involvement was important, yes. Those are not things to be discussed here. This article is poorly written. That's what needs to be discussed. Thanks! SWik78 (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- this is WP:AFD. Discussions of WP:CLEANUP do not belong here. The sole question to be addressed here is, is the topic notable. If the article is just poorly written or POV, slap it with cleanup tags, no reason to take it to afd. --dab (𒁳) 13:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but you are incorrect. The article is notable and even I, the nominator who started this debate, do not wish to have a debate about the notability because I agree that it is there so there is no discussion neccessary about that. As far as a cleanup tag is concerned, if you care to take a look at the article itself you will notice that a cleanup tag has been there since the article was created in December of 2007 and the issues have still not been addressed. In the case of an article that is more problematic than the benefit that it provides in being included in Wikipedia, I think it is a very good reason to delete it because it does more harm than good. SWik78 (talk) 14:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep, arguably merge into Serbian nationalism. The question of merging does not need to be discussed at afd. dab (𒁳) 13:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a number of fundamental problems with this article:

WP:POV - to begin with, the very title of the article, "propaganda", is a POV term for organized attempts to influence opinion. Second, a lot of the content is certainly POV.
WP:OR - the article is a collection of various incidents which a number of editors believe to be examples of Serbian propaganda. However, the selection is made by the editors and not based on specific study of Serbian propaganda. This is a key fault of the article.

In most cases, an article can be salvaged despite these problems. However, in this case the article has become a magnet for various nationalist attacks and is, in my opinion, beyond salvaging. I propose to delete the article and redirect it to the Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia article. It is largely based on an expert report for the ICTY prosecution by French professor Renaud de la Brosse entitled "Political Propaganda and the Plan to Create 'A State For All Serbs:' Consequences of using media for ultra-nationalist ends" and an article by journalist Judith Armatta of the IWPR titled "Milosevic's Propaganda War".CheersOsli73 (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I completely agree with the second point made in the above vote. A selective inclusion of incidents being grouped under the same blanket term with the purpose of trying to establish a common goal would be considered OR in my opinion. As an ideal solution, I would like to see an article such as Fut. Perf. suggested that would describe propaganda from all sides involved in the conflict. Barring that, redirecting to Role of Serb media in the 1991-1999 wars in the former Yugoslavia would be my next choice. It is a better written article that does not contain any of the fundamental flaws of the currently debated article and it would be much easier to develop that article into something cleaner, more neutral and better overall. SWik78 (talk) 18:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep How anyone could dispute that this is an encyclopedic and notable topic is beyond me. Serb propaganda existed and played a notorious role in the conflict, whether some are willing to face this fact or not. Live Forever (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read one of the several instances where I said that the topic is clearly notable to see that there is no dispute about the notability of the subject. We are discussing the article and its flaws (NPOV, OR, etc.), we are not discussing whether or not Serb propaganda existed. SWik78 (talk) 19:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just registered, and simplified a sentence in the article (I hope I didn't break any rule), but I came here to leave a comment, as there is a sign at the top "Please share your thoughts on the matter at this article's entry on the Articles for deletion page". So let me comment. This article should be improved, the sources are very good, deleting it, would be a major mistake. Propaganda is very interesting topic, and Serbian propaganda is something well-known in Europe. Propaganda shouldn't be compared to media role, nor to Serbian nationalism, it is not the same thing. Propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience in different ways. Media,nationalism,politicians,different strategic plans, military tactics are examples of such ways. That part about Serbian leadership is very well explained based on international justice. That's all for now. Šljkljkž — Šljkljkž (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

strong keep! — 78.3.122.233 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. I !voted keep (well, weak keep) at the first Afd because I wanted to see what the community could do with the article. I now have my answer. Persistent coatracking and NPOV violations continue to afflict this article despite the passage of several months to improve it. I agree with the editor who wrote earlier that eventualism does not seem to work as well with this type of article. There seems to be a consensus that a proper article on the topic can be written, but is anyone willing to do so? I'll the first to state I am not, and in the absence of someone dedicated to improvement of this particular article, I don't expect the end state of this article to change for the better. I think at this point the project is better off with no article on the subject than it is with this deeply flawed example. Xymmax (talk) 20:21, 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 Delete, reliable sources have not been provided to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhold Klika[edit]

This person is chief editor of a small local newspaper in Austria, and president of a local football club. All this doesn't suffice to pass WP:BIO however. No substantial independent sources are known, and none have been added in about 1 1/2 years, so I'm nominating for deletion now. B. Wolterding (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find anything to add to make notable re WP:BIO Plutonium27 (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom: doesn't meet WP:BIO or otherwise establish notability. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:52, 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. The debate about whether the book is a religious text or a work of fiction is academic. (And it might be both, depending on your opinion about such things). That notwithstanding, the discussion sufficiently demonstrated that the collection of terms in this glossary have no notability outside the book itself, and this article only served as a study guide for readers of the book (or pupils of the religion) , which is not the purpose of an encyclopedia. SPA input was ignored. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:39, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book[edit]

AfDs for this article:

WP:NOT... well, WP:NOT for this, anyway. A list of terms used in one rather culty book, with no independent sourcing at all. I don't think we do unsourced in-universe fictional glossaries. Guy (Help!) 13:33, 19 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.

Delete glossary of a minor book. JJL (talk) 13:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nothing has really changed since the prior AfD, and glossaries are still acceptable content. Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture. The validity of its proposed revelation is beside the point, but calling it "in-universe fiction" strikes me as seriously misguided, evidence of a positivist bias, and mildly uncivil to boot. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture Is there a religious exception to standard Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding sourcing , notability, and encyclopedic merit that I overlooked somewhere? --Calton | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Religious trivia, at best, for the religiously trivial. --Calton | Talk 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per well-argued nom by Guy. FCYTravis (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Started out neutral, looking at this out of pure curiosity, but I have decided to vote Keep after reading the article and some of the non-arguments presented above. The Urantia Book is sufficiently notable to have its own (quite lengthy) article. This is a legitimate spin-off from that article and is clearly too long to be part of the main article. There are no policies or guidelines that prohibit glossaries in Wikipedia - even glossaries of individual books - and there are plenty of precedents in Portal:Contents/List of glossaries. The sourcing in this glossary could certainly be improved, but that is not sufficient grounds for deletion. Gandalf61 (talk) 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Smerdis, but per Guy this needs to be hacked down and sourced... but that isn't solved by deletion. Wikipedia allows glossaries; see WP:LIST. I would agree if this were merely fiction, but the Urantia thing is apparently not merely fiction, it is recognized as a religion albeit a fringe one. See, for instance, its inclusion in Larson's Book of World Religions and Alternative Spirituality, a published encyclopedia of religions. I can't get behind treating a fringe religion as the same thing as a work of fiction. Mango juice^talk 17:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (add: or redirect): OK I'll chime in. Fails WP:V (see WP:SELFPUB), WP:NPOV, WP:EL, WP:COI, WP:RED, and probably WP:C (don't have proof of that last). Can you believe none of that came up in prior AFD? Look, you must pick one: either fictional universe, or minority religious view of extant universe. If you pick the first, you can ramble on but with the big headnote "fictional"; if you pick the second you avoid the headnote but you must allow vast-majority POVs such as that Adam and Eve are not from "Jerusem"-- and you must use the geographical name chosen by the vast majority of its English-speaking inhabitants: not "Urantia", but "Earth". The author of this material wants it both ways. Delete without prejudice to a real article of same name, which would run something like Flat Earth Society#Physics of a Flat Earth: "Adam and Eve: a couple claimed to have come to Earth from the alleged astronomical phenomenom 'Jerusem' <interlink provided to elsewhere in article> about 38,000 years ago to interbreed with existing humans and improve the species. The Torah, the Bible, and the Qur'an claim that Adam and Eve were instead the first man and woman created by God. There is no evidence of extraterrestrial life that has been widely accepted by the scientific community." (I hardly believe I took the time to write that.) Note also how little change between its first and latest versions, mostly dabs and links-- indicating a one-time published disquisition, not an open-source minority view of the universe. You'd think those who wish us to consider the Urantia Book concepts would take advantage of the wiki by cross-linking within the article, but instead redlinks are solicited and the editors invite us to consider Urantia Adam to equal WP Adam. Folks, I'm open-minded, but obey the policies. Sorry-- and thanks Guy! John J. Bulten (talk) 18:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question Can you explain where the COI is ? I count over 20 different editors who have contributed to this article in the last 12 months. Are you saying most of these editors are conflicted ? Gandalf61 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not in the number of editors, but perhaps I should change it to WP:SPA. See my link above that most of the editors just disambiguated and linked. The article was slapped here in mostly its present form some time ago by Wazronk, a WP:SPA in its third year. (Not an immediate problem there, I'm an SPA myself, these are in fact my first edits outside the "single purpose".) Wazronk admitted "I've tried to pare the definitions down to their most basic essentials" and "Sometimes it's easy because the book itself provides a clear concise definition" when making that initial edit, which indicates heavy reliance on some (perhaps copyrighted) POV text itself. So the current text is almost identical to an initial edit made by a committed SPA. I don't have proof of links between Wazronk and Urantia Foundation, so that argument should be modified, as it relies basically on Wazronk's presumed committed following of the Foundation, as reflected in the article lead soliciting Wikipedians to read the book (its TOC) with inappropriate external links. However, keep in mind that as is, the article cannot stand because the SPA nature and the failure of other elders to filter it has led to chronic NPOV. If during this AFD someone should do the masterwork of scaling the whole mess back according to my comments here, it might not need redirection, but I would probably argue it would still need merging. John J. Bulten (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, as the article on The Urantia Book says, the original text is in the public domain in the USA and internationally; an attempt to renew the copyright was held invalid. Wikisource has the whole thing here. It can be copied verbatim extensively without violating anyone's valid copyright claim. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, there is no copyright issue, it is a public domain book.

John Bulten, it's true I have had a limited involvement on wikipedia. But I don't have anything to do with the Urantia religion (or "movement", whatever it is) much less any organization. Some people like yourself have looked at where I've edited and seen that I've been essentially a SPA on this topic, but haven't bothered to look at how I've edited. Most of my edits are in opposition to wishes of religious believers who are always coming by; opposing them to maintain WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV is by and large the very reason why I have as many edits as I do on the topic. (For instance, seeing as I strip out the link spam of Urantia Foundation (see here), it makes no sense that I'm affiliated with them). The reason for the external links was to point to the book not the foundation's website. It could point to wikisource all the same (The Urantia Book wasn't on it when this article was made). The reason for links to other articles instead of intra-article links is that I didn't know that could be done or that it would be preferable. If it is preferable, surely that's not a big deal to change. The glossary isn't meant to be read as anything more than simply a presentation of how the book uses and defines certain major recurring terms. Wazronk (talk) 05:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I'm surprised we have so many glossaries. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, also because of Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This sort of list would work well if someone were to start a Urantia Wikia site, though. 23skidoo (talk) 22:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is it common practice for other encyclopedias to include glossaries like this? I'm curious. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On wikipedia, glossaries have the same stature as Portals and Timelines. Should Portals be deleted as well as all wikipedia glossaries because they aren't in print encyclopedias? Wazronk (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a glossary isn't a dictionary. Glossaries are widespread on wikipedia, and for those who think they shouldn't be, it's a higher level discussion and not something for an article AfD. It certainly isn't a reason for deletion with current wikipedia policy. This glossary in particular is to document and be a simple digest of major terminologies in the book, which is 2000+ pages long, and so has a steep barrier for the casual person coming across the topic. Nothing more. (I'm the wikipedia editor who put the glossary together -- I've refrained from being overly biased and voting "strong keep" :) .) The nominator even actually has described this topic as from a "culty book", an inflammatory label that on its face speaks of bias and a lack of WP:GOODFAITH approach to this. Really, are deleting and censoring explanatory articles about such topics a furtherance of understanding or just an aggravation of that much more ignorance that leads people to label things that seem odd to them as "cult"? For those who think it's a trivial topic, WP:NOT#PAPER, the glossary can be here to be of use to others who would come along and make use of it even if you don't find you need it yourself, and the book is WP:V and WP:N. As the lead sentence of the intro says, the glossary just is intended to give "short definitions of words and concepts presented in the book, especially those that are unique or defined in a way that differs from more traditional understandings. The glossary is meant to assist people unfamiliar with The Urantia Book who may come across conversations or writings having to do with the readership surrounding it. The list is also meant to be a basic reference guide for terminology a reader is likely to encounter in the book, whether it is examined only briefly or read in more detail." Wazronk (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It is clear that single-purpose accounts are abusing Wikipedia to make a proselytizing list of terms. Wikipedia is not a Urantia Foundation sponsored study group. There are occasions where extensive Wikipedia:Root pages can be written to great effect, but it should only be done to conform to summary style. I do not see that this article is doing that. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, and had no assertion of notability, either. Dlabtot (talk) 16:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMO this article has several violations:

WP:NOT#REPOSITORY - Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links, images, or media files", in this case glossary terms.
WP:NOT#GUIDE - Wikipedia is not a "manual, guidebook, or textbook". The article is using Wikipedia as a guide for using the book.
WP:NOT#TEXTBOOK - "Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter". The article uses Wikipedia as a mere aid to reading the book.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Totally agree with the words written by Ihcoyc on 19 March 2008, "Nothing has really changed since the prior AfD, and glossaries are still acceptable content. Moreover, the Urantia Book claims to be a religious scripture. The validity of its proposed revelation is beside the point, ..." Very well worded. Very succinct. This article should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mws1 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 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. Wizardman 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monash University Gippsland Student Union[edit]

Non-notable organization by WP:ORG. It is the student union for a particular subcampus of a university. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I would otherwise suggest it be merged into the subcampus' article, but since it already is word for word, and it's not notable... WilliamH (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly notable institution, and the nominator is running around the project hitting student union articles at random. Rebecca (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if I was "hitting them at random" that doesn't make this organization notable. Please assume good faith (that is, I am nominating this article because I believe it is on a not-notable topic) and prove notability rather than arbitrarily claiming that it is notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're also singling out a whole ton of random student union articles from all over the world. You have absolutely no idea whether this is notable or not. Rebecca (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - How does somebody single something out by nominating articles from all over the world? Those things are the opposite of each other. An organization is made notable by sources, which this one doesn't have. Paddy Simcox (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The point I'm getting at is that this article is superfluous on a word for word basis to the subcampus article itself. There is nothing which it elaborates or provides greater detail on. WilliamH (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This organization's sister Monash University Student Union Caulfield was nominated for deletion in November, with the result being "Merge/redirect". Paddy Simcox (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Student Unions aren't inherently notable, and there no evidence that this particular union is notable, so delete under WP:ORG. (Unless evidence of notability pops up. But for now, 0 hits on google news. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Would only merit an article if there was something distinctive to set it apart from other student unions, apart from its location. An uphill battle, methinks. Murtoa (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to general article on Monash Student Unions - why is there no general article on all student unions at Monash instead articles that aren't worth keeping on each campus? Can someone please write this article? JRG (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Monash student unions in general seem to have plenty of notability and secondary coverage ([41], [42], [43]). Perhaps the solution is to write a general article on all of the Monash student unions, because they definitely have collective notability. With that said, there seems to be enough written about the actions of this organisation and people within it to just move it across the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- Perhaps the solution is to include those news reports in the Monash University articles where they belong. They do not demonstrate the notability of the union, but are about typical funding/political conflicts that involve the University for which the opinion of students was mentioned. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 22:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Monach University student unions. Twenty Years 13:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, mainly due to the lack of secondary sources and a total lack of useful information (Students are elected to positions each year? And they deal with a range of student issues? Fancy that!). Could be ok as a stub if secondary sources are introduced.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep An article on the student union should not be too difficult to source should someone be interested. If a merge is the outcome, the merge should be with Monash University Gippsland and not the main Monash Student Union article. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 23:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 is a valid topic and can be made to meet the notablity guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

785th Military Police Battalion[edit]

Delete, unsourced article about a reserve military unit - at what levels are units notable? Does every group get an article? Even without any sources showing meeting group notability standards? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unsourced and nn BanRay 23:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability established by WP:RS. JJL (talk) 02:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Battalions (which consist of about 1000 soldiers) are generally considered notable and a Google search turns up lots of useful looking links: [44]. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:37, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fractionating units of larger organizations into innumerable sub-articles is just plain inconvenient. Only military units that have transcended their function and become the stuff of legend should have their own article. AnteaterZot (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional Keep - See if this can be fleshed out a bit. For chrissakes, it's only been up a couple of days. Let some people have a stab at it, see what can be added to it. But a U.S. Army battalion is generally a large formation of about 400-600 soldiers, depending on its function, and this being a battalion that doesn't fall under a regiment, it might have a bit of history behind it. If it can't be expanded much beyond the basics of garrison and mission, then yes, delete.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment—Looks like this is a member of 300th Military Police (MP) Command/88th Regional Readiness Command/U.S. Army Reserve Command.[45] There isn't even a page for the 88th Regional Readiness Command yet. (See Structure_of_the_United_States_Armed_Forces#Order_of_Battle_3.) I suggest starting at the top level commands first.—RJH (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's no reason to delete this article though, as this unit is notable in isolation of it's headquarters. --Nick Dowling (talk) 07:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unit saw action in at least 3 WWII Campaigns, so I believe Cites will appear. Its a stub. we can afford the paper ... oh, right WP is WP:NOTPAPER. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 13:35, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Exit2DOS2000 and Nobunaga24. This is a large military organization with a long history, and the page was just created this week. I'm sure copious cites will be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 20:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nick Dowling. Notable. If we prefer, we could rename to 300th MP Command and incorporate more units within it. Update: the 88th RRC draws its history from the 88th Infantry Division (United States) and several other USAR readiness commands have had their history placed at those pages. You could argue that thus we do have a page for the 88th RRC. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:54, 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 13:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, page is just a listing, no sources, deluge of knee-jerk "keep" not-votes don't change the fact that the unit is not notable. Paddy Simcox (talk) 13:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If being involved in 3 WWII Campaigns does not make a unit notable, what does? There is a difference between 'knee-jerk "keep"' and recognising what is notable? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now, now, User Paddy Simcox obviously knows the motivation behind everyone's keep votes. Why, my vote was just a knee-jerk reaction, involving no thinking whatsoever. How did he know?--Nobunaga24 (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Try searching for "785th Military Police". Tons of sources out there to add for description+history. For those who haven't searched, battalion is still around and has served in recent conflicts. Wikipedia ought to, and does, cover battalion-level units. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article doesn't "cover" the unit; it's one sentence long. Let's delete it until it has actual content. Paddy Simcox (talk) 06:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what we call a stub. You expand those. If the article on Canada was one sentence, you wouldn't delete it, you would E-X-P-A-N-D it.--Nobunaga24 (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, if we delete it due to lack of content and then find the content and recreat it the article would be in hot water almost before going up becuase recreation of deleted material is a CSD-certified delete category. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was listed for deletion way too fast, I think we should allow it to stay and see if it expands in the next 30 days, then move from there. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm striking my delte, since some material was added to the article. Paddy Simcox (talk) 05:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Last status does not make previous notability invalid. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per [[User talk:Nick Dowling|talk] and Nobunaga24. BWH76 (talk) 15:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Jamal[edit]

Non-notable entrepreneur. The two references from reliable sources are trivial mentions—one is just a trailer for a film (no mention of Jamal or his film company is made), the other has 1 mention of the name of his film company and nothing else (not Jamal's name, and nothing about the company at all). Article created by 1 single-purpose account and all additional content contributed by another SPA. Likely vanispamcruftisement. Speedy deletion declined. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though it is referenced, the only independent references are trivial mentions. Does not appear to meet notability guidelines at this time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 16:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hen-Jay[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Non-notable musician who made his own albums. No media coverage and no references. -- JLaTondre (talk) 11:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with nom Think outside the box 12:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are all self-published. Myspace is not a reliable source. Popular in the early 1990's, yet born in 1986? A popular seven, eight or nine-year old rapper would have more and better sources than what's here. DarkAudit (talk) 14:09, 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. — Scientizzle 16:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TLJB[edit]

I couldn't find any reliable sources confirming this person's notability; a multination tour would be an assertion of notability, but if such a tour is planned, I couldn't find the media coverage of it. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:N. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V and was created by an WP:SPA. --Pmedema (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also found no such reference to any tour, so delete for the reasons already outlined above. WilliamH (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 12:55, 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 Delete. Tikiwont (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Hall[edit]

Contested Prod for non-notable building. Northeastern University residence hall of mostly on-campus interest. Aside from a pot bust, little if any WP:RS coverage. • Gene93k (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 11:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Heck, I'm a Northeastern alum, and even at the university, this isn't remotely a major dorm. Beyond that, it's the next thing to an attack page, overwhelmingly focusing (in a bloggish fashion) on myriad problems, largely unbuttressed by any sources, reliable or otherwise. Created by an SPA with almost no other Wiki activity. RGTraynor 11:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nonnotable, fails WP:N, and for all nom's and RGTraynor's reasons. Noroton (talk) 00:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for failing notability, and for the myriad of reasons raised by RGTraynor. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was a excuse for an account of a minor criminal event that led to an expulsion, which I have removed under BLP for disproportionate weight for a onetime event. Otherwise, there was nothing else. DGG (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The author just reverted all changes. It now contains all the WP:BOLLOCKS it had when it went to AfD. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Eh, might as well; it isn't as if it'll survive the AfD anyway. RGTraynor 07:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article describes a very popular and historic dormitory for prestigious Northeastern University. It does not violate any Wiki rules, and has a large amount of WP:RS coverage. It is not anything close to an attack page, or a blog (or myriad of unbuttressed fashions). These accusations are false and completely unnecessary.Tman21901 03:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There is absolutely no notability established in this article. BWH76 (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 no assertion of notability. Pegasus «C¦T» 15:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dov Soll[edit]

Only biography without assertion of notability, therefore doesn't meet criteria WP:BIO. Also no reliable & verifiable references (WP:V) and no GHits. Note that person has been identified by article author as a grandfather [46]. Visor (talk) 10:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —Visor (talk) 10:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#A7, no assertion of notability. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:20, 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. Kurykh 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vendor management office[edit]

Original research in not very encyclopedic language about a neologism. Essentially guerrilla spam. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a valid search term, see Google Scholar. It might be merged to an article such as Supply Chain Management but that is a matter of content-editing, not deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per WP:SPAM and WP:NEO. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 15:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Another article about a three letter acronym that opens with a salvo of vague and evasive prose: over-arching organizational concept of strategically managing procurements and vendors to maximize an organization’s investment in key commodities. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, typical business major buzzword-filled nonsense. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete - This neologism has not received enough coverage to be notable. The article itself proves this point by not presenting reliable sources to back its claims.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:16, 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. — Scientizzle 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Orr[edit]

Prod contested without improvement. Non-notable local radio DJ, no independent sources, fails WP:BIO and WP:V. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article lacks any references from reliable secondary sources to prove notability. - Dravecky (talk) 12:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't assert notability as a disc jockey. (Maybe if he'd stepped behind the mic on a game show...) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No sign of the substantial coverage in secondary sources required by WP:BIO to establish notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 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. Daniel (talk) 09:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Freemales, SPUDs and Salary Miners[edit]

A clutch of three neologisms. Article is guerrilla advertising for Pacific Micromarketing. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and these terms are not in any widespread use - yet. If it later becomes clear that they are widespread, then there might be an argument for their inclusion, but most likely as three distinct pages.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 11:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologisms. Possible speedy as spam. DarkAudit (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Neologisms that fail WP:N and are un-encyclopedic. --Pmedema (talk) 16:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above, couldn't this one be speedied? --Camaeron (t/c) 21:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:SNOWBALL. This is a series of neologisms that appeared in a syndicated opinion piece in Australia's media. -- Mark Chovain 23:41, 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. — Scientizzle 16:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hypography[edit]

This article seems curiously split between defining "hypography" as a word in its own right, and detailing a website/forum called Hypography.com - apparently the former has simply sprung from the latter, not the other way around. As a word it appears to be a neologism with little evidence of falling into use outside the website in question, and as a website it doesn't appear to pass WP:WEB; I could find only a couple of very brief third-party reviews of the site ([47] [48]). ~Matticus ^U_C 09:34, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a thinly veiled advertisement for the website mentioned in the article, disguised as WP:NEO. Yngvarr (c) 10:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - For the reason outlined above. Doesn't appear to have notability since the definition is largely internal and seemingly only promotes the website in question. WilliamH (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a Trojan neologism! --Pmedema (talk) 16:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is non-notable per WP:WEB. Gary King (talk) 16:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with editors above, having perused the article. It's something that doesn't belong here, disguised as something else that doesn't belong here. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep due to the sources found during the AFD. Davewild (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MT-TV[edit]

Non-notable band; has no references and seemingly little mention online; only external link provided is to the band's own website. Hellno2 (talk) 20:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (for now) - While most of ghits turn up myspace, blogs and you tube, there is also [49], [50], and [51]. I might revisit my decision a bit later. It's marginal for me. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:51, 13 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, Davewild (talk) 08:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, mostly because of the Spin Magazine review House of Scandal (talk) 08:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Names for the Romani people[edit]

Just a list of translations of a word to various languages. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and such a list belongs to the Wiktionary. (I marked this article for transwiki and it has been automatically copied to this Wiktionary page) bogdan (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 04:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the English language Wikipedia. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:45, 19 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, Davewild (talk) 08:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete once the transwikied article appears in the main Wiktionary space. This list is substantially incomplete, confining itself to the derived words from the rom root. A much more interesting article could be made about the names that other people and languages use to refer to the Roma people: but that article contains a section that discusses the issue, although it strikes me as somewhat incomplete, and confusingly under the Etymology heading. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing more than a collection of dictionary definitions. WilliamH (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 17:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different Strokes[edit]

Different Strokes may not be notable. The author David Leo does not seem to be. I'm not sure either if the Ethos Books publishing house is notable. Some of the authors linked from there might be; others definately not. House of Scandal (talk) 07:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps merge to a disambulation page otherwise not sure the book meets notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Diff'rent Strokes. This article does not cite any references or sources and it makes no assertion of notability, but as there is an American sitcom of a similar name (which is notable) it should redirect there. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 13:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At one time this did redirect to Diff'rent Strokes. House of Scandal (talk) 14:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a tragic novel that had nothing to do with the sitcom. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - but I'm thinking more along the lines of its utility as a search term, especially since many would have no idea how to properly enter "Diff'rent" to get the sitcom article. A redirect is appropriate for similar or frequently used search terms - and the sitcom article could disambiguate to the novel article, should this article be kept. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. ~~Strong Keep.~~ per Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). It appears the novel "was awarded" one or more of these prizes "the Publishers Prize for fiction in 1993" or "commendation prize for fiction by National Book Development Council in 1994" or "1995 commendation Literature Prize." I haven't quite figured it out yet. Google searches do pull up mention of both 'David Leo' and 'Different Strokes'. Apparently, the novella is notable for being one of the first gay novels published in Singapore. Published in 1993 it is still in print which is something unusual. It is notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to authors page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wasssupwestcoast. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The cited awards are enough for me. - ✰ALLSTAR✰ ^echo 05:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perhaps not notable in the west but in the far east it appears to be notable, even well regarded. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The important deciding factor in any issue of notability is coverage in reliable secondary sources. Length of time is irrelevant, as is being "one of the first for X". WP:NB gives some specific guidelines on the notability of books in particular and there is no evidence that this book passes them. The subject of the award was the author, not the book (WP:NOTINHERITED) and there is no evidence that it was a "major literary award". Are there any reviews of the book, for example? —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the award is a national award for merit, and the author won the award in large part for their work on this novel, then I'd say that that meets notability for me. I agree, though, that some reviews are necessary. If kept, I also recommend that this article be moved to Different Strokes (novel), and that Different Strokes redirect to the sitcom article, which would then get a disambiguation notice at the top - "for the (Singaporean?) novel, see Different Strokes (novel)", or some such. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 15:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good suggestion, but I am still concerned that notability of the book hasn't been established independently of the author. Might be better to merge it with the author's page and make the disambiguation link say, "Different Strokes redirects here. Different Strokes can also refer to a novel by David Leo"? —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with the Snthdiueoa (talk · contribs) in that Different Strokes should be merged into the author page David Leo with a dab page redirect. Until the text can be built up beyond a stub, it is better to have one start class article than two stub class articles inviting AfDs. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I would like to see some evidence that the awards are significant before I vote keep. If deleted, the page should redirect to Diff'rent Strokes. If kept, I like the idea of moving this page to Different Strokes (novel) and either redirecting Different Strokes to Diff'rent Strokes or turing Different Strokes into a redirect page.--FreeKresge (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm trying to verify the awards listed, using Google. It seems that the list of awards on the page are not all for the novel -- he did receive the SLP commendation for 1994 Fiction, but that was for Wives, Lovers and Other Women rather than for Different Strokes. I've removed the awards section altogether, since it seems to be irrelevant to that one novel.... Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update: According to this site, Different Strokes is not an award-winning book at all! Aristophanes68 (talk) 12:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: The cited awards seem to be for other books by the same author. The book may be worth discussing, but for now, it seems best to mention it under the author's page. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Expand I said it on the general discussion forum, maybe it should be expanded by someone who knows the author and has read the book.WilliamMThompson (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I opened this debate but have waited 'til now to express an opinion. I think its appropriate to turn Different Strokes into a disambi page and to expand the David Leo article instead. House of Scandal (talk) 23:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to David Leo. I'm not seeing enough for a stand-alone article, but it would be reasonable to include the info in the author's article. Aleta ^Sing 05:21, 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. Wizardman 17:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Restoration candidates[edit]

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a resource for collectors of trivia. Mais oui! (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the main article at Restoration (TV series) and trim out those which are not finalists (unless the candidates are notable on their own; but there are significant amounts of redlinks, which suggests otherwise). Yngvarr (c) 10:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge to main article if you like; I'm not fussed). Worthwhile article relating to a popular TV series that generated a lot of interest. The full list should be kept irrespective of whether the buildings currently have their own individual entries. Deleting articles like both diminishes Wikipedia and hacks off the valuable contributors who put in a lot of effort to create them. Why would anyone want to do that? 81.152.168.70 (talk) 12:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep (or at the very least merge) The finalists are notable in their own rights (I remember that listed buildings are notable just for being listed; as all candidates were listed, and on the "at risk" register, I'd say they were definitely notable) - There is a case to include the full list in the article, but then it could become overbearing and need splitting out. -- Ratarsed (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the programme was about notable buildings in urgent need of repair. Even being an initial candidate probably measn that a building is notable. Furthermore, some have probably been repaired from other funding sources. Peterkingiron (talk) 01:06, 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. — Scientizzle 15:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel_Reed[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Daniel Reed

Patent Nonsense, person doesnt seem relevant enough to be have an entry Naon34561 (talk) 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but you're not going about this the right way. This isn't patent nonsense. It's just unverifiable, lacking rationale for notability, and an unsourced biography of a living person. WP:NONSENSE is an entirely different thing. Estemi (talk) 08:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sort of rubbish that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Dreamspy (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable individual. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 09:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment suggest that the nominator overview Wikipedia:Patent nonsense: Total nonsense, i.e., text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all. The nominated article is quite clear and concise. Yngvarr (c) 10:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IRC operator? Even without sources the article only claims "some footage was shown" of the subject in one case. Nothing is backed up, and even then there's not enough of an assertion of notability. DarkAudit (talk) 12:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin close) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 22:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional raccoons[edit]

This is just unsourced trivia clutter/cruft at best. It should be noted: a prod was on this but was removed by DGG, with the reason of "will be controversial, so use afd". I find it a little hard to believe DGG was just going through prods to find the article in the first place. He and I don't agree on these articles, so I personally feel he is watching my edits. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment If you doubt I go through PRODs regularly, look at my deletion log, where usually every day or two, I delete a few of the expired prods. They're among the 700 articles I have deleted in 2008 already. Or look at some of the PROD2s on current PRODs. I place them regularly also. And yes, I remove PROD tags when I think that there might reasonably be a debate, whether or not I am going to actually support the article. DGG (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Raccoons are cute (one of my favorite animals besides otters, of course), but this is just a cruft-y list of fictional characters (many of whom are red linked) laced with original research. Violates WP:NOT#IINFO. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 06:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTS, maybe snowball it. Surely this is verifiable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Lists. The article's list is discriminate and verifiable. It is also consistent with our First pillar, i.e. a specialized encyclopedia on fictional character/animal types. Also, keep per WP:ITSCRUFT vote above. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Citrouilles, how is this a discriminate list? I'm sure it can be verifiable, but lots of things can be verifiable, yet are not on wiki. They also have to be notable and useful, and of general encylopedic nature. WP:NOT indicates that even if something is verifiable, it doesn't merit inclusion. Also, your logic is that if any article gets a comment of "x-cruft", it should automatically stay, which I don't find to be a very useful method of discussion. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is an organized list that focuses only on fictional raccoons. Ergo, it is discriminate. This list is notable as it demonstrates the numerous appearacnes of raccoons as major elements of many diverse kinds of works of fiction. The article is useful, because it provides a coherent reference of these appearances. I, like many others, find "cruft" as a non-argument, so whenever I see it, it tends to indicate that the article is actually probably worth keeping. Thus, the article is discriminate, verfiable, notable, useful, and encyclopedic and thus is an example of what Wikipedia is. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Ah, I don't wish for a war here, so I'll just say a few comments, and then we can take this to user talk. I think this is an indiscriminate list, because the bounds of "fictional character" don't exist. I can create one off the top of my head now, and that would fulfill your discriminate test. As I said before, verifiability doesn't indicate merit for inclusion. Notable and useful? I seriously doubt those claims. Who would really search for fictional raccoons? While certain fictional raccoons are notable, a list of all fictional raccoons, imo, is not. Also, I have yet to seen any traditional encyclopedia (which is, after all, what the word "encyclopedic" refers to) include lists such as this. Not that all of these lists are not useful, I think many of them are, but I think this is bound to become plagued with inclusions from lots of entries that will be hopelessly unencyclopedic. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not an indiscriminate list, because it only focuses on notable instances of fictional raccoons. The article is hardly unwieldly. My discriminate test if I have one would be those that appear in published works of fiction, whether they be books, films, songs, or video games. Thus verfiability in primary and secondary sources is what matters. No one would seriously expect the list to include something you or I created today and that no one beyond us knew about that. Thus, suggesting as much is not a valid argument. Verfiability in numerous sources does indeed indicate merit for inclusion per our policies and guidelines. It is without any plausible doubt notable and useful. The fact that such an article exists and multiple users have edited it is irrefutable proof that people would indeed search for fictional raccoons. The article is hopefully encyclopedic as one our chief policies states we are NOT just a traditional general encyclopedia, but a combination of specialized enycyclopedias and general encyclopedias and even almanacs. If you look through enough books with encyclopedia and alamanac in their titles, which I have many of, trust me, you'll find many, many lists. As far as being "bound to become plagued", well Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and neither are any of us, so we cannot delete an article on what "might" happen. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The kind of encyclopedia that would include such a list would be something like The Encyclopedia of Animals and Nature in Mythology. Also, the 'who would search for it' argument isn't valid or relevant. There are lots of things on Wikipedia that I don't think anyone would ever search for, such as List of awards and nominations for American Idol contestants and List of MTV channels. That doesn't mean it doesn't belong. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In the interest of not becoming as lame as this, what appears to be wiki concensus, and preserving harmony, I withdraw my delete and now abstain. Hobbeslover ^{talk/contribs} 08:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, many are highly notable. I highly suspect some animation or pop culture book etc. will have something secondary to ref it with. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many of the entries contained within are notable in and of themselves, outside of the list. It is also not an indiscriminate list, and thus includable under the first pillar. This makes it especially encyclopedic, despite the argument of Hobbeslover to the contrary. Collection of information in indexes is highly encyclopedic. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand to include such noted Raccoons as Ralph Kramden and Ed Norton [52]. Edison (talk) 07:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm afraid I don't have any policies to throw at this; I say this is very relevant. I also contest the statement that this is random cruft or trivia; it's clearly a (well, at least intended as a) discriminate list of notable articles/subjects, like many others on Wikipedia. Does anyone complain about Wolves in fiction? At worst this should be merged into the raccoon article. Estemi (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I see no convincing argument for deletion. There is no policy against "cruft" or "trivia" — or even "kipple" for that matter. Lists and categories (in this case Category:Fictional raccoons) complement each other. It's not original research to note that Bert Raccoon, Melissa Raccoon, and Ralph Raccoon from The Raccoons or Meeko from Pocahontas are fictional raccoons. --Pixelface (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly discriminate list that could, after all, use a little cleanup (what article couldn't?). Accusations of wikistalking seem gratuitous. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If I had just looked at the tile, I would have thought this absurd, like so many things I'm unfamiliar with--but then I looked at the article. It needs exact references, but they are almost all of them worth the entries here. DGG (talk) 22:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep/No consensus to delete Discussion Divided on WP:ONEEVENT and international recognition but there is no consensus for deletion after a week. Although some improvements including clean-up and additionnal sources for verification would be appreciated. Merge preposals can be discussed in the talk page of the article.--JForget 22:38, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tilly Smith[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Young girl, who while heroic for actions, isn't anything more than a 15 minutes of fame issue. Jmlk 1 7 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While it is slight vanity the subject matter is important, more for the "how you can help in a Tsunami" aspect than the article itself. PS I'm new so if this is a crappy reason... :S --D:J I J:D (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, she not only proved newsworthy, she was given international recognition. --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:ONEEVENT part of WP:BLP. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. She has received awards and had an asteroid named after her. This means that reliable sources have covered the person in more than 1 particular event.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:27, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep or Merge Covered with a respectable amount of attention at a global level. As to whether Tilly Smith the individual can be safely extricated from the tsunami as a notable subject, that's trickier. Wisdom89 is right to call WP:ONEEVENT on this one. However, the actual provisions of the policy guard against a single-event "newspaper" people-of-the-moment (as in, local man cited as saving puppy from fire doesn't deserve an article). In contrast, the separate instances of public recognition to her achievements such winning awards, having things named after her, and giving speeches, constitute separate citable events in my opinion.

I've added a reference for an uncited award claim to prevent deletion per WP:LIVING. Estemi (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the incident in itself is not notable but can be included in coverage of the event. Dreamspy (talk) 08:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - international recognition and an award sways it for me. Bardcom (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dhartung this is an internationally recognized person. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above per WP:ONEEVENT. Eusebeus (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Bardcom, Dhartung. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge, but this is the girl that knew that the water leaving meant run like hell. AnteaterZot (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO she is "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention." This girl has also received enough "coverage in reliable secondary sources". ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 20:19, 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 Speedy keep. IAR and SNOW invoked, clearly. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous (group)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The article on Anonymous was created to help explain the concept of Anonymous because of the attention drawn by Project Chanology. In the original AfD, it was decided Keep per notability and an abundance of sources. However, on behalf of the majority of this article's focus including 3 of the 4 major imageboards, the Insurgent Wiki, and the Partyvan IRC network, we request a deletion of the article on the following grounds:

That the media presented is not properly reflective of the nature of the "group" and have blatant inaccuracies
That the article, while locked from anonymous editors, silences the opinions of the majority of the subject
That because the inaccurate articles are the only ones that meet WP:V, the article is not neutral.
That WP:IGNORE is being stifled causing the above problems to be unresolvable

The entire misleading article is highly controversial, and because of a constant troll battle over it along with a complete lack of applicable sources, we propose deletion of the Anonymous article until a more agreed-up article can be created. Kakama (talk) 04:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This user clearly seems to have an agenda to get the page deleted because he or she doesn't like it. Notability is clearly asserted through scads of reliable third party sources, and while this isn't exactly GA class material, it's far from inaccurate or poorly written. Oh yeah, and the last AfD was closed only a month ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball speedy keep bad faith nomination IMHO, notability established through citations Fosnez (talk) 04:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the "on behalf of..." really makes this smack of bad faith. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is on the behalf of the subjects of the article. At that rate, does WP:BIO for living people apply to this at all? Perhaps a group is not a person, but in some way the concept could apply... Kakama (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Not only does this seem to be a bad faith nomination, but the subject is obviously notable given the recent events with Scientology, which there have been more than one of, thus passing ONEEVENT and !news. While it's true that Wikipedia's portrayl of anon isn't entirely accurate, that is because the media coverage isn't entirely accuarate, and Wikipedia must go by those. Until some reporter goes to /b/ and does a report on what's going on there, there isn't anything that can be done about that under the current policies and guidelines. Furthermore, KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED is bad, and IAR, which is really all that is left of your nomination, in and of itself doesn't make a good argument, especially with the IDONTLIKEIT tone. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a case of KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. The first one was due to a suspected lack of sources or relevance. This is because of blatant and complete inaccuracies in the entire article. Kakama (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not delete articles based on the content of the article (Read WP:DP for details). Wikipedia deletes articles based on the notability and verifiability of the subject, based mostly on mainstream secondary media sources, and to a lesser extent, unsourced negative information about living persons. Granted, for not-well-understood things like 4chan and ebaumsworld, this presents a difficulty, as the media is often just flat-out wrong. However, that does not change the verifiability or notability of the subject. As I said elsewhere, hopefully Wikipedia will grow into sync with the rest of the internet and stop being dependent on 'traditional' media. At that point, articles such as this would be able to be expanded and match truth as well as verifiability. But as it stands now, this is how it works. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Sorry guys, but you haven't really presented a valid deletion argument here. Maxa megalon 2000 05:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Whenever the newspaper or TV news does a story on something I know about, I am always amazed at how badly they get it wrong. Nom is experiencing the same phenomenon about something he/she knows about. It really brings into question WP's over-reliance on official/old-media "reliable sources", but that is an argument for another place and time. Z00r (talk) 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathize with the nominator in that regard; I very nearly laughed my head off the first time I saw that FOX report. In anon circles, FOX is now often referred to as 'Faux news'. I have forever categorized FOX as an unreliable news source because of the sheer amount of exaggeration in that report. But the deletion of the article isn't the answer. Hopefully, over time, Wikipedia's policies and guidelines revolving around primary sources will evolve into something that encompasses both truth and verifability rather than just verifiability. In any case, that's something for the pump. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think it's clear that the article is biased because of the organization using the internet as its primary front. The sources are unreliable, while the importance of Anonymous is overstated and could easily be merged with a similar article Bomblol (talk) 05:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC) — Bomblol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The above is the user's second edit; account was created less than an hour ago. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for noticing such a relevant issue Bomblol (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three words: Single purpose account. Your sudden apperance out of nowhere and !voting against consensus are especially concerning -- and furthermore, how are the sources "unreliable"? They sure seem to qualify as non-trivial, third party coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on, let me get this straight. Someone comes out of nowhere, signs up, and expresses an opinion? Dear god, it's almost like this "Wikipedia" thing is open to the public. PretentiousNameHere (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Slayer[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable bio. Jmlk 1 7 04:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy G4 - the previous AFD closed as "delete". So tagged. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think the current version is substantially identical to the deleted one, so I'm declining the G4 speedy. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I don't have access to the deleted version, so I was just going off the previous discussion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I found this which demonstrates some coverage. I'm not sure that it's enough, though. I couldn't verify many of the claims in the article.--Michig (talk) 07:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable - possible vanity article. Dreamspy (talk) 08:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely this can be speedily deleted, since this has been hashed out once before and is very likely going to reach the same conclusion. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 20:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Round two. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe it's time for a good culling of all the bands/managers/albums that have made no impact on anyone's cultural landscape. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. If someone decides to recreate this as a redirect, then let me know. Wizardman 16:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Josiah Leming[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC. Leming was a contestant on American Idol who was eliminated before the semi-finals. We have a very long standing policy on Idol articles. If the person makes the top 12, then they get an article. Otherwise, it gets redirected to the main season article. The only exception is notability outside of the show, which explains how Jordin Sparks had an article before she was even on Idol. It also explains how Joanne Borgella still has an article after elimination (she was a very well known plus sized model plus she had won another reality show). Yes, Leming has appeared on talk shows, but his notability is entirely American Idol related. If he releases a CD and it is successful, that's one thing. But right now, this screams "15 minutes of fame" and it's entirely related to the show. We've seen cases like this before. A "hot" newly eliminated person is an unknown in a year. Just a sidenote. Could someone add the tag which says not to recruit people to vote on this issue? Asking for that because the article has had very heavy anon input, including some "His biggest fan is Katie F!" type postings. I just think it's very susceptible to outside influence. Woohookitty^Woohoo! 04:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Per the nom - only claim to fame is in relation to the show American Idol. The info should be transcluded into the appropriate season for the show. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable. Dreamspy (talk) 08:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge Fails WP:MUSIC, at least right now. Quacks Like a Duck (talk) 15:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A difficult call here, since he did not even make the top 24 he doesn't have a section on the season article (last year it was decided to remove them). Redirecting is a possibility even though it becomes a "ghost redirect" (which was done a lot in past seasons as redirects were done before they even got to the top 24 to prevent premature article creations). As a result, redirect or delete and protect the page. CrazyC83 (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Didn't even come close to finals and at this point only recognizable by people who watched American Idol (and only those that saw audition/Hollywood rounds at that). Not notable enough for an article. MissMJ (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It looks like this page was deleted on the 13th, 22nd and 25th of February. I believe that means it qualifies for speedy deletion and then protection. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:26, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. :) --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 10:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly certain that that criteria only applies to articles which have been deleted multiple times through AfD, not SD. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 10:30, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, do please leave it in the work. It's self-agrandising, poorly written, but that's what we expect from Americans, isn't it? Good luck to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.244.150 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Shannon Rose (talk) 23:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all, and does not meet the standards for WP:MUSIC - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Merge. Do not delete it, because we might need the article for later if he has a successful career. icelandic hur ricane #12_(talk) 15:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a consideration because we can always restore articles. I will say for the people saying "merge" that there is nothing to merge to really. If the article is being deleted as him being not-notable, I don't see how we can add him to the AI7 article when only semi-finalists or finalists get mentions on that page. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 05:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable until he's got something other than a reality show stuck to his name. Nice kid though. :) —97198 talk 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have an opinion on his notability, but am commenting because my name is in the article history. When I saw this article in New Pages, I marked it "patrolled" and kept it because I felt that his fans (who do not seem to be particularly wise to the ways of Wikipedia) should have a chance to create a decent article about him in order to provide a reasonable basis for assessing his notability. Prior to that, this guy's name had been repeatedly added (as a "local notable") to articles for his home town, which are on my watchlist. Based on what little I knew about him, I thought he might qualify as notable. At this time, the article is in pretty good shape, so I think it provides a good basis for evaluation. --Orlady (talk) 23:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is courting several major labels, therefore notable. ♥Shapiros10 Wuz Here♥ 23:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Josiah Leming has reportedly signed a record deal with Warner Bros. Records - Sources: Rolling Stone [53] and Knoxville News Sentinel [54] User:Steven Roberts (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Still doesn't mean he passes WP:MUSIC. And if whoever closes this decides it does, then I want everyone who posted here to WL the page. To say it's a target for fancruft is a bit of an understatement. And btw, as an answer to above, "courting major record labels" is not a criteria for WP:MUSIC either. If it was, we would have to include probably every local musician in the world, which would make WP:MUSIC a bit pointless. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just noticed this article was up for deletion while supplying an internal link under "See also" for the season 7 AI article. He seems notable enough. He has a substantial underground following and his music is selling and he's been covered by a fair amount of credible media outlets.--Brianbarney (talk) 07:12, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The kid has already signed a deal, got a check, and has already bought his dad a new truck. This is now a no brainer and this discussion should be closed. Deepintexas (talk) 08:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And none of those things make him inherently notable. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect This article will be a redirect to American Idol (season 7) page. 11:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.97.104.151 (talk • contribs)

Strong Keep - notable enough, has a major record deal - why delete? --71.218.199.4 (talk) 05:08, 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 Keep. No consensus exists to delete the article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--Loodog (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous non-admin close rationale below, AfD reopened per DRV request

The result was Speedy keep. Speedy as in fast. SNOW and IAR. Rationale. There is no real reason to delete. Article violates no policy, and is well sourced. Proper title so no merge. Stand alone so no redirect. Consensus has been reached thus far. No reason to prolong. Also, so this is 100% clear, and no one feels its necessary to provoke argument over this close, I will cite, albeit, and essay.

Snowball clause closes, where it is absolutely obvious that no other outcome other than keep is possible. Recommended criteria to use: (a) six or more participants have supported keeping the page;

Taken from Appropriate closures: bullet point three on NAC. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A More Perfect Union[edit]

I do not believe this speech is notable enough to warrant its own page. The relevant material could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008, where it already receives substantial attention. Wikipedia is not a news source, and it is relatively likely the notability surrounding this speech is only temporary. The page should be deleted RWR8189 (talk) 03:48, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is premature to delete A More Perfect Union. Several commentators, including Keith Olbermann on MSNBC, have compared it to Martin Luther King Jr.'s I Have a Dream. Randi Rhodes on Air America thinks this speech might be one for the history books. Granted, such judgments are premature, but the deletion of the A More Perfect Union article is also more premature. Let's give it a few weeks and see if the speech makes a lasting impact. --Dr.enh (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General comment on changes in article. Just a quick note to point out that the article has expanded considerably (including many more assertions of notability) from when this AfD was started. At that point the article looked like this, whereas as of now it looks like this (more discussion from media and pundits, response from academics and religious leaders, more than double the number of citations from reliable sources, etc.). Not trying to twist any arms here, but delete voters who commented soon after this was listed for AfD might want to take another look at the article and see if they still think it warrants deletion.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: If consensus is to delete, please copy the page onto a subpage of my userspace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is not clear that this speech is commonly known under this title, anyway, and the title has been used in other contexts as well due to its origins in the U.S. Constitution. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If someone in America and they have watched channels other than Nikelodeon and MTV, they know the speech by it's title. I've been bombarded with it almost constantly here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in America and watching channels other than Nickelodeon and MTV, and I know the speech by its title only because I participated in this AfD. Note that the New York Times transcript of the speech is titled "Barack Obama's Speech on Race", not "A More Perfect Union", and the introductory sentence says: The following is the text as prepared for delivery of Senator Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia, as provided by his presidential campaign. Note that the title is not identified as such. The NYT's main article about the speech doesn't mention the title at all. Maybe this speech will turn out to be historically notable, and maybe this will be the title under which it becomes historically known. But its title is not yet as famous as implied above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know it because it was being discussed on CNN as such while I was in the dining commons here on campus, the pdf available on our school's Promethus system is "amoreperfectunion-obama.pdf" with bold text at the top, there was a debate about it in the bookstore and library when I went to go pick up this quarter's textbooks. It was in the Wall Street Journal with the name. The consensus of the name is quite clear. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's website calls it "A More Perfect Union". I think eventually more news outlets will pick up on that, especially after they look it up on Wikipedia and see that we've called it that. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although most people do not know the speech by its title, it has still received an incredible amount of news attention, nonetheless. It is very likely, when looking at the very favorable news coverage, that the speech will have a lasting impact, especially if Barack Obama receives the nomination. Many in the news media are covering it as if it is a notable event, thus the article should be kept until it is proven otherwise. --damario0 (talk) 04:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dr.enh. Yeah, I was very hesitant to create an article for this speech, but I also feel that this a very significant speech that needs to be chronicled in WP. You say this isn't notable? Turn on the TV! Google Obama in the news category. People all over are talking about this. It's all over the news. It's all over the Internet. I went to the grocery store and saw cashiers and customers talking about it. THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SPEECH. Again, yes I know it was probably too early for me to create the article, but I believe that over time, this speech is going to be a landmark for not only Obama's presidential campaign, but also the state of America heading into the election even if Obama doesn't make it. We should give this article time, and you will all see why this article is well deserving of an article on Wikipedia. As for Metropolitan90, this is the official title of the speech. It is referred to as this title on his official website listing, as well as all of the media coverage. I mean, come on, if an article like "Mel Gibson DUI incident" or "Posh and Becks" have their own Wikipedia articles, why is this being considered to be deleted? This is a lot more interesting, historic, and relevant than Mel Gibson and a one-time drinking binge and a burned-out soccer player that is married to a Spice Girl. KEEP THIS ARTICLE I don't mean to be offensive while defensive, I'm just stating my case. Thanks. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ON THE OTHER HAND I hear cashiers and customers at the grocery store also talk about astrology read in "respectable" newspapers. These observations do not mean that I nor any reasonable person would ever find their comments adding weight WP:UNDUE to the "importance" of astrology or its analysis by non-astrologists. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for now, at least. What's the rush? And this is the correct title for the speech: [55]. Zagalejo^^^ 04:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If you read the notability guidelines, you will find that there is no such thing as temporary notability. Once something is notable, it's notable forever. I mean, I can't really think of many more things notable than this, to be honest. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guidelines clearly state that a short burst of news coverage does not automatically confer notability. In the context of a nearly two year long political campaign, it is likely that this speech will be regarded as little more than a footnote or "flavor of the day" news coverage in the long-term.--RWR8189 (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it is highly unlikely that, whatever happens in this campaign, this speech will be merely a "footnote." It is far more likely that passages from it will appear in future history textbooks, even if Obama loses the nomination.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary's "tears" were temporarily notable. They get no article. So much of political news in particular is fleeting.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton's tears were not notable. For one thing, "she cried after a momentous primary/caucus" IS notable; however, it doesn't deserve it's own article unless a vast amount of analysis shows up around it enough to give it substantial prose beyond what appears in her campaign page. That is the case here; the speech is notable now, will continue to be so, and as an encyclopedia, it should be kept. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The absence of potential articles is no reason in itself to delete an existing article. Also, I believe the intention behind "not news" is to prevent every petty theft, rain shower, and campaign stop from getting its own article just because it was briefly mentioned in local or national media. It is not to prevent genuinely notable subjects from being written about. Joshdboz (talk) 17:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also to prevent Wikinews from being supplanted by Wikipedia. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. WP:CRYSTAL.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This was an incredibly important speech that deserves its own article. Valadius (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's quite a bit of metacommentary showing up on this already all over both sides of the aisle: Salon, WSJ, Weekly Standard, etc... it seems quite unlikely that this won't be among the most important moments of the campaign, which seems like it should be suitable for notability. MMZach (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This speech is garnering much media attention, and is important to Senator Obama's campaign. (Yeah, I basically just said "me too" to the above comment; it's a valid point though.) Yonisyuumei (talk) 06:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unfortunately we do not have WP:SPEECH, a policy on the notability of speeches, but I think we can use the general guideline at WP:N since notability is the only important question here. That guideline says, "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." I believe this article easily passes that bar. The lead editorial in today's New York Times and Washington Post (the two major papers in the U.S.) are about that speech (and several columnists in both papers weigh in on it as well). In fact it will probably be the topic of editorials in most papers in the U.S. and indeed even in some other parts of the world. There has been an enormous outpouring of commentary all over the blogosphere, and every respectable news publication will discuss this in detail in the next day and indeed beyond (A Google News search for "Obama" and "A More Perfect Union" reveals upwards of 2,000 news stories). In short, the topic has already received (and indeed will receive much more) significant coverage in reliable sources and therefore is notable. Many are already comparing this to speeches by Kennedy, FDR, and Lincoln, and I can guarantee you this speech will be discussed in history classes in the future. Our article looks to be off to a good start, and a few years from now I'd bet we'll have enough material to turn this into a featured article.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:CRYSTAL.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to a policy without comment is not much of a comment. My discussion of the future is obviously not the rationale for why I think this should be kept, it was an additional thought I added at the end which I think is worthy of consideration though not the reason this is a keeper. As I clearly stated, the reason this should be kept is because it easily passes our notability guidelines at WP:N. Could you explain to me how it does not? That is the only thing at issue here.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a speech that will transcend the presidential campaign that Obama is currently engaged in. The parts about the Rev. Wright might not be notable, and if the speech were focused on that controversy exclusively, I would support deletion. But the scope of Obama's speech expands beyond the controversy to capture a snapshot of race relations as they are today. This one will be remembered and looked back upon in the months and years ahead. - Cg-realms (talk) 02:11, 19 March 2008 (EDT)

Thank you everyone. I'm glad I'm not alone in this and that the article is "notable" to others. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cg-realms, I agree. I hope that we can expand and focus more on the speech instead of the controversy. So far, I'm really the only one who has substantially helped to beef this article up, so it's gonna take some more effort. conman33 (. . .talk) 06:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You used the future tense. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't include entries on the basis of expected notability, since there's no science to that kind of prediction. It's a bunch of news commentators trying to strike up interest in their story.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. It is certainly immediately notable, and I've heard many a commentator say they expect it to be memorable in the years to come. Until we're better able to determine that, we should at least give the article a chance to mature and develop before making premature judgments. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 07:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What commentator would say that what he's talking about only has a temporary window of interest? The news is not an objective judge of notability.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The only applicable guideline here, due to the topic at hand, is WP:NOTE - and this article satisfies it with aplomb. Absolutely no reason to delete. The references speak for itself. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTE says that a short burst of news reports is not good enough. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A short burst? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that policy is intended to address the fact that any event will be followed by at least some news posts. Front-page editorials in multiple national papers aren't quite the Podunk Gazette, nor is this a "short burst" by normal media standards. MMZach (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You've got to be kidding me. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 07:22, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You must be new to AfDs. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like news reporting to me, but WP:NOT#NEWS has not been rescinded. Probably far too soon to say whether this is of any significance or importance. Could well prove to be just another boring campaign speech. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See my closing rationale at the top of this page. And if possible, someone speedy keep this. Time shouldnt matter when a keep is clear, and consensus is reached. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - I'm going to be frank here, and risk crossing the AGF line. The nominator's "list of articles I have proposed for deletion" shows very strong political tendencies, and I am not convinced of the good faith of this nomination. This speech is a major campaign event, and its contents and media prominence alone are a matter of historical precedent and importance. It has already received more coverage than any American political speech since, well, Obama's 2004 keynote address. I can't think of any good reason to delete the article - just political ones. Mr. IP (talk) 15:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The media flares up over any new development in the Clinton-Obama race, inventing notability where there is none. Would we create an article for Hillary's "tears", which was also temporarily notable? When it comes down to it, it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians, albeit moving. This is Obama's response to a controversy, not I Have a Dream.--Loodog (talk) 15:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches worthy of coverage range from I Have a Dream to Checkers speech. This isn't some stump speech - this is a major and prominent address on race, given in terms of rare frankness, at a major turning point in a historic presidential campaign. My only concern here is a "crystal ball" violation, wherein we attribute historical prominence to a speech before history has passed judgment - but in this case, I think we are well served by having an article right now, and will almost certainly continue to be well served in the future. Mr. IP (talk) 15:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote is based on opinion, not policy. The speech is clearly notable given our guidelines at WP:N and no delete commenter has been able to argue otherwise. Loodog may think "it's just some politician's speech among countless others by countless other politicians," but that is not at all what dozens and dozens of news articles, politicians, religious leaders, and political commentators who are commenting on the historic nature of this speech think. Those are reliable sources (a number of which are already cited in the article) and we base our decision on whether to keep this or not on the depth of coverage in those sources (which is incredibly extensive) not on the fact that a few editors here think this was just "some speech." They are entitled to that opinion, but it has no bearing on this discussion, which should revolve solely around the question of notability as described in our notability guidelines.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. IP's comparison to the Checkers speech is appropriate, I think. There is a precedent of including unique and notable campaign speeches. I would also draw comparisons to the Pound cake speech, since it is also regarded as a significant turning point in race relations in the United States. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -Widely considered the most important speech of a historically significant campaign. Notability is well-established. That it feels awkward to title the article based on the title of the speech, that's only bc the article already does a good job of contextualizing the event. Balonkey (talk) 15:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep This is a well-written article about a major political speech that is still having repercussions. There is clearly too much material to reasonably merge. Mr. IP also brings up a serious issue which is made all the more troubling given the nominator's userpage. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE This is speech which, if it has any relevance at all, should be on the Obama bio --Fovean Author (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have been urging a greater degree of coverage of the Wright issue in the Obama article. Given the extent to which that article has already been given over to the Wright issue, it makes sense to have a separate page here in order to avoid bloat, no? Mr. IP (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SOAP, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOT#NEWS. My newspaper just has the speech as a minor aside in the daily campaign coverage - secondary to the rejection of Hillary's result in Florida. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's an anomaly. My newspaper has the entire speech printed, plus pages of commentary. The official video has already gotten over one million hits on YouTube. Frankly, Wikipedia is going to look silly for having a deletion template on the article while the speech is getting so much attention. Zagalejo^^^ 17:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
USA Today featured it as their cover story. My personal local newspaper covered the fifth anniversary of the Iraq War (which is today), and I suspect that story is the reason it's not on everyone's front page today. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:UNDUE does not apply. The article can exist without putting undue political weight on the side of Obama. WP:SOAP is a desperate grasp at finding something to delete this under. As a presidential candidate, he has far more effective ways of getting his extremely notable speech to people other than sites that try to get it deleted simply because they have it on their site and don't believe it should be there. It's being covered by pretty much anything that does news. The only thing left is WP:NOT#NEWS, and it's already become something more than just a speech. Commentators are analyzing it to death, so it's more than just the speech in and of itself. Cheers. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:32, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not news because commentators are analyzing it to death?--Loodog (talk) 18:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not news because there's more significance attributed to it than it's delivery alone. That is, reports ON the speech have occurred, making it more notable than reports that just RELAY the speech. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this subject has been the center of non-trivial coverage from hundreds of major and minor media sources around the world. Not only has this coveraged been focused on the event itself, but its effects on a major presidential campaign and a major subject of division in America. Not only that, but the amount of relevant and verifiable information with regard to the speech means it could not be fully included in any existing article. Joshdboz (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A very notable speech, highly covered in the American Media. There is absolutely no reason to delete the article, only to improve the article as it is very base compared to the speech's notability. KV(Talk) 17:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Are we to make an article for every flash in the pan?--Die4Dixie 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The question here is notability. Could you please explain how this speech does not meet our guidelines for notability? Because it seems obvious that it does, and the only real argument for deletion is that it does not. Could you please elaborate?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if the user is aware of it, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS WP:ATA#CRYSTAL, WP:IDONTLIKEIT obviously come into play here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I haven't been following the election at all. But I heard that I am supposed to listen to the speech. And are we running out of hard drive space or something. I think we are too quick to delete articles here. --vossman (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge = ) --Camaeron (talk) 18:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from this being just a vote, Speedy merge isn't an option unless it's a bad faith nomination (which it could be; see others above me) and it is abundantly obvious that it belongs within another article and no one disagrees with you. In this case, most everyone disagrees with you. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm on the other side of the atlantic, and I never even heard of this. Perhaps it appears notable depending on your politics and that is why there are two strong opinions being voiced here. For me, and I've no axe to grind either way, the closing admin should pay close attention to WP:SOAPBOX and the fact that a short burst of media attention does not make a speech notable. Bardcom (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is notable because it has garnered wide media attention, not because of a given person's political leanings. I'm not even a member of a political party; heck, I didn't vote in our primaries because my party didn't front a candidate. WP:SOAP seems suspiciously like a desperate grab at trying to come up with something to delete this under. The candidate has much better ways to advertise himself politically. Also, apart from that, AfDs are not for deletions because of the content of an article unless it is unsourced negative information about a living person. For things with content that needs to be fixed, there are numerous tags that can be applied to the article. Or you can be bold and fix percieved errors yourself. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the item is not historic in any way. On top of that, it may not even play any role. - User: Mojojojo69 11:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia does not require any of its articles to be "historic," only notable. hateless 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, undeniably notable. No other speech in this election cycle has had as much coverage as this one by far. hateless 19:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree, notable. Wonderful speach. Deserves it's own page. Fnsnet (talk) 19:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it'd be better to organize arguments along main points:

Continued Notability after this election
WP:CRYSTAL being violated in assumption of relevance on the future (e.g. "historic")
WP:NOT#NEWS being violated
Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

If people would reply along these points, we can get each to consensus maybe faster.--Loodog (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've already done that, but for the sake of consensus, I'll coalesce everything here.

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. You can't say it will be less notable later, since you don't know that. It is, however, notable now, judging by the massive amount of media coverage and analysis.
See above point.
WP:NOT#NEWS is to prevent fleeting things like the news story about the woman with 12 cats who got evicted and is suing the landlord from becoming notable. It isn't intended for large-scale events like this.
WP does not know borders. If it is notable and relevant somewhere, then it deserves placement.

Cheers. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 19:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- To expand on Celarnor's point, if we have a US-centric bias the solution is to add more similar articles about major speeches by major candidates in other countries, not delete this one. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Possible US-centrism and assumption of relevance in the rest of the world

- - I'm trying to wrap my brain around this one comment. Why would Obama's speech need to be relevant outside the US in the first place? Are we to believe that his speech should cover other countries? He's not campaigning in other countries. Just one. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 21:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- This page makes no sense. The speech is historic; in fact, I went to Wikipedia to find a link to the text of the speech to add onto my own website. (However, I am boggled by the fact that the only method provided is to directly edit this 30KB document of prior comments !! Tried other links, such as Talk and they were blind alleys.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Genordell (talk • contribs) 20:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I thought about this one and it does seem that this speech will stay notable throughout the rest of the presidential election, and probably beyond. Especially if this does end up becoming the major turning point for the Obama campaign. (NOTE:I do not support the obama campaign) --Chetblong^Talk_Sign 20:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete -- This is proceeding down a slippery slope, where every speech made throughout the rest of the campaign can be claimed to be historic by supporters of that politician. Remember the rule is NPOV.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.72.194.79 (talk • contribs)
Comment - Be mindful that this anon's comment represents his/her third contribution to wikipedia. Also, WP:NPOV is not an issue here. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:44, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Also, the anonuser's only contributions have been criticisms of this article. I hardly think it's appropriate for him/her to be discussing NPOV. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't bite the newbies. Respond on content, not editors.--Loodog (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, I don't, but considering that his entire body of edits is criticisim and advocating removal of material from Wikipedia, one has to wonder. In any case, this argument isn't a 'we should delete this' argument. It's a 'we should have more on other notable speeches as well' argument. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can you tell? IPs are often dynamic, and he could have thousands of edits under some other IP. At best you could say that he only commented on articles related to this subject during a pretty short timespan. Please assume good faith. - Bobet 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your concern, I always assume good faith. Please assume good faith in doing so. The IP in question is not a dynamic IP. As you can see, the IP is not dynamic. It is, in fact, static, and is someone's workplace. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Celarnor, just so this issue is clear to all of us invited to discuss on the linked article itself, is updating Wikipedia from the workplace against Wikipedia guidelines? Because I did not see that in my last review of the official guidelines. And I understand from your profile you did not start hardcore Wiki editing until after Spring Break 2008 (6 weeks ago?) so your understanding would be appreciated.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.153.162 (talk • contribs)
No, of course there's nothing wrong with that. However, this is a controversial issue, and we have to think about single purpose accounts and anonymous editing. Most people don't like, just randomly start editing AfD's as their first edits, which kind of suggests that the person knows their way around WP. If the person is a regular contributor, why didn't he log in? Has he/she already !voted and trying to pad the page? Maybe not, but unfortunately, it's something that has to at least be considered. Of course, it may just be that this is the person's first contribution. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editing from a workplace was not a comment about anything other than that what the IP address was.

Not to sidetrack the discussion, but your whois provides no indication that the IP is either static or dynamic. You can't tell them apart based on that. - Bobet 11:29, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you can, actually. If it was dynamic, it would be listed only as a rangepool, not as an IP linked to a single room within a building. Also, it's not regular practice for US government domains to rotate their internal IPs. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the title official? If not, I would try to find a more neutral sounding title or merge until it does prove to be the title. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the title is official. It is so listed on his own web site. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I believe this should be merged with Obama's campaign article. The fact of the matter is, it's a part of a presidential campaign. To compare it to other notable speeches such as "I Have a Dream" is inappropriate and diminishes their significance. There have been many speeches made by presidential candidates in the past. This is just another. Nevertheless, if, after several weeks, it becomes apparent that this speech is significant both to his campaign and to history, then it should be made into it's own article. But currently this is not yet the apparent case, and therefore should be merged with Obama's campaign article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kye2789 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Chill, guys. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm really favoring the idea of keeping for now and checking again in a week or so. This whole controversy is about whether or not it's notable yet, and both sides pretty well agree that it could be. But we don't know yet. So let's just leave it up for a week and then renominate it to test consensus. The WP:NOT#NEWS arguement is just as tied to the time factor as everything else, since we can't know yet whether or not this is going to be notable. I've got a feeling that this is something people are going to search for in the next few days, so it would be nice to keep it up for a while before we render a decision (also, the inclusionist in me is rearing its head). Chill, wait, and we'll see what happens. I mean, it's not like there's a time limit here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP: This speech is already being compared by many commentators to some of the great speeches in US history (example) -- Scjessey (talk) 21:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The question is, will it be compared to great speeches a year from now, or is it just people writing the news not coming up with any better stories. - Bobet 21:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it is certainly a more significant speech than racist crap like this. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the glaring systematic bias of our US-centric contributors would allow keeping this in clear violation of Not News. We don't write history here, we reflect it. If this is deemed notable in the longer term, then we can certainly justify having an article about it. But for the moment, this is a political speech and not deserving of an individual article. Let's get the cart back behind the horse. Eusebeus (talk) 21:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I've said elsewhere, WP does not know borders. It's not a clear violation of not news; it covers the speech itself, its' analysis, and its' effects. It is not a wikinews candidate (although the delivery of it is). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment WP:N says it all: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability". The wealth of response to this speech is only characteristic of the media who hyperbolizes everything for ratings and buzz. People, you know how news works. Don't get caught up in the hype.--Loodog (talk) 21:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's what it says, but I think you're missing the intent. It's not a burst; it's more like a massive nuclear explosion of epic proportions. The only thing WP has to operate off is the news, and the news is saying that it is comparable to speeches given during the civil rights movement. That's notability if I've ever seen it. Not news is to prevent someone from creating an article about some beauty pageant that their kid participated in, citing a single local news article and declaring it valid based on that. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ muchly. The size of the massive orgy of nuclear warfare is irrelevant. I read the above section I cited as saying "everyone's talking about it now does not guarantee notability". I again argue that just because some talking head has evoked the civil rights movement, does not make it equivalent. That's what people would say when they want you to pay attention.--Loodog (talk) 22:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several talking heads, with noted, established and reputable journalistic careers with worldwide and national syndication. By your logic, we should just ignore reliable sources altogether, since everything they say can just be "what they say when they want us to pay attention", and you can't objectively judge what articles from source foo aren't reliable and what articles from source foo are reliable. That's why we consider the sources rather than individual articles reliable. In any case, I really don't see NOT#NEWS flying here. In and of itself as a presidential speech, no, this is not notable. However, it has received coverage beyond it's mere delivery. It has received analysis and criticism as a speech and not just a campaign item. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. You overgeneralized. My point was to not lift information from sources regarding ideas about which the source is not likely to be neutral. Here: grandiose MLK comparisons.--Loodog (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are as neutral as reasonably possible. The consensus of the sources together is what should be considered reliable, and several outlets have made the MLK comparisons. An editor's individual feeling that it may be grandiose doesn't matter; it's what is being reported by a considerable amount of the reliable sources out there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 00:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we can always delete it in six months if things look different from there. — ciphergoth 22:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Keep ^^^Just came here to say this. Trying to figure out the historical importance of a speech that happened yesterday is basically trying to tell the future. If no one cares about it in six months (unlikely imo) we can delete it then.P4k (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. Something is either notable and will continue to be, or it isn't. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And in the same paragraph, read "However, articles should not be written based on speculation that the topic may receive additional coverage in the future."--Loodog (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The countless sources that are available now aren't enough? I disagree that it requires anything additional to establish notability. It's 'meta-criticism' beyond the scope of the campaign should be more than sufficient now. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable beyond belief. 2 million youtube its in 24 hours? Plus all the media is talking abut it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.76.51 (talk • contribs)
Keep. If the title is an issue, the you should be discussing a move, not a deletion. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 22:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What would you propose, and how is the title an issue? The title is official. Maybe a disambig line at the top to the Constitution would be useful, but I don't see why the title should be changed now that we've established this is the official title. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a "watershed moment" in the Obama campaign and the 2008 Presidential campaign. We're not a news site, but some news is instant history. <eleland/talkedits> 23:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's well written and properly source. Very notable, it's not just some regular political speech. HoosierState^Talk 23:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Right now no one can tell how historically significant this speech will become -- it depends on whether it brings about real change, and on how elections turn out. Few people recall the speeches of Adlai E. Stevenson, although they may have seemed momentous at the time. It might seem like a shame to lose what's been written already, but all of this can be regenerated as needed in the future, and probably with better perspective. Gccwang (talk) 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for all the good reasons already mentioned. If this speech is all but foggotten six months from now, it is easy enough to delete it then... though it is unlikely. The speech addresses a fundamental issue, and it most certainly will make a lasting impact on the American society. AugustinMa (talk) 03:12, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This speech, since the time of its delivery, has been the principle item of discussion in the United States news since its delivery and it is even already being incorporated into academic curriculae dealing with race in America.[56] Tremendous public interest in the speech guarantees that this article will see a lot of traffic, and the afd notice is a little embarrassing, although that's probably not a reason to remove it. While it is possible that the speech might come to be known under a different name, that is a case for a future move, rather than a current delete. And I suppose it's possible that dramatic and unforeseen events may render the speech forgotten within a week, but since we lack a crystal ball, it would be better to wait before rushing to delete. --Peter ^Talk 03:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Massive news coverage can confer notability, there's no need for some nebulous time to pass. There might be a better name for the article, but that's not an issue of notability. Bfigura ^(talk) 04:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments over this have already spun into an extension of the political debate itself. A certain user on this discussion page exemplifies for all that good faith arguments for deletion will turn into accusatory rhetoric that belongs in the political process itself, not Wikipedia. I count at least a dozen posts by this individual in this article itself. I see nothing historic about the speech other than editorials and political punditry, and neither meet the standard for references by Wikipedia guidelines.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.153.162 (talk • contribs)
Delete What, every time he farts in an elevator, you want to make a Wikipedia entry? If it's so important, put it in his bio. If it THEN becomes an earth shaking even, it should be its own article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.45.236.60 (talk • contribs)
Comment on notability. Another source which speaks to notability is this article in the New York Times about responses to the Obama speech (which is now the top You Tube video apparently, for whatever that's worth). A relevant passage reads "Religious groups and academic bodies, already receptive to Mr. Obama’s plea for such a dialogue [on race], seemed especially enthusiastic. Universities were moving to incorporate the issues Mr. Obama raised into classroom discussions and course work, and churches were trying to find ways to do the same in sermons and Bible studies." An African-American preacher in Georgia remarked, "I don’t see how you can be an African-American preacher and not try to figure out how to have something to say this Sunday, even though it’s Easter." It's been a couple of days and we already have some schools (many are on break now) discussing the speech. So, 64.45.236.60, this is hardly a fart in the elevator - a rather disingenuous analogy if ever I've read one - since elevator farts (even from prominent people!) generally are not discussed in university-level speech classes (at least not where I went to school). Notability has already been demonstrated and this is almost certainly headed for a keep as it is, but I figured I'd provide a bit more evidence anyway. Also, just an interesting tidbit in terms of precedent even though "otherstuffexists" is not necessarily a valid argument, note that we have an article on I Got a Crush... on Obama - a considerably more trivial element of Obama's campaign, but one which passed an AfD.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A politician bringing up the racial debate is not the second coming of Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights Movement. Nor is it the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, despite how his campaign decided to name his speech. If the broader debate amongst the citizenry actually happens, and I think it should, then Obama's speech should then be noted as the impetus of said movement. However, comparing a random professor at one of the random thousands of universities as considering introducing it into a discussion group in one of his classes with MLK's "I have a Dream" speech, with hundreds of thousands in attendance, cheapens Martin Luther King's legacy. In the meantime, I think this should be worked into the Obama 2008 campaign page. Otherwise political supporters for Clinton and McCain will be able to accuse Wikipedia of bias in not publishing their own campaign speeches.

If speeches by McCain and Clinton get this level of coverage and discussion then we should by all means have articles on them, but so far this has not happened. And this is not about MLK so I don't know why people keep bringing that up. Who here has said this is the "second coming" of MLK or Lincoln? That has nothing to do with the issue at hand. No one is saying this speech is as important as "I Have A Dream." I did not compare this speech to MLK's and thus cheapen MLK's legacy (what a strange thing to say). Those arguing for keep are simply saying it is a notable speech by our notability guidelines. References to Lincoln and Dr. King have no real bearing on this discussion so let's please stay focused on the issue of notability for this speech.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Who says we only include speeches of the importance of I Have A Dream? If a speech will be written about for decades into the future by political historians, why not include it? Why not have several such speeches per U.S. election cycle, depending on the coverage they receive? Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech already has an article-sized chunk of text devoted to it, and he's a losing candidate—but the speech is still notable. And whether Obama wins or loses—"A More Perfect Union" will still be notable.--Pharos (talk) 06:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no problem if this was referenced as part of Barack Obama's Racial Debate or Racial Component of 2008 Election or something similar. However, keep in mind that the speech you referenced with Mitt Romney was put in context of the broader issue of Mormon acceptance as Christianity within the Republican electorate, not from the mouth of Mitt Romney's political handlers, as this speech clearly is. I think the issue I most strenously object to is Wikipedia becoming the mouthpiece of a political campaign, regardless the candidate.
Strong Keep - few speeches in the last few decades have been as widely discussed or viewed, or read, as this one has been and I believe it will have a lasting impact.The Moving Finger Writes (talk) 07:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yesterday Google News had that Obama speech on its front page. Today it has a different one - Obama criticizes his rivals on Iraq - which relates to a speech he made in Fayatteville. It links to 1194 news articles relating to this and so one could no doubt claim that there is enough sources to write an article about that speech too. And I suppose there will be more speeches to come - he makes at least one a day, right? What's needed to justify an article is lasting coverage. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that there is a related link on Google News. It is Obama pastor's words ring familiar in Chicago. It's seems that it is the pastor's words which are memorable, not Obama's apologia for them. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep WP:OTHERSTUFF in mind. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:27, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Other stuff "may form part of a cogent argument...". We get bombarded with lots of coverage of the primaries and campaigns every day but it is just a routine media circus. It would be a good policy to confine coverage of such campaigns to WikiNews and only create articles here when they are over and decided. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we have to wait to give clearly notable material coverage? I can't link to it at the moment because it hasn't shown up on Google Scholar yet, but my school's journal search subscription already lists TWO scholarly articles regarding the speech by political science professors. Why throw out so much material just because it's current? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep — This is recieving worldwide coverage. Please keep American politics out of AfDs. Cheers, Jack Merridew 08:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Time will tell if it's a truly notable speech, but as for now, that certainly seems to be the case. Spikebrennan (talk) 13:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- It's notable, alright. Many news organization in the US and around the world reported on it. Title might need to be changed though. But that's easy enough. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 15:43, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The discussion below appears to present a reasonable cross section of arguments in favour of keeping for the moment and I think this is what should happen. I personally think this notability will be long lasting but that's not the point. I think it is in the interest of Wikipedia to act in favour of "potential historical significance". It is definitely NOT in the interest of Wikipedia to be accused of racist/political censorship. Imagine the BBC headlines "Racist Wikipolitics deletes article on Obama's race unification speech". As an aside, maybe there is some precedent : are there other recent (ie last 12 months) examples of speeches that have had their own entries almost immediately after delivery? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.113.21.22 (talk • contribs)

Yes, because all the arguments on the talk page say "No, Obama's too black for his speeches to be notable."--Loodog (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, keep, keep. This is an obvious keep. Notability bar met.Professor marginalia (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added note: If there is an urgent need to delete this, to elevate the notability bar for this particular politician's article, any thoughts on these? : President Forgets to Chew His Food ; US President Who Won't Speak English ; President Tumbles Over Girl Friend's Dirty Laundry ; Presidential Hopeful Commits Identity Fraud ; Presidential Hopeful's College Homework Censored. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Speech meets notability requirements for media coverage and newspapers, not for encyclopeadia coverage. This article's inclusion makes wikipedia look more like Wikinews and a soapbox WP:SOAPBOX instead of an encyclopeadia. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
This would be true if the only notable thing regarding the speech was the fact that it was delivered as part of his campaign, but it's grown beyond that; it has been the subject of analysis outside of the campaign, and that makes it notable as an independent speech. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In all seriousness - why didn't this article start off on Obama's bio, and then migrate as it proved itself? Isn't that a normal course of action here? Seems to me that supporters are trying to build up this person's words as scripture.--Fovean Author (talk) 17:44, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It did; there's plenty of material about the speech itself rather than just it's delivery as part of the campaign; however, it seems like some people just don't want to hear that for some reason. Personally, I think politics should be kept out of deletion discussions; we are supposed to be objective, after all. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is very much everything else, but to accuse it of being objective is laughable. Please explain how this speech is somehow outside of Obama's campaign for President of the United States. And then ask yourself if he delivered it two years ago, when he had stated he was not running for the highest elected office in the country, if it would have received the attention it did. It's important because he may very well be the next President, hence it belongs in his Presidential campaign area, until it sparks a movement whose goal is more than simply to get a candidate elected.
It's 'not' objective, which is the problem. People are letting partisan politics get in the way of improving Wikipedia. I'll grant you that the speech is part of his campaign, naturally, and it deserves mention and inclusion on the relevant page as such. However, as a speech--that is, a speech as a piece of literature--it has received analysis and discussion outside of it's relevance to the campaign. To include that kind of information in an unrelated article (i.e, the page on his campaign) would diminish the significance of both. Wiki is not paper, we can have as many articles as we want, and we should cover all topics deserving of coverage as deeply as possible; the deletion of this page would marginalize the coverage that the speech has received as a speech and not just as part of his campaign. I hope this helps to clear up some of the confusion that people seem to have about this. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, with removal of certain data that makes it Crystal Ball material. It was a very relevant speech it seems. If not keep, then at least merge. --Gen. S.T. Shrink *^{Get to the bunker}* 17:15, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is my first contribution to an AfD page (and one of my first contributions to WP), but I have tried to educate myself on WP's policies and this article, and I do not believe this article should be deleted. This may not be a valid argument, but I came to WP this morning and typed in "a more perfect union" and it was helpful to find this article in educating myself on this speech. I believe that it is in the best interest of all wikipedia users that his article remain on it's own as it is quite notable. Drewtwo99 (talk) 19:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The speech is notable. Not only has it received extensive news and opinion coverage in the media, but is it beginning to be discussed by religious groups and is being incorporated into university classes. See Groups Respond to Obama’s Call for National Discussion About Race Dr.enh (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article on historic speech. What's more notable than that? Wide press coverage, many reliable sources commenting on speech, creation of open debate on race, changes to college curriculm. Please.... Eleven Special (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't contribute much but I have to say this, one of Wikipedia's strengths is that it is now chronicling events as they happen. I am in London, and don't even have basic cable. I read about the speech, watched the speech, and the very next thing I did was go to Wikipedia. I typed in "Barack Obama speech" and hit go. Three clicks later, I was at the article we are debating. I loved this speech as did many, but where would I find out if he actually wrote it? Where else would I get a perfect snapshot of how the media received it? Where did I find this sort of info for "don't tase me bro!" and other similar flash in a pan events? Who cares if the speech is nothing next week? It surely won't be, but why does it matter? The context, the content, the speaker - all HIGHLY NOTABLE. I think we are confusing newsworthy and notable these days - in fact, I can't wait to see notable on a list of words that should be retired. Maybe it has already been on such a list? I'll check, on this website, as soon as I press save page. Travisritch (talk) 03:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See Notability guidline: ": A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", this topic obviously meets this requirement. Tomgreeny (talk) 04:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. George W. Bush pretzel incident. 'Nuff said. --TexasDex ★ 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Obviously meets notability criteria. Surprised that the article doesn't mention that a journalist on MSNBC said it was "possibly the most important speech on race since I Have a Dream". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on article traffic. Not exactly a keep rationale per say, but according to this handy little tool this article was viewed over 4,000 times on March 19th. Just as a point of comparison, the Hillary Clinton article was viewed a little over 9,000 times that same day. Most articles are viewed far, far less than that - anything over a thousand in a day is pretty significant I would say. Though I'm not going on any policy here (those arguments have already been amply provided), the fact that this article got 4,000 views the day it was created suggests to me that it might be worth keeping.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- comment on article traffic comment That isn't by itself that good an argument if one believes that this is a flash in the pan news item. JoshuaZ (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment In fact, it makes it appear even more like a flash in the pan since the traffic has disappeared from the chart for the most recent weeks... Bardcom (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reply: Weeks? Please explain. It was 4.1k the 19th and 2.9k the day after, which was yesterday. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as Celarnor says, there are only two days of traffic data and the second shows nearly 3,000 views. I'm not really trying to convince the "flash in the pan" argument editors of anything, I'm just trying to point out that there has clearly been significant interest in the article. It's not a rationale for keeping, I just thought it was worth pointing out. I'm sure in a few weeks there will only be a few hundred hits a day at best as is the case with the majority of our articles (which have that or far, far fewer hits).--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 20:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the nominator even says the material could be merged into Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. A merge means no deletion. The article shouldn't have been brought to AFD unless the nominator thinks it should be deleted. Notability is not temporary. This article doesn't look like a news report to me. --Pixelface (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep With a large number of editorials written about the speech, and the amount - and kind - of news coverage it got, and the fact Richardson listed as a reason for endorsing Obama, I'll say this speech is indeed notable and not a news event. I would not be shocked to hear about this speech, or future Obama speeches, years from now. -Aknorals (talk) 13:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - certainly atleast the same notability as Ich bin ein Berliner. Grsz 11 16:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In three days, the speech has been seen 2.5 million times on YouTube under this title and discussed on thousands of blogs 1. On that basis it qualifies for notability as an internet meme alone (and is more notable than many other such Wiki articles on viral videos in Category:Internet memes). It's been the subject of dozens (possibly hundreds) of newspaper articles and editorials. It may or may not go into history books (we can't predict that). But it seems likely that its notability will hold up alongside A Time for Choosing, Chocolate City speech, Two Americas, Pound Cake speech, Checkers speech, and the other articles in Category:Speeches. And I think we can all agree that it's more likely to appear in a history book than I Got a Crush... on Obama. This is a straightforward case. Northwesterner1 (talk) 18:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I feel right now the true impact of this speech is not yet realized because it is overshadowed by the currently larger issue related to the speaker that is, the presidential campaign and I feel that the Wikipedia 'psychology' is too eager, or even paranoid at times to distance itself from acting as any publicty outlet for any certain individual. I believe that most of time the argument is about this main issue of 'Is Wikipedia is being used for publicity?' and NOT an argument about whether it is just an 'Encyclopedia of important events or topics occuring or occured'. I am sure once the presidential race is over, there would be no such argument of the deletion of this article whatsoever, and people discussing about this speech would be doing so solely because of its content, its linguistic delivery, and other reasons solely for historical and educational reasons. Most of the times people are forgotten but what they have done or said makes them remembered. Today there are 350 million google hits for the 'I Have a Dream' speech [57] and 20 million for 'Martin Luther King' [58] but only 2.3 million hits for 'I Have a Dream Martin Luther King' search, [59], suggesting that many people especially in non-American countries perhaps would know the speech but not even knowing who said it in the first place. By contrast there are only 1 million hits for 'A More Perfect Union Barack Obama' [60] 722 thousand hits for 'Barack Obama Speech on Race' [61], but 30 million hits for 'Barack Obama' [62]. My argument is that I implore Wikipedia users to please let go of this dilemna and constant debate of trying to keep Wikipedia non publicity and solely information, because by deleting articles some Wikipedia editors find is adding publicty to one person named Barack Obama, they are also deleting something which is so much potentially informational for many other billions of people who just want information on this particular speech. I say let the people decide how they filter their information, because the election only objectively affects 300 million Americans [63], but the race-issue affects everybody on the planet, and this speech IS a key speech on that matter.Msethisuwan (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable and verified with adequate reliable published sources. Published sources are the sole barometer of notability, and they cover the speech in-depth. Thus, we must acknowledge it's notable. VanTucky 22:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Secondary sources are a barometer of notability, but right now its content for Wikinews. In November, or possible sooner, if the speech has had some kind of massive effect, then it could be recreated. Otherwise, the notability we're conferring is WP:Crystal. Mrprada911 (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and optionally rename to A More Perfect Union (Barack Obama speech) or a similar title. Speech as received generous amounts of non-trivial coverage, far above and beyond the typical stump speech. Even if Obama fails to win the nomination or the Presidency; a similar precedent has been set by Nixon's Checkers speech--a speech which brought about a temporary reversal of Nixon's political fortunes, but did not win him the White House (at least not that year).--EngineerScotty (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good analogy, but I must (well, not really must, but I will!) point out in the interests of historical accuracy that Nixon was not running for president in 1952, the year of the "Checkers speech." The objective of the speech was to address accusations about financial impropriety and thus prevent Ike Eisenhower from removing him from the GOP ticket. In that regard Nixon was successful, and of course he served two terms as VP before losing to JFK in 1960.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From the massive amounts of attention it is garnering from the media and general populace alike, it seems clear that this speech has crossed the notability threshold. Deleting the article first pending a long-term judgement of notability would deprive it of any current editing interest, and it would take more energy/effort/trouble to re-create the article after deletion. Even if it eventually fades with the rest of the 2008 US Presidential campaign speeches, why incur the greater costs? ZZninepluralZalpha (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Anyone with a trained political eye will understand that this speach is going to be historic whether Barack Obama wins the Presidential electino or not. It will be looked back on for generations, and I say that not as an Obama supporter but as a follower and scholar of American politics. --Jkfp2004 (talk) 05:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This speech is already being absorbed by academia. Some insist on its future historicity, and while I'm not sure that those declarations alone make it worthy of an article, I think that when considered with the immediate critical embrace in the media and warm reception from the majority of journalists, in addition to prognostications of its high standing in historical contexts, it most certainly deserves a Wikipedia article. It's Wikipedia. I mean Wikipedia has an article on "felching." Also, I heard Billy Bob Richardson say today that it strongly influenced him to endorse Obama for President of the US. Also, as a minority, I certainly think that it is important as he IS a Presidential candidate, and he is speaking directly on matters important to some. I think that, like myself, many other minorities are sort of poring over this thing. But in the larger context, I think people in general have been poring over it...It's what drew me to google the speech, and the Wiki page popped up on the 2nd page of results -btw, anyone wanna venture to explain how you do that cool little signy thing that leaves your date, time, IP address, etc?
You put four tildes after your post, like this: ~~~~ Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-I will say that it needs to undergo a serious overhaul in terms of the organization and presentation of its contents, though.

What would you suggest? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep - possibly revisit in 6 months, but this speech has received much attention nationally and internationally. Deletion would be premature. c'mon Tay Zonoday rates to get a page on his song (not released, but only a youtube phenom, mind you) Chocolate rain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate_Rain, which I would submit, is of much less historic significance and notability. --Boscobiscotti (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP would be remiss not to extend its coverage to both the underlying issues, Obama's speech, and the "pro" and "anti" commentary. The underlying issues---essentially Obama and race---Obama's speech, and the extensive commentaries and political analyses require too detailed of coverage to confine within the Obama campaign article. Just as there need be an Obama campaign endorsements article and an Obama campaign positions article, there needs to be this one. Although this article should eventually come to give a broadened treatment of the contentious issues concerning race in America as it relates to Obama's campaign, certainly Obama's speech, along with all the pro-Obama commentary (regarding Obama's success via the speech) as well as all the anti-Obama commentary (about his failures to address certain issues within it) all pass the threshhold of notability. --Justmeherenow (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The large number of media opinions/analyses/etc talking about the speech give us enough to work with. This isn't primarily about whether it will be considered a major event or a footnote in a few decades (too early to say about that), but it is first and foremost about whether there are enough sources to produce a good article. Kingdon (talk) 18:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Per Above --The Emperor of Wikipedia (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD is over. The Emperor is here. :P Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that this speech is notable enough to qualify a wikipedia entry on two grounds. First, it is an important current events story. Currently, thousands of published news articles are discussing this speech. On youtube, the speech has been viewed more 3 million times, in less than a week. Second, the speech will likely become a historical noteworthy, regardless of the outcome of the present US election cycle. Only time will be able to prove this, but deleting this speech as un-notable at this time is premature; this speech shows all the potential of being an important, historical address.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.58.117 (talk • contribs)
Speedy keep per many of the arguments above; this is obviously notable and encyclopedic. —Nightstallion 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Richardson's acknowledgement that his endorsement was swayed by this speech further underlines the influential nature of this speech. It is definitely premature to delete.
Strong Keep per Nightstallion. Also I point out that the nom has a user page that boasts of trying to get articles on left-wing subjects deleted. Kuralyov (talk) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the excellent arguments. Surely this is a WP:SNOW candidate. Porterjoh (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment WP:SNOW: "If an issue is run through some process and the resulting decision is unanimous, then it might have been a candidate for the snowball clause."--Loodog (talk) 21:10, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - whilst the speech itself is recieving considerable press coverage, it has yet to receive sufficient independent analysis of any social impact, and as such doesn't assert the notability of, for example, Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. The material may warrant inclusion, but at this stage, probably simply within Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008. Fritzpoll (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By what notability standards in our policies is a speech, or anything else, required to have received "sufficient independent analysis of any social impact?" And how is the fact that this speech is not as notable as "I Have A Dream" relevant to whether or not we keep it? We do not have special notability standards for speeches, and you don't seem to disagree that the speech has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, which is our general standard for notability.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:49, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this would be true if and only if the speech's notability was not independent of the campaign; if it was just received and analyzed as a campaign speech, it's place would be on that page. However, it has notability independent of the campaign, as it has analysis and coverage beyond the campaign itself, analyzing the speech as a speech and not as a campaign item. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the majority of the sources, and indeed an entire section of the article, deal with the impact of the speech on voters and in the context of the election that is being fought, meaning it only adds notability to the campaign at the moment. As such, it is notable on in connection with the presidential campaign itself, and until it has received more in depth coverage of a wider impact, I can't see how it warrants an article on its own. That should not preclude its creation at a later date if it influences policy or becomes the subject of academic discussion at some later date. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the sources? What does that have to do with anything? Just because the majority of sources deal with one aspect of something doesn't mean we should ignore other aspects of it. That is simply inane. Sources such as the NYT have shown that it is becoming the subject of academic discussion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not so much inane, as a figure of speech. All the ones I saw indicated it was all in the context of the election, though I'll happily concede I may have missed one. I'll have a look at the linked source and comment again. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per coverage. Dance With The Devil (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per media reaction to the speech, such as the New York Times editorial comparing it to Lincoln and FDR's inaugural addresses, as well as Kennedy's 1960 speech on religion. --Mass147 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Mass147. A convincing arguement in my mind that it is notable. --Falcorian ^(talk) 05:16, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that we don't want to predict how significant the speech will be in the future, and especially not to attempt to sway the significance through undue elaboration, but right now as it stands there are many well-known, respected and mainstream political commentators that are referring to this speech in terms of considerable expectation of future significance that easily warrants notability for an article in Wikipedia. It is notable not because we think it is notable, but because enough members of the mainstream political landscape have publicly considered it notable. Remy B (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Merge This should be a section in the Barack Obama presidential campaign, 2008 or the Barack Obama article, this is not notable enough to have a page of its own. - Schrandit (talk) 20:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per many above. Remy B's comment summarizes the issue nicely. I would like to add that, as a serious student of US history, and based on more than four decades of close observation of the political scene in the United States, I simply do not recall any other occasion where a speech delivered by a presidential candidate in the course of a political campaign has elicited such a response in terms of the breadth and intensity of media coverage and the pronouncements of seasoned commentators, many of whom drew comparisons with some of the great oratorical events in American history.

I also want to address another issue which has been raised by a few people: the notion that this is "merely" a US-centric subject, and thus not worthy of an article in Wikipedia. What rubbish. Apparently, the fact that Mr. Obama's campaign is of tremendous (I dare say, unprecented) interest to people in all parts of the planet has escaped the attention of these editors. So for their benefit, I would like to offer a selection of newspaper headlines (from Google news) from countries other than the US or Canada:

Obama names our pain

Jamaica Observer, Jamaica - 15 hours ago

LETTER OF THE DAY - Obama race speech greatest since MLK

Jamaica Gleaner, Jamaica - Mar 21, 2008

Obama speech was a Lincoln moment

Business Daily Africa, Kenya

Obama's speech on race rings true for Britain, too

The Guardian, UK

Barack Obama Disowning racism

Economist, UK

Barack Obama: "A More Perfect Union", part 2

Wiener Zeitung, Österreich

Obama tackles America's race issue head on

Irish Times, Ireland

Senator Barack Obama’s Race Speech: Reactions from the Community

Asian Week, CA - Mar 20, 2008

The Liberal Side of Color Blind: Obama’s Post-Affirmative Action ...

Asian Week, CA - Mar 21, 2008

Obama battles back in reverend's race

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia

Together we can move beyond racial wounds

Sydney Morning Herald, Australia Mar 19, 2008

Obviously there have been many more articles besides these. In short, the entire world took note of this speech. Cgingold (talk) 02:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep with thanks to Cgingold for doing the legwork above. This is a no-brainer. The speech is notable by any standard, discussed across a broad swath of media worldwide, attracting a great deal of attention on and off Wikipedia. And for the record, I do not think the decision to keep this article should be informed in any way by whether individuals agree with the speech, think it was well delivered, love or hate Obama. All that counts is its notability and value to our readers, and (although this is not a definitive tool) the statistics bear that out. Deleting it would appear to be partisan, to say the least. Tvoz |talk 04:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is still too early to tell if this speech will reach the status of "legendary" (my personal guess is that it depends on whether or not Obama is eventually elected president), but the fact that it marks the introduction of race-related issues into the 2008 campaign does contribute to its significance. This article shows that the speech has received more attention, sparked more debate, and caused more analysis by scholars at universities, than the typical news story which would fall under "WP:NOTNEWS". Anyhow, this speech was far deeper than the quick "Senator, you're no Jack Kennedy" from 1988 which for some reason has become very famous as well. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was going to vote delete per "Wikipedia is not news", but now that I've seen how low the de facto threshold for inclusion of speeches and even minor incidents involving politicians (as per the "Bush pretzel incident" and the "not Kennedy" articles mentioned above), I'm inclined to keep. Some will say this goes against WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS but I maintain that reasoning by analogy is the main way of achieving consistency and since guidelines are supposed to reflect practice rather than the other way around, I'll go with analogy. --Itub (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update [news.google.com Google News] has stopped putting this in headlines and moved onto something Hillary did. That's how the news works.--Loodog (talk) 16:30, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually a G-news search for "Obama" and "speech" reveals several hundred hits just for today. It seems about half of the stories on the first page of hits are substantively about the speech in some way. But at this point I don't know what to say to someone who reads the article in its current form and still thinks this speech was not notable (reaction from everyone in the country including politicians, academics, and religious leaders, millions of YouTube hits, "clinches" the critical Richardson nomination, discussed in university classes, talked about in Easter sermons in black churches, and all this covered by literally hundreds of secondary sources - we're well past the notability bar here.)--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They also stopped putting things about Ich bin ein berliner in the headlines after 1963. That means absolutely nothing. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong pile-on keep This is not just one of the most notable speeches in recent political history, but almost certainly the most-discussed one, as evident from the massive media coverage that has trumped pretty much every other speech given during the primaries combined. -- A not-signed-in Kicking222 18:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly notable based on the many references cited above. Klausness (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed. Deleted by an admin already. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upland Elementary District Jazz Band[edit]

non-notable. A google search for "Upland Elementary District Jazz Band" -wikipedia retrieves two pages! Kingturtle (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per A7, so tagged. ---RWR8189 (talk) 03:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - With Uplands Elementary School (Terrace). Tiptoety ^talk 04:01, 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 No Consensus defaulting to Keep, disagreement over whether meets notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Euclid St. Paul's Neighborhood

Not notable neighborhood in St. Petersburg, Florida. No assertion of notability. Back in 1917, (a year before the St. Petersburg cattle stampede) a lot of Pinellas County was orange grove or out in the country. And the entire county has endured phenomenal growth. Google news hits for the St. Petersburg Times do not assert notability. Google web hits do not assert notability. Dloh cierekim 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 02:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of 30 or so St. Pete neighborhoods. Local notability only-- the SPTimes articles cited are the ones listed above. This is not sufficient/significant media coverage or independent sourcing for notability. Clearwater's North Greenwood neighborhood-- which is also not notable-- gets many more St.Pete Times hits. (Greater significan tmedia coverage,) Ybor City, by comparison, has still more media coverage locally and NYTimes and Wadshington Post coverage. Still not notable depsite adding a lot of lovely information. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 04:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia policies and guidelines do not distinguish notability on the basis of "local", "national" or "international", nor does it matter how many other neighborhoods there are. Ghits are meaningless in terms of WP:Notability as WP:GOOGLEHITS points out. The significant standard is defined byWP:N as sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. What isn't "trivial" by this standard is a judgment call in each case, since WP:N is vague, but the amount of information in the article from one or more St. Pete Times sources should, I think, be seen as more than trivial. It can't be disputed that all sources here are "independent". Thanks for calling it "lovely". Noroton (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not talking about "number of ghits." Talking about not having significant media coverage. A few mentions in the SPTimes and some realty ads do not make notable. A lot of the added stuff is not about the neighborhood per se. And yes, there is a distinction between something that gets a few local newspaper articles and something that gets coverage in papers all over the country-- like the NY Times and the Washington Post. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 14:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No clear assertion of notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources independent of the subject. WP:RELY and WP:N. Estemi (talk) 08:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...per the directly above...--Camaeron (t/c) 21:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just now I've made quite a few edits to the article, adding information from the online "Neighborhood Report" of the neighborhood association, which appears to be active and works with the local government. Per the WP:GEOG section of Wikipedia:Outcomes, ("Places" subsection): Larger neighborhoods are acceptable, but its name must have verifiable widespread usage. Recognized geographic areas don't have to prove notability. That widespread usage is confirmed by Google, and this is definitely a large neighborhood. So far we have one independent source (since it's a geographic area, there can be no non-independent source) that provides substantial coverage, we have enough sourcing for a geographic entity. It could be argued either way, but I think we can call this a "reliable" source, given that the report has plenty of authors, was created for the larger association and likely had the eyes of the neighborhood and some city officials on it. Personally, I think it's very, very unlikely to be inaccurate. I've removed the boosterish language from the article, wikified it and reorganized it. I'm going to do a bit more work on the article. Noroton (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC) (fix typo Noroton (talk) 21:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

I've added a bit more, including that long-ago Major League baseball player Bill Freehan went to school there. The edits to the article have doubled its size since the last "delete" vote. Noroton (talk) 02:39, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per arguments and improvements made by Noroton that establishes notability. --Oakshade (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised. I can't imagine what kind of neighborhood would not be considered notable in the context of Wikipedia. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:29, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just Jinjer[edit]

Non-notable music group. Jmlk 1 7 02:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 per tag already placed on page. Highly promotional in tone, no assertations of notability -- the works. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Metropolitan90; figures that was the only sentence my eyes didn't catch when I read this page (so I made a mistake). I found this as well. Clearly needs more sources though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article certainly asserts notability by claiming that this band is the number one best selling rock band in South Africa. See [64] which supports that. The article needs updating, improvement, and sources, but not deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Scientizzle 15:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just-In The Mix[edit]

Completely unofficial fan-made album, does not needs its own Wiki entry. PatrickJ83 (talk) 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Because it's fan made, it's not very likely to have received any coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fan made (potential SPA account), unofficial, Google gives little other than links to torrents and that's not what I'd call encyclopedic notability. WilliamH (talk) 22:14, 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. — Scientizzle 15:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of View Askewniverse motifs[edit]

This seems like like a list of trivia based on editor original research and synthesis. There is no evidence that the topic has been covered by any reliable, independent sources or that the topic is notable. Guest9999 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as clearly original research. Synthetic list created here from non-notable trivia - Peripitus (Talk) 02:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- delete despite being a fan of View Askew I've got to agree this article doesn't need to exist. If it "really must be kept" than merge with appropriate article on the View Askewverse (has there been concensus on whether it is askewniverse or askewverse? Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:09, 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. — Scientizzle 15:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephania Gambaroff[edit]

This article was created probably as an autobiography. I deleted it under WP:CSD#A7, but an IP editor requested restoration in the interest of "demonstrating Wikipedia's democratic views" and so forth, so I complied and am bringing it here instead.

The article has no sources or references. It claims one minor film festival award for one film, but I could not verify it using independent online sources. Maybe others will have better results, but I found only 37 non-Wikipedia hits with Google. The IMDB page is to her resume, not to a list of accomplishments. Other than the one film and its festival award, she's worked on a couple of films as an artist, and that's it. The article fails WP:BIO's standards for creative professionals, and should be deleted. KrakatoaKatie 01:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wonder about "democratic principles" in light of the fact that Wikipedia is not a democracy--regardless, non-notable is non-notable. I certainly wish her luck in the future. Justin Eiler (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The TUFF award does not strike me as sufficiently significant for notability. I see forums and ads. I do not see significant media coverage. I don't get any news hits. Nada. Ganz nichts. Maybe it is a spelling thing? At any rate, the !delegate from Largo, Florida casts his !vote for deletion. Also, i think the opening paragraph says it all-- an emeging artist. Not to notable as yet. Dloh cierekim 03:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability not established House of Scandal (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:09, 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 CSD-A7. Tiptoety ^talk 02:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles said-vassalo[edit]

Being a geneaologist is not sufficient for inclusion Grahame (talk) 02:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Three GHits, two of which are on Wikipedia. The article asserts notability, but from the best I can discover the assertion is not a truthful claim. Tagged as speedy. Justin Eiler (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete per WP:SNOW. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 02:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

International Cone Rule[edit]

AfD from former prod. So: Obvious hoax and something made up in school one day. It's been warned about before. Crystallina (talk) 01:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 per nom, comes up as a hoax to me given total lack of sources found in a search. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend salting it as well. Justin Eiler (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Dlohwhatchamacallit's decline of the speedy. I, too, see no verifiabilty or notability, and although I don't quite agree with the removal of the speedy tag, I say let it go, since this seems to have been made up in school one day. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. However, I am not speedy deleting as this was de-prodded by an admin. My suggestion would be to allow a consensus to develop. Having said that, I see no verifiability or notability. Dloh cierekim 02:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to add to the concensus that is developing, reasons as above. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. "Club teams and professional teams" don't use goals made of cones - they use goalposts. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NEO and, the whole article comes directly from here. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong way around. Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror. Zetawoof_(ζ) 07:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a fine one at that. Dloh cierekim 14:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up in school one day, and admittedly so. DarkAudit (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt until such time as a genuine "International Cone Rule" is agreed upon. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 20:23, 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. Kubigula (talk) 02:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Equal Justice Works[edit]

Is this what they call a lobby group? Anyway there is an obvious COI in the authorship. Is the organisation notable? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 01:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: EJW is not a lobby group, and I would say they're notable: they have a partnership with Newsweek (website) and seem to be fairly well known. Justin Eiler (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article has not shown why the subject of this article is notable. Many of the references have no links and cannot be verified. All four references point to the organization's website. Just because it exists doesn't make it notable. Bardcom (talk) 18:46, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is absolutely no requirement for references to be online. Just because you need to let go of your mouse and go to a library to check them it doesn't mean that they can't be verified. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment True, but there is a requirement for notability which appears absent. Bardcom (talk) 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. How is it absent? Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", which this subject has. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: links to several of the articles have been provided. the "references" do not point back to the website. the external links do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Access2justice4all (talk • contribs) 20:51, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Load more references in reliable sources at Google Books and Google News. Any COI issues can be dealt with by editing, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Needs some more work and references. Dwilso (talk) 23:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect. POV fork. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of torture methods and devices[edit]

Very non NPOV, no references, OR ukexpat (talk) 01:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There are refs, there just wasn't a reflist. Just added it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep encyclopedic, though in need of work. JJL (talk) 02:23, 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 speedy delete per A7. bibliomaniac 15 Midway upon life's journey... 04:05, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Valerio[edit]

Wikpedia is not a memorial Grahame (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Currently nominated for speedy under A7. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like this one fails WP:BIO1E badly. Not sure about the speedy. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have nominated for speedy deletion as well as I fail to see any claim for notability in the article that meets our guidelines. --Matilda ^talk 02:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't know about the a7, but this one fails BLP1E/ONEEVENT. He isn't notable other than dying TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:28, 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 CSD-A7. Tiptoety ^talk 02:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OtterQuest[edit]

Appears to either be a made up game or is a page for a nn flash game, link Salavat (talk) 01:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 as non-notable web content, so tagged. Never mind the bias among my romp of otters. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy under A7 as TPH and his otters. Might be G3 as well, but let's not get greedy, eh? --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 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 Speedily deleted as nonsense. Also, I see no assertion of notability and I do see other problems that would result in a SNOW delete in any event. Dloh cierekim 02:16, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christie street[edit]

Appears to be vandelism. Salavat (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as pure vandalism (broken fridges?), so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. JJL (talk) 01:21, 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 Withdrawn with no !votes placed. I should also note that a previous deletion discussion was closed on March 11 as a keep, and I doubt consensus would change that quickly. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama, Sr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Not-notable other than for being Obama's father - notability is not inherited. ukexpat (talk) 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, already subject of a keep consensus. – ukexpat (talk) 00:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Disney Mothers. As this article duplicates the article in this AfD, I am closing them together - please see the AfD for the rationale behind not deleting the article. This side of things has more !votes to redirect, and seems to be a more sensible title since the article also includes information about TV series, and so it's the one to be redirected. If you feel this should be the main title, fight it over on the article's talk page. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absent Mothers in Disney films[edit]

Non-notable list, fancruft, tinge of OR ukexpat (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The intro is pretty much WP:OR, and the list itself isn't anything useful to compile. Delete for OR issues and a lack of good sources in the intro. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: I know this subject is discussed in many classroom settings and it is a topic of many scholastic reports. I think there should be a comprehensive list to help people begin their research. MercyLewis (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding comment added by MercyLewis (talk • contribs) 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research/synthesis; the one source at the bottom may be worth saving, though. See related discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:50, 19 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 Disney Mothers or vice versa. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. JJL (talk) 01:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Mothers (if it's kept - delete if it's not). If there are more sources like this it might well be possible to write a reliably sourced, verifiable article around the topic. Guest9999 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grsz 11 03:41, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH. Redfarmer (talk) 09:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 11:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This page would appear to be a substantial duplicate of Disney Mothers, which was also up for AfD, and which I voted to keep. I prefer this title. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect without deleting to Disney mothers per my reasoning in that AfD, i.e. that the topic is 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! 17:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and here I was sure I was going to vote delete with extreme prejudice when I saw the article title... It seems that multiple reliable sources have made a similar observation, and as such an article on the topic might be both notable and encyclopedic. I would rather see a less list-y article, and more of sort of a discussion of the phenomenon, well-cited of course to avoid any WP:OR or WP:SYNTH problems. Also, maybe this should be merged into some other article, though I'm not sure what it would be... maybe something about Critical analysis of Disney films or something of the sort. In any case, the idea does not appear to be WP:OR, although the lists at the end feel a bit cruft-y to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep does need some expansion other than listing of films, but is sourced & easily expandable w/good sources. SkierRMH (talk) 18:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe merge to Disney Mothers, which is also on AfD. This is a notable pop-culture subject and that's what Wikipedia's good at.--T. Anthony (talk) 11:33, 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. — Scientizzle 15:51, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monster in a Wheelchair[edit]

Youtube video. Article even says "Since the film is not well known". Camillus (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd tend to say delete as non-notable. No refs to make WP:N, and it doesn't look like it makes anything in WP:MOVIE. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:27, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even asserts lack of notability. Not quite {{db-web}} given the unsourced assertation that it was featured on VH1. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:N. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 06:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Dreamspy (talk) 09:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete funny, but not-notable. Not every video featured on Attack of the Show! and/or Web Junk 20 is notable Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:01, 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 under G3 criteria. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP!☺} 00:45, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Errendore and the Kings of Lochelan[edit]

Fails verify, no ghits other than wiki sources, nothing for author T.E. Bright, probable hoax from indef blocked original editor. Also WP:FUTURE. – Zedla (talk) 00:09, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G3 as fairly obvious hoax, so tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Notability. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a hoax. I'm not so kosher with speedy-ing articles that're so old, but a hoax none-the-less. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. This page has been gathering dust for almost three years now and neither the book nor its author are even close to being notable, if they even exist. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 00:40, 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 One Chance. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

U Can't[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/U Can't

A song that has only been out for a few weeks does not seem notable enough to have its own article. Fléêťflämẽ U-T-C 00:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to One Chance until more info exists on the song in question. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to One Chance per TPH. There's almost no way this is notable, but it's certainly possible that it'll be searched for. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 05:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with One Chance. Unfortunately, article cannot be a stand alone - upcoming song on available digitally on myspace. Perhaps in the near future, but right now, we have a failure of WP:MUSIC. Songs must demonstrate notability to have their own article. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 07:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - WP:MUSIC, as above. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 14:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed by non-admin as not a deletion nomination. See WP:MERGE for advice on going about proposing or dong merge. -- KTC (talk) 23:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Sims 2 (PSP game)[edit]

This article is about the PSP version of The Sims 2. It seems like it needs to be merged into The Sims 2. What do you think?. Mythdon (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Unless the game is substantially different (as in completely different) from the other versions, and even then differences can be addressed in athe main article. 23skidoo (talk) 22:22, 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 - 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.