Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

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 Speedy Keep per nom. UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 02:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keytarist[edit]

Delete This article has been created by me previously and I messed up on something and I don't know how to delete pages. Thebluesharpdude (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a sensible redirect to List of keytarists, as this article was most recently until being replaced by the AFD template. I think the nominator may not quite understand how WP works yet. PamD (talk) 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per PamD. PC78 (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and restore to redirect status. Note that Thebluesharpdude appears to be in an edit dispute on List of keytarists‎ and may be trying to get Keytarist removed for another reason than what is stated above. Ward3001 (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Obvious redirect to List of keytarists. Nick Graves (talk) 13:09, 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 --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk - Contribs) 14:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shira Oka: Second Chances[edit]

Unreleased game by unknown studio which has had a mostly blank page since 2006. Simply isn't notable at this point in time. This article should be created after the game is actually released. AmethystPhoenix (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find any independent sources on the topic. -Icewedge (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable; unsourced. —97198 talk 13:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing 444 21:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice The game's page shows that this is still in production and the developers are/were preparing for the Game Developers Conference (to show a demo, not the full game). I strongly suspect that this game will pass notability after release, but article creation was premature. The devs have been promoting the game in the right places so interested parties should be taking notice. Someone another 00:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is a non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable at the moment, recreate at a later date.BigDunc (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass notability guidelines at this time.--Beloved Freak 18:26, 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.--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harris & Harrison[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. An article on a "comedy writing duo" whose only public work appears to be Proud & Prejudiced: A Gigolo's Tale, available through self-publisher lulu.com. Two of the three references provided are sourced through the subjects' website; the third is "customer reviews" found at lulu.com (a clear failure of WP:V). Possibly a WP:COI. The creation of Mike ay a WP:SPA who claims to be the copyright holder of the image of Harris & Harrison included in the article. Prod was removed by an IP with the explanation "Do not think article should be deleted - article has been improved with editing changes". In fact, no editing took place between the application and removal of the prod tag. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No secondary sources, and a quick search on Google News (or even Google Web) doesn't turn up anything useful. Hqb (talk) 10:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I hate it when links to the subject's website are used as references. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Time to get rid of a lot of the vanity "arts" entries. Spoonkymonkey (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not passing notability or verifiability guidelines.--Beloved Freak 18:28, 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 --JForget 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of xxxHolic Story Arcs[edit]

This is a list of story arcs in the xxxHolic manga series. The list essentially constitutes an extended storyline (i.e. plot summary) without substantial real-world content, and the classification of these various (fictional) events and sequences as deliberate story arcs may constitute an original synthesis based on primary sources. (To be honest, I'm somewhat confused as to how some of the entries qualify as story arcs: e.g. "At the beginning of the arc, Yuko complains about how hot it is because of the Japanese summer. Later, Yuko decides to hold a ceremony with Watanuki, Doumeki, and Himawari at Doumeki's temple.") There is also the issue of notability: while there are many websites that mention story arcs in the xxxHolic series, there does not seem to be non-trivial coverage of the subject in reliable sources. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article creator has been notified of this discussion. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This appears to be a original research, non-neutral sectioning off of both the manga and its anime adaptation. These divisions do not existing in the original works, and the series overall story is already better covered in the main xxxHolic and in List of xxxHolic episodes. Collectonian (talk) 01:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do articles on some other series have to do with this? Doceirias (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Black Falcon--

How can there be any -- much less substantial -- real world content vis-a-vis a Japanese manga and anime? (and I'm not talking about Japanese publications, either) Granted, I'm not well read on Japanese anime/manga criticism, but I just don't buy this idea that there's this whole library of literature out there critiquing this Japanese product. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe you can steer me to all of this literature that you seem to be alluding to. But I don't think that you can.
As far as notability goes, what one person finds interesting another person will find to be deadly dull (e.g., mushroom, textile, and printed circuit board just to name a few).
What's with this "May constitute original research"? If you think that this is original research, then say so. Personally, I think that you'd be on stronger ground if you based your argument on a lack of citations.

Anyway, for what it's worth, I don't think that this article should be deleted. Edited? Maybe, but then again I don't know -- that's what an article's discussion page is for.
NBahn (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. -- I see that Collectonian disagrees with me. I respcect his/her editing and suspect that his/her viewpoint will carry the day.

I wrote that the article "may" constitute an original synthesis because: (1) I'm not familiar with the xxxHolic manga series, and (2) I'm not sure how a number of the entries qualify as story arcs. With regard to the issue of notability, I was referring to the term as defined here rather than to the interpretation of the term as an equivalent of "importance" (see also Kesh's comment below). I hope this clarifies my nomination statement. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 03:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NOT#PLOT and WP:SYN. Of note, notability does not have to do with "what one person finds interesting," but whether reliable sources have documented the subject and shown it is of encyclopedic relevance. Blogs and fan-sites don't count. -- Kesh (talk) 01:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with a list of manga chapters articles, which is the standard approach to this sort of thing. We already have List of xxxHolic episodes. Doceirias (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of xxxHolic chapters and edit to follow the standard format for a list of manga volumes and chpaters, following the model of the FL-class ones. Along the way, move the info about which chapters were adapted to which episode to the episode list. (If you want me to be explicit, we can put a "Keep and" in front.) —Quasirandom (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would disagree with this. This list is not very useful or appropriate for converting to a proper chapter list as it has little to no information of value to such a list. With the combination of summaries in "arcs", even the summaries are useless. Collectonian (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it'll take work -- including adding publication info and rewriting the summaries. But really, a list of chapters is what it's trying to be, only it's divided internally by stories instead of externally by volumes. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails this and WP:SYN - and there are no reliable sources to prove notability - Milk's Favorite Cookie 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - completely meaningless out of context. Deb (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect/Rewrite. What this article really wants to be is a list of manga/anime chapters/episodes, chunked by sections, each of which is an arc. --Gwern (contribs) 22:59 25 March 2008 (GMT) 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you think it should be merged (and what should be merged)? Aside from the unsourced parallels between certain chapters and episodes, the rest is just detailed (and not entirely clear) plot summary. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:04, 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 05:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ProteomeCommons.org Tranche Network[edit]

Does not appear to pass WP:WEB The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I'm not sure WP:WEB is the applicable guideline, there are no independent reliable sources cited, and notability is dubious at best. -- Kesh (talk) 01:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That many external links in the body of an article is always a red flag. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleidoscopography[edit]

Non notable neoglism, article possibly created to push a website. Serious original research problems. Prod removed by author without comment. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Borderline advertising, and a neologism no matter how you slice it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Along with TenPoundHammer, no sources. -WarthogDemon 00:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here is the Justification. I am an artist and have developed the terms to define my style. 5th World Art defines the approach and mindset. The terms, Kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich, define two distinct styles. I am proud of these techniques that I developed myself. The intent is to post these on Wikipedia to define all three terms. These are legitimate and the result of my efforts. The links to the web sites are there to describe the work and provide reference. These are my first postings on Wikipedia and I have found documentation to be lacking in usability. I have not yet found a getting started. I have been pouring through the documentation to understand the process. Honestly, I thought posting information would be much easier. I welcome any comments on approach and articles on how to use this. I did find the articles on sections. However, if anyone can comment on how to reply to these, I would appreciate your time! - 5thWorldArt
Delete - I'm sorry you found Wikipedia to be difficult to use, 5thWorldArt. It can be a little difficult to learn, and starting with your own article is often the hardest way to do it. I'm afraid that this article fails several of our guidelines, notably against original research. You have stated that you made the terms up yourself, which is not material that is allowed here. Articles need to be about notable subjects, and that notability is established by cited sources which have documented both its existence and its historical or social importance. Once your terms have gained traction in the art community, and there are books or documentaries about their use, we could have an article here about them. -- Kesh (talk) 01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5th world art. J Milburn (talk) 02:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagre Google "Kaleidoscopography" and you will find someone else has started using this term. I find it odd that your rules delete articles when Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. I may have made this up but this defines an art style. I have seen terms defined that are pure marketing and their logos used and frustrated by this line of reasoning. I am a legitimate user and have a term to define. I ask, if this cannot be posted here, where can it be posted. At what point does someone decide this is of social or historical importance? - 5thWorldArt
- Regardless of whether a few people on the web are using your term, you have to provide reliable sources to show its significance to the art world. Wikipedia is not a place for you to promote yourself or your creations. Get a few independent magazines or documentaries about your new terms, and then you'd satisfy our notability guidelines. -- Kesh (talk) 02:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unfortunately, defining something and then hoping someone will use it is not how notable is used. King Pickle (talk) 02:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neologism and something admittedly made up one day. No assertion of notability. No sources to show any coverage of any kind anywhere. Wikipedia is for after something has been established as notable. It's not the place to try to make something notable. DarkAudit (talk) 03:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like an advertising. Crespus2006 (talk) 05:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. MADEUP and spammy. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per WP:NEO. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia and these rules as they pertain to these descriptions equate to art censorship!!! This is about Art and a style that has been purchased. I have three pages that have been deleted, 5thworldart (5th world art), kaleidoscopography and Opalescent Zurich. Within two weeks each will have a web site presenting the art and a discussion on what each is. Currently you are welcome to browse www.5thworldart.com however, this site is a draft and is to be broken into four web sites. Each of the styles are in private homes (by collectors) and a very reputable design showroom is considering taking on my art as a new frontier. I am very serious about my work and the terms are being used. As for being "spammy" - if i were spamming, i would use other profiles to come back at this. spam is not in my ethics dna. there are worlds within worlds out there and this art is not of your world. I respectfully request that wiipedia restore these pages.

--5thworldart (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Show us reliable sources and we will. It's not so difficult. If these are such valid terms, how come no one but you has ever written about them? J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism with no reliable sources. Klausness (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pajarillo Family[edit]

I should probably speedy this, but let's get some eyes. Unreferenced with disparaging comments about living individuals violating WP:BLP. But deletion is probably best as whilst the individuals may be noteworthy lumping them together as a mafia-style family is clearly loaded and prejudicial. Especially without any sources dealing with them as such. Doc^g 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A clear violation of WP:BLP. Victoriagirl (talk) 00:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:BLP. Unverifiable but some of family names belong to real people. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per above Izzy007 Talk 21:38, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. Editors undertaking to perform this merge are reminded to follow WP:MERGE, for the sake of the GFDL. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall Ranch Elementary[edit]

Non notable elementary school. Attempt to redirect to local school district reverted without explanation. No reliable secondary sources cited in article, none found in a Google search. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The elementary band was one of only two elementary bands in the United States to be invited to play at the International Assoctiation. The article needs work but thats pretty notable. Eóin (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the Jazz band notability and then redirect to school district. Eóin (talk) 03:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Eóin (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Undecided yet on keep or redirect but do not delete. The band appearance can be verified.[1] • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just read the linked story. That's still some pretty trivial coverage.Beeblbrox (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to district: Non-notable, with only trivial coverage. This is as expected for a primary school. CRGreathouse (t | c) 02:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peoria Unified School District. Certainly not just a redirect since there is notability to merge. TerriersFan (talk) 04:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not opposed to that at all. PUSD could use the content; most of the article is just lists. CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Peoria Unified School District of course, as per Terriersfan. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Peoria Unified School District. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:25, 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 deleted without prejudice to recreating this article once the novel is released. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy (novel)[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. PROD removed by anonymous IP, saying "I don't see why it should be deleted if there's an official author announcement." The specific guideline at WP:BK#Not yet published books is quite clear that articles about not yet published books "are generally discouraged unless multiple independent sources provide strong evidence that the book is widely anticipated"; that is in line with the general notability guideline, and serves a useful purpose in discouraging use of Wikipedia for advertisement by every author who announces a book. This article clearly fails that standard - the only source is the author's web-site; and this is the only contribution of the originator Zachary yamada (talk · contribs), raising the suspicion that it is promotion. On the other hand, we don't appear to apply this standard in practice: Category:Upcoming books has over 200 entries. I looked at half a dozen at random and none, not one, cited any independent source; some did not even have a publication date. Have we, in effect, given up on the notability standard? I make no recommendation, I would like to see what the consensus is. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I can't find any independent indication this book is being published, or by a major publisher, etc. No discrimation against the artlce being recreated later if more sources are found. As for the nominator's comments, it varies depending upon the book. I beg to differ that all the books in the category are unsourced, etc. A prime example is And the Hippos Were Boiled in Their Tanks, a lost Jack Kerouac/William S. Burroughs novel coming out soon, and the Bond novel Devil May Care. Both have numerous media reports surrounding their releases. As for other books, it's a case of Wikipedia needing to update its standards to the 21st Century as in many cases official websites and commercial sites are the only initial source for this information. That's why I'm only saying weak delete because if someone can add a bit of info to this article to suggest it isn't vanity press or something like that, then I'm quite willing to change my vote. 23skidoo (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - there are sources confirming this book http://chuckpalahniuk.net/news/plot-chuck-palahniuks-2009-novel-pygmy-revealed , but that's still not much info at the moment. Goldenglove^{Contribs · Talk} 15:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral I'm leaning towards weak keep and weak delete Nothing 444 21:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless properly sourced CP, who wrote Fight Club, is a major author. I'd accept an article about a forthcoming book by a major author with his article in WP who has previously written what we consider notable books, on the odds that the next one will be also, if there is some good 3rd party sourcing that it is indeed a forthcoming book. I'm not happy about "to be released as early as 2009." He's just written the first draft, or so he says. This is too near CRYSTAL, without even a publication date.DGG (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough information at the moment. When there's more solid and reliable information is the time for this article. SilkTork *^YES! 22:23, 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 18:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pierce College Library (LACCD)[edit]

The article is an instruction manual written by a single editor. It also appears to be, loosely, an advertisement. George D. Watson (Dendodge).Talk^Help 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. Deor (talk) 23:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have said merge but there's nothing salvageable, WP:HOWTO TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 01:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like somebody's test page. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless a real article can be written. This is a incorrect use of wikipedia. Perhaps the author will help us write more apprpriate pages on the subject of helping students use libraries, instead of doing it here for just his college. DGG (talk) 09:33, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the French Navy[edit]

This article violates WP:CRYSTAL. There are not much sources, no need for such speculative article. Any noteworthy information can be merged into the article French Navy. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to French Navy. Why was this an AFD? Use {{mergeinto}} next time. --Dhartung | Talk 22:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:Crystal concern. MrPrada (talk) 22:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep There are thousands of possible sources on France's naval procurement plans which can be used and similar articles exist for the Royal Australian Navy, Royal Navy and Royal New Zealand Navy. All the information in this article appears to be correct, so it is not crystal ball gazing. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CRYSTAL and what Dhartung said. — ComputerGuy890100^{Talk to me}_{What I've done to help Wikipedia} 00:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per above; short, somewhat speculative, constantly changing, really ought to be folded into another article. TomTheHand (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above TomStar81 (Talk) 02:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've been able to confirm all details about ship construction in the latest edition of Jane's Fighting Ships (a very reliable source) and have updated the article. Contracts have been signed for the construction of most of these ships, and construction has begun in several instances, so there's no cystal ball gazing going on here. The article is in no way speculative as it is an accurate statement of the French Navy's future plans and should only change as French naval procurement plans change and new ships are delivered and ordered, which is an advantage of Wikipedia not being a paper encyclopedia. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge per everyone except the author. :) The "future" belongs in a "projections" section in the main French navy article. WP:NOT#PAPER is not a free pass for inclusion, and the WP:FUTURE/WP:CRYSTAL violation is valid grounds for delete. This is not a one-shot event, and the long-term maintenance of these projections must be kept in mind as well. -- Fullstop (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not the article's 'author', and didn't know that it existed until I spotted it as being listed for deletion. I don't see how ships which have been authorised by the French government are 'projections' and updating this kind of article is hardly a burden given the slow rate at which naval ships are built and the infrequent changes to shipbuilding plans. --Nick Dowling (talk) 23:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep the article is sufficiently documented. As explained by Nick Dowling, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply here at all. There is absolutely no valid reason to delete this article while keeping List of future Intel Core 2 microprocessors for instance. Med (talk) 13:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is encyclopedic information which should stay in Wikipedia. Talk and/or project pages can be used to discuss whether this should be an independent article or should be merged with French Navy. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not much different than Integrated Deepwater System Program and Zumwalt class destroyer. It does, however need expansion and or renaming. If Integrated Deepwater System Program had been named Future of the US Coast Guard it likely would have landed here as well. --Brad (talk) 23:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Note that WP:CRYSTAL states "scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". There really shouldn't be a question of notability for this one. Also note that construction has started on a number of the ships; funding has also been secured for ships that have not begun construction. This would indicate that the events are almost certain to occur. WP:CRYSTAL appears to be irrelevant to this discussion. Parsecboy (talk) 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see a good argument for deletion. WP:CRYSTAL requires articles to not be unverifiable speculation, in other words they should not be original research. This article deals with modernization plans in the French Navy with several references so it is a verifiable article. It is also not speculation as of the four ship building projects discussed in the article one is quite advanced (both Horizon class destroyers are undergoing trials prior to entering service), two are under contract and construction has already began (FREMM class frigates and Barracuda class submarines) and the last one is planned, budgeted and inches away from a contract. in conclusion, the article is not unverifiable and is not speculative. Why should we delete it? --Victor12 (talk) 16:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, this article was originally created to lighten French Navy and History of the French navy, the naming being inspired by Future of the Royal Navy. It seems that when a Navy is documented enough on Wikipedia, a "procurement" or "future" article appears, as illustrated by Procurement programme of the Royal Australian Navy, Future of the Royal Navy, Royal New Zealand Navy Future Plans. In this light I would favour keep over merge. Rama (talk) 11:48, 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 18:09, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Boyle[edit]

Non-notable actress, appearances in two shorts are her only claim of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 21:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. No indication that Boyle has been the subject of any secondary source material. This link appears to indicate that at least one of the two short films mentioned was a "student film". Victoriagirl (talk) 00:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no roles of significance -- Whpq (talk) 15:37, 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 delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conceptualist[edit]

This article is given no context. If Conceptualist is a personality type, what typology is it a part of? Either there should be an article about the typology with the Conceptualist and Experimentalist types described in it (since they're stubs now anyway), or it should be deleted as non-notable. ParagonDoD (talk) 06:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Does show some good content. Littleteddy (roar!) 08:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very weak article, good neither as part of some experimentalist/conceptualist Psychology 101 contrast nor as providing context on wider use of conceptualist, e.g. in art. The Experimentalist article might also go? AllyD (talk) 23:37, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is going nowhere.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 10:03, 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, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, both terms worth brief discussion in David Galenson and Old Masters and Young Geniuses is probably WP:BK material where these new terms can be dealt with in detail. They are not widely accepted, though, in the way that other personality types are. --Dhartung | Talk 22:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The article offers no reliable secondary sources, therefore it qualifies as a fringe theory. If this article is kept then Wikipedia would IMO be "the validating source for non-significant theories". ⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 04:54, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge and redirect. There has been an effort already undertaken by Pixelface and others to merge the content. The consensus here is rather split, about 1:1 (weighted) to delete or keep/merge. That results in a non-consensus that defaults to keep. Since the "keep" stances are primarily merge, and since the merge has already been done...I'll finish the redirects (and keep the history of each new redirect intact per GFDL.) Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 15:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Redirects are complete to their respective sections of the parent article. Page histories intact at the redirect pages. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gargantua (Half-Life)[edit]

Also including:

Contested prod, and someone reverted the redirects on all of these. Cruft with no reliable third party sources or references. Fails WP:FICT. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Some just delete the attack methods part, because that info isn't really important, but keep all of the other info.
Merge into a new list, List of Half-Life universe creatures; I've been wanting to do this for some time, but never got around to it Sceptre ^(talk) 22:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sceptre, but remove the original research while doing this. --Nick Dowling (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Entirely in-universe information, primarily WP:SYN derived from the game. No sources cited whatsoever. Removing the OR would leave nothing but a list of names, which isn't worth creating a new List article over. -- Kesh (talk) 01:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Wikipedia is not game guide. Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as gameguide. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all: as unsourced cruft. Fortathenry (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT. I also find the WP:GAMEGUIDE claims refuse to cite specifics. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sceptre and Nick. Web searches turn up crazy numbers of hits and even a few news sources. Given the notability of the parent, I think one page for all of these makes sense. Hobit (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a game guide Nothing 444 21:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment cruft isn't a valid reason for deletion and those commenting on the game guide part probably should explain what part of that these articles are in violation of. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I didn't mean just merge these articles in. Also do the same with Antlion. There's a wealth of information in the book Half-Life 2: Raising the Bar (which IIRC, I have). Sceptre ^(talk) 23:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a new article. I already have the information archived from a rough merge provided by David Fuchs in my userspace and I'm just trying to find the time to carry out the work. I'm happy and really keen to work with Sceptre on a properly sourced collaboration on this, along with any other interested parties. Gazimoff (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - related AfD discussion can be found here, where the initial merger proposal was discussed.Gazimoff (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At worst merge to a new list; Half-Life is one of the most important game series ever, and there are numerous strategy guides, primary sources, and the book that Sceptre mentions that can be used to source the articles. The amount of information for each character can be decided as a content issue within the article. — brighterorange (talk) 00:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Most of the other creatures in Half Life have their own articles. Headcrabs, Garguantias, etc. If not keep merge with the headcrab article. BWF89 (talk) 23:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Stuff from the games is notable, but collectively, not individually. In other words, the content is legitimate for WP, but there's no reason to have it at independent articles. Croctotheface (talk) 02:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, I know I could improve this article but after working on Hazardous Environment Combat Unit it was deleted anyway. I thought you already merged these David Fuchs? Cruft is not a valid reason for deletion. And who gives a damn what WP:FICT says? --Pixelface (talk) 02:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (preferably) or Merge. None of these have any arguable real-world notability which could justify their own articles. (Least of all the chumtoad, which doesn't even have any appearances in the Half-Life games except as an Easter Egg!) I'm just glad to see the article on the carnivorous leech no longer exists. :) Terraxos (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no real reason to delete this article. It follows Wikipedia necessities that mimic many other video game monster, and also has a reason to exist and inform. No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.65.39.33 (talk) 02:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wikipedia:Deletion policy by benefit of the doubt. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PureH[edit]

An underground group. No coverage. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network (Radio Slovenia Val202, 25.1.2008, 20-21h, ORF FM4 30.9.2007, 00-01, http://fm4.orf.at/station/220076, TV Slovenija etc.)

Collaborations with notable artists such as KK Null, DJ Surgeon, Eraldo Bernocchi.

Interviews in printed media (Dnevnik, Muska) and national radio and TV stations (TV Slovenija, Radio Slovenija), in 90's.

Sources:

"PUREH - ena od najbolj pomembnih elektronskih skupin z začetka slovenske scene elektronske glasbe." http://www.radiostudent.si

"Ne znam dal je ulazak u europsku uniju imao kakvih utjecaja na ovu slovensku skupinu, no, ovo je album na europskom nivou, ako vec ne na svjetskom." http://www.terapija.net

"Hier ist die Schnittstelle zwischen Hochkultur und Popkultur in diesem Werk vereint." http://www.elektrauma.de

"Pure H delajo glasbo, katera je za slovensko sceno vec kot potrebna. Tudi novi album je pomemben del tega mozaika, saj je izredno kvaliteten in unikaten izdelek." http://www.radiostudent.si

"This album is a must for lovers of unique IDM and for people in search of a new sound. Absolute brilliant!" http://www.cuemix-magazine.com

"Unterhalb der ranzigen Mainstream Fettschicht wächst der Electro Underground und bringt interessante Gewächse wie „Anadonia“ zum Erblühen." http://www.musik.terrorverlag.de

"Menite, da v domovini ni muskontarjev, ki bi stružili zlobni, darkerski drum&bass, breakbeat in ambientalo, da ne premoremo nikogar, ki bi z zvokom in sliko, pa brez jokavega patosa ustvaril razklano vzdušje razklanega, izkoreninjenega sveta? Znova premislite in si omislite plošcek menda tajske crede konjev, ki brcajo kot štirje in drevijo kot Pegaz." http://www.mladina.si

"On Signia we are dealing with a musical expression of truly renewing free minds." http://www.compulsiononline.com

"PureH are a successful electronic rock band out of Slovenia" http://brainwashed.com

"Eden izmed najboljših izdelkov letošnjega leta. Zveni moderno, eklekticno, cvrsto. 10 modernih produkcij, skoordiniranih iz naše majhne državice." http://www.rockonnet.com

"Prvoborci domacega elektro preporoda v devetdesetih, pogojno celo novorockerji." http://www.rtvslo.si

"Et l'inconvénient pressenti, de devenir un véritable avantage, quand apres plusieurs écoutes, on finit face a cette conception de l'électro, qu'on aime retrouver : plurielle et innovante. L'effet "bordélique" évité, et mis de côté quelques longueurs, on peut reconnaître la une réelle réussite." http://www.dmute.net

"So hat PUREH bereits auf der Hannoveraner Weltausstellung 2000 gespielt und ich könnte mir die Klänge gut im Rahmen von Ausstellungen der bildenden Kunst oder bei Videoinstallationen vorstellen." http://backagain.de

"PureH drenches one with an array of sonic abrasions that Nine Inch Nails couldn’t call window dressing." http://www.smother.net

"PureH is a band from Slovenia and active in the underground electro music scene since 1993." Rigodon Netherlands

"Skupina z basistom in odlicnim bobnarjem, ki sta nadgrajevala elektroniko, je nastopila v temi, tako da je glasba delovala kot nekakšen soundtrack." http://www.dnevnik.si

"Nisem še doživel takšnega hard core koncerta!" Revija Muska

J3az6u (talk) 02:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you have quoted have been reviewing underground bands too and you have missed the following:

"As PureH were unable of at least a relative breakthrough into the consciousness of domestic listeners in the years when illbient was at its height, so less will they be able to do it now. This kind of music is unpleasant, untrendy, cold and too "real" to win the hearts of the majority."[2] Or of the quotes you yourself have provided: "Unterhalb der ranzigen Mainstream Fettschicht wächst der Electro Underground und bringt interessante Gewächse wie „Anadonia“ zum Erblühen."[3], "PureH is a band from Slovenia and active in the underground electro music scene since 1993." (Rigodon Netherlands).

As I said: The group is underground and nothing proves otherwise. This article was already deleted once.[4] --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pure H is NOT a pop (or mainstream or turbofolk or techno or...) group, they are underground, you are right about that. Is that bad? Read about underground culture.

"Only underground bands reviewing" (as you said) sources:

mladina.si: they reviewed N'toko, Magnifico, Sestre, The Stroj, Trkaj, Helena Blagne Zaman, Amateur God, Zablujena generacija, Zaklonišče prepeva, Lara Baruca,etc.

brainwashed.com: they reviewed Sunn O))), Autechre, Zeni Geva, Merzbow, Burial, Skullflower, Jesu, Supersilent etc.

musik.terrorverlag.de: they reviewed Laibach, Moby, Dismember, Rob Zombie etc.

cuemix-magazine.com: they reviewed Carl Craig, Apparat, The Orb, Scorn etc.

and so on...

You can't say that national radio (Radio Slovenija Val202), national television (TVSLO) and national newspaper (Dnevnik) cover only underground music.

Your quote [1]-Rock obrobje- he talks: "to win the hearts of the majority" - and you know what listen the majority in Slovenia...

AFAIK, this article was never deleted.

J3az6u (talk) 16:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said they were reviewing only underground bands or that underground is bad. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 18:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, what's wrong with "an underground group"? J3az6u (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's wrong. It just doesn't meet the notability criteria. You say it has been the subject of a half hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network. The archives of Val202 (2008-01-25 20-21 per you) don't mention PureH at all. Where can your statement be verified then? The four parts of Signia played on ORF[5] (2007-09-30, 00-01) don't take half an hour or longer as the majority of the broadcast focused on the British Sixtoo. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 08:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Duplicative of above; stricken to avoid inference of more varied support than currently exsits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC) If you check out Discogs you will see that Sixtoo tracks are much shorter... so if you count 4 Pure H tracks it comes 28 minutes, and 31 minutes for 11 Sixtoo tracks. Basically half an hour Pure H, half an hour Sixtoo. The archives of Val 202 are mostly empty: Nova Elektronika, but i found the source where you can download the show: Nova Elektronika 25.1.2008 with more than 30 minutes of Pure H.[reply]

I'm saying that this article meets multiple criterion of WP:MUSIC guidelines - its members were also in another band(s), the band released several albums, newspaper and magazine articles, has been the subject of a half hour broadcast across a national radio and TV.

However, there is not much "google" evidence of Pure H activity in the 90s (like TV broadcast of Novi Rock, interviews on national radio and television and in newspapers) and that doesn't mean there's no activity at all. -J3az6u (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Bad reviews are just as much evidence of notability as good ones. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability per WP:MUSIC. They don't even have an article at the Slovenian wiki. Eusebeus (talk) 18:37, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, what i understand german in reference (4) you can read that "in Slovenia, Pure H is considered a group that started a new musical revolution that according to the critics, goes directly into the artery." The Wire magazine in (2) is a good reference. Also a lot of reviews in 8 languages in independent media - refernce (5). As for the comment above, Slovenian Wiki is very small and they don't have much topics, that's not a criterion. Tirpes (talk) 01:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dekadent[edit]

An underground and not notable band. No independent sources. Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:02, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Yet to release an album on a proper label. No coverage.--Michig (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability, or reliable secondary sources. MrPrada (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:26, 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of computer system manufacturers[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory swa q 20:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Does have more info than a category. I'd organize it better and remove all the external links. --Dhartung | Talk 21:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Some of the external links are there to establish notability for redlinked companies. (I think one of the possible justifications for this article as opposed to a category would be its listing of notable companies with no WP article as of yet, although I'm still inclined to say weak delete.)--NapoliRoma (talk) 02:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, with serious rewrite. At the moment, it should be deleted - Wikipedia is not a directory. However the article could be saved should the article keep itself to "top 5" style lists with notable sources. A similar article was saved from deletion by doing just that: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of photovoltaics companiesunsigned comment by StephenBuxton
Delete. With a serious overhaul and strict limitations on what is listed, this could be a halfway decent article. However I feel it promotes advertising, spamming, external linking, etc. swa q 21:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is not a directory - no prices, no phone numbers, no promotions - nothing which the policy cites. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lists and categories are complementary, not redundant. For example, lists can provide alternative sorting or short descriptions or references. It needs cleanup, sure, but not deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 19:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every article is subject to spam and self promotion. But the Wiki population does a good job of controlling that. A list is informative and can be used for research regarding companies that come, go and get merged. When does a list become appropriate? When discussing automobiles, is a list of car companies appropriate?unsigned comment by Alan Richards

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

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

The result was Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Shivers[edit]

per WP:FICT. No references. No real-world information. The JPS ^{talk to me} 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 23:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete How much can you write about a person from one film? —97198 talk 13:28, 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 withdrew. Carlosguitar ^{(ready and willing)} 10:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spider (utensil)[edit]

~~Non-notable kitchen utensil.~~ Polly (Parrot) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Withdraw nom. Polly (Parrot) 02:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Reads like pretty blatant advertising to me. Given the fairuse rationale in the image, it seems like this page was previously speedied under another title. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung, does seem to be used in Asian cooking regularly; I guess I need a Wikibreak, I'm really acting strange today. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Could the nominator please expand a little on what the conerns are? The references and external links would seem to indicate that spiders get talked about by people in the relevant field, which is pretty much the Wikipedia definition of notability. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for the nominator, but which sources do you think constitute substantial coverage? I see a cooking school listing which gives a very trivial mention, as well as an Amazon listing -- and those don't constitute substantial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked for some substantial coverage of this utensil, but couldn't find anything but passing mentions. This utensil is known by various names from Wok skimmer to the plain fine mesh skimmer, but as a specific type of skimmer it just doesn't seem notable enough. Maybe move it to Skimmer (utensil) and include any other specific types of culinary skimmers. Polly (Parrot) 01:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While this reads like a catalog entry, the "spider" is a fairly common utensil in Asian cooking. There are Google Books sources that could be used. No opinion on the photo which seems to be replicated on a number of shopping sites. --Dhartung | Talk 21:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs a rewrite, but any decent book about cooking utensils should have info on this. I've got at least one at home I can cite later (by Alton Brown). -- Kesh (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep – Well known Asian utensil. Holds the same notability as Spoon – Fork and Knife. Shoessss | Chat 20:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination evidence seems to be that this utensil is widely used, though comparing it to a spoon, fork or knife is probably a tad OTT. Polly (Parrot) 02:07, 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 Speedily Deleted A7 -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 00:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hollowrock Revue[edit]

Non-notable band, no coverage in reliable third party sources. Polly (Parrot) 20:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7 Just playing warmup isn't enough to assert notability; no other claims are even present in the article. So tagged. I'm guessing they must have been really obscure, given the utter lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:01, 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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New account opening[edit]

Article fails WP:NEO, and WP:NOT. Does not belong in an encyclopedia Hu12 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't think that is a neologism. It feels like there is a fair amount of OR in there, but a bit of careful sprinkling with the appropriate references should satisfy that concern. StephenBuxton (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a neologism, but unsourced, original research and more like a how-to guide or manual than an encyclopedia article. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per /half my nom. Agree with JohnCD its unsourced and original research --Hu12 (talk) 20:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to bank account, etc. --Dhartung | Talk 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Bank account doesn't talk about how the account is opened. --Pesco (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete original research, read like a a how-to guide Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It is a valid topic and just needs work. See Know your customer for some aspects of this. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete - The primary issue is whether the article subject is notable enough for an entry. If that is satisfied, I think the rest of the article needs to be and can be heavily edited to meet standards as it reads as a weak academic essay right now. As far as notability, I know from the legal aspect there has been legislation in the U.S. requiring proof of customer identity to open the account in order to prevent money laundering and terrorist funding. --Pesco (talk) 02:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just read Know your customer. I think the most notable and sourcable information from New account opening is already or belongs there, instead. Changed my vote. --Pesco (talk) 02:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but the page should have more added to it.--RyRy5 talk 20:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic how-to that simply does not belong here. Eusebeus (talk) 18:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge into The Dark Crystal. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Power of the Dark Crystal[edit]

Film seems to be lost in "development hell", as there is no current information on the status of the project. The article says production is expected to begin in 2006. The production blog for the movie dried up a long time ago. Therefore, delete per Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Beeblbrox (talk) 20:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — I agree that this production has apparently died. However, it apparently made it into some preproduction stage. I propose that it be cut down to about one half or one third of its current size and merged as a section in The Dark Crystal. — Val42 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It would be an article as soon as the movie comes out and people review it, but until then, it is actually kind of useless. Mentioning the sequel in The Dark Crystal article should suffice.

——

The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - It is hopefully still coming out ,s oit does not violate wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant info to The Dark Crystal. Also troutslap The Unknown Hitchhiker for having so much obnoxious HTML code in his/her signature! :) -- Kesh (talk) 02:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per others. Fails WP:NFF. PC78 (talk) 08:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - into The Dark Crystal. There is no reason for it to have an article yet. ♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 08:28, 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 as hoax. Hut 8.5 21:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Monvilla[edit]

Today's entry from CAT:HOAX. This village does not exist. The grid reference given is a one-kilometre square in the location described, but the Ordnance Survey 1:25,000 map, which is detailed enough to show individual farms, does not show "Monvilla", there or anywhere nearby. To check the map, go to the Ordnance Survey website here, click the large pink button and enter SJ325375 in the search box. You can try entering "Monvilla", but if you have popups blocked you won't see the popup which says the Ordnance Survey can't find it.

A quick look at Google does give the impression that this place exists; but I think automatic systems must have been picking it up from this article (which has been in for more than two years) because, when you try to pin Monvilla down, it fades away like a mirage. "Thetownguide.com" has an entry for it under Shropshire here; but if you scroll down the long list of villages and click on "Monvilla" there is no information. If you then choose "aerial photo and road map", you get a map of Tennessee because "The closest match for 'Monvilla, Shropshire' is 'Monoville, Smith, Tennessee, United States'". "England for all" has a page about it here, but it doesn't say anything, and the "Books about Monvilla" it offers are just general books to do with Shropshire. I can't find anything about its "Druidic temple" either.

Originator Nikolas.Evans (talk · contribs) has made no other constructive edits.

Delete as a hoax article which may have been misleading other sites. JohnCD (talk) 20:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, seems to be a hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beeblbrox (talk • contribs)
Speedy delete G3 Appears to be a hoax to me, given the utter lack of information. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:03, 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 21:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fatherhood dreams[edit]

Doesn't pass notability - there are four links on the page - one to the movie's site, three that each have a one-paragraph description of the film (two of those are exactly the same). Furthermore, the page was up for Speedy since a large portion of it is copied from fatherhooddreams.com, though the creator of the article says he wrote the words and is granting copyright - or something like that, but it's murky. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 19:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - a documentary that has been shown on a national network. However, little in the way of reviews and no indication that it has made any impact. At the moment it just fails to clear the bar but I am open to persuasion. BlueValour (talk) 05:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To prove it's impact I've linked a Vancouver Sun 3 page article on the subjects of the doc and the doc itself. Page 2 talks with the director of the film. This was read by everyone in western Canada, the show was seen everywhere in Canada, and now the show will be shown everywhere else and hit a festival circuit outside of Canada. Wikipedia is trying to catalog as many films as possible and I think this film should be there. This film will also be hitting libraries near you shortly.(Fatherhooddreams (talk) 19:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)).[reply]
Delete for now per WP:MOVIE criteria. Only aired once on television and basically no independent coverage of the film that would demonstrate notability. The one newspaper article linked only briefly mentions the movie. No entry at the IMDb or similar database. If the distribution is expanded and the film receives wider coverage this can be recreated later, but currently there doesn't appear to be enough verifiable source material for an article here. shoeofdeath 21:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Agree w/Satyr. Eusebeus (talk) 18:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Bduke (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Narito Ang Puso Ko[edit]

Delete as per WP:N and WP:V. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines for ~~films~~ TV series (sorry, drunken otters again). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 15:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. —Beloved Freak 15:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, then edit. The article is badly written, but it is about a 2003 Philippine soap opera. Sources can be found here, here, here, and here (although most of it are merely mentions of the soap, because web archiving was unheard of in the Philippines at that time). Starczamora (talk) 02:15, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If this was an equivalent American soap opera we would have articles about each episode, each character, each location, each fictional brand of beer drunk etc. etc., so should we really be considering deleting an article on the whole serial? Phil Bridger (talk) 22:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All TV series that aired are notable by default. --Howard the Duck 07:15, 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 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 Redirect to Rock and Roll Jesus. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:08, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Summer Long (Kid Rock song)[edit]

It's been tagged as non-notable and unreferenced for some days, but nothing has been done about that. The song fails WP:MUSIC for songs, because it has not charted. The only possible claim of notability is the guest performance of Billy Powell of Lynyrd Skynyrd, but this information is unsourced, as well. Victao lopes (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rock and Roll Jesus, the album that this song is included on. That's pretty much the norm for pages on non-notable songs like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:42, 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. Bduke (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rashon Graves[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO. Though a hit in google returns few pages with this name but still notability is not sufficient to pass WP:BIO. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 14:49, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources or references and badly written Dreamspy (talk) 21:26, 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 Redirect to album per precendence, as set out at WP:MUSIC guidelines. History intact per GFDL. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four-fifty-one[edit]

Non-notable song. After removing lyrics of the song from the article, which was a copyvio, article rehashes information already in All The Hype That Money Can Buy, the article on the album the song comes from. No indication of significant secondary source coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC. Redfarmer (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to album; that's pretty much normal procedure for pages on non-notable songs like this. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:43, 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 speedy delete per copyright infringement of http://www.hillwallack.com/web-content/news/article_v18n1_10.html. 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

LGBT Law in Pennsylvania[edit]

This page contains original research, is clearly biased, does not meet any of Wikipedia's style guidelines, and appears to simply act as an advertisment for Ms Hardwick RJE42 (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:OR, WP:NOT#PUBLISHER. The article is even attributed to the author. Likely copyvio but I couldn't locate the article. Redfarmer (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also Wikipedia is not a soapbox. JohnCD (talk) 20:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. One might also add WP:NOT#GUIDE. There are few parts of WP:NOT that this doesn't violate. Deor (talk) 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's being used with consent of Attorney Hardwick and the firm that employes her, then it's not just an essay, it's a promotional piece that could fairly be compared to advertising for the law firm of Hill Wallack LLP. If it's being used without the consent of the firm and the attorney, then it's unauthorized. Mandsford (talk) 20:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:SOAPBOXing, vanispamcrufisement essay. --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above - WP:SOAPBOX, OR, etc, etc, etc.King Pickle (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as personal essay, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:OR, etc. My first clue is the fact this carries a byline. 23skidoo (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I finally found the copyvio so I have now tagged the article for speedy deletion. Redfarmer (talk) 17:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep - article simply requires some good old fashion cleanup.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems[edit]

Unencyclopedic, and no attempt at finding sources seen since last AfD. This article was created quite a while ago by a now-banned user (some of the details are in the first AfD) who was apparently only interested in having the article say what he wanted; the article was lively until the socks were cleaned out, and all of a sudden there was no one there. The earlier consensus to keep leaned strongly in favor of there needing to be better sources for the article. Seven months later, nothing has really changed, except for some repetitive header vandalism. Each one of these types of pipes already has its own article, and there is nothing of substance that can be said that isn't already in one of the other articles in more depth. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree. Even though it do have some information about it, it isn't really needed any more, and each type of pipe already has its own article. There isn't much more information about it.

——

The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This serves an encyclopedic use as an overview of the different types of plastic pressure pipe systems. A reader wanting to know about the subject could well find this article via a search, but not one of the articles about specific types of systems which have technical names. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject seems notable, and I don't see the articles for individual types of pipe that MSJapan mentions (only articles for the individual types of plastic used in the pipe, which is very different). Klausness (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comments made in previous AfD still obtain. This is an article that requires work not deleting. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an obvious {{sofixit}} issue, not something to be resolved through deletion channels. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no one has bothered to add sources to or improve this article in any way after more than half a year ... I find it highly unlikely that anyone ever will. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion was re-opened after being incorrectly closed as a SNOW closure. Rudget . 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs improvement, not a delete. That no one has improved it is a shame but should not be a reason for removal.AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crufty and badly titled, seems to be used only for promotion of the significance of these things. A smerge to plastic pipe might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just sourced a few of the statements and if I had time, I would go through and clean the rest up. Plastic pipe redirects to this page so a smerge would not be appropriate. I can vouch that the information is mostly accurate and within 10 minutes of searching google (books and web), I was able to reference half the fact tags. spryde | talk 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the consensus was clear last time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reading the nom, I didn't expect much from this article. Now that I've read it, I deem it a keeper. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear Gravitation[edit]

Contested PROD, removed by author. Article was originally PROD'd for being pure WP:OR. Cites no secondary sources; fails WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom (as the Prod-er). The article appears to be ~~User: Mr. Opinion~~ Kenneth F. Wright's WP:OR ~~essay~~. Toddst1 (talk) 20:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure WP:OR. -- Kesh (talk) 02:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure OR, of a misguided sort.DGG (talk) 06:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A novel theory (to put it kindly), but the existence of the strong and weak interactions, as a key component of the Standard Model of particle physics, is widely accepted by scientists. A single web page which also details encounters with UFOs and provides designs for an ununpentium-powered flying saucer hardly seems an adequate source. Zetawoof_(ζ) 11:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pure original research. I wish the author good luck in getting it reported in some reliable sources if he wants it on Wikipedia. ~ Mazca (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Verkhovensky (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Bm gub (talk) 03:08, 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) 23:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zeus (band)[edit]

A perspective but still underground group. Their biggest success was winning the contest of the Festival Nova scena (festival that tries to promote unknown musicians) in 2005. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:49, 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, Davewild (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete does not appear to meet MUSIC. Is the Festival Nova Scena a notable competition? I don't think it helps that the username of the primary editor indicates that he is a member of the band. Not enough reason on its own, but notability is usually helped if someone else starts the article off. StephenBuxton (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The competition itself is notable. See Festival of New Songs. If being the winner of this competition is enough for inclusion in Wikipedia I would like to revoke the nomination. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Festival of New Songs is not a major music competition, in fact, it is a non-notable festival for new artists in Slovenia.

Check out this: "Festival of new songs is a festival for new and non-notable musicians from Slovenia and abroad." Source: http://www.evrovizija.com/?content=36&item_id=69

J3az6u (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Could someone provide a brief run-down of that festival link (in English) please? As the article's fate depends on whether or not the festival's competition is notable, a translation would help. Is it a major festival in Slovenia? StephenBuxton (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment Could anyone commenting/voting/holding an interest in this discussion please also check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Festival of New Songs? The fate of this article and the FENS do appear to be inter-linked: either they both stay, or they both go. StephenBuxton (talk) 22:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually the two are independent... the two authors who are arguing these cases the in opposition to one another. The one who want to see this article kept wants to see the other deleted. But even if the other is kept, winning it does not convey notability to said group.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete There is an interlink to the Slovene Wikipedia where this Group has a fairly significant article. I propose that the nominator for AfD here, take the article on Slovene Wikipedia to their version to AfD and once deleted there, we can delete here. Despite the fact that an article exists there, I do not believe that conveys automatic notability to the English version of Wikipedia. There is a clear COI issue as the author of both the Eng and Slovene articles appears to be a member of the group.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the present standing of the article, my opinion is a clear Delete. Beside the fact that the author of the article is a band member (presumably...), the article contains no references and does not assert notability. has released three albums, performed at over 1000 concerts, and has contributed to several charity and environmental causes does not count (no references, not clear is any of the concerts was on bigger scale, not said what the charity was about). Regarding Slovenian Wikipedia, the criteria for music groups are not so strict as here so generally it is enough to release an album with a review in a magazine with some reputation (hm, no third party references in this article there...). So, if there are no improvements of the article in the time available, I suggest deletion. And checking group-related articles at sl: wiki, they need a heavy cleanup at least. --Tone 21:40, 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.

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edward A. Robbins, Jr.[edit]

This is a biography of a Judge that only gets 2 google hits, and the references provided only mention his name in a list at the bottom of the page. Fails notability. Mars2035 (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - non-notable judge, no major or important cases Dreamspy (talk) 21:29, 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. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 05:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Page[edit]

Seems unnotable, I know it is not a reason for deletion, but as evidence you can see his last.fm page only has 9000 or so plays. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 20:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, AllMusic has a bio and may show WP:MUSIC is satisfied. --Dhartung | Talk 21:19, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - First section appears to be a copyvio of this or the third ref; they've got the same text, so take your pick. Not sure about notability after that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:23, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete author has tried hard to make subject look notable - but clearly isn't. Dreamspy (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Chetblong^Talk_Sign 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable musician, no independent references to indicate notability or verify the information given. Has a very self-promotion feel to the article. -- Kesh (talk) 06:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - There are tons more articles that are less notable than this. It could always be re-worked and cleaned up to make it more encyclopedic, but aside from the discography list, there doesn't seem to be any self-promotional feel in it at all. --haha169 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Setting aside the issue of issue of WP:WAX the proffered sources do not show that he meets WP:MUSIC. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Appears to meet minimal standards. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Kesh.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the sources are too thin to meet notability standards. The Allmusic bio is pretty vague making generalised assertions but with little in the way of hard examples. TerriersFan (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Paul F. Whelan[edit]

I PRODded this article, but the PROD was removed with the comment "full professor with two books, probably notable". We need more evidence than that to pass WP:PROF BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Delete per nom. Paste (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Pete.Hurd (talk) 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Unsure~~ First, a brief comment about the rank. Being a Professor in Irelend means rather more than being a Full Professor in the U.S. and corresponds to something like holding a named Chair or a Distinguished Professor rank in the U.S. I looked at the guy's own web site and there is quite a bit of biographical data there (I presume correct), some of which appears notable. For example, he was a member of the Governing Board for the The International Association for Pattern Recognition (IAPR), as confirmed by datae from IAPR's website[6]. On the other hand, a Google Scholar search gives only three reasonably well cited articles (14, 21, 45 citations). Given that, accoding to his web page, he has over 100 publications, I don't understand why the citation rates are so low. Could it be that Google Scholar misses many references in this field? I checked the Web of Science and the citation rates for Whelan are also very low there. So I don't quite understant what is going on here.... Nsk92 (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Very Weak Keep. When I looked more closely at his publication list and compared it to his Google Scholar record, it became clear that many of his publications in various conference proceedings, etc, do not show up in Google Scholar, presumably because of the way Goggle Scholar collects its data. I hate to use credentialism, but the fact that he has a personal chair appointment in Irelend, together with the fact that he has held substantial elective offices in scholarly societies (chairperson of Irish Pattern Recognition and Classification Society and a member of the governing board of the International Association for Pattern Recognition), together with his publication record, are probably enough to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Keep, per Sebastian Placois' comments. I still would very much prefer to see some explicit evidence of his influence on the work of others, either in terms of high citation rates or awards or in some other way. Nsk92 (talk) 04:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a field where peer-reviewed papers count for much. As you say, Scopus, WoS, and GS give overlapping incomplete results. Two major monographs from a major scientific publisher, one of which is in the second edition, is significant in showing him an expert in the field.Very few technical books ever reach a second edition. DGG (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Q: DGG, I take it that the book in second edition isn't the one in the bio which is noted to be in its second printing, is it? Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand notable professor who needs a real article to do him justice. Dreamspy (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Outstanding professor, but does not meet notability necessary to be in a encyclopedia. No offense for professors, but they are not notable just for being good professors. The article only relies on one single source which poorly supports the article, which is already poor, for two reasons. One, it is a primary source. Second, part of the page is written in first person which means that the information has been stated by himself. Thus, it does not meet notability nor reliability. He is an outstanding professional and I am sure he is in the right track to become notable and appear in a encyclopedia.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source and keep Here's in detail notability such as founding several computer research groups, conferences, articles, and multiple references of his work-supplied by user Jfire-. The problem was the the article is too poorly sourced. Thank you DGG for sharing your experienced knowledge. --Sebastian Palacios (talk) 03:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V allows the use of self-published materials if the information they contain is uncontroversial and there are no reasonable doubts as to its veracity. Regarding the standards for inclusion, neither WP:N nor WP:PROF require the subject of an article to be increadibly famous; rather, substantial prominence in their profession or field of endeavor is required. We do not require for academics to win the Nobel Prize to have a WP article about them, and neither do we require actors to win an Oscar before there is an entry about them. In fact, an encyclopedia is a catalogue of important information, rather than popular information. So an entry about an academic subject is more encyclopedic than something about the doings of the World Wrestling Federation... Nsk92 (talk) 11:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The encyclopedia should not be prejudiced against professional wrestlers. Professions get judged equally: the top levels are notable (or important, or outstanding, or noteworthy--all of them approximate synonyms with slight shades of meaning, but all implying appropriateness for an encyclopedia. What we regard of their social value, or the interest we take in them are other things entirely. I have no interest whatsoever in the career of major league baseball players. If other people find them entertaining or inspiring, I'm prepared to concede a degree of social importance. I have heard of a few, however, if they make the regular news sections of papers--the sports pages are a specialised not a general information source. I wouldn't dream of limiting the encyclopedia to only those few however, and what other professions should have is equal standing. Not equal criteria. the standard for baseball is full time professional standing on a major league team &, I think, playing in even a single game. As applied to faculty, that includes every assistant professor in a research university. But I don't claim them as encyclopedic, because that's not the top level. (and because in reality nobody in the profession thinks that's of more than highly provisional importance, including themselves.) Sports and academic make suitable comparison cases because there's a formal hierarchy. Many professions are much more impressionistic, like authorship or acting. They solve their own problem there by being very generous with awards and ranking lists. Each profession has its own standards. If we're going to work together, we have to accept each other's interests and standards. It's analgous to the way we treat different language/cultural areas equally.

Or shall we eliminate everything that we don't all agree belongs here? There's a sizable minority who do not really accept the role of porn stars and wrestlers, just as for academics. Shall we eliminate all but the ones of permanent historic interest to the general public, and go on from there? That probably eliminates most bishops and state legislators and even many best-selling novelists and musicians. Quick, how many internet figures do you think belong in the permanent record--how many can you name without being prompted? with being prompted? For that matter, how many members of another country's parliament? Is there any American here who can go down a list of people and pick out who are the British MPs? (I won't embarrass by asking about the Russian parliament.) How many saints does a non-Catholic recognize? (I wont embarrass and ask how many recognized Buddhist or Sufi saints a Christian would recognize.) Consensus means we have to put up with each other and accept minorities. Otherwise, the best we can aim at is a free internet version of the EB. that's a perfectly reasonable goal, and anyone who wants to do it can make a fork, and do a ReallyImportantPedia, DGG (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should move a long discussion like this off this AfD page and to a more appropriate forum. Let me just say, that in my (admittedly prejudiced) opinion, a hundred years from now the world will remember a lot more of the presently living academics than of the presently living professional wrestlers or, say, pornographic actors. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 17:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with DGG. Some people will remember academics other people porn actors; the both need to be considered. Even though I am purely Christian and I do not support pornography I have to be objective.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to meet WP:PROF. Article could use better sourcing though, (and is already tagged as such). No valid reasons to delete have been presented, IMO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Being a professor in this context means much more than it does in say the US. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Here's a more detailed CV, which includes details such as founding several computer vision research groups and directing the Centre for Image Processing & Analysis. Jfire (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I revised this article and it supports Professor's Whelan notability. The article can be improved and achieve WP:N.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No Consensus to delete. A merge may be appropriate but should probably be proposed in connection with merging other related articles. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Artemis (Marvel Comics)[edit]

Cruft, article makes no assertion of real world significance outside of the fictional Marvel Universe Whitstable 18:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or Merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics). BOZ (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As you created this article, could you please add secondary sources to demonstrate notability? Or is your approach to spam Wikipedia with non-notable topics as if it were a Marvel fansite? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to be more civil and assume good faith.... Hobit (talk) 23:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously. I might be wrong, but I think Gavin's regular violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are far worse than anything I've ever done on here. BOZ (talk) 00:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aplologies. Could you please add reliable secondary sources to this article as evidence of notability? All eyes are on you, BOZ. I hope you can come up with the goods. --Gavin Collins (talk) 23:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the first thing about finding reliable sources. I'm currently busy, but I'll soon be creating a place to merge comics characters like this to. Then maybe we can cut down on some of this AFD traffic, eh? I don't know what more you expect from me, other than what I've already said I don't know how to do. BOZ (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you can't add reliable secondary sources, why did you find time to create the article in the first place? Because WP:ILIKEIT? Is that the reason why you spam so many articles on non-notable topics that end up at AfD? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gavin, please dial down the rhetoric. I'm sure BOZ is acting in good faith in trying to expand the coverage of Marvel characters on Wikipedia. We should not be attacking editors who are trying to make good faith additions to the project. Exxolon (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sure he means well. For instance, he recently added a section to my talk page in which he cites his source. It is just a shame that he does not apply this approach to the hundred or so articles he has created in Wikipedia mainspace that he has first hand knowledge of. This is a fierce critism, I know, but baseed on the number of his articles that have been the subject of deletion debates, my view is that he appears to be using Wikipedia like it were Wookipedia, where I think he would be more at home. --Gavin Collins (talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the place to have an exhaustive collection of every single comic book character ever drawn. Paddy Simcox (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics), appropriate place and there seems to be enough information that need not be deleted outright. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics), I concur with 66.109.248.114, and Wikipedia has room for information about everything, Paddy, it just needs to be presented in a way that people can find what they are looking for without having an article for every single comic out there. Matthew Glennon (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
merge and redirect as above. Hobit (talk) 20:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least merge and redirect to Olympians (Marvel Comics). This character has appeared in Thor #129, Thor Annual #5, Thor: Blood Oath #3 & #4, Avengers #281, 283, 284, Incredible Hulk: Hercules Unleashed, Hercules vol 3. #4, and Ares #1. This article is short enough to merge, unlike some others in Category:Marvel Comics Olympians — like Hercules (Marvel Comics) or Ares (Marvel Comics). --Pixelface (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge as this is just one of hundreds of articles created by Boz who is not aware that reliable seconadary sources are required as evidence of notability.--Gavin Collins (talk) 15:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A lack of secondary sources does not make something non-notable. --Pixelface (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am not saying the topic is non-notable. Wikipedia guidelines on notability requires that evidence of notability in the form of reliable sources should be cited in the article. Can you provide reliable sources? --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It all depends on which definition of "should" you are using. I imagine you're using #4, whereas I feel it's #5. The only time I see the word "required" in the reliable sources page is here: "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources." That I fully agree on, and insist upon, but does not apply here. Clearly, not everyone agrees on your interpretation, as I've seen more than a few AFDs where an article gets a "keep", "merge", or "no consensus" even when it has few or no secondary sources. Obviously, we want to get them when we can, but not everyone seems to agree that they are as much of a stern requirement as you think they are. If they were, articles could be speedied in the first place, and we could skip the whole "debating" process.BOZ (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lack of sources is a cleanup issue, not a deletion issue. If the subject of the article is notable, the article should be kept. Sources can be added at any time. Wikipedia isn't working on a deadline. Rray (talk) 19:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Pixelface, Rray. Edward321 (talk) 23:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge - lack of sources should initially lead to the article being tagged as such unless it's in some way controversial. This AFD is premature. Exxolon (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the nominator, I do not feel this AFD is premature at all. A lack of real-world notability outside of a fictional universe appears to be the problem. Whitstable 00:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and wait, at least for a little while, until sources can be found. Ursasapien (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources that show "Artemis" is notable outside of the Marvel universe, right? Where? George The Dragon (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for the record, it should be noted that George the Dragon and Whitstable are the same person. BOZ (talk) 19:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I should have made that clear, my apologies. George The Dragon (talk) 19:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - I just didn't want anyone to get confused. :) BOZ (talk) 19:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge and redirect per above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eusebeus. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was DELETE. TigerShark (talk) 14:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twentieth Century Zoo[edit]

Seems unnotable, and doesn't appear to satisfy WP:BAND. Also, low last.fm count. αѕєηιηє ^t/_c 18:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—The question arises: is this page a copyright violation? The content is identical to a page on the BestPrices.com site.[7] As the wikipedia page is only three days old, I suspect that is the case. In combination with the obscurity and lack of provided references, this looks like a definite delete. The band does get a lot of ghits, however, so I'd be happy to be proven wrong.—RJH (talk) 15:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While the subject might make WP:MUSIC if this were properly sourced and fleshed out, this article is a copyvio and should be speedy deleted per RJHall. Research on this act might reveal one that is appropriate for Wikipedia... but a different article is needed for that. B.Wind (talk) 03:19, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite - copyvio or speedy delete if no one wants to rewrite it. Harland1 (^t/_c) 06:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per fails WP:N and WP:Band Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:41, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete See above. Mm 40 _{Your Hancock Please} —Preceding comment was added at 12:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sourcing is adequate to satisfy WP:BLP, although the article in its current state does not meet the standard footnoting conventions, as the added maintenance tags have highlighted. This is a matter for editing, not deletion. Office actions for the ticket can override this AFD or outright separately delete the article, but do not directly influence the consensus of an AfD debate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

E. M. Washington[edit]

An individual who is asserted to e an art forger, but we have OTRS ticket 2008022810020292 that asserts otherwise. Either way this does not look to be a notable art forger or artist. Tom Keating this is not. Sourcing is way too thin for a biography this negative. Guy (Help!) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The Forbes article and others in the included references show that he certainly is an art forger, and note that that article reported
Since 1998 as many as 60,000 Washington prints may have been sold on Ebay and at PBA Galleries in San Francisco and DuMouchelle's in Detroit, among other venues, at prices ranging from $20 to $350.

Let's halve the “as many as 60,000”, and multiply that 30,000 by the low figure of $20. $1,200,000 as of Sep 2004 (the year of that article). Guy may sneeze at this low-end figure; I do not.

Since the publication of that article, Washington admitted to “faking his death and creating over 1700 wood engravings”, which is his way of confessing what he hadn't at the time of the article.

If a “ticket” has been received, this is from Washington or from one of his agents, such as Thomiswil, who was blocked for such things as blanking the article. (Washington has been thrown-off eBay and his eBay agents such as thomiswil and lsolis808 are now having trouble moving the forgeries.) —SlamDiego_←T 19:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:V. At best, calling subject a forger/counterfeiter goes beyond WP:RS provided. We have one RS with the accusations, but charges are not proven yet. I don't see sustained or deep RS coverage to establish notability. Shedding whatever deserved light on Washington is a job for journalists, not Wikipedia. • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom- possibly a small time crook - not notable Dreamspy (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, there's a marginal claim to notability, but the Forbes article is practically the only reliable source for the negative claims and nobody's gone to jail yet. Optionally WP:SALT due to prior problems. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: There are thousands of Google hits on this guy, and the references already included in the article include not only The Forbes article but also one from the Escher Foundation. Notability and RS are plainly met. —SlamDiego_←T 04:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a fraction of these hits are relevant. The relevant hits appear to be primary sources (dealers or accusers). Calling someone an alleged crook needs needs multiple high quality sources, especially without verdict in civil or criminal court. • Gene93k (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're strictly speaking correct in calling the thousands of relevant hits a “fraction” of the hundreds of thousands of hits in that search, but the fact remains that there are thousands of relevant hits. And those hits were cited to speak to notability. As to “reliable sources”, we have those at least with the Forbes article and with the notice from the Escher Foundation (that's the horse's mouth when it comes to things Escherian). Additionally, the Amity Art Foundation and the Philadelphia Print Shop are quite respected in their fields (Donald Cresswell, owner of the Philadelphia Print Shop, is a regular expert on the American Antiques Roadshow.) —SlamDiego_←T 16:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. However, I would agree that the article needs a major rewrite, either with much more guarded language or with sources to back up the claims.Christopher Busta-Peck | Talk 14:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's the price of saving the article, then I'd support loading this very short article up with foot-notes. (I do, however, think that the present way of referencing it is objectively adequate.) —SlamDiego_←T 15:21, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Wikipedia is an important source for people trying to learn about artists, a complete lack of reference to someone who is a controversial figure in the art-world would leave the site incomplete. Miss Minerva (talk) 23:12, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Forbes is a sufficient source for the accusations. All that is necessary to meet BLP is that there be a specific inline references for exactly what changes come from what source--possibly accompanied by a brief quotation , "According to Alan Abrams writing in Forbes, ....". It would be desirable to have another source of similar conventional respectability, but in this case the less formal sources are adequately reliable for even this purpose. I placed 3 "fact" tags for spots where a specific inline source is in my opinion essential. DGG (talk) 07:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Insufficient assertion of notability. Eusebeus (talk) 18:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a close call, but there simply isn't enough to satisfy the requirements of WP:BLP in the presented article. I'd recommend to leave open the possibility of a new article that states more about the notoriety of the person, most basically why Mr. Washington should be considered more worthy of a Wikipedia article than, say, a bank robber or someone who embezzled thousands of dollars from a corporation. There is potential, perhaps, for the subject... but I don't see it in the article.B.Wind (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 15:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The writing on the wall (novel)[edit]

Appears to be a non-notable book written by a non-notable author and published by an obscure company. Does not meet any of the criteria set out in WP:BK. Only three citations which are from the author's website, a list of a radio show lineup (with no mention of the book at all) and the book's purchase page on Amazon. Lordjeff06 (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The editor of this article has also been spamming other articles, such as Roman à clef, Political fiction, Opposition to military action against Iran, and John McCain, in an effort to promote the book. In reviewing the edit to the McCain article, I also looked into the book and the publisher and found them completely lacking in notability. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clear failure of WP:BK. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:21, 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. Article has been updated. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Fog West Theater Company[edit]

Seems to be a non notable, local, amateur theatre company? Paste (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Paste (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's coverage by reliable sources, the Wyoming Arts Council and a newspaper, the Casper Star-Tribune. I don't think it's purely local, since Vassar College is in New York State and one of the productions took place in Wyoming. --Eastmain (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More information has been added to the page since it was recommended for deletion. It's not purely local because the company is touring in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho in addition to being from Vassar. --maxhershenow 17:55, 21 March 2008
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 20:50, 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. The one source found is not significant coverage, and there is apparently not multiple non-trivial coverage. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Number One with a Bullet[edit]

A compilation album without evidence of notability. PROD was contested with comment: "Article passes Wikipedia:MUSIC#Albums since the musicians are notable." I disagree. Albums released by a single artist/band often get reviewed in independent sources, but why would this be true for a compilation album that merely re-arranges previously released songs? B. Wolterding (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ - Given the nature of the album, I'm inclined to believe it's non-notable unless significant coverage in reliable sources is unearthed. The album's from 1988, so it would probably have to be print sources. All I can find online is the allmusic listing. Jfire (talk) 17:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to weak keep given the NYT blurb. Jfire (talk) 20:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree per WP:MUSIC#ALBUMS that notable artists' albums are notable, but I don't think that applies to compilations, as we also saw at this Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disco Heaven 02.02 TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above; this album, despite containing songs by notable artists, doesn't appear to have been covered in any reliable sources. Alternatively, the page could be rewritten to cover the Ray Stevens album of the same name... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The performers are notable. The songs are notable. A compilation of high profile songs performed by their creators are interesting enough to merit an article. --Bensin (talk) 23:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Namely, what would be the content of that article? We're not supposed to be a database of track listings. --B. Wolterding (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You never know until the article is finished. --Bensin (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then, prepare it in your userspace until you know that the inclusion criteria are met. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think the purpose of building an encyclopedia on a wiki is so that all users can collaborate on all articles, even the stubs. A collaboration not best achieved by hiding articles in private userspaces. --Bensin (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Stubs are fine, if they are about notable topics. So: First find independent sources for your article, thus making sure the topic is notable. (You can store preliminary work in your user space.) Then create an article in mainspace, maybe a stub (but including the sources). After that, collaboration can start. --B. Wolterding (talk) 22:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Reference added to article in The New York Times. --Bensin (talk) 23:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe at least one of the concerns with the article has been addressed. Are there any more suggestions for improvements? --Bensin (talk) 20:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient notability per WP:MUSIC. NYT "ref" is completely unconvincing in showing otherwise. Eusebeus (talk) 18:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see here:

1. Walk Like an Egyptian - #1 hit for The Bangles in 1986

2. Automatic (Pointer Sisters song) - Top 10 for the Pointer Sisters in 1984

3. Crazy for You (song) - #1 hit for Madonna (singer) in 1985

4. Nightshift - Top 5 hit for The Commodores in 1985

5. We Built This City - #1 hit for Starship in 1985

6. True Colors (song) - #1 hit for Cyndi Lauper in 1986

7. Next Time I Fall - #1 hit for Peter Cetera and Amy Grant in 1986

8. I Wanna Dance with Somebody (Who Loves Me) - #1 hit for Whitney Houston in 1987

9. Neutron Dance - Top 10 hit for the Pointer Sisters in 1984

10. So Emotional - #1 hit for Whitney Houston in 1987

Most of the songwriters who recorded these demos are noteworthy in themselves, including Boy Meets Girl, Michael Sembello, Billy Steinberg, and Marti Jones. Very strong keep, but article could use improvement to show why this album was an important one. B.Wind (talk) 03:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NYTimes commentary by chief critic is prima facie showing of notability. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 04:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as insufficient notablity as per WP:Music Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable compilation album that exists in the real world with notable music and that is verfiable. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:05, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G7 author blanked the page. Chetblong^Talk_Sign 18:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Air GTA[edit]

contested speedy - notability of this company needs considered Doc^g 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to give up the article. User talk:Whenaxis

Comment Blanked by author! Paste (talk) 17:36, 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 speedy delete as copyright violation of http://www.deviamanullah.com/Aboutme.php and other pages from the same site nancy ^(talk) 17:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Devi Amanullah[edit]

Beyond saving in terms of WP:NPOV and unencyclopedic style. Two One Six Five Five ^τ_ʃ 17:03, 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. Singu larity 18:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Weber[edit]

He's director of an Institute on Holocaust denial, but there's nothing here to suggest the individual is worthy of an encyclopedia bio. Doc^g 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - References only suggest they support that the term "holocaust denial" exists or applies to Weber, and since none are linked, cannot confirm or deny that. Though going by the titles, none mention Weber. Thus fails WP:BIO. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Weber is a well-known Holocaust denier. He, and the Institute for Holocaust Denial are cited heavily in Why People Believe Weird Things (e.g. pp. 191-194) by Michael Shermer, ISBN 9780285638037. To quote Shermer's opening statement in his section on Weber: "With the possible exception of David Irving, in the denier movement Mark Weber may know the most about history and histiriography." (p. 193). Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of reliable sources found by Google News and Google Books show that he is a notable holocaust denier. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant: First, what kind of WP:COATRACK footnote is that?! And it, along with most of the article, is completely redundant with Institute for Historical Review. There is nothing independently notable except for the Ghana connection. I see that Aboutmovies noticed there were currently zero WP:RS about the subject himself. I'll watchlist this just to see if those RS show up. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per John J. Bulten. BWH76 (talk) 11:36, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are 25 Google Books hits and 27 Google News hits for Mark Weber that don't mention the institute, so I don't think we can say that he isn't independently notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of credible independent sources; nothing much but self-published material and attacks, neither of which is a great deal of use. Does not seem actually to be notable outside the context of the institute. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Guy. Eusebeus (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per Jzg. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could any of the last three editors please explain how the books and articles which I linked to in my last update are "nothing much but self-published material and attacks"? And if he "does not seem actually to be notable outside the context of the institute" then why don't those books and articles even mention the institute? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Information about the subject or incident might be useful in other articles, but consensus is to not have a biographical article.--Kubigula (talk) 22:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Le-Huy[edit]

An article about someone who was once detained for a week in Dubai and, er, released without charge. The closest to a claim to fame is being IT manager for the firm that produces Big Brother. This is a tabloid story which might have gone somewhere but didn't because he was releasd. Guy (Help!) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Might have been news for 10 days, but it isn't remotely encyclopedic.--Doc^g 16:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not even marginally remotely encyclopedic. Cary Bass ^demandez 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This is like a textbook example of what Wikipedia is not. FCYTravis (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deport. Not encyclopedic, basically soapboxing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BLP1E - possibly merge salvageable content into the very thin Law enforcement in the United Arab Emirates? 144.137.197.167 (talk) 00:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there a BLP.10E because this was entirely a non-event TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I had never heard of this guy before he was detained in Dubai and during the campaign to release him there was a huge amount of media, both online and traditional - including national television coverage here in Australia. Definitely notable and an important issue to be documented, and if you check Google news, is still generating articles now, as well as over 10,000 Google hits for his name. Wildilocks (talk) 11:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Leave AFD to run, merge or rename to incident - this is on the surface a classic case of WP:BLP1E, but this could be big - he's hitting the media with this as hard as he can. TV in Australia, the Times travel column today (and I bet Dubai was pleased with that). Dubai basically finally mistreated the wrong person, and it's still a live story. Letting the AFD run to its full length should be enough time to see if this is actually article-worthy - David Gerard (talk) 16:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, I should note: I don't know Cat himself at all, but I do know a lot of his friends and I'm pretty familiar with the entire incident over the past couple of months. I wouldn't have considered it worth noting in Wikipedia up till now, but that Times story is the sort of thing that leads to the sort of story that stays in the papers for a few weeks at least - David Gerard (talk) 16:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think delete for now per WP:BLP1E - if this article is deleted and the issue turns out noteworthy after all, the sources will still be entirely available to write a proper article then - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cat wasn't notable, what happened to Cat is notable. Perhaps he's only a cipher for this larger story, but it represents a current issue for any travellers in the region and an indication of the meaning of "law enforcement" in Dubai Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - Cat isn't notable enough himself, what happened to him may well be Wikipedia-worthy. Story is still developing. There probably isn't a better title for it at the moment than his name, though - David Gerard (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In principle we don't use bios as "cipher for this larger story". That's a bad avenue (see WP:COAT etc). And I'm very uncomfortable with the claim what happened to Cat is notable - it sounds like an argument to allow this because the issue we want to soapbox about is just. If the phenomena is currently notable, (and there is some good independent analysis available in the sources) go write an article on that, and perhaps use this as an example. But we should delete this meantime.--Doc^g 12:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't a coatrack. If it was, what would it be about? The Big Brother link is a curiosity, but that really is an irrelevance and no-one is trying to sneak it in. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If this article is deleted and the issue turns out noteworthy after all, the sources will still be entirely available to write a proper article then - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. subject is not notable for his detention but for being tv exec with successful show (i.e. would not get coverage if he was a.n.other traveller). event itself is only ~~passing~~ passed news. an encyclopedia article would be about dubai's enforcement of anti-drug legislation, not how it arrested one person. therefore article should be deleted. a page about the exec himself might be possible, but does anyone even want to write that? didnt exist until he was locked up for a while. Mcmullen writes (talk) 19:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the coverage thing was not because he was in telly, but because of grassroots Internet activity. I know, I watched it in progress and made helpful suggestions ;-) (Not relevant to the deletability of this article) - David Gerard (talk) 12:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear Delete per the BLP1E issues noted above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Detention alone is not a noteworthy story. The media attention this story has attained is uninteresting and related more to the person involved having media contacts. Despite being a popular story for that specific reason, it is not noteworthy. The entire story is not encyclopedic.Freakchild (talk) 20:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Improper nomination in good faith. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CankerMelts[edit]

Notability/advertising

I'm not sure about the suitability of this article. It was created and has been edited by only one user (WP:COI?) The user account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of creating this article and inserting references to this product in other articles. This is my first AfD nomination and I feel this subject requires discussion. On the other hand, I feel that the information is notable enough and it would be a shame to lose it fom Wikipedia. So, in spite of the fact that I have nominated it, I shall place a a keep vote for it.TINY MARK 16:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-As above! TINY MARK 16:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If you think this article has merit, you didn't need to take it to AfD in the first place. You could have placed {{coi}}, {{advert}}, or other similar maintenance tags on instead, as conflict of interest doesn't necessarily warrant deletion. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! As I said, its my first AfD. TINY MARK 13:14, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. TinyMark, your concerns are warranted; this is not a good article. I'd redirect to glycyrrhiza myself. The reliable sources point to generic studies of the active ingredient, not necessarily the product itself. There are many brand name medicines that do not have their own articles on Wikipedia, but are listed as a sold-under name on the article about the drug/etc. itself. --Dhartung | Talk 21:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete --JForget 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) --Sri (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)'i am a member of the madakkavil family and i had read what was written... and that was true... i had wondered who took the pain to do such a detail study on my famiy.... i want to confirm that the content in that is true and still exist... '''''''===Madakkavil===[reply]

AfDs for this article:

Largely unsourced article about a family in India. The first nomination closed with "no consensus"; some editors expressed the hope that substantial independent sources could be added to the article over time. As a matter of fact, this has not happened for more than 1 1/2 years now. Hence I propose to delete the article as failing WP:N. --B. Wolterding (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can locate some reliable sources to establish notability during the priod of this AFD. I tried locating sources, but Google Books/Scholar/News have zero hits and none of the hits on the web (besides wikipedia and its mirrors) seem to be useful. Abecedare (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unlikely acceptable sources exist. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Previous AfD provided an opportunity to satisfy the requirements of WP:N and WP:RS, but neither has been. Jfire (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable family history. The details given on the page dont really make the family notable, as almost all families in the region would have a similar tale to narrate. Wikipedia is not a genealogical directory.--thunderboltz ^(TALK) 19:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just as Wikipedia is not a directory of European surnames, it should not be a directory of Indian clan names. —BradV 15:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete stated well by Bradv15. --Stormbay (talk) 02:23, 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 Redirect to House of Bourbon --JForget 22:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince of Bourbon[edit]

Unless I am missing something, this is nonsense. The heir to the Spanish throne is the Prince of Asturias, and much of this page appears to be a cut-and-paste from there. Individuals mentioned in the first para appear to be ficticious. Delete as vandalism. Note that a similar article [8], was changed into a redirect. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, created by a one-time visitor, pretty obvious nonsense (the names, not the copied text). Probably best to redirect to House of Bourbon -- there are a number of "X of Bourbon" or "Y of Bourbon-Z" titles over its long history. --Dhartung | Talk 21:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect per Dhartung. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and then redirect per nom and Dhartung. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:29, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNothing 444 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Avalon (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 08:46, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Hallberg[edit]

Non-notable actress. One of a dozen or so articles user introduced on people from his amateur film company. No claim to notability. No secondary sources. Fails WP:BIO, WP:COI. Redfarmer (talk) 09:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Redfarmer (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 15:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable. TheScotch (talk) 11:39, 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, Redfarmer (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Looked for sources, came up with very little on Google. Clearly non-notable. Doctorfluffy (talk) 19:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO as a notable actress for whom sources exist. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are your sources of notability? Redfarmer (talk) 03:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's little use saying that sources exist if you don't share them with the rest of us... PC78 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. No clear evidence of notability has been provided and there are no sources provided other than her IMDb entry (which lists her with only a single film acting role). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Minimal ghits and no sources that demonstrate any notability. PC78 (talk) 08:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge and redirect to List of characters in Dexter's Laboratory. Singu larity 23:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Minor Characters in Dexter's Laboratory[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/List of Minor Characters in Dexter's Laboratory

This list was split from a singular list with no prior discussion. Length wasn't an issue and there's no real reason I can see for the split other than an editor deciding for themselves it was required. As it doesn't fall under WP:SPINOUT, on its' own merits it's very light on any real content and the characters listed are not very notable even for a minor character list. treelo _talk 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: if this is a merger request, AfD is not the proper place for it. You should use the {{mergefrom}} and {{mergeto}} templates and discuss the merger on the articles' talk pages. If needed and there is controversy, you can place a request for comment on the talk page to request feedback from the community at large. However, AfD should not be used for this purpose. Redfarmer (talk) 16:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No, it's a request for deletion, just badly worded and upon re-reading seems to read as if I am requesting for a merge over a deletion. Changed the wording to avoid confusion over intent for the nom. treelo _talk 17:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given there's no length issue with keeping all the characters in a single list, merge back to List of Major Characters in Dexter's Laboratory and rename it back to List of Characters in Dexter's Laboratory. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per QuasirandomHobit (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above suggestion. No real need to split them up. 23skidoo (talk) 22:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Even the title of the article agrees the characters are non-notable. —97198 talk 13:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above Antonio Lopez (talk) 15:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 18:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Torchwood items#Amnesia pill. --MCB (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retcon (Torchwood)[edit]

Article lacks notability, and consequently has no reliable sources to back-up any significant real-world context. cf. recent AfD discussion for Time Agency. Trystan (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

as I see at that AfD, once the injunction was lifted, the following comments were all keeps. I know it hasn't been sent to Deletion Review, at least not yet, but I think it might reasonably be considered a close against consensus, where the closer expressed his own personal view on the question of notability. Perhaps we'll do better here, or at least differently. I don't claim the consensus follow my opinion on these articles necessarily, and so I do not close such debates. My personal view about the state of general opinion is that we have in fact no consensus about what to do with articles like this. DGG (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lack of notability.--Sebastian Palacios (talk) 08:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Torchwood items#Amnesia pill; better, encyclopedic summary of the item Sceptre ^(talk) 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Sceptre. Hobit (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I was thinking of suggesting a merge, but the additional information in Retcon (Torchwood) is either trivia or original research. EALacey (talk) 20:24, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Simple redirect to List of Torchwood items#Amnesia pill. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 22:16, 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 all. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Harris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Roman Harris

Printer222 (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)This article does not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable Printer222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also decided to nominate the following articles for deletion for the same reason as above, these articles are about mainly relatively new characters. these include

The discussion for all of these articles should take place here. Printer222 (talk) 15:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Uh, Miles Copeland redirects to a real person. --Dhartung | Talk 21:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment sorry i forgot to add the (Home and away \) part to the link, it's fixed nowPrinter222 (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - non-notable. Please note that the articles' creator(s) has/have a history of removing afd tags. Dreamspy (talk) 08:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Home and Away article. Perhaps even merge information regarding characters into that article? --clpo13_(talk) 22:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is sad and one of the reasons why I'm disillusioned with wikipedia to see this up for deletion and what wiki has become.

"fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", I am a certain that they have featured in world wide tv magazines which are independent of the subject so that covers that guideline.

Regardless of that rule, I find it madness how people that have been watched by 20 mill + people worlwide can be deleted. And you can shoot me down for that and I know this article will be deleted but this really does defy belief. Englishrose (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further Points 1. WP: Fict is a guideline. I'd like the closing admin to consider WP:Ignore all rules, a small part of a guideline is clearly preventing notable articles on fictional characters that are viewed by millions from staying on wikipedia. A guideline is not a rule and not set in stone. Even if it was a policy then there is nothing stopping us from breaking it.

2. What makes Home and Away different to Eastenders? I know it's not an argument but why do Eastenders fictional characters never get deleted and Home and Away characters do (including one major award winning one)?

3. What is notability? If we ignore the guideline (which is all it is) then we come to the million dollar question, what makes a fictional character notable? Does being a regular character on a long running soap that is shown all over the world and watched by millions not make the character notable? If a musician had been watched by millions week after week, would he not be notable? Englishrose (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If those pages get deleted, then wouldn't it be sensible to delete Home and Away altogether? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.88.43 (talk • contribs) 11:04, 27 March 2008

Keep I really think its racist, all you stinkin' yanks and poms have even pages for your soap opera characters who even appeared in 5 minutes of an episode. Yet, us Australians have the pages for our soap opera characters who are part of the cast get deleted --AKR619 (talk) 09:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment If character pages for other soap operas don't meet the guideline they should also be deleted, these articles shouldn't be kept just because similar articles exist. This is a discussion based on guidelines. Printer222 (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FICT. No assertion or adduction of real-world significance - hence we shouldn't have an article about them. Eusebeus (talk) 18:39, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FICT is only a guideline not a policey. Englishrose (talk) 19:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in asserting that it is a guideline. You thereby make a powerful point certainly and one of extraordinary perspicacity with reference to the specific terms of this discussion. Tx! Eusebeus (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 15:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yinzer[edit]

Unsourced collection of local trivia; possibly original research; stereotypical Ryanjunk (talk) 15:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete n'at Looks like original research. No sources, even though sources in Pittsburgh abound. DarkAudit (talk) 14:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are provided. I can believe that much of this is true (or at least widely believed to be true by people outside Pittsburgh) but it can't be included unless it's sourced. Terraxos (talk) 00:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It seems to be primarily a dictionary definition, along with a collection of trivia. Ketsuekigata (talk) 02:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. notability established - and WP:SNOW - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

El-Farouk Khaki[edit]

The guy sounds nice, but the article is heavily POV, and none of it is notable. He only gets 4,000 GHits Fails WP:BIO. Delete GreenJoe 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable, has numerous non-trivial media references, a number of which precede his electoral candidacy. Has won an award from the Canadian Bar Association as well as various rights groups and is an acknowledged leader in the LGBT community. GreenJoe has not specified how the article is POV (various "peacock terms" have been removed and rewritten to his stated satisfaction). Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Reggie Perrin (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Excluding all of his election and candidacy material still results in a number of notable accomplishments that meet WP:BIO. Skeezix1000 (talk) 13:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well referenced, meets WP:BIO. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In its current form meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) - House of Scandal (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per additional sourcing by User:Nsk92. The article still contains a lot of peacock language (for example, is regarded as a pioneer - regarded by who?), probably has COI issues, and definitely needs additional cleanup plus inline sources for notability assertions to read more encyclopedically and less resume-like. Marking with a clean up tag as none of these issues alone are reasons for deletion of a notable subject. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:33, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al Siebert[edit]

A resume-like piece that makes many claims towards notability; but sources with substantial coverage about this person seem to be missing. The article has survived a speedy G11 before, I'm putting it up for wider discussion here. Given that the article was edited mainly by an WP:SPA, I actually suspect an autobiography. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academ mentionics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources seem to exist to meet WP:N or WP:BIO requirements. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I think that this guy may in fact qualify as a notable media personality. The article is not well-written in that it does not cite sources. However, I did a quick google news (all dates) search for his name and got about 80 hits, most of which do refer to him. The great majority of them refer to newspaper cites that require paid subscription, but here are a few links that are free: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette [9], Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel [10], Christian science Monitor [11], CNN [12], Seattle Times [13], The Joplin Globe [14], Indian Country Today [15]. Nsk92 (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources do not appear to assert sufficient notability. --Stormbay (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a definitive requirement for the sources to assert notability. A multitude of reliable sources that mention the subject in a nontrivial way may be used to establish notability in a particular area. WP:BIO says: " If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". This seems to apply here. As examples of trivial sources WP:BIO mentions things like directory listings, etc. In this case we are talking about newspaper/newsmedia interviews that explicitly quote the opinions of Siebert on various matters related to workplace stress etc. There appears to be at least 40 such articles. Doesn't that establish his notability as a media pundit on workspace stress related matters? Nsk92 (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about assertion of notability is correct but I feel there still needs to be some strength to the numerous references. --Stormbay (talk) 18:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not an academic; judging as an author ,some of his books are in over 500 us libraries. I think he qualifies. DGG (talk) 23:22, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eric K. Rancourt[edit]

Unverifiable biography: I could not find any trace of this individual via a cursory google search; the book A Grain of Sand is not carried by Amazon nor listed by Worldcat. The subject is apparently notable as a metaphysical philosopher, but does not seem to have either an academic position or a published work in the field. Unless sources can be found, this appears to be a hoax, or at the very least, a non-notable individual. скоморохъ 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable at best. -- BPMullins | Talk 16:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaclyn Case[edit]

Not notable under pornographic actor criteria in WP:BIO. Coverage by AVN article not substantial enough to satisfy general criteria. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of her movies even have an article, the actress can't be more notable. Chimeric Glider (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That logic assumes that Wikipedia's coverage is reasonably complete, and frankly for many subjects and genres, it is far from that. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see Wikipedia:Notability_(pornographic_actors)#Pornographic_actors for notability guide. - Fosnez (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.~~--Sdrtirs (talk) 15:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Afd is not a voting process, please give a reason. For futher info, please see WP:JUSTAVOTE - Fosnez (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you list some examples of the multiple times in notable mainstream media and back it up with reliable sources? The article doesn't mention any. Vinh1313 (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO - trivial porncruft. Eusebeus (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Kunjako[edit]

Procedural nomination. A full article about the subject exists here. Salih (talk) 14:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily redirected to Kunchacko. No need for an AfD to redirect. Jfire (talk) 18:08, 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. Singu larity 23:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Al-kitab (Quran)[edit]

Article is entirely WP:OR and is rather incoherent. It reads like an essay, and doesn't seem all that encyclopedic. It cites no secondary sources, and so fails WP:RS and WP:V. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HelloAnnyong.: Respected sir,

this article is coherent to Arabic text of Quran, which is the Quran and nopt the Translation with brackets is Quran. and articles like islamic holy books injil Aqida and Qur'an have wrong references of Qurani ayats. if encyclopedic means all wrong information, then i cannot say, do what u like. Only the arabic text of Quran can verify about any claim written for Quran. People are writing and quoting qurani ayats but unfortunately that claim doesnot exists in that verse of Quran.

can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The article mentions information that is already in Islamic holy books. That is, in some way, a content fork. If another article already exists, I see no reason why there should be another article on the same subject. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zacharycrimsonwolf , Respected sir.:

islamic holy book is not coherent to text of Quran? Quran doeasnot say any where in its arabic text that Allah sent 4 books. any artilce for Quran must be as per text of Quran and not as per writer's feeling what he wants. should the claim about text of Quran not veriable with text of Quran? or wrong claims in the name of Quran is called encyclopedic as read please Qur'an talk page.

can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea.Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I think there is probably enough scholarly assessment of the names of the Qur'an (as there are the names of God) that this might be able to have an article... but citing primary sources only means this whole article would have to be cut and without someone willing to cite outside sources and Farrukh making the religious argument on the talk page that we shouldn't be using tafsir or Western sources--but the Qur'an itself, I doubt that will get done, unfortunately. gren グレン 03:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG.: Respected sir, Quran has its Arabic text and any document must be verifiable with it's Arabic text . If any article doesnot have the messe ge as per original Arabic text of QWuran then it would be about Quran and not as per Quran. AL-kitab (Quran) is not a modern commentary but the actual truth written in Arabic text of Quran which can be verifiable with its Arabic text as per given references.... Farrukh38 (talk) 14:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grenavitar|.: Respected sit, just think any claim for Quran , must be verifiable with Arabic text of Quran or against the Arabic text of Quran? or like Islamic holy books has wrong information about previous scriptures. if some body is writing for primary source, then claims must be verified with Arabic text of Quran,Nobody should write wrong about primary source. tafsir must be verifiable with Arabic of Quran and not in the name of tafsir one should write what ever he like.can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea.Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —gren グレン 03:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a fork of Qur'an and Islamic holy books. The article is a personal essay in which Farrukh seems to be arguing his own thesis about what the usage of "kitab" in the Qur'an refers to. I don't believe there is any reliable precedent for the arguments made, on which basis I think the article also violates WP:OR and WP:V. ITAQALLAH 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Itaqallah .: you looks muslim and you should not conceal the truth. i wrote many times on Qur'an page that citation must verify the claims and read Qutan talk page you will find many claims having Qurani ayats references but nobody will find that claim in that referenced ayat of Qur'an, is this called "encyclopedic"?

can this Al-kitab (Quran) aericle be not a part of Qur'an article? Atleast some truth must exist in the encyclopedea. Claims for Quran can only be verified by Arabic text of Qutan. Farrukh38 (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We do not do particularly well at enWP with our articles on traditional Islamic learning. In general, the articles are based entirely on traditional sources without modern commentary in either Arabic or English. It's my impression that there is such material, but I do not myself have the ability to work with it. We need to find editors who can do so, if we are to have good articles. I urger those working on these subjects to try to find material that fits into our non-traditional framework, and explains the traditional learning in a way hat our readers will understand, with references they can obtain and go to beyond the text of the article and the Qur’an itself. That will be a real contribution to cultural understanding, DGG (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that general sentiment. The problem here is that I can't see/understand what encyclopedic topic Farrukh is trying to discuss. The traditional views about the Qur'an and Islamic holy books of the past have been covered in their respective articles (although, as always, there is plenty of room for improvement). What I see Farrukh attempting is a discussion about how the multiple uses of al-kitab refer to one entity. In doing so he also claims that ahl al-kitab does not actually refer to Jews and Christians, and that that Psalms/Zabur came after the Qur'an, among other things. This essentially goes against the established facts in any of the works (traditional and modern) available... but OK, verification of claims/ideas is what matters primarily here. Yet he insists on not using secondary sources, making it extremely difficult to verify these unusual claims, and presenting a major problem in terms of verification and original research. It's also impossible to understand the article text sometimes, especially where he incorrectly inserts the wrong Arabic. ITAQALLAH 18:13, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ITAQALLAH.: This is not a matter of sentiments but any article about Quran must be as per text of Quran and not views of anybody about Quran. i donot understand to which Itaqallah call " encyclopedic topic "?, all false informations about Quran is the encyclopedic topic ? of course wrong information cannot be called "encyclopedic topic " . If the topic is Quran than it must be verifiable with the text of Quran and not with any other source which is telling about the text of Quran. about "Ah-lalkitab" please read this Text and tell ah-lalkitab are among the moninoon and not jews and christians " بالمعروف وتنهون عن المنكر وتؤمنون بالله ولو امن اهل الكتاب لكان خيرا لهم منهم المؤمنون واكثرهم الفاسقون

كُنتُمْ خَيْرَ أُمَّةٍ أُخْرِجَتْ لِلنَّاسِ تَأْمُرُونَ بِالْمَعْرُوفِ وَتَنْهَوْنَ عَنِ الْمُنكَرِ وَتُؤْمِنُونَ بِاللّهِ وَلَوْ آمَنَ أَهْلُ الْكِتَابِ لَكَانَ خَيْرًا لَّهُم مِّنْهُمُ الْمُؤْمِنُونَ وَأَكْثَرُهُمُالْفَاسِقُونَ

Yousuf Ali Ye are the best of peoples, evolved for mankind, enjoining what is right, forbidding what is wrong, and believing in Allah. If only the People of the Book had faith, it were best for them: among them are some who have faith, but most of them are perverted transgressors. "

mihumul mominoona means among momins, ahlalkitab are among mominoon and not among jews and christians.

Should this truth be in encyclopedea ? or the secondary source, writing about " Ah-lalkitab" as jews and christians....Please which Arabic text is wrong ? please write down here that wrong . Farrukh38 (talk) 16:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I tried to indent this post, but I can't get the Arabic text to indent as well... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:29, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farrukh, the problem with basing an article on the Qur'an "as per text of Quran" itself is that everyone interprets the Qur'an differently. You prove that here yourself, you're forwarding your own interpretation about what the verses say which goes against the standard understanding of them. Sure, if you have any secondary reliable sources discussing or forwarding your view, then we can actually construct an article on the basis of WP:V. But you are adamant that no sources other than the Qur'an must be used, that your opinion is the correct one, and that there must be an article catering for your views. This goes against Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Verifiability, and also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. ITAQALLAH 19:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article is intented as a contentfork of Qur'an and Islamic holy books. Fails WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. I have given Farrukh advice on this article a few times, but in the end must conclude that it has no hope of becoming a proper encyclopedia entry. —BradV 16:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Pigman☿ 19:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Kingston McLeod[edit]

This article does not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable}} Printer222 (talk) 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reasons as above, they are fictonal characters that aren't notable in the real world and they don't meet WP:FICT.

The discussion for these articles can take place here.

Delete - As the nom said they all fail WP:FICT so I can see no reason not to delete them all. --Mifter (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I See no reason to delete Regan McLeod, Tess Silverman McLeod Ryan & Rob Shelton/Matt Bosnich as they all have information in it but Meg Fountain Dodge & Grace Kingston McLeod only really have an info box so those 2 would be the one's to delete if you do. -- McLeod Fan 2001 - 2008 17.28, 24 March 2008
Delete; no significant real-world coverage. Having information in them or not is not relevant in this case. --Geniac (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:FICT. No assertion of real-world significance. Eusebeus (talk) 18:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Augustine Washington[edit]

Delete Non independently notable per WP:BIO. Ave Caesar (talk) 13:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Nomination Withdrawn due to discovery of his involvement in the 5th Virginia Convention. --Ave Caesar (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Active during American Revolution. Brother of George Washington, father of Supreme Court Justice Bushrod Washington. Resident and owner of Mount Vernon, a National Historic Landmark. Sources are here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. These all come from a 20 minute online search. If I used a university's database I am sure I could give you a lot more. If this guy isn't notable, who is? KnightLago (talk) 16:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, since you ask -- His brother is notable. So is his son. This man however misses the mark. Your sources mention him, but hardly more. Being related to two notable men doesn't confer notability. Nor does being the recipient of a letter from a notable relative. His service in the Revolutionary War appears to have been on a county body: he spent the war years at home, as far as I can tell. I think he misses by a wide margin. ~~Delete~~. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The sources above show that in addition to interactions with a notable brother and son, and ownership of a National Historic Landmark, he was a member of the 5th Virginia Convention, which declared independence from Britain and instructed its delegates to the Continental Congress to propose independence. KnightLago (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the Virginia Convention might be considered the equivalent of a state legislature, and being a member of a state legislature automatically confers notability. --Eastmain (talk) 20:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I incorporated the sources and information into the article. KnightLago (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, membership in the 5th Virginia Convention is equivalent to state or even national legislative stature. --Dhartung | Talk 22:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I'm still far from convinced, but I've heard enough to change my opinion above. -- BPMullins | Talk 17:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep significant historical figure. It was not just GW who was notable in his family; some may have acquired initial notice because of the relationship to him, but others would have been important in colonial history regardless. This is a fairly clear example. A delegate to the State constitutional convention should logically count as a member of a legislature, and that one criterion alone is enough to settle the question in this case. DGG (talk) 07:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stenberg[edit]

Non-notable musician. Doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria for WP:MUSIC; only press coverage seems to be in relation to his death. PC78 (talk) 13:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:BIO1E. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability guidelines (WP:V). Fortathenry (talk) 19:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Singu larity 08:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Forever (Say Anything album)[edit]

Contested PROD. From an article on Buffaloathome.com: "Say Anything is starting to think about the follow-up to "In Defense Of The Genre." While new music may not be on the agenda for a while, lead singer Max Bemis is revealing his thoughts on melodies on the current album. Bemis adds that Say Anything might start working on new music later this year, for a disc tentatively titled "This Is Forever."" (Emphasis mine) I think this sums up my case for WP:CRYSTAL in much clearer terms than I could possibly have. Recreate when they actually record and/or release the album. Redfarmer (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure crystalballery; they haven't even started recording yet. Chat rooms and forums aren't exactly reliable sources, either. PC78 (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, WP:RS. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Ni mi Ti ze 15:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've heard nothing, i've got nothing from the band and everything in the article is either crystal ballery or original research. Considering that the band hasn't even released the second single off their current album yet, i'd wait a bit before making an article about a rumored fourth album Doc Strange^{Mailbox Orbitting Black Hole}Strange Frequencies 16:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:24, 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 08:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S.O.S - k[edit]

Possible hoax, or at least highly non-notable. I am unable to find any sources that verify the existance of this band, or their alleged "hit single". PC78 (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. -- PC78 (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not satisfy WP:BAND. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 13:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Edit conflict)*Delete-No websites related to the band (WP:N); no websites to prove they even exist (WP:CITE). The article states that "they finally became a famous group" and "performed at St.Mary of Assumption school in Brookline, Boston". If so, there should be some links relating to them. I have tried very specific searches, but there were no results. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. St. Mary's in Brookline is a pre-K-grade 8 private Catholic school [16], so this is WP:NOT things made up in school. The article freely admits the kids are only in high school and don't perform anymore. MSJapan (talk) 13:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've just noticed the article creator's name as well; I think it's safe to say that User:SeokChan is band member Seokchan Yoo. PC78 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#A7, band. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a possible hoax, and if it isn't, doesn't have enough information or resources.

——

The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:41, 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 02:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chinese MP4 player[edit]

Longstanding content fork of portable media player with a hazy definition of its subject matter and a predisposition to be critical. All the good bits have now been merged to more appropriate articles. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-I see very little reasons to delete this page. It is clearly shown in the Portable media player#Controversy section that this article is a part of the entire media player section. A content fork an article that is created from another version of a said article. In other words, it is copied from another existing article. In this case, the article is merely a subpage. There is no violation of the content forking policy. --Zacharycrimsonwolf 13:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cannot see any reason to delete this either. --neonwhite user page talk 14:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like an expanded version of a smaller section within another article. No real reason to delete. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Problematic, but yes, it's a Keeper This article used to have bits of info that had nothing to do with the article in question, but are general specifications of portable media players, like Chris Cunningham said (whom he helpfully copied to Portable media player & was drastically polished by all of us) It was only a matter of months later when I recently decided to remove those bits, as well as any original research and opinionated content from the article. I find even less reason to delete this article since the recent cleanup. Citations and external links support this article, and since the info isn't relevant to the main PMP article, it deserves an article of its own. --Jw21/PenaltyKillah 19:31, 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. Wizardman 17:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shackleton Lower School[edit]

School not notable Bleaney (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Schools for children age 4 to 9 have not generally been kept in previous AFDs. No refs presented to show this one is notable. Edison (talk) 16:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, a search of Google News returns only trivial mentions. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pashtun Mafia[edit]

The result was delete. howcheng {chat} 23:38, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly 143 unique Google hits for "pashtun mafia", most of which seem to draw some or all of their content from Wikipedia. The remainder are largely polemical. We therefore have an article and a category, Category:Pashtun Mafia, which are blazing the trail in defining this term. The talk page shows strong evidence of racially or ethnically motivated editing. I would like to nominate this as a Crap Article and leave it at that, but we've had complaints that it's biased and uses polemical sources in a selective manner. The 143 unique Googles persuades me that a POV is being pushed here. Guy (Help!) 12:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because any thing has lower google hits does not mean it doesn't mean it is not worth enough to talk about. Secondly all criminal organizations has a certain race involved in it. You can see the Italian Mafia , Alabanian Mafia, Russian Mafia pages. And as referred above most on the ethnocentric conversations have been played out by people who never contributed to article and they are not

a main part of this article. I think this is a wonderfull article which seperates a race from a criminal factions that exist from it.--Khanhamzakhan (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC) — Khanhamzakhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete per WP:NPOV, WP:N, WP:RS. Orderinchaos 12:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, it's a mess, but there's some decent content in there. The history isn't that contentious, given some of the nationalistic/ethnic bashing we see. Change the name back to Opium Mafia or Opium Crime Ring, revert to this version to get rid of the worst of the anti-Pashtun coatracking, and list it with WP:NPOV/N for a month or two. If there's still a problem bring it back. Xymmax (talk) 13:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is vastly enormous and plagiarized from the listed sources. Most of the information is the authors original research with copy and pastes from different incidents and events to support the myth of a so-called ‘Pashtun Mafia’. This is a Crap Article and should be removed immediately. No one should be allowed to use the Wikipedia platform to pass on a certain Point Of View. Wikipedia is highly accessed and this article now ranks number 1 on all major search engines for a supposed international organized entity called ‘Pashtun Mafia’ that all major world agencies have failed to report. The author has gone around wiki and has inserted a link back to this article on various Pashtun/Afghan related articles in what I personally consider a malicious campaign of ill information against the Pashtun ethnic group. Please consider this garbage for removal! Also there is already an article about the Afghan opium drug trade so renaming is pointless no need to have two articles about the same thing.NangOnamos (talk) 03:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not appear in Google news or scholar searches, and appears only once in a book where it seems to be coined by the author. A bunch of smugglers is not a mafia. Blast Ulna (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOV, no evidence of the term pashtun mafia ofbeing used elsewhere. As mentioned previous it appears to be original piece of research. --Zak (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Article has over 20000 google search results and published in major books . A lot of people have a

misunderstanding because the only books they see are online books. Wikipedia:Don't hope the house will build itself --71.183.58.25 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I get 148 g-hits. Blast Ulna (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also the above IP appears to be the same individual as Khanhamzakhan above, and removed the AfD and NPOV tags from the article. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Theology Online[edit]

Non-notable web forum. Very poorly sourced; most is from the primary source (the site itself) and the ones that aren't, still aren't sufficient. Also wary of it being web promotion . . . this was once temporarily speedied, but failed and followed by an influx of fresh accounts making promotional comments on the talk page. In the interests of full disclosure, any of my personal beliefs were not factors into nominating this. -WarthogDemon 00:44, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Copious ghits but not one iota of notability per WP:WEB TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 19:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a notable web forum in the theological/religious arena. Mr. 5020 (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Cannot find anything that meets any of the WP:Web criteria. StephenBuxton (talk) 12:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:WEB guidelines. Also has zero independent, reliable sources, so fails WP:V - for all I know, this could simply be yet another web forum like a million others. --Minimaki (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The content of the article is certainly very POV-based. It also goes against WP:SOAP, although it may not be intentional. The article also cites Wikipedia as a source. Additionally, the sources are very small in scope. It does not fulfill WP:N nor WP:CITE. Perhaps, with a major cleanup...--Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:27, 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 withdrawn, default to keep. Singu larity 00:07, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bradley D. Simon[edit]

Delete as per WP:BIO. I tried to find some reliable sources but failed (at least through Google search). I think his notability is also questionable. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 23:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Today (27 March 2008) User:Lakpr requested me to have a look at this article once again since it is now cited with third party references. I have gone through those citations and found them really rich and reliable. Thus, I am withdrawing this nomination. Cheers! -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 20:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niaz - I see that the philadelphia inquirer profile does not have a wokring link - I am working on gettnig copyright permission for it, and when i do, do you think this article will be up to snuff? Thanks!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lakpr (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Niaz - Thanks for taking the time to review Bradley Simon's article. I would like to call a couple of points to your attention: Bradley Simon has been quoted and discussed in many news articles relating to his involvement in the Torricelli case. Many times, he may be cited under different variations of his name such as Brad Simon, Bradley D. Simon or Bradley Simon, which may be one of the reasons why you had a difficult time finding news articles about him. If you search the following term, for example, "bradley simon" and torricelli" - you will see over 40 hits on google from outlets such as Newsweek, The New York Times, The New York Daily News, CNN and more.

Regarding his notability, he has been involved in several cases that, I believe, qualify him as deserving of an article in the wikipedia biography project. As you will see from a profile written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer, he is largely responsible for the downfall of a US Senator, which is not something every lawyer does in his/her career. Additionally, his involvement in the Bayou Capital was groundbreaking as it was the first of its kind. Representing Alan Hevesi is also noteworthy as he was an elected official being accused of abusing his position, which I think makes Brad Simon relevent to the public.

In the New York Times story I linked to in his profile, the reporter writes the following of SImon's involvement in the Hevesi case, "Mr. Hevesi changed lawyers this week and signaled a far more public and combative strategy. His new lawyer, Bradley D. Simon, has represented people caught up in public cases before, including David Chang, a businessman who was a key figure in allegations of improprieties raised about Robert G. Torricelli, the former United States senator from New Jersey."

I believe that, according to Wikipedia's guidelines, that is an objective, reliable source.

Lastly, he is frequently called upon to discuss issues of the day in the public sphere. For example, just this week, Reuters, USA Today and Agence-France Press called on him to shed light on what might happen to Eliot Spitzer after the shocking revelations of his illegal activities while Governor of New York State.

It is for the above reasons that I feel Brad Simon is worthy of an article on Wikipedia. I do, however, want it to be great, so I welcome your input as I go through this process.

Many thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.43.90.186 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment - if that's the case, then feel free to put your sources in the article so that it can be judged here at AfD. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Locobot (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)-Ravichandar 10:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Of the external links, two are comments that he is representing someone, two are articles where he has been interviewed for comment. Neither of those I believe meet the criterai of WP:BIO. The profile might work towards proving notability, but I cannot open it from this PC. However, WP:BIO does state multiple secondary sources, and this is only one. If you are claiming that his notability includes being used for commentary, then two of the external links do kind of imply that. However, the article would need to be expanded to state his role as social/legal commentator. If all he is doing is commenting on the Eliot Spitzer case because of his association with it, merging with the article might be more appropriate than deletion. StephenBuxton (talk) 13:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Keep Since I reviewed it last, there have been substantial changes to it, including adding some secondary sources which do meet WP:BIO. StephenBuxton (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTINHERITED. He needs more extensive coverage in reliable secondary sources in his own right. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment In my experience, it is impossible to get copyright permission from the Inquirer. If we want to use a quote from there, it must be copied from a paper or microfilm copy, or a place that has the paid version, and inserted as fair use of a small quotation. But that does not mean it cannot be used as a reference. Presence in libraries is sufficient. DGG (talk) 07:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In response to the WP:NOTINHERITED comment, an article was added from The New York Times that discusses Brad Simon's career as a federal prosecutor as well as excerpts from a profile written about him in the Philadelphia Inquirer. Also added were the most recent examples of the news media seeking out his thoughts on major news stories. (Added by User: 66.43.90.186 )

Keep Those who commented earlier should reexamine the article--I think the third party references are now sufficient. DGG (talk) 14:52, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the new sources added to the article which I think now meets WP:BIO. Davewild (talk) 20:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED as there is insufficient assertion of independent notability. Beyond the fact that this is still a terrible article, the subject clearly - clearly - fails WP:BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 19:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I am open to your suggestions on how to improve this article, calling it "terrible" and stating that it clearly fails to meet WP:BIO standards when multiple other users think that it does (as shown on this page), does not serve to improve its content. While you may have strong opinions regarding this article, a lot of effort went into creating it, so your consideration and CONSTRUCTIVE criticism would be appreciated, while your insults are certainly not appreciated. Lakpr (talk) 19:40, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I said beyond the fact that it is terrible - the poor writing, shoddy organisation and general indifference to its subject are merely incidental to the subject itself not being of sufficient notability per our WP:BIO standard. This is a classic case of inherited notability. Eusebeus (talk) 20:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Clearly I would not invest so much time in article if I was truly indifferent to the subject. It was intentionally written to avoid using subjective terminology that could not be verified with objective sources, per other suggestions. It is my belief that the facts associated with Simon's career justify his notability. I will take your suggestions regarding the writing style and organization of the piece into consideration, but I do not believe that those critiques are enough to qualify this article for deletion. Thank you for your input. Lakpr (talk) 21:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 3rd party sources, notable, not one other issue it could be merged to per se. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. The deletion arguments indicate that the highly segmented nature of these charts violates WP:NOT#INFO as noted in the nomination. With regards to the Hot Digital Songs list, the fact that digital sales figures are currently included in the main charts means that this list is similarly limited in scope. --jonny-m t 14:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop 100 Airplay number-one hits of 2005[edit]

Also included:

These lists are for Billboard magazine component charts. I feel that these pages go against WP:NOT#IINFO, as they do not represent any of the "main" singles charts produced by Billboard, nor do these really represent the charts of a particular country, such as the UK Singles Chart or Australia's ARIA Charts. These particular lists cover either airplay or sales in a very specific segment of the singles market which in turn are used to comprise bigger charts like the Pop 100. These charts are discouraged from song pages and artist discographies per WP:CHARTS so it doesn't seem logical to have lists like this for every chart produced by Billboard - in fact I see it as a bit excessive. - eo (talk) 13:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Pop 100 Airplay ones per WP:NOT#IINFO, Neutral on the rest. Pop 100 Airplay is indeed a component only chart, and inclusion of that chart's info would be indiscriminate. However, I don't think the same applies to Hot Adult Top 40 Tracks or Hot Digital Songs; neither one of those seems to be a component chart. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOT#IINFO. As the nom points out, these are all component charts, and this information is thus highly indiscriminate in nature. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - fyi (you prob already know this, TPH), but Adult Top 40 is not to be confused with the more notable and long-running Hot Adult Contemporary Tracks. It's an even more narrow segment of radio. - eo (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, I wasn't sure on that one. I didn't have them confused, I just wasn't sure if they were truly component charts or not. They're obviously not clear-cut cases like Hot Country Songs, which is not a component chart although it's airplay-only. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 13:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. There are certainly very notable charts based only on airplay: for example I believe Hot Latin Tracks definitely deserves number-ones lists (which it has), but I would draw the line at, say, Latin Pop Airplay, Latin Regional Mexican Airplay, Latin Tropical Airplay or Latin Rhythm Airplay. - eo (talk) 13:44, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 15:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. JohnCD (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per being verfiable information of notable topics. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking keep all. Though I think some need to have theire page moved to fit other lists' formats. icelandic hur ricane #12_(talk) 15:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Hot Digital Songs 2008 number-ones - it is the most important sales chart in the USA as it is the only one that measures pure sales of both digital and physical singles across all genres, and as such has a unique and widespread importance compared to the other charts listed (contrary to the nomination's claim that "These particular lists cover either airplay or sales in a very specific segment of the singles market"). I'd also venture that the page/topic should be expanded to cover all the number 1s since the chart was introduced. Leipzigger98 (talk) 02:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see WP:PERNOM. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 04:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Schoos Design[edit]

I declined a contested speedy deletion for Blatant advertising for this article as I feel it is borderline and has some solid references. While the article needs work, I'd rather see consensus before deleting it. Toddst1 (talk) 11:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article as stands seems like pretty blatant advertising to me, but the fact that the text is copypasted from http://www.schoos.com/ should make it a speedy regardless. It's a Flash site, so it's harder to tag. See Schoos bio for example. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as blatant spam. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that there is insufficient significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Davewild (talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elijah Shaw[edit]

Does not give a reason for encyclopedic notability; no sources AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as premature. This security manager to the stars turned reality TV figure has some 3rd-party coverage (Entreprener.com/Wash. Post, Black Enterprise), but all of it is recent. Much of the other stuff about him appears to be self-promotion. Insufficient evidence of sustained WP:RS interest. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little current claim to notability. BWH76 (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - he needs more extensive coverage in reliable sources to justify an article in his own right. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 10:02, 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 Redirect to Fire safety where the topic is already covered. Davewild (talk) 18:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Firefighting System[edit]

Delete as per NOR. -- Niaz ^{(Talk •}^Contribs) 09:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to fire safety, which this seems to duplicate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as it is clear that the topic is covered in fire safety -- Whpq (talk) 16:06, 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. Nom has withdrawn. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Demand shaping[edit]

Seems to be a copyvio of a commercially published market research paper called "What is Demand Sensing" published by AMR, but speedy delete was declined. I don't have access to the original paper but here are the reasons for suspecting this article:

One paragraph, since deleted [17], is a clear copyvio - see here

There's an internal reference to another AMR research paper ("Seagate a Leader in the Use of Downstream Data")

Seems to be original research

Unreferenced

Written by SPA, without any editing

Style is identical to a publicly available research paper from the same AMR author - see here

andy (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn - the new stub is well referenced. andy (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kristjan Wager (talk) 11:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Original research couched in evasive gush: The orchestration of demand based on channel sensing and response to a real-time demand signal across a network of employees, customers, and suppliers. If someone who typed that stuff wanted to shake my hand, I'd insist they wash their hands first. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are lots of sources for this. I just stubbed the article based upon one of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That stub looks good to me. I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination - anyone got any opinions? andy (talk) 10:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd still want some indication that this is a notable neologism. Many of those hits on Google Scholar seem to be the result of the semi-random convergence of the two words of the search stream, usually with intervening punctuation. It isn't clear to me that an article on the topic is needed, or wouldn't be redundant to more mainstream articles about things like price or advertising. I'm just very leery of ga-ga marketing terms, and the way this one was introduced here makes it look like another. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:38, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The term definitely has a vogue but is it just marketing babble? andy (talk) 23:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a systemic bias against business and marketing here. This is unhelpful because these are important topics. Pricing and advertising are just two ways of shaping demand. Other methods include bundling, market segmentation and tie-ins. The original article emphasised the role of demand sensing. It seems obvious to me that there's lots to be said about these matters and it's not just babble. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:39, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that this "systemic bias" exists, it flows out of the premises of the project, that we don't promote new ideas, and most importantly, that we don't allow the popularity of the site and its prominence on search engines to be hijacked for commercial purposes, search engine manipulation, or lending credibility or publicity to newly minted buzzwords and acronyms.

The fact that many people who insert this sort of article are unable to write clearly, concretely, or concisely, and have a promotional conflict of interest that makes their prose — unwittingly or calculatedly — vague, evasive, and tending to belabor the obvious in polysyllabic abstract nouns, seems to me to be a flaw of the breed. The impression that kind of prose gives me is that the writer is at pains to conceal the obviousness and lack of real innovation in their method; and to describe them vaguely, to make them seem univerally applicable, and evasively, because plain language would make their obviousness and lack of real innovation plain to see. If this is bias, so be it. But generally, if I find the prose of an article clear, concise, and concrete, and free from management paperback buzzwords, my inclusionist tendencies can take over. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 11:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor writing is explicitly acceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. At the moment, this discussion seems to be wandering far afield of the merits of this article itself, which last time I looked remained a brief but lucid stub. I distinguish between merely bad writing, and deliberately bad writing, especially when the latter seems calculated to conceal the fact that "there's no 'there' there", to be all sizzle and no steak. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. WP:DICT. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DICT is not applicable - please read it to see the difference between a stub and a dictionary definition. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found (and added a reference) from the official MIT website. Sculptors of Demand (MIT Center for Transportation and Demand), making the case for notability quite strong. --Firefly322 (talk) 01:18, 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, no evidence has been produced to show that reliable secondary sources are available to meet the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:50, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Third Parties Coalition[edit]

Non-notable organization. Independent sources are scarce. Grand total of 18 unique Google hits. 4 Google News hits, all from August 2007 or earlier, apparently based on two distinct articles (see here for the AP one from July 2007). Apparently they didn't do anything except being founded. While that's verifiable, it's not especially notable. Possible conflict of interest since the logo is claimed to have been created by one of the chief editors. Was prodded, prod removed without improvement. Huon (talk) 08:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom's argument. I removed the prod tag. Will change to keep if notability is established. Original contested prod rationale was based on it being a real political coalition seeking to make change and was verifiable, but only on those means. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-"Non-notable organisation" with a "grand total of 18 unique Google hits"? It is evidently contradicting; I see no cause why the article should be deleted. [18] shows that they do actually do something other than being founded. This organisation has room is indeed notable with more than 18 Google hits. There is no proof that the chief editor created the, too. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That isnt even a third party source though. Its their main web site. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and their main contributor to the article is KV (other edits are 1 from a bot, and 1 from a user adding a category tag I believe). And he was the one who made their logo. Regards. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This will teach me never to present the results of a Google search without a link: 18 unique results. This is extremely low for an organization that's supposed to be influencing public opinion and Michigan State law. Furthermore, these 18 hits include Wikipedia, its mirrors, the organization, its component parties and a few search engines. I didn't find any independent source about their activities after the founding. Concerning the logo: The Wikipedia image is described as self-made by King Vegita. It is the same as the one on their website, compare here (except theirs is a BMP file, we have a JPEG). I took that to mean that KV created the original logo and didn't just change the image type. Huon (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant spam. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. per WP:SNOW (non-admin) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 02:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrate Bisexuality Day[edit]

Non-notable and uncited. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Another borderline speedy keep from me today, but I can understand where it might be a tad difficult to find articles about something whose inception was this long ago, and this probably wasn't in bad faith; just lacking in forethought and research; still, it would be crazy to say this is not notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 07:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 8 References to news and archived news abstracts have been added. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Lacking in forethought and research?" It's not my role as nominator to review the subject; it's the role of the editors to assert notability and provide some references. The article as it was when I tagged it did neither. I didn't look for any articles on the topic, although I'm sure that someone can easily find some reference to it on the Internet (at the very least from the founders' homepage.) Consequently, it is neither "crazy" nor "silly" to nominate this for AfD; it's perfect example of an AfD article. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material should always be a last resort. When considering something for deletion, you should go through yourself and make sure that the subject really isn't notable. A quick google news search would have been more than sufficient to do that, and it only took me 30 minutes. Had I not done that, this material would have been gone from Wikipedia, despite it's obvious notability. While it may be the job of the creating editor to assert notability, that often isn't the case with new and inexperienced editors who don't about notability or reliable sources and simply ignore all the rules and go about editing the article and improving the project. Also, the deletion policy discusses "content not being verifiable in a reliable source" as a reason for deletion; notice how it doesn't specify "content not being verifiable in a reliable source IN THE ARTICLE". AfD is not forced cleanup. When you see something that needs improvement or verification, you should be bold and fix it; if you can't find any sources, then put it up for deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirty minutes? In addition to that being an astronomical amount of time to verify something's existence, most of these sources still don't assert any real notability; I don't know if this is a "holiday" that's just celebrated by three guys in a room. I can declare any significance to any day and I can probably find someone to celebrate with me; that is not significant. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, considering that I was doing other things during the time. But yes, the numerous articles do assert. If it was celebrated by three guys in a room, it would not receive coverage in multiple news publications around the globe, and it certainly wouldn't receive it more than once; the coverage I've referenced involves at least two separate instances of the event. While the fact that you yourself may do it is not significant, the media coverage that is received makes it so. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really Many of these stories you cite are "man bites dog"-style news. If you don't think non-notable content gets into newspapers or on the Internet then you're in for a surprise. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the 'style' of news is a completely subjective term, our notability guidelines rightly do not address such things. They simply require that they be indepdendent (which they are, with the exception of the press release), reliable and independent of the sources (which, being the Boston Globe and the Michigan Daily, that is certainly met, although I'll grant you that some of the things listed are specialty publications; however, even those are independent of the actual organization behind the event and are covering the event as a point of interest to their LGBT readers and as such aren't strictly not independent of the article's subject), and obviously, be sources that cover the material. They don't say "It has to be a twelve-page exposé on the subject". Just that it has to cover it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve pages? So is it your assertion that every celebration or holiday mentioned in a reliable print newspaper is consequently worthy of a Wikipedia article? If so, you and I will have to agree to disagree. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be verified and information given about it beyond 'it happened', then yes, why not? Especially when it is about a fringe group that doesn't regularly get coverage; it gives us a chance to include them in Wikipedia and further develop and improve the encyclopedia. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chance to include Wikipedia doesn't exist for promotion or to include marginalized groups, that's why not everything that has happened gets an article. I don't see why fringe groups should be given any kind of priority in an encyclopedia. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a chance for something new to be included in the encyclopedia; a traditional encyclopedia wouldn't include such a thing due to space constraints, although there is information available about it that can be verified; it simply wouldn't be of interest to enough to people to warrant inclusion. We, however, do not suffer from that problem, and as such, should embrace new material when it can be shown to be of note, be verified and written on. While naturally they shouldn't be considered of higher priority or somehow intrinsically 'better', at the same time they shouldn't be considered less priority or somehow intrinsically 'worse' simply by enumerating those who participate in it, as that leads us down the slippery slope of becoming majority-opinon-only. For this reason, notability is not populraity. And while you say Wikipedia shouldn't be used for promotion, we have an articles on things like International talk like a pirate day and Day of the Ninja that are also non-religious holidays; similarly, we also cover 'promotional' things like the 2008 presidential campaign, but I don't see you complaining about those. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion and promotion I assume that you're familiar with the inclusionist/deletionist debate, so I'm not going to go about re-hashing it here and I've made myself clear about notability: it's necessary, and every article needs to assert it - as you yourself said "when it can be shown to be of note." Articles about phenomena that don't include any reason to think that the phenomenon in question is notable are candidates for deletion. I never said that notability is popularity, nor vice versa. I don't know if you're trying to make some kind of coy suggestion with your last sentence, but if so, I don't really want to get into some rhetorical back-and-forth; there's no need for implication. If you honestly think that the 2008 presidential campaign for president of the United States of America is of comparable notability or the same essentially promotional nature of an article on Celebrate Bisexuality Day, then we will have to part ways. Your examples of other Internet-based faux holidays were germane, but that was simply preposterous. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, things like "Internet-based faux holidays" are not needed. While these comments are interesting and have certainly led to a very quickly much improved article, I think we are reaching the point of diminishing returns here. IMHO some of these arguments are beginning to veer into we don't need this here, I don't care about it and the ever popular Well I've never heard of it so it must be a hoax. Peace people. BiAndBi (talk) 01:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to chime in with "yes, you really should do a bit of research on a topic before you send it to AfD and create more work for others...Hobit (talk) 21:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More work? What creates more work for whom? The "more work" of citing an unreferenced article? There shouldn't be any unreferenced articles on Wikipedia in the first place. I can't make any sense out of what you just complained about here. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I wasn't clear. Nominating an article for AfD creates work for everyone who looks it over. Before you do so, it is helpful if you do a reasonable search (say 3 minutes). If the article doesn't *assert* notability, but the topic has it, that's a clean-up problem, not an AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Work Well, I suppose that's just the risk you run while watching AfD; I made this nomination in good faith that this article should be deleted precisely because it does not assert notability, which is one of the primary guidelines of writing an article on Wikipedia. It wasn't spurious or a joke. If the authors of an article can't assert notability themselves, and it's a topic of no interest to me, I'm not going to take the initiative to find articles that reference it (and furthermore, I'm still not really won over by the references that have been presented; many, if not all of them, I would not have used myself, as they are not substantive.) If everyone else who has edited it, watched it, or just read it, don't seem interested in asserting that this topic 1.) actually exists and 2.) is notable, then I'm not going to be inclined to do so myself. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I dare not look into the depths of this article, your reference listings is enough, don't need to be blinded, silly NSFW AfD. -Jahnx (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What isn't safe for work? The word "bisexuality"? --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, now that references indicating notability have been added. Scog (talk) 08:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, had references (just not with hyperlinks). Better now. --Dhartung | Talk 08:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — the correct course of action for this article was WP:EDIT, not WP:AFD. We should spend our time creating and sourcing notable content, not nominating it for deletion. Suggest withdrawal per WP:SNOW. EJF (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:N and WP:HEY Hobit (talk) 21:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - And my bad that there were too few references. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has been my habit when there are many similar articles on or references to a subject to pick only a few representative samples (those I think are the "strongest" or most "interesting") and to use them. So I go more for "brevity being the soul of wit", etc. Otherwise I feel some articles have simply ended up looking like a link-farms.

For example in this case I could have started at the International Dateline and followed to sun around the globe adding in a link to every single celebration and commemoration listed, but I'm sure you can guess that after a while that would be silly. So it can be hard to know where to draw the line.

Additionally on those articles whose subjects are deemed (by a determined few) to possibly be about subjects that they find to be of a "controversial" nature, where "citation needed" tags are slapped on every word except for "a", "an", "and" or "the", the battle to keep up with it all has (IMHO) rendered some article's virtually unreadable.CyntWorkStuff (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep not to mention suggest withdrawal per WP:SNOW. Notable article that at best probably could have used prod tag or a clean-up tag combined with a polite note to its creating editor and/or other primary editors. Which now that I research it is exactly what is recommended in Before nominating an AfD. BiAndBi (talk) 19:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The entry looks fine to me.Larry (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The debate has served its purpose and the article is in good shape now. - House of Scandal (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:SNOW, as above. This is the kind of discussion that people have fun with, so I don't really mind the extra work, and I agree with the "served its purpose" comment immediately above. But when I see "the same essentially promotional nature of an article on Celebrate Bisexuality Day", I have to ask what's being promoted ... the international bisexual cabal? Sounds like people having fun to me. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion What is being promoted on "Celebrate Bisexuality Day?" Bisexuality. It sounds like you're having fun by asserting some kind of paranoia on my part. An allegation about pleading by a certain group does not have to devolve into out-and-out conspiratorial nonsense (for an example of that, see below.) -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's like saying Kwanzaa promotes African-Americanism. It's not a recruitment drive, it doesn't seem like "come join us". By and large, it seems to be a celebration for people who are bisexual and who are proud of being so. This is starting to approach the good faith line. I don't see anywhere in the article where it 'promotes' bisexuality; could you give a specific example so it can be fixed and made more neutral? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This should be withdrawn. While the entry needed more work, it was in regards to a clearly notable event. I believe that the nomination of this article reflects more on the anti-LGBT bias of the nominator than the quality of the article itself. I have noticed that articles that support beliefs that are counter to what many Christians think are proper are held to a much higher standard, and are much more likely to get proposed for deletion where a simple note to improve the quality should have been sufficient. Rhonan (talk) 02:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow That's pretty bigoted of you. Please refrain from your own judgements about my presumed religious convictions and sexuality; it's irrelevant and crass. I'm not holding this to any higher standard than any other article: it was unsourced and didn't assert notability. I have personally tagged scores of such articles before about Internet celebrities, software, local organizations, and obscure holidays alike. Again, please try to act like an adult and don't make these outrageous assertions about my character and biases. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The WP:SNOW has fallen, a speedy closure is warranted at this point. (jarbarf) (talk) 01:59, 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. Lack of sources is not the same as unverifiability is just plain wrong. No sources does in-fact mean delete. We are building an encyclopedia here, not creating or defining new terms. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 04:16, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrois[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Non-notable neologism; only two sources - one of which doesn't mention the term, the other of which is not-reputable; recreation of deleted content; etc. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per non-notable WP:NEO. Suprised it wasn't speedy deleted when it was recreated. -Jahnx (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to genderqueer per this source, which is about as comprehensive an RS as I found. There's a lot of personal interpretation in these non-societally-sanctioned gender identities and we've already got a couple of good (well, better) articles like that one and third gender to cover the area. --Dhartung | Talk 08:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

redirecting to genderqueer brings back the stigma of politicization for a group that don't need anymore bs. redirecting to third gender does not work as it is largely a cultural and historical term. Taineyah (talk) 09:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also, what does "Just Add Hormones" have to do with redirecting the article?Taineyah (talk) 09:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the ONLY result for the word "neutrois" on Google Books. It uses the term in a definition of transgendered: Most generally used as an umbrella term that encompasses a range of people .... (standard TG definition, feel out of place in wrong body, etc.) It can also refer to those who present as androgynous or do not define themselves by gender at all. In some cases, these people self-identify as "genderqueer", "genderless", or "neutrois". There are many other names that people use to define themselves. There are no relevant hits on Google Scholar or Google News Archive. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of sources is not the same as unverifiability. Wikipedia deletion policy states that if a page can be improved, to take that option rather than deletion. As for the non-reputable source, questionable sources may be used in articles about themselves. Finally, this article is still being built- see WP:INSPECTOR. I do realize I'm not a user of this site and my vote may not be counted, but I hope you'll at least allow me to voice my thoughts on this. 24.70.106.141 (talk) 09:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)Mendori[reply]

Comment What sources do you propose we use? --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At present, attempts are being made to obtain a copy of a German book which is supposed to have further references. Unfortunately, we're being forced to obtain an electronic copy from the British Library as it is a rare book and difficult to find. If we can find it, then we should be able to use that book to find further sources.Taineyah (talk) 20:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly And that essentially proves that this is a non-notable neologism. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shifting the goalposts much? Uh, no. That essentially says "hey, there's a source that may be particularly useful," not "this is totally worthless, delete it fast." If you're going to moan about sources, you need to actually evaluate the sources when found, not assume that because someone's citing from a rare book, the classification is non-notable. I'd ask that a certain amount of time be given to obtain and cite the book. Scott (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scouring the earth If a Wikipedia article existed for every term mentioned in a rare German book that is "supposed to have further references" there would be no notability guidelines at all. As it is, this is essentially unsourced material and the fact that it's virtually impossible to find even a reference to it shows that it is a neologism. And typing the word "uh" is not clever, Scott. Please don't use sarcastic jokes in the middle of the discussion while simultaneously trying to raise it. There is time being given; if you can't find it during this AfD discussion, then re-create the page with actual content and verifiable sources when you get it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's like a red herring factory Funny, I happen to know of the book in question and it's really not obscure. It's just old. If anything, the article should be renamed rather than deleted, if 'neutrois' hasn't entered the realm of 'notable.'

The word "uh" was used in response to the staggering absurdity of your remarks, not as some misguided attempt at a witticism. Had I been attempting sarcasm, I would have voiced my support for your statement. Please avoid attempting to psychoanalyze me from your desk chair, bed, workplace, school, or wherever you're actually accessing the tubes from. I'm not here to be witty. I'm here to discuss and contribute to wiki pages.

Sure, time will be given, provided we don't get more requests for insta-deletion. Granted, I'll recreate the page with something more verifiable whenever I have them, but it seems a waste. I'd suggest that this, along with other pages lacking significant citations, should be labeled as being potentially spurious or lacking sufficient citations and not simply deleted out of hand. Scott (talk) 12:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Staggering absurdity? Okay, clearly you're more interested in pontificating and mocking than having a civil discussion. My position is clear: this word is non-notable, the article has no verifiable and reliable sources, and it should be deleted. Please avoid attempting to psychoanalyze me from your desk chair, bed, workplace, school, or wherever you're actually accessing the tubes from. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as re-created deleted material and so tagged. If there is any new evidence that it is notable this can be thrashed out at a deletion review. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm.jpg I'm removing the tag on the article, since this bears absolutely no resemblance to the deleted article. We should deal with it on its own merits, or lack of them. Scott (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 17:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Tough call, but it is our burden to err on the side of keeping rather than deleting. Article will improve in time. Not that it's an essential criteria, but AltaVista found 4,640 results - House of Scandal (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Gender identity disorder. It looks like the term is getting some use, but does not meet standards of notability. Aleta ^Sing 05:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most reasonable answer so far. This would be agreeable as a measure until the further sources can be obtained. (Hard copy is always harder to find than electronic data and the sources we need are in hard copy, primarily.) Taineyah (talk) 14:25, 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Bailey (composer)[edit]

Classic coatrack article, in this case not for pushing a POV but as a dumping ground for large amounts of track listings for CDs. The track lists in general seem to be directory information that has no context and tells the reader nothing about the topic. Chardish (talk) 06:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think it passes WP:Music (second opinion?) and the singer has had not hits, all she is known for that I can find is the Half Life game music which can be mentioned in the Half Life articles. The song lists aren't needed, Non-notable songs. -Jahnx (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I could see this moved to List of Half-Life soundtrack albums or some such, with a briefer mention of Bailey. --Dhartung | Talk 08:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Dhartung Sceptre ^(talk) 22:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Coatrack and notability problems. Eusebeus (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the relevant notability guideline. Davewild (talk) 18:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Patterson (Racing Analyst)[edit]

No assertion of Notability, no sources provided and none that I can find on google that would otherwise support this. Benea (talk) 05:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. -Jahnx (talk) 08:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. (Google search came up empty & article itself provides no information that seems to me to support notability.) TheScotch (talk) 09:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This individual IS notable. -- Ray-Ginsay (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a conflict of interest issue here as the subject is the contributor's father according to this diff. Benea (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- Chaney L. Irving (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment: The above account seems to have been created 3/21/8, which rather suggests to me that it may be a sock puppet. Is there a way to check this? TheScotch (talk) 04:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems possible. WP:NOREASON also applies in the case. This is not a vote and actual arguments must be presented or it may be dismissed. Benea (talk) 05:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are currently five contributions attributed to this editor. Three are clearly vandalism: same article (H), same day, same edit. Another is a brief introductory sentence at the editor's user page, and the fifth is this endorsement. I'd like someone to trace the address. TheScotch (talk) 05:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 11:26, 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 --JForget 22:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted 2[edit]

Crystalballism. Offers no sources, and Google provides nothing but rumors and a statement from someone in the company, nothing substantial. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note adding related article Uncharted series. JuJube (talk) 04:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jahnx (talk) 08:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, -- --Camaeron (t/c) 11:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:CRYSTAL ArcAngel (talk) 14:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 23:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - game is confirmed in development here at CVG, here at ActionTrip, here at PSX Extreme. The article on ActionTrip quotes an interview on French TV channel TF1.Gazimoff (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Redirect to Uncharted: Drake's Fortune#Sequel. There has been no official press release made about this game, just interviews with company representatives stating that the game is 'in development'. As such, i think the best place for this small piece of information is in the earlier game's article, until such time as there is enough information to make a separate article. Additionally, redirect Uncharted series to Uncharted: Drake's Fortune as the series has yet to attain notability. This article can always be remade once the sequel is released, if it can be warranted. Gazimoff (talk) 04:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Is there any information on the game beyond "it's being made"? JuJube (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even with sources, it's not enough to substantiate a stub article, much less an article; usually these would be talked about in the first game until at least a rough release date and more facts are known. Redirect to Uncharted: Drake's Fortune (appropriate section redirect if needed). Delete series article as not enough at all to know how common the elements may be. --MASEM 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, awful writing style and no citations --EclipseSSD (talk) 21:09, 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 redirect to class conflict. I know the majority says delete, but Dhartung's alternative suggestion seems to be ideal. Singu larity 06:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Class envy[edit]

Dictionary definition with a generous helping of original research added. Unsourced since mid-2006. It's possible that a decent article could be written on the subject, but the existing one is so bad that we'd be better off nuking it and starting over from scratch. *** Crotalus *** 04:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nuke it and keep it dead, non-notable, flirts with WP:NEO. -Jahnx (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source. This was an important term in the 19th century, but is now mostly seen in academic circles and -- oddly -- US Republican rhetoric (as a supposed driver behind American liberalism). It is certainly not a neologism. It is a key trigger for Marx in the development of working-class consciousness. Alternatively redirect to a slightly-less-essayish class conflict. --Dhartung | Talk 09:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per nominator...--Camaeron (t/c) 11:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Envy which could use a section of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:No original research or WP:NEO. Prolongued failure to produce reliable sources for the claims is an indicative that the article is either original research or neologism.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 05:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, allowing redirect. The keep !votes adequately established that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow here is the lack of any secondary biographical sources. Wikipedia should not be the first place to write notional biographies of living individuals, but luckily that is not what was happening here since the article is largely comprised of minor details of his detention. Summary: Gitmo is notable, the fact of a number of people being detained at gitmo is notable, the things that go on at gitmo are said by many (and with some justification) to be an outrage to human decency, but Wikipedia is not Amnesty International. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam[edit]

You have to be crazy to say that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp is unnotable. That being said, it does not mean that every prisoner that was or is held at Guantanamo Bay is notable. There has been over 700 detainess held at one point on Guantanomo Bay. Should there be an article on each prisoner? Of course not. Except, of course, if there's substantial coverage about the person that WP:BIO requires. This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage on this specific person. The refs provided are just a bunch of Army files were he is listed as a prisoner.

The creator of this article Geo Swan (talk · contribs) continuously creates these articles even after similar articles go through afd with the vast majority of them ending up as "no concensus", "redirect", or "delete". Some examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 --brew crewer (yada, yada) 03:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody told me that posting above others with lines is the new the afd discussion guidline, but I will accordingly get in style. The creator of the article believes that the continuous repetition (and putting them in boxes) in this discussion of incorrect Wikipedia notability guidelines will validate the guidelines. Some of us have responded at each turn, but as our fingers hurt, and we have real-world issues, there might not be a response at each turn pointing out again and again the misconceptopns. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 23:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this nomination contains a number of misconceptions. I am addressing these misconceptions up here at the top, several days into the discussion.

I believe the nominator is mistaken to conflate previously closed {{afd}} that were closed as "no consensus" with {{afd}} that were closed as "delete". Unless there has been a recent policy change "no consensus" defaults to keep.
The nominator forgot to list similar {{afd}} which were closed as "keep": 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
The nominator initially seened to be asserting that WP:BIO requires "substantial media coverage". It recommends "substantial coverage" -- and says nothing about whether it should be media coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Several participants have questioned how Guantanamo captives were not really different from ordinary convicted felons. I believe this is a serious misconception, which I have addressed at length. Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs. Geo Swan (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, if only because this is the first time I've seen evidence that Usama apparently runs a law school. (edit: In all seriousness, keep because we have an obligation not unlike Snopes.com that when somebody is labelled "the worst of the worst" and faced with punishment that goes beyond what can be prescribed under the legal code...we have a responsibility to gather and present the facts of the case and provide context. I agree the article is poorly-written and could use some help, but deletion is not the answer.)Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 04:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note Sherurcij (talk · contribs) in clear violation of Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments has added to his rationale of his !vote after I responded to him. I requested that he not do that (so that I don't look stupid in responding nonsensically), but he chose to ignore me, and reinserted his additions above my response. So please take note when reading the give and take below. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "edit" to my addition, it has absolutely nothing to do with making you look stupid (though I think you claiming that I'm in "clear violation" of a suggested guideline is doing a fine job) - it has to do with me clarifying my position. Let it go. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 21:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ILIKEIT. Please give relevant reasons for the non-deletion of the article. I don't know where you are getting your info about law school (is it a joke?).--brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try reading the article before proposing it for deletion next time. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 09:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator asked where Sherurcij got the info about attending Osama bin Laden's law school? One of the allegations Ahmed Adnan Muhammed Ajam faced was

The detainee stayed at a legal college in Kandahar owned by Usama bin Laden.

Anyone can find that allegation in the article and on page 84 of this source, and on page 93 of this source.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is merely a confusion of the issues. Whether he attended law school (as Sherurcij originally claimed) or just regular college (as now claimed) and whether it is mentioned somewhere in the hundred page complaints or it isn't, is immaterial. Osama having a school is no way connected to the notability of this subject. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please actually read what your correspondents wrote, before you reply. Please reply to what your correspondents actually wrote.

Three memos that summarized the allegations against Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam have been published. They were drafted in 2004, 2005 and 2006. Each of these memos was published together with memos against other captives in three separate pdf files that are each about one hundred pages long. But the 2004 memo is one page long, and the 2005 and 2006 memos are just two pages long. These memos aren't "somewhere" in one hundred pages of complaints, as asserted above. The article's references clearly specify which page(s) within the pdfs the memos are found on. No one is asking readers to read articles random articles they may not be interested in. But I think we are entitled to have those who nominate or comment on articles that have been nominated for discussion to read them with sufficient care that they don't make unsupportable claims about what those article contain.

If it weren't a red herring, I might read it more carefully. But his school attendance has no connection to his notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As DGG pointed out about a similar article: "The individual people are notable; what has happened to each of them is a matter of international concern." I can't see any Guantanamo Bay detainees being non-notable. The arrticles may have other failings, but I don't think they should be deleted on these grounds. -- Kleinzach (talk) 04:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How the Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides for the due process of its prisoners is a matter of international concern, and that is why the detention camp is notable. The issue here is wheter each and every prisoner is notable or not. And the question that has to be answered it whether there's substantial coverage of the subject of the bio. I also think that that the issues surrounding the Guantanamo Bay detention camp are a matter of international concern but that has nothing to do with each prisoner. This article is a classic example of WP:COATRACK. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 04:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COATRACK says: "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses the nominal subject, but in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." however this article is focused (well or badly) completely on its subject. It doesn't discuss Guantanamo Bay in general. --Kleinzach (talk) 04:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article "in reality is a cover for a tangentially related bias subject" no matter how much it focuses on its subject. The creator, in previos afd's, repeatedly states that the importance of the lack of due process that Guantanamo Bay detention camp provides to prisoners is the reason for the non-deletion of the article. It doesn't get anymore WP:COATRACK then that. Indeed, your reason for non-deletion pretty much says the same. There is a confusion with an important issue and people that are pawns in an important issue. The former is notable, not the latter. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's assertions about WP:BIO misquote the guideline. Nomination states: "...This article in no way shows any sort of media coverage..." -- the nomination claims WP:BIO requires "substantial coverage". What WP:BIO actually says is:

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

The WP:BIO guideline says nothing about a requirement for "substantial media coverage". I urge anyone who thinks it does to go back and re-read it for themselves.

Some challengers have stated that the OARDEC documents such as those this article uses are unsatisfactory sources, because they are merely "primary sources", not "secondary sources". I took a closer look at the definitions, and it seemed to me these sources are secondary sources. These documents were drafted from multiple sources, by an independent agency. So I posted queries on WP:BLP/Noticeboard#Primary source, or secondary source? and WP:RS/Noticeboard#What constitutes an "independent third party source"? I encourage anyone who doubts the sources comply with policy and WP:BIO to take a look at those discussion.

Note: I politely asked the nominator to review those discussion back on March 7 2008 -- when they initially {{prod}}ded this article. I am very sorry that I have to report that the nominator proved unwilling or unable to offer any kind of reply whatsoever. Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This box sits right on top of the WP:BIO page:

This page in a nutshell:

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.
Notability criteria also must be met for a person to be included in a list or general article; in this case, however, the criteria are less stringent.

(emphasis added) significant (in other words "substantial", but significant is actually a higher standard) coverage is actually the most important factor of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion.

Noone here is arguing about the reliability of the sources, that's merely a confusion of the issues. There is one issue - and one issue only - is this person notable or not. Nothing so far has shown that he has any notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification please -- are you now acknowledging that the WP:BIO guideline does not, after all, require that the significant coverage, or substantial coverage, be from a media source? Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The memos were independently drafted, by a separate agency from the task force authorized to detain and interrogate the captives. The authors of these memos reviewed source documents from the FBI, from the CIA, from the USA's Criminal Investigation Task Force for Afghanistan, from the office of the Deputy Assistant Secrectary of Defense for Detainee Affairs, and from foreign intelligence services. After reviewing these documents the OARDEC authors reached conclusions, and listed justifications for his continued detention. I would like someone to explain why this should not be regarded as significant coverage, or substantial coverage.

Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam, in particular, stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side. I would like someone to explain why this is not significant. Geo Swan (talk) 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification given -- Whether goverment documents are reliable sources or not (I don't see how they are, the US goverment isn't considered reliable) is a non-issue here. If not one media outlet (and there are plenty that are riled up about the whole Guantanamo Bay process) has decided to write an article about him then its impossible to say that he has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO.

If you are going to keep asserting that the WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage then please cite the specific passage that states this. Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never asserted that WP:BIO guideline requires media coverage (although I can't imagine that it doesn't). I stated that I can't see how an argument can be made that a person has recieved significant coverage required by WP:BIO when not one media outlet had even mentioned him in passing!--brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:20, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would still appreciate nominator, or anyone else, offering an explanation as to why the OARDEC memos do not fulfill the "significant" recommendation of the WP:BIO guideline. Geo Swan (talk) 22:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You asked why it "is not significant" that Ajam "stands accused of working for a charity that was a front for financing terrorists, and for being named on a list of those scheduled for military training from the other side." I don't think that this is significant in itself without further evidence that it is. In particular, these accusations have not been established as being either considerably more serious, or considerably less serious, than the accusations against the hundreds of other detainees who are or who have been held at Guantanamo Bay. The fact that the body assigned to review the continued detention of Ajam generated a memo about him, as they did for numerous other detainees, does not appear to be "significant coverage" of his case. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article cites only primary sources, with no secondary sources to establish news coverage of this individual. Almost all Google hits for him are from Wikipedia itself, and there are no Google News or Google News Archive hits I could find. The fact that he is held at the notable Guantanamo Bay detention camp does not establish that he himself is notable per WP:BIO. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comments above. Please see discussions at [19],[20]. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have reviewed those discussions and commented above and on my user talk page per your request. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability isn't established, toss his name on a list article if you want but not deserving of of his own article. -Jahnx (talk) 08:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO, and that's all that counts. If he has received no individual media attention (most likely because they also have no other information), Wikipedia shouldn't have an individual article either. --Minimaki (talk) 12:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see above. I believe your comment is based on a misinterprtation of what WP:BIO states. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just for the record, my comment is not based on any misinterpretation. Reading the guideline by the letter, as you do, coverage can of course mean anything, including those military documents. But if Wikipedia is the only place in all the web as well as all printed media (that we know about) talking about this person, then it's evident how someone can interpret that as no significant coverage outside Wikipedia, and is not a misinterpretation. --Minimaki (talk) 13:47, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:BIO. Why give the detainees more coverage than they deserve? ArcAngel (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "merge" ? Merge into what? --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A closer look at the link provided reveals that, to the contrary, it is a basis for deletion. They are merely lists of detainees, and are a far cry from substantial coverage that is required by WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: As above the preceding comment mischaracterizes what the WP:BIO guideline recommends. Geo Swan (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wrong. Significant coverage is actually the most important factor in assessing notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 17:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by Keep/merge is that the article should not be deleted, which is the point of this discussion. I have no strong opinion on how the various prisoners are presented here but, even if they were to be gathered together in some list or compilation, this article would still be useful as a redirect since the name is an obvious basis for a search. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

okay, but please explain how the link that you provided establishes that he's "Evidently notable". --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. The above ghits link does not establish notability as each hit is in fact simply a name on the list ( the subject of the article only appears on lists of prisoners). In other words, there is no independent coverage where this person is the subject of the article. Fails WP:BIO and I also see merit in Brewcrewer's argument for WP:COAT. BWH76 (talk) 15:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia isn't paper and has no size constraints WP:NOT#PAPER. So all detainees (even those committing shockingly evil acts) can and are notable, even as individuals. In the same way, I would argue that everyone on Schindler's list is notable on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using WP:NOT#PAPER is a basis for the non-deletion is a misapplication of Wikipedia policy. According to your logic, what the point of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion?
Another thing that you are confusing is that the basis for the deletion is that they are bad people. That is flat-out wrong. To the contrary, those that "committed shockingly evil acts" have a better basis for inclusion. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 16:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, unless specifically stated otherwise, the scope of my arguments nartually limit themselves to the debate at hand. With that in mind, a few hundred detainees each with their own article could easily overwhelm paper-based encyclopedia, but that's not a problem with an electronic-based one.
Second, nitpicking aside, I wish you God speed in fighting the good fight of Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. Thank you for all that folks like yourself do.
Third, my blessing of your actions in general should in no way be taken as an indication that I have retracted my assertion to OPPOSE you upon this specific nomination or the rationale provided. --Firefly322 (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I've just drastically re-written the lead information on this detainee, at this point. I feel this improves the article and helps establish his notability. I believe that if the original author also uploads the transcripts for the subject's ARB and CSRT proceedings to s:Wikisource:Guantanamo, then this will make it a clear-cut "keep" case, rather than the debated status it currently has. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 20:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article has not been drastically rewritten. It merely has gotten some background information. The problem with the article - unestablished notability - has yet to be rectified. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is one of 645 separate articles about prisoners at Guantanamo Bay (the whole list is at Category: People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). Unless one operates under the assumption that all prisoners at Guantanamo (or for that matter, at the Supermax in Florence, Colorado, or at a Chinese camp for political prisoners) are inherently notable, then I don't see that Ajam is more notable than any other person who is incarcerated. Mandsford (talk) 20:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I think the argument that Guantanamo captives are just like other prisoners is based on misconceptions. I have had dialogs on this, and saved one here Guantanamo captives aren't felons and aren't POWs.

Briefly, I agree, your ordinary Supermax convict would not merit coverage on the wikipedia. But Charles Manson, if he were held there, would. The USA has a justice system that, like those of most other nations, is well-understood, predictable. Convicts had trials. Evidence was gathered, witnesses testified, and were cross examined. If the prisoner was convicted, and sentenced, then we assume he was guilty, will be treated consistently and fairly, and will be released on schedule, unless he commits more crimes while in detention.

While, I agree your ordinary Supermax convict doesn't merit coverage, I would argue that any Supermax convict for whom there are meaningful references to non-trivial claims he or she was wrongfully convicted would merit coverage.

Guantanamo captives aren't convicts. Less than twenty of them have even been charged with crimes. I think that is an important difference.

Guantanamo captives aren't like ordinary convicts -- they are much more like those for whom there is a controversy over whether they were wrongfully convicted -- except, of course, they were never convicts.

WRT to your chinese political prisoners -- no, I would not argue for having a separate article for every political prisoner whose name becomes public. But when there are meaningful reliable sources that back up the claim that a prisoner, in China, Iran, or any other country, is a political prisoner, not a felon convicted of a criminal offense, then I would support having an article written about him or her. I'd insist that the article contain a non-trivial amount of information, be written from a neutral point of view, and cite reliable, verifiable sources. If you have a concern with that, could you please be specific about which part concerns you?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for distinguishing Guantanomo Bay detainees and other prisoners don't make or break Wikipedia notability policy. There must be significant coverage, and after all these kilobytes of discussion there has yet to be provided one media source that discusses this person. The long talk of the lack of Due Process provided to these prisoners is further proof that the article was meant to be a coatrack. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 22:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator has mispoke in referring to a "Wikipedia notability policy". Like WP:BIO it is a guideline. And it says:

"Significant coverage" means that 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.

I invite the nominator, or anyone else, to cite a passage from the article that they think represents original research.

The memos the article uses as references do refer to Ajam, directly, in detail. They refer to him by name, in fact.

If we had a source, maybe a Syrian newspaper, that asserted that all the remaining Syrian captives in Guantanamo were being tortured, it would require original research, interpretation, to insert the conclusion that this meant Ajam had been tortured.

I think the phrase: "...and no original research is needed to extract the content..." prohibits inserting that kind of conclusion in the article. And I don't believe the article makes any such interpolation.

If, for the sake of argument, the article did contain that kind of interpretation, the solution would be to remove or rewrite the offending passage, not to delete the entire article. (FWIW this is just an example. I have not come across any sources that suggest Ajam was tortured.) Geo Swan (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An argument proposing "significant coverage" to mean lack of original research doesn't require a response.

--brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WRT WP:COATRACK -- Nominator keeps referring to Coatrack. So I re-acquainted myself with this essay. It describes seven types of Typical coatracks. If this suggestion is going to be repeated I would like those repeating it to state which type(s) they think it is an instance of. It seems to me that this article is not an instance of any of those types.

And, if, for the sake of argument, this article did contain passages that did not comply with the advice in this essay, it has a section entitled: What to do about coatracks. The advice in this essay is essentially the same as that in Wikipedia:Notability -- remove or rewrite the troublesome passage. The essay specifically reserves article deletion only for "...extreme cases, when the nominal subject is barely notable and there is little chance the article can be salvaged." Geo Swan (talk) 00:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Guantanamo Bay detainment camp-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 22:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. —brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been asked to review the counterarguments and to comment. In addition, I've looked at the declassified Combatant Status Review Board site, which is the source for the arguments for detaining or releasing a particular prisoner and is listed on www.dod.mil/pubs. And while I think that articles about the Guantanamo Bay detainees in general should be fully supported, I don't see that each individual detainee merits a separate article. It's unprecedented that there would be an internet site that would have detailed information about each individual imprisoned at a particular facility, and it comes about in this case because of American federal court orders directing the American Department of Defense to make that information available. It's unprecedented also that Wikipedia would have articles about each person who has been imprisoned in a particular facility. There are very few groups where each individual is considered inherently notable. Wikipedia has a policy providing for a nation's legislators, for instance, to each merit their own article. Wikipedia has such a policy for individual athletes playing in a particular sports league. If there is a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees, then that takes precedence over our own personal preferences. However, I don't think that there's a policy that applies directly to Guantanamo Bay detainees. And judging Ajam as being notable in the sense of being mentioned specifically as an example of the plight of detainees held without trial, or as a significant participant in the activities of al-Qaeda or the Taliban, my opinion is that he is not notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. There is no significant coverage of this individual in his own right in reliable secondary sources. —Snthdiueoa (talk|contribs) 09:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If there are reports about an individual then he is notable. And yes i do think there is likely to be individual sourcing about every one of them in their native country and language, and it is merely outr limitation of having difficulty in finding them. DGG (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note that every British or British-resident prisoner has been mentioned in British media, so it's reasonable to assume the same of all the others in relation to their national media. --Kleinzach (talk) 23:57, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Verifiability (one of the five pillars): The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. (emphasis in original). All the reasons (i.e. original research) set forth here do not avail if not one media source on him can be found. There's plenty of articles here with Syrian-language media sources, and this person shouldn't be treated any differently then any other person that isn't from a non-english speaking country. Unless everyone from non-english speaking countries is assumed notable without any sources. I doubt it. But now that we are on the subject, I would like to point out that there's a few good reasons why there's no Syrian media sources on this prisoner. 1- Unlike in democracies, its no big deal if someone is locked up without having recieved (what is considered) the normal due process. If he were to be treated like a regular US citizen - then the Syrian media might report it. 2- The Syrian secular goverment-run media might not want its citizens to know about any Al-Queda members in its country. But all theories aside, everyone - angel or terrorist - must have significant reliable sources that establish his/her notability if they are to be included in this encyclopedia. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The official language of Syria is Arabic. (Brewcrewer: when you referred to "Syrian-language media" were you referring to Syriac or something?) I always check local language sources when I put up an article for deletion. If you don't know how to do this, can we ask an Arabic speaker to do a Google check for us? --Kleinzach (talk) 02:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Simply transliterating his name into Arabic (he has a highly unusual name, so I also tried entries that didn't mention the Muhammad, etc) I would estimate there's somewhere between 5-50 websites that mention him, including news media, government (.sy, nearly all hits are Syrian, solidifying the assumption we're talking about the same person) and forums. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 06:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep pr Kleinzach and Geo Swan Regards, Huldra (talk) 06:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This AfD seems to me to be going in a rather unique direction. The main question is whether there are or are not multiple verifiable sources to establish this individual's notability. Assuming that there must be sources is an example of WP:ILIKEIT. Assuming that web hits of a simple transliteration of this name must be about this subject (without confirmation of this fact) is not an acceptable means to justify this individual's notability. What does remain is that the subject of this article does not have multiple independent sources that focus specifically upon him. His name is only listed along with dozens of other internees in the media and he appears in the OARDEC reports that were done by the US government. OARDEC is an American Department of Defence organization (under the control of the Navy) that has the sole purpose of reviewing each internee's case/status! There are literally hundreds of OARDEC reports on detainees - it would be similar to say (to stick with the Supermax comparison) that a Supermax-commissioned report on a possible parolee at Supermax would constitute notability. This just does not satisfy WP:BIO, independent reliable sources, nor our notability requirements. BWH76 (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should not be making assumptions - much better to get the facts straight. Can you clarify whether or not you have checked Arabic sources? Thanks. --Kleinzach (talk) 00:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So when a reader of the article will ask "Why is Wikipedia the only place giving individual attention to this person?" you will also answer "Oh, but we do not know that for sure, transliterating his name into Arabic gives 5-50 web search results in google, and while we won't provide a reference as we usually do with our articles, please feel free to check those yourself, maybe someone else wrote about him." Point being, in AfDs, sources have to be found for the article to be kept, not the other way around. The speculations about possible sources are helpful as a means to actually check them - but unless/until someone does that, there should not be an article. --Minimaki (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but let's not change what Sherurcij wrote. He/she did not refer to "5-50 web search results in google" (to quote what you have written above) - but to "5-50 websites" . --Kleinzach (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I just assumed that's how they were found. What I basically tried to say is that, as long as there are only speculations about possible Arabic websites, we don't need proof that they are only speculations. Instead, it would be very easy to show that they are not, by just providing cite-able links to some of them. --Minimaki (talk) 13:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is funny, were busy deciphering what Sherurcij meant, but where are the websites??--brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep -- I seem to have neglected to explicitly state keep. As I stated above, IMO, nominator, and several contributors who voiced delete opinions have advanced arguments based on misconceptions.

As per the discussion in WP:RS/Noticeboard the references this article uses are secondary sources, the references are fulfill all the requirements of the wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

I addressed the nominator's concern that media coverage was required.

I addressed the nominator's concern that "significant coverage" was required. The article meets all the requirements in the passage that defines "significant coverage". The memos are about him, and they do not require interpretation to verify that they are about him.

I addressed the misconception that Guantanamo captives are just like mundane convicted felons.

Disclaimer -- as the nominator has pointed out in multiple places, I started this article. But, contrary to nominators many suggestions, my contributions have completely complied with policy. Geo Swan (talk) 05:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The discussion you started on secondary sources had no responses. The discussion as to whether US military reports constitute independent reliable sources that you began appears to have the consensus that OARDEC files do not constitute independent, reliable sources. In other words, the main reasons that this article has been brought to AfD have not been addressed aside from opinions as per WP:ILIKEIT. We're running around in circles on this AfD, but the article still does not meet WP:BIO, does not contain independent reliable sources (nor have any been found during this discussion), nor have our notability requirements been satisfied. BWH76 (talk) 06:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You assert that my queries on secondary sources netted no replies? On January 24 2008 my query netted helpful, collegial questions, which started:

For a source to be considered secondary there must be some form of significant and original artistic construction within it. If the summaries are something like a bibliography, this is considered a form of mechanical action, requiring no original artistic effort...

I offered a detailed reply. And my correspondent concluded.

Yes, imho, summaries of the type you outline above would be considered secondary sources.

Please go back and try re-reading this again. Please note that my correspondent offered many opinions on the difference between primary and secondary sources in other threads on the Noticeboard, and that his or her opinion and expertise seems to have been widely accepted. Let me suggest that the lack of further questions is a sign that the regular readers of that forum found the discussion with my well-informed correspondent convincing. If you don't find it convincing, please offer a civil, reasoned explanation of why you don't find it convincing.

I disagree with your interpretation that the consensus was that OARDEC memos do not constitute independent, reliable sources. Do you have counter-arguments? If so, what are they.

WRT your assertion that the article does not fulfill the recommendations of the WP:BIO guideline. I asked other respondents to be specific, and cite the specific passage(s) it does not fulfill. I ask you the same. I have offered my arguments, if you have counter-arguments, again, what are they?

WRT WP:ILIKEIT... I have encountered a limited number of wikipedians who have been willing to use fair means or foul to suppress the wikipedia's coverage of material on the war on terror. Some of them were prepared to go so far as sockpuppetry and wikistalking. Those challengers were classic examples of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now I have not accused you, or the nominator of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I would prefer you show me the same courtesy. IMO this material fully complies with policy. If you disagree, please be civil, please be serious, please be specific.

I work very hard to make my sure my contributions fully comply with policy. Any serious correspondent of mine will tell you that when I find a lapse, I openly acknowledge it, and fix it myself. So, please confine your discussion to points of policy and hold back from making comments on what you imagine my motives to be. Geo Swan (talk) 17:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Geoswan, you've gone to great lengths to reject my opinions on this subject, and that's fine. Implying that that I may be a sockpuppet, a Wikistalker, and am not being serious is going too far. Yes, you carefully specifically say that you are not accusing me or anyone else of voicing our opinions with malice, but by couching your comments towards me personally in accusations of sockpuppetry, wikistalking, etc., your implication is clear. Please do not make those baseless accusations.

You are correct, though, in that I had not seen that you asked similar questions in more than one forum. I disagree with the answer you received due to how you made the case. As I wrote before, OARDEC is a military organization under control of the US Department of Navy and under the direction of Rear Admiral James McGarrah - if it is not currently under McGarrah's command, it was in the time period for which all the sources listed in the article were written. You wrote that the reports were written with the oversight of a civilian official, but that's only half the story. The Designated Civilian Official (DCO) was US Secretary of the Navy Gordon England. To sum it up, the OARDEC reports were written by the US military about detainees held by the US military under the oversight of the civilian head of one branch of the US military. I don't believe that this constitutes an independent source. I do think that the OARDEC sources could be perfect for our purposes - but only if they are corroborated by independent sources. BWH76 (talk) 18:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute that I have rejected any civil argument made by BWH76 or any other participant in this discussion.

I suggest that if you look more closely you will find that being the Designated Civilian Official (DCO) in charge of the Office for the Administrative Review of Detained Enemy Combatants (OARDEC) is not one of the duties of the Secretary of the Navy. Note, when Gordon England was promoted, to be a Deputy Secretary of Defense, he remained the DCO in charge of OARDEC. He wears multiple hats. It is a separate job.

I believe, if you look more closely, you will find that it is the official position of the Bush Presidency that these three positions Secretary of the Navy, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Designated Civilian Official are separate, independent positions, and that the DCO does not report to the Secretary of the Navy, or to the Dep Sec Def.

I had challengers who asserted that OARDEC reported to the Camp Commandant at Guantanamo. That was not true. On paper the relationship is a distant one. My reading of the documents is that in practice it was a distant one. The OARDEC staff had tremendous difficulty getting the cooperation of the JTF-GTMO staff. JTF-GTMO staff routinely withheld exculpatory documents and other evidence from the OARDEC staff. The authors of the memos routinely seemed to have reached very different conclusions from those of the JTF-GTMO.

I asked, in the other forum, how "arm's length" OARDEC would have to be, before you considered it independent. Since you haven't addressed this question, I will repeat those questions.

If OARDEC was run by the UN would you consider it "arm's length"?
If OARDEC was run by NATO would you consider it "arm's length"?
If OARDEC was run by a "Special Prosecutor", a Ken Starr, a Leon Jaworski, with a staff of civilians, would you consider it "arm's length".
What if OARDEC was run a civilian, who was served by a staff of temporarily detached military personnel, who officially reported to him or her, not to the military chain of command?

The last is the current situation. As I said in the other discussion, you are perfectly free to mistrust whether it lies within the capacity of the US Government to have multiple separate agencies, that don't report to one another, that are, on paper independent, and are independent in practice too. You are free to hold this opinion, in private.

The wikipedia's policies would proscribe you inserting this personal opinion into article space. This is an aspect of the wikipedia's policies that some wikipedians find counter-intuitive. Even some experienced administrators forget sometimes that the wikipedia aims for "verifiability, not truth". It is counter-intuitive, but us wikipedians are not allowed to insert things in articles, because we believe they are "true".

And, similarly, although it may strike you as counter-intuitive, the wikipedia's policies do not allow us to suppress material, no matter how untrue it might seem to us personally, if it complies with WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:VER and other policies. It may strike you as counter-intuitive, but arguments that neutrally written material, cites valid references, can't be suppressed, because, for instance, it strikes someone as violating "common sense". "Common sense" is not verifiable.

I am not trying to be offensive, but, I think, if you re-read everything you wrote above, after "...but that's only half the story..." -- you may see you are ignoring WP:VER, and making an argument about what "common sense" tells you is "true". WP:VER says we aim for "verifiability, not truth".

I've thought about this. I've thought about whether I could come up with sources that could prove OARDEC was not a truly independent agency? No. I could not. Are there sources that challenge the independence of OARDEC? Sure. Prove? No. You are perfectly free to insert material that cites verifiable authoritative sources that challenges the independence of the OARDEC agency.

Please see the Press Conference England gave when he announced taking up the new job:

Gordon England (June 23, 2008). "Special Defense Department Briefing with Secretary of The Navy Gordon England". United States Department of Defense. Retrieved 2008-03-26.

England said

my comment

"So first of all, thanks for being here. If we haven't met, I'm Gordon England. I'm the Secretary of the Navy. But I'm not with you in that capacity today. Rather, I've been designated by Secretary Rumsfeld to operate and oversee a process to conduct an annual review of each enemy combatant held by the Department of Defense in Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba."

In other words DCO is a separate position

Q	I guess what I mean by the question about whether you want to release more people, is there a sense that perhaps a lot of people are being held who should/could be released?
SEC. ENGLAND:	Charlie, I don't know. I mean, I have not looked at any of the cases, any of the files. I haven't looked at any of this because I really wanted to put a process together that was independent of the people themselves. I wanted to make sure we had as fair a process, fair as we could make it, balanced, as reasonable as we could, so we're putting the process together...

"Verifiability, not truth" -- The process is said to fair and independent.

Q	How are you going to juggle this responsibility with being Navy secretary, though? You've got what seems to be a full plate just being Navy secretary. How are you going to do this, juggle the priorities?
SEC. ENGLAND:	Well, we just spend the time to do it. I mean, we will do this right. Like I said, I take this very seriously, so I'll take the time necessary to do it. We just work a little harder. It will work.

Another claim of independence.

Q	Related to that, sir -- it may be spelled out in here, I'm not sure, but when you say you make the final decision, is your final decision subject to review by the secretary, perhaps, or anyone else?
SEC. ENGLAND:	No, it's not.
Q	So what you say goes.
SEC. ENGLAND:	That's correct.

England, again, specifically assert that he makes the final decision -- that his decision is not subject to review by the Sec Def.

If you will allow me to paraphrase what I think you are saying -- you think it is obvious -- or common senses, that since the Sec Def is England's boss when he is Sec Nav or Deputy Sec Def, England is going to tailor his decisions to please the Sec Def, even when he is wearing his DCO hat. Have I paraphrased you correctly?

Well, he said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable, your opinion that he is not independent is not verifiable. Geo Swan (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subjective intent might actually be important in trying to decipher whether this is a Wikipedia:Coatrack and/or a WP:NOT#MEMORIAL.
Intent aside, there's no secondary independant sources. One short response on a noticeboard is far cry from a concensus (a reason why nobody else bothered to reply might be because they aren't interested in getting a long "please explain further" on their talk page (which everyone who disagrees with you seems to be honored with)). The goverment documents stating the charges against him can in no way be considered INDEPENDANT.
The lack of secondary sources aside, there's no significant coverage. The claim that WP:BIO doesn't require significant coverage or that significant coverage means the lack of original research is a total waste of kilobytes. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The question is not whether the production of the OARDEC reports is verifiable; they obviously were written. What is difficult is to establish that they constitute independent, reliable sources. As the reliable sources guideline states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." OARDEC is not a third-party. It is a US government organization, led by the now-Deputy Director of Defense, which made judgements on detainees held by the military. It is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.

It was written above that "[H]e [OARDEC Head England] said he is independent, over and over again. His assertions of independence is verifiable..." His assertions of independence are not in question; whether OARDEC reports constitute independent, reliable sources is the question. We should judge them to be independent because the head of OARDEC says they are independent? No.

OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; it has no reputation at all. The recommendations on the OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources. Again, the question is not whether the OARDCEC reports exist, the question of verifiability is of what the OARDEC reports say. So, what are we left with? Nothing. No independent, reliable sources. The article lacks significant (or any) coverage outside of the disputed sources. The article does not satisfy WP:BLP. BWH76 (talk) 09:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respondent seems to be suggesting that different agencies within the US government can not be separate agencies. Respondent disputes that OARDEC is not a third party.

Is OARDEC imprisoned in Guantanamo? No.
Is OARDEC responsible for the imprisonment of the captives in Guantanamo? No.

Then, by definition, it is a third party.

Note: three days ago respondent compared the OARDEC Summary of Evidence memos to Parole Board reports. Is respondent questioning whether Parole Boards should be considered third parties?

I have problems, which I have addressed elsewhere, with the idea the Guantanamo captives are like ordinary convicted felons. But I agree with what respondent seemed to be saying three days ago, that the OARDEC memos are like Parole Board reports, in that they are the product of a third party.

Respondent suggests that OARDEC's reliability has to be established before it can be considered a reliable source. The Environmental Protection Agency has critics, various other US agencies have critics. The United Nations has critics. The existence of critics does not cause us to disregard the statements that the leaders of those agencies might make at press conferences, or the official documents those agencies publish.

Respondent asserts:

"It [OARDEC] is not a third party as they were involved explicitly with the subject and they produced the review that was itself used to determine the article subject's future in captivity.

If respondent is trying repeat that the staff who guard and interrogate the captives are also making the recommendations as to whether they should be released or repatriated then he or she is incorrect. What respondent describes is true of the detention camps in Afghanistan, and was true of Guantanamo -- prior to the creation of the OARDEC.

But OARDEC has a completely different set of staff, from JTF-GTMO. The OARDEC staff report to the DCO, not to the Commandant of JTF-GTMO.

I am going to repeat my request, I would like anyone who thinks the documented relationship between OARDEC and JTF-GTMO to be considered distant enough to be described as "third party" to describe a more distant relationship they would consider "third party".

Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC does not have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. It has no reputation at all."

I think respondent is trying to say OARDEC has a bad reputation. Okay. Fine. What are your sources?

Let's return to the EPA. No, let's pick the Federal Emergency Management Agency, a US Federal Agency that was very severely criticized following its response to Hurricane Katrina. For a period of time FEMA was the butt of jokes, was very widely criticized.

Should the wikipedia have stopped using official FEMA documents as references? Should the wikipedia have accompanied every use of a FEMA document as a reference, with a reference to one of FEMA's authoritative critics?

I suggest that if respondent thinks OARDEC's bad reputation rivals FEMA's he or she is perfectly free to provide other references he or she thinks will provide balance.

Respondent asserts:

"OARDEC reports cannot be independently verified as there is no/little access to the primary sources."

Respondent seems to be insisting that wikipedians have to make sure allegations are idependently proven true, before we place them in an article. When we cover the allegations against ordinary people no one hires private detectives to independently verify those allegations.

Nor should we. What we should do is attribute the allegations to a source. This article does attribute the allegations to a source, a serious, official source. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was OARDEC part of the same organization that is currently detaining the subject of the article? Yes.
Has OARDEC been led by someone that is closely involved in the organization detaining this person? Yes.
Was OARDEC responsible for reviewing the case of the individual to determine whether he remains in captivity? Yes.
Is OARDEC an independent, reliable third-party source? No.
Although the burden of proof to proove the independent reliability should be on the article creater (or editors), here is at least one person who believed the process/organization to be flawed.
"A more distant relationship" for a third party? Mainstream news organizations; "Material that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable", to name two. Basically, any source that does not have a direct connection to the subject matter. OARDEC has a direct connection in that it judged whether the detainee stayed in or was released from detention.
Please do not write what you think I am trying to say. OARDEC has no reputation at all (be it good or bad) as an independent organization. Please stick to judging the article on its own merits.
Comparing the independence of a military organization charged with determining the freedom of detainees held by the military to that of the EPA is comparing apples and oranges. If it's necessary to explain this in more detail, I will, but we've wasted enough space already in this AfD.
My parole board comparison was a bit off, I admit, as some are independent agencies while some are part of the department of corrections (in the US). [This wiki entry makes the clear distinction between the two.] OARDEC does not fall into the category of "independent agency" here.
As for adding more sources to balance the article, I think that's what we've been discussing now for days. There ARE no other independent, reliable sources out there that anyone has yet found. This is why the opinion that there is not significant coverage of this individual has been voiced repeatedly above.BWH76 (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I think at this point it'll probably close as "No consensus" no matter how many arguments either side puts forward. At this point I think two specific users are just wasting their time arguing, neither will get the other to confess the error of their ways - why not just put this effort into improving articles, rather than arguing over bureaucracy? Neither side is going to change anything today, it seems - so let's move forward without the emnity and spats. :) Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 23:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd generally agree that we're wasting time, but as the article doesn't satisfy WP:BLP (for independent secondary sources as is described above ad nauseam) and the decision could potentially effect numerous articles, I wouldn't be so hasty to close this AfD as a no consensus.BWH76 (talk) 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all these kilobytes of incorrect wikipedia policy, that is exactly what the creator wishes should happen. But "No concensus" is when there is valid argument on both sides. I hope the closing admin sees through all this filibusting, and closes this afd applying WP:BIO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 00:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh ffs...yes, and Geo_Swan hopes that the closing admins sees through it all and closes it as keep...I said to STOP the arguments, not take one last swing at looking like the genius. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 01:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pretty much all the arguments made above for getting rid of this: esp the coatracking and bio issues that have been cited. And I would also indicate my agreement with User:Brewcrewer's point above that the closing admin should focus the decision on this on policy. This will likely end up at DRV, so the need to ground a close in policy is all the more pressing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources provided support notability. This is exactly the type of article we should have on Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned ad nauseum, goverment documents can't be used as sources that establish notability. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to participation (involuntary though it may be) in extraordinarily notable legal controversy. Minos P. Dautrieve (talk) 05:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I live in, and participate with, the State of California, which is notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Does that make me notable?--brew crewer (yada, yada) 05:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think he is notable. --SJK (talk) 06:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Please state how you came to that conclusion using Wikipedia notability guidelines. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Please stop harrassing everybody who votes, it just makes you look like a dick. I've never yet seen somebody change their vote because one over-zealous voter browbeats them...they disagree with you, let it stand. Sherurcij ^{(Speaker for the Dead)} 07:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please stay WP:CIVIL. Thank you. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 07:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to Brewcrewer: Although this discussion has been polarized from the start, we should nevertheless be trying to work towards a consensus. Some people will provide short opinions, others (who have the time) longer ones. That should be respected. You are not in a law court and you can't demand explanations from people - and yes, it was harassment what you were doing. --Kleinzach (talk) 10:32, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO .We cannot be having articles for everyone detained.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pin Young[edit]

Non-notable. There was also a page for this same person under the name Pin Chen - confirmed by an identical website photo. That page has already been deleted. Kleinzach (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lots of blather to cover up her current non-notability. JuJube (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can add later when she does something more notable, currently non-notable per WP:NOTE --Shruti14 ^{t c s} 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:N ArcAngel (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most notable role is on a four minute long non-notable web series. Beeblbrox (talk) 18:53, 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. Singu larity 02:36, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris (CP) Powell[edit]

Article fails WP:BIO, WP:NOT and WP:COI. Article was created by an WP:SPA account (8 edits), with no other edits other than related to Chris (CP) Powell. Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and vanity, which wikipedia is WP:NOT. Hu12 (talk) 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Kleinzach (talk) 05:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -Jahnx (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yea, delete per all the nom's reasons. ArcAngel (talk) 14:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, per wp:csd#a7. - Master Bigode from SRK.o//(Talk) (Contribs) 23:06, 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 speedy redirected. No merge needed, plausible search term. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 11:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellenic Navy General Staff[edit]

The information in this article is already present in Hellenic Navy, and there is no reason for a separate article. --Mars2035 (talk) 01:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to Hellenic Navy, redirects are cheap. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JJL (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hellenic Navy. -Jahnx (talk) 08:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:26, 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 for several reasons. Firstly, as pointed out by User:BigBlueFish, the subject can be said to meet notability guidelines based on her appearances and award nominations. Secondly, WP:OWNership is not grounds for deletion - that requires dispute resolution and cleanup of the article. In the event an editor has violated WP:3RR, administrative action can be sought at that time, however deleting an article to "ensure that [an editor] does [their] homework before trying again" is inappropriate and disruptive. Thirdly, despite my warning earlier in the discussion, this debate rapidly degenerated into arguments over just about everything except reasons to delete the article, including some perhaps-not-entirely-good-faith attacks against the author. Finally, the one and only thing I was able to get out of this discussion was that there is definite incentive to "whip the article into shape," a conclusion also drawn from the extensive edit history of the article since it's nomination. If there are still concerns about an editor's conduct in relation to this article, bring it through dispute resolution, not through AfD. As stated below, a user is not a reason to delete an article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Ann Gisondi[edit]

Former child actor whose major credit was in Annie. Only one other credit. Rest of article is trivia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a few more Annie actor bios by Seahamlass (talk · contribs) that are similar. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:53, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I created this small article on Toni Ann Gisondi, as well as articles on some of the other Annie orphans from the film, because I believed there was a need for them. Their names are mentioned in several other Wiki articles - Annie (film), Annie soundtrack etc - but are always in red. Wikipedia is always looking for people to fill in these red 'gaps'and I was just trying to help. It may be 'trivia' to Delicious carbuncle, but as their names are already mentioned so many times on Wikipedia, I'll bet my bottom dollar there are a lot of people out there interested in the article/s. By the way, the article is fully referenced. --Seahamlass (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being dismissive of the subject of the article, I meant "trivia" literally - Annie continuity gaffes, names of siblings, etc. Red links are often better turned into black text than articles. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I understand Delicious carbuncle's point, but don't agree with it. There are many, many actor/actress stubs and short articles on Wikipedia about people who have only made one or two film appearances, so I don't see why this one should be deleted. The girl who took the lead role in Annie, Aileen Quinn, didn't exactly go on to be famous after the movie either - but no-one is suggesting her article be deleted. --Seahamlass (talk) 17:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andrea McArdle is IMO a good example of an Annie+ notability. Whereas many child performers have articles despite less-than-stellar adult careers, this could largely be because their precocious fame was then comparatively widely known. An obscure child player who then goes on to very little has a considerably more tenuous shot at notability. Plutonium27 (talk) 05:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Andrea McArdle being a good example of an Annie 'notable,' although I don't think she is very well known in Britain - apart from die-hard Annie fans. The film of Annie, however, has made the child actors featured into on-going 'stars,' as the film is show on TV each year etc. Anyone Googling the film will come across numerous websites either detailing the film cast, or asking where they are now. The same with YouTube etc. I would argue that these young actresses are 'notable enough for Wikipedia' because, 27 years after the film was made, people are still talking about them.--Seahamlass (talk) 14:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am British, have never seen a Annie film or stage show and yet still remember Andrea McArdle's name from the national newpapers 30 years later. Possibly selective memory maybe but I went straight to her article without having had cause to recall her since 1978.Plutonium27 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by me anyway, having put in my 50p's-worth. Plutonium27 (talk) 14:13, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to have to give this one a thumbs down. Onher own she just doesn't meet the notability criteria. Maybe there could be an article that compiles all the Annie Orphan actors?--Torchwood Who? (talk) 00:35, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Please keep the discussion about this article. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the Young Actors Award makes her meet notability in my mind. The tone of the article is a little unencyclopedic, but that can be cleaned up. matt91486 (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only needs to be notable for one thing. -Jahnx (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created this small article, as well as articles on some of the other Annie orphans from the film, because I believed there was a need for them. Their names are mentioned in several other Wiki articles - Annie (film), Annie soundtrack etc - but are always in red. Wikipedia is always looking for people to fill in these red 'gaps'and I was just trying to help.--Seahamlass (talk) 10:45, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just not seeing notable; far too many versions of "Annie" to list all orphans (or even all Mollies). King Pickle (talk) 03:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but needs to drop the OR and essaying (e.g. "If you look closely at the film, ..."), and junk the irrelevancies (e.g. comment in ref #1). -- Fullstop (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from talk page) I have removed, once again, the "quote" you added to the reference you placed within the Toni Ann Gisondi article. I am anxious to keep this article on Wikipedia, but comments on its entry on the Articles For Deletion page suggest this quote should be removed if the article is allowed to stay. If you put it back again, it could lead to the article's eventual deletion. I have, however, kept your reference, just not the quote. --Seahamlass (talk) 21:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Can someone tell me why using the quote function for the references is forbidden, and my using the quote function will lead to the deletion of the article? Isn't the quote function there to be used? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have just placed an Edit Wars warning on the above user's talk page, Richard Arthur Norton, as he is persisting in replacing his lengthy/wordy reference on this article, despite my asking him not to - per the suggestion/recommendation made here on the AFD page. I don't want to get into a slanging match with him, as he obviously doesn't understand reason, so I'm taking no further part in this debate. --Seahamlass (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I couldnt accept your changes (see below). You changed the publisher of the website, and you changed the title of the article to something incorrect. I am not sure why you changed it, but I cannot allow incorrect information to remain, thats why I reverted it. ^[1] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not mindlessly reverting your edits. This is the correct title and correct publisher for the reference. (see below) ^[2] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Roles in notable films and awards are all that make actors notable and the subject of this article covers the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 19:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I read it, she did not win the Young Actor's Award, she was only nominated. If keep votes have been based on winning awards, they need to be reconsidered. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing Admin: The article originally said: "Her portrayal won Toni Ann a Best Young Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture nomination...", which seems to have made people think she won the award, which she did not. IMDB confirms and I have fixed the wording. Please consider this when tallying the votes. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are zero secondary sources, all come from IMDB. And the article falsely stated she won an award, and was only nominated. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Re: Richard Arthur Norton's statement that the article "falsely states" the actress won an award. It actually stated "Her portrayal won Toni Ann a Best Young Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture nomination..." There are also more secondary sources now too, see below, than just the IMDB.^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] --Seahamlass (talk) 17:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other deceptive thing is that you keep removing the quote function for the references. In the cases I have looked at she is only mentioned in the list of people in the movie, they are just directory listings, no more information that you would find in the trailer for the movie. What she is missing is coverage in reliable "secondary" sources that confer notability, such as a newspaper interview or a magazine interview. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to change my objection if you leave the quote functions in the references, so people can see the quality of the reference. I have reformatted the St. James one, I hope you don't mind. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I too am considering a switch to delete. An editor who insists on faking references has either not read WP:BLP, or is WP:OWNing, as is apparently also the case with the 'nominating' thing. It appears Seahamlass is super stressed by this AfD, and that she needs to take a wikibreak and step back for a bit. As such, a delete would probably be a good thing at this point since it would ensure that she does her homework before trying again. -- Fullstop (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to disagree with the closing rationale for a delete in the above comment. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point and don't demolish the house while it's still being built. If the subject is notable enough for the article, it should be kept. This is not the type of case in which the whole of an article on a notable subject is unusable as copyright violation or patent nonsense. There is useful, researched content involved, and deleting it to "teach Seahamlass a lesson" is not on.

The appearance in multiple notable works and the award nomination seem to me to satisfy WP:BIO. Some of the remaining content on personal life and so on is questionable, but the article itself looks to me like it's worth keeping. BigBlueFish (talk) 11:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure, as the nominator of this article, what has gone so wrong with this AfD for a article which so clearly fails WP:NOTABILITY. I suspect it has to do with in part with sentimentality for Annie and a misreading of the actor's credits. I know it's bad form, but I'm quoting below the guideline for notability for entertainers, so that anyone can see that guideline is not met, nor even approached:

Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

* Has had significant roles or been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions.

* Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.

* Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "been featured multiple times in notable films, television, stage performances, and other productions" seems pretty fairly met. Two feature films and a soundtrack recording is definitely multiple. However, as you say, it is a guideline and does not guarantee notability, just as failure to meet it does not preclude notability. Frankly, I too am unsure "what has gone so wrong with this AfD". It has received thoughtful, constructive comments both in favour and against deletion and has the attention of an admin to mediate the process. I suggest you stop complaining about its progress and focus on ways that you can further it. BigBlueFish (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would be more accurate to summarize her career as a supporting role in a single feature film (thereby included on the soundtrack) and a minor role in a made for TV movie. If it's all the same to you BigBlueFish, I'll keep complaining until I'm satisfied that people actually know what they're voting on and the standard they should be using. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a vote. You've made it quite clear where comments may have been based on mistaken understanding. If you wish to complain about the conduct of one or more users in the discussion then take that to an appropriate dispute resolution channel. If you have anything new to add to the discussion on the article we will be glad to hear it, but as it stands, repeating the statements about the award nomination is just distracting from the discussion which has already moved on.

You can summarise the subject's career however you like, but the guidelines don't qualify the size of role in multiple notable works. Rather than being legalistic about this, it seems sensible to focus on whether or not it makes common sense to keep an article about this person. On the one hand, it connects two notable publications together by a common artist, and documents a significant nomination for an award. On the other, the nomination could (and actually should) be documented on the film's page, and maybe the appearance in The Children's Story isn't notable enough, and best left to IMDb. If so, should this title redirect to Annie (film)? BigBlueFish (talk) 16:25, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BigBlueFish, you may be confusing me with another editor involved in this discussion. I haven't made a single comment about (or to) any specific editor, other than to address your comment. And the guidelines do qualify the size of the role by specifying "significant" roles or "multiple" "feature" roles in "notable" productions. I hoped by posting them here that these kinds of distortions of the guideline could be avoided. I like your suggestion of a redirect to Annie. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

weeelll, with 40,000+ "articles" on one-horse hamlets in France and Austria (whose claim to fame is that they have a zip code), or an "article" on some 1860s village chieftains (the only mention of whom is a census), WP:N has been effectively degraded to being a toothless paper tiger. Its only a guideline anyway.

On the other hand, the Gisondi article twice violates the cardinal Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, not to mention Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

But iff an article can be whipped into shape (which does not mean 'make it longer'), then its not productive to delete it. This iff condition was also the basis of my 'keep' (which btw remains current atm). But as of right now, Seahamlass is "protecting" "her" page, and with that the article remains unfixable and just begging to be deleted.

With three full-body policy violations (BLP, NOR, NOT), plus OWN, the WP:N guideline is just icing on the cake.
-- Fullstop (talk) 21:37, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A user isn't a reason to delete an article. This article could quite easily be "whipped into shape" by cutting it right down to a handful of facts, all now properly sourced, the objection to which from a deletion point of view is notability. This seems to be a clearly borderline case, and the call is probably better made with people more experienced than I am, having no knowledge of things like the French village articles, etc, myself. Any policy violations by users or by content don't permeate the entirety of the article and as such should not affect the article's suitability for inclusion. BigBlueFish (talk) 23:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the previous comments again, in the context which they appear, and read the policies referred to above. When you have done all that come back and revise your comment. This is not a "borderline case" as you suppose, and with your lack of attention you are doing your friend a disservice. -- Fullstop (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have revisited the policies in question, and can confirm for your information that none of them recommend that an article is deleted if just part of it violates the said policy. Particularly, WP:OWN doesn't advise any different an approach to developing the content being "owned", including deletion. Please point out in a more specific, civil, way if there is actually something I've missed which contradicts what I just said. As for notability, we've clearly established through discussion that it is borderline, but it seems that the question of notability is the one we're dodging because it's too difficult. BigBlueFish (talk) 12:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to step in here to defend BigBlueFish, who seems to be taking some flack on my behalf. This editor is not, as Fullstop alleges, my 'friend' - just one of your own fellow Wikipedeans and merely trying to do his/her job. And while I shouldn't have to explain myself, I have to say that the only contact I have had with BigBlueFish prior to this AFD debate was through a Peer Review they carried out on an article for me.

I would also like to state that I know Delicious carbuncle was only doing his/her job when they decided to nominate this article for deletion. Of course I was against the idea, hence my defence of the piece and subseqent edits to include more references to try and help it stay on Wikipedia.

I always believed Wikipedia was about creating, maintaining or adding to articles which would help people learn new facts, or provide an interest for them. This debate, however, has descended - in my view - into cyber-bullying. If you want the article deleted, then fine, if you want it to stay, then great - but please stop all the rest of the very personal attacks on me and others which have been carried out here. --Seahamlass (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. It really doesn't matter whether you choose to call BigBlueFish a 'friend' or 'colleague' or something else. Its just a placeholder.

2. Your possessiveness of the article renders the article impossible to fix, and with that, this biography of a living person becomes a candidate for summary deletion. But no one coerced you into reverting editors who attempted to help clean up. You went on that limb all by yourself.

-- Fullstop (talk) 14:24, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Life After Tomorrow website (2008). "Toni as Molly". Retrieved 2008-03-21. Along with Stevens and special guest Charles Strouse, over twenty former Annies and orphans are expected to attend, including Martha Byrne, a former July and Annie understudy who won two Daytime Emmys for As the World Turns, original Broadway cast member Robyn Finn, and Rosanne Sorrentino and Toni Ann Gisondi from the Annie film.
^ "'Life After Tomorrow' Signing to Feature Special Appearances". Baltimore Broadwayworld. Retrieved 2008-03-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
^ IMDB website (2007). "Toni Ann Details". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
^ (1992) The Great Hollywood Musical Pictures. ISBN 0810825295
^ Young Artists Awards website (2007). "Award nomination". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
^ Find Articles.com website (2007). "Encyclopedia mention". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
^ IMDB website (2007). "A Children's Story". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
^ Atabb website (2007). "Acting role". Retrieved 2008-02-20.
^ Platinum Celebs website (2007). "Child actor". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 02:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beneaththecrimsonskyline[edit]

Non-notable myspace band, they only have an EP out, founded in mid-2007. MySpace notability does not meet WP:BAND. Claims of notability, so I brought it here. Corvus cornix_talk 04:21, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly popular band, particuarly in the Midlands and North of England. One of the forntrunners of what is a fairly small scene in the UK, provides accurate information and whilst maybe not meeting the rulesof thumb and being signed to a major label etc - this does provide information which could be of use for people interested in finding information about smaller bands. Also, as there are no real massive signed artists within this genre in the UK - it is bands these size that deserve as much coverage as maybe teh bigger indie acts reveiving national coverage to date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikifresh65 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC) — Wikifresh65 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:23, 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC for notability. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:MUSIC and WP:BAND. ArcAngel (talk) 14:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as like the last two editors asid it fails WP:Music. Inhumer (talk) 23:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Meth Song[edit]

This PSA does not meet notability requirements. It shows up on a few video-sharing sites, but there's no citable information about it available online. We can't have a page for every funny video on YouTube. Alvis (talk) 03:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Makes some claims that would be hard to source, and doesn't start out with any. Searching doesn't help. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable PSA. Not trying to go WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS here, but I can understand having articles for the Crying Indian and I learned it by watching you because they have had an impact on pop-culture, but this one hasn't had any impact as far as I can tell. Also issues of the article being unsourced, and we should not be linking to Youtube under any circumstances. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 16:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tobacco smoking or some anti-smoking articles , nice song indeed , delete is unwise .Pearll's sun (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment What? WHY? It has nothing to do with nicotine use. Whether or not it's a "nice song" has nothing to do with its notability. Alvis (talk) 05:24, 26 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, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - - welcoming re-list . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pearll's sun (talk • contribs)
Delete This is the first time I've ever seen this ad, and I watch almost every PSA possible. Very questionable that this ad has any notability. Nate • (chatter) 03:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do remember this ad, it was definitely on TV in the 90s. I'm not sure if there's a good source for that though. JoeD80 (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I do too; at least I did after watching it again (lyrics alone didn't trigger any memories). But just because we remember seeing it once or twice doesn't mean there should be an article for it. Wiki's not an archive for every bit of propaganda ever made. There are no good citations available, and it's clearly NOT a "cult classic" like the article claims; that'd be a whole different story ("I learned it by watching you" et al). Alvis (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable: what's next, Crazy Indian Music Video?# Sceptre ^(talk) 23:55, 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 withdrawn, default to keep. Although there are three delete !votes, WP:HEY can be applied here. Singu larity 23:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trilon[edit]

This page isn't really a disambig at all; more like a series of (unsourced) dictionary definitions disguised as a disambig. Furthermore, I can't find any sources for any of the three definitions given here, least of all for the game show trilons. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn per Dhartung's improvements, now looks like a decent dab page to me. Still needs work to remove all the red links, but it's a good enough start. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no sources, then no article. -- ThinkBlue (Hit BLUE) 01:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Even if there are no sources, it doesn't mean sources don't exist. And your basically saying tha every unsourced article on Wikipedia should be deleted because they are unsourced? D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he meant to say "no sources exist on this subject". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Well, the Trylon is certainly verifiable (there are whole books on the architecture of the NY World's Fair), but that information belongs in the fair article. The game-show trilon is obviously something superseded by electronic displays, but they were definitely in use well into the 1980s; I wonder if this is one brand name and if there's another name they're known by. --Dhartung | Talk 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and source - WP:CHANCE. D.M.N. (talk) 17:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This article has been around for nearly five years; how much more of a chance does it need? I've tried to source the content here; notice that I pointed that out in the original nomination. Furthermore, the page is mostly just a dicdef anyway. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Woops, I never looked at the page history. Therefore, it's now a Delete for me. D.M.N. (talk) 09:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have merged the material with triangular prism and Trylon and Perisphere, and added other notable meanings, to make this a more acceptable disambiguation page. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the otters. Eusebeus (talk) 19:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The Great Raid On Cabanatuan[edit]

The result was Merge to Raid at Cabanatuan (non-admin closure). SilkTork *^YES! 11:05, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn book, fails WP:BOOK, ranks #564,173 in Books sales at Amazon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Raid at Cabanatuan, then delete. Here's a source to verify that. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick Dowling (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable book and not a likely search term. --Nick Dowling (talk) 09:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The book is certainly notable - see here - but the article is effectively empty and, if fleshed out, would pretty much have to be a copy of Raid at Cabanatuan.
Merge - Merge the data into Raid at Cabanatuan and turn the page into a re-direct.--Mifter (talk) 14:04, 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. Singu larity 02:21, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Himalayan Sheepdog[edit]

Delete unsourced article about a dog breed with nothing explaining why this breed is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sourcing, as nom says. I also can't find any mention of the breed via the AKC Website, and I'm having trouble finding reliable sources for information about the breed. (Although if someone can find some, then keep, by all means). Bfigura ^(talk) 00:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No refs or content to tell me why this is notable. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at 73k ghits, sounds notable to me. JJL (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would say merge into Sheepdog, but one look at the article and I went "Uh, no." That and it fails WP:N, with no references. K im u 01:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dogs. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been notified to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The dog's notability is established through the sources. As mentioned by JJL, after a quick search I found sources here, here, here, here, and here just for starters. As we have articles on virtually all dogs, why should we exclude this one? KnightLago (talk) 01:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - - nice talk "KnightLago"

Keep else u'll leave the dog list unfilled and this dog is also notable like any other . Pearll's sun (talk) 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability appears to have been established since the original nomination. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely a unique breed, with notability now established, plus "Dog Breed" = "Notable" (not sure if the same is true for cats, but definitely for dogs :-) ) ~ priyanath talk 02:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I'd agree that this article is worth keeping, I wouldn't necessarily argue that "dog breed = notable". The definition of a breed is unclear, and we've deleted a number of articles on dog (cross-)breeds which were judged non-notable. Zetawoof_(ζ) 04:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - needs expansion but no reason to delete. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability established.--Dwaipayan (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The sources that KnightLago found assert that this article does in fact pass notability guidelines.--Mifter (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why should rare breeds be excluded from WP? ArcAngel (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just by being a unique dog breed in itself is "explaining" why its notable. The Hindu source confirms high notability. --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 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. A NHS trust in the United Kingdom is notable enough for a stub, which the article is. Scope for development and potentially more sources which have not yet been added. Rudget . 12:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys NHS Trust[edit]

Fails notability guidelines at WP:ORG. –Dream out loud (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - NHS trusts are government bodies and have, therefore, inherent notability. These trusts are the management bodies for large groups of hospitals and are important organisations on which we should have pages. TerriersFan (talk) 00:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There appears to be plenty of coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources as evidenced by a Google news search[21], a Google books search[22] and a Google scholar search[23]. I have added three references to BBC News stories, which ought be sufficient to retain the article as a stub. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additions of malcolmxl5. There seems to be enough info present for a stub. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would certainly consider NHS Trusts notable. --Canley (talk) 01:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep if you feel it Fails notability guidelines then we may attach a tag so that some one would fix it , go here to ensure that it is notable [24]. Pearll's sun (talk) 01:51, 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. per WP:SNOW (non-admin closing) - Milk's Favorite Cookie 01:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Onondaga Park[edit]

Delete nn city park, unsourced, with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:N due to lack of references. Woulda' been easier just to WP:PROD it. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC) New comment below. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- some admins refuse to delete any geographical articles via Prod; here its up to the whole community not a single admin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Good point. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NRHP listed place #02001657 [25]. Deletion guidelines recommending check what links there before proposing deletion. Its presense on List of Registered Historic Places in Onondaga County, New York was a big hint. • Gene93k (talk) 00:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, NRHP makes it notable (for landscape architecture, apparently). --Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The NRHP has much higher inclusion standards than Wikipedia. If something is notable to them, its very notable here. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NRHP notability. --Rosiestep (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As said above it IS notable because it appears on the National Register of Historic Places.--Mifter (talk) 13:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks much better now. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If it's listed in NRHP, then it passes WP:N in my view. ArcAngel (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NRHP. That's just about the biggest claim of notability for a park, I think. -WarthogDemon 18:00, 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. Singu larity 02:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing of anime in American distribution[edit]

Coatrack against 4kids et al Will ^(talk) 01:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. This is borderline speedy keep !vote. I don't see anything wrong with this article; it compares and contrasts anime in Japan verus the child-oriented edits found here in America. At most, there's a possible NPOV issue with the American editors, but that's easily fixable. What, exactly, is the problem with this article that mandates deletion rather than improvement? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does have a few issues (such as the NPOV mentioned by Celarnor), but that's probably fixable, and certainly not grounds for deletion. Bfigura ^(talk) 01:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To those not familiar with the subject, 4kids is on the extreme end of the editing spectrum (i.e, most mean edits per anime they do) and is the primary editor for your Saturday morning cartoons, thus making them the most notable and the most covered here. I think, if there's any POV issue here at all, that it not inherent to the article, but only because a lack of people siding with 4kids et al editing the articles, which is easily fixable by any WP editor. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 01:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' the coatrack issue can be fixed, although I couldn't take it upon myself to do so. This is a valid article topic. JuJube (talk) 03:24, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not particularly familiar with the subject, but if it is indeed a coatrack against the American companies, that can be fixed. This appears to be a rather notable topic. Maxa megalon 2000 05:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as there have been plenty of articles written on this subject in a variety of reliable sources. POV issues can be dealt with on the talk page of the article itself. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can see how this article has multiple issues, and it certainly will not be easy bringing it up to standards. However, we need to distinguish between content issues and the article's topic. And so far, I have not seen any argument, especially not in the nomination or on the article's talk page, why the topic shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. --Minimaki (talk) 12:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see how the article has issues and it has a long way to go, but I can't see any logical reason to delete this when all it needs is a bit of hard word to get back up to par.--Mifter (talk) 13:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; bias seems to be the main issue, and that can easily be fixed. As minimaki pointed out, there don't seem to be any issues about the subject per se, as it easily seems to be notable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Can we have an anime representation of a snowball rolling down Mount Fuji and getting larger as it moves? Mandsford (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see Wikipitan rolling a snowball. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's not the best article (not that I knew that when I nominated for featuring). Pretty much all that there is to say about keeping this has been said. MalwareSmarts (talk) 22:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is actually pretty good, and much better than I could've written on the (notable) topic. --Gwern (contribs) 22:57 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 keep. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blunt Force Trauma (band)[edit]

non-notable band. speedy declined, prod contested Will ^(talk) 01:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This band includes Felix Griffin, former drummer of crossover pioneers D.R.I. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_Rotten_Imbeciles).
Felix is widely regarded as a pioneering thrash drummer, and is a legend in this genre, and the albums on which he is featured (1985's "Dealing With It", 1987's "Crossover", 1988's "4 of a Kind", and 1989's "Thrash Zone" - the band's "Metal Blade" period), are widely considered to be the band's best works, and are widely regarded as classics of the genre (especially "Dealing With It"). Therefore, according to Wikipedia's notability criteria, his current activities are notable.
This group should qualify under the notability criteria for musicians and ensembles (#6: "Contains at least one member who was once a part of or later joined a band that is otherwise notable"). D.R.I. were hugely influential to thrash and metal in general. They had videos on MTV during the years that Felix Griffin was in the band. Please see http://www.mtv.com/music/artist/dri/artist.jhtml - also, http://www.mtv.com/search/?searchterm=dri lists their entire Metal Blade Records catalog.
Sources are noted in the article. Bft (talk)
Weak keep. Seems like the notability is met, but only just barely so. Also, the article could use a bit of improvement, although that isn't a valid deletion argument, as it has other remedies; simply throwing it out there. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:42, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on the fact that the band has a member of another semi-notable band, just enough to scrape through WP:MUSIC. Could stand a cleanup and better sources, but those are issues that can be settled outside AfD. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:MUSIC owing to DRI member. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 10:47, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- Seems to meeet WP:N and WP:Music...though only just... --Camaeron (t/c) 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 arguments to keep so far... how many do we need to leave the article up? A relatively small but significant subculture of music fans worldwide were hugely influenced by this band's drummer's previous work. His previous band has their own article, I thought it notable to include his current project. Bft (talk)

Wikipedia uses consensus, not voting, so the number of keeps is immaterial. Most discussions are left open for five days, although sometimes they will be closed earlier if the consensus becomes real obvious or if the nominator withdraws. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, TPH. Bft (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:25, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

6park[edit]

AfDs for this article:

does not assert notability. Going through AFD because it can't be speedied Will ^(talk) 02:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the 259th most popular website in the world, according to an indicator with an English-speaking bias. [26] Should that be included in the article? Shii (tock) 02:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would help, yes. The site could be in the top 5 on Alexa, but without asserting its notability, it's A7 material. Will ^(talk) 03:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is false. Look at WP:CSD#A7 again: "An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of notability, verifiability and reliability of sources." --Pixelface (talk) 19:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Ludicrously popular site among Chinese expatriates. I see it once or twice a day myself on other computers during classes. The Alexa rank of the site in question this week is 259, down 40 from last week. 1.24 million ghits. I would certainly hope that something like this couldn't be speedy deleted just because the article is in terrible shape. Also, when discussing notability, you have to remember that this is a site in Chinese only, with a strongly anti-government and anti-authority view on their country. You aren't likely to find many news articles on it, as it is a Chinese culture-oriented webiste, and news articles on this subject would be produced by a Chinese news agency, but Chinese news agencies are highly censored; hell, they can't even edit Wikipedia. We're talking about a site that gets over in the range of 2000 million hits a day. I think pulling out IAR for the lack of sources is sufficient in this case and an improvement drive by english-speaking users of the site is in order. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Alexa ranking strongly suggests notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is also the 10th most popular site in New Zealand and the 22nd in Singapore, according to Alexa. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also, media coverage, after a fashion. The linked article suggests the site as a way to contact Chinese people living overseas. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 20:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it appears to be a very popular website. And it has been covered in the Chinese newspaper Hua Sheng Online. I don't think the lack of English sources means very much. --Pixelface (talk) 20:08, 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 Due to consensus that this will always violate the Bigoraphies of Living persons policy and that the list is redundant to other wikipedia articles. A rename was tried after a previous AFD but clearly did not address the problems with the list. Davewild (talk) 18:20, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Roman Catholic clergy charged with sex offenses[edit]

BLP nightmare Sceptre ^(talk) 22:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BUT only if renamed "List of Roman Catholic clergy convicted of sex offenses" and all references to people who have only been charged must be removed, along with any unsourced names that are added. I agree this is a BLP nightmare, but it's am important and notable topic. The only way I can see this working under BLP is to restrict it to those who are convicted (thereby preserving "innocent until proven guilty" and "do no harm") and make sure it's policed regularly for any unsourced names being added. I just removed one listed under Estonia, for example. If the article is not renamed and the criteria tightened, then this is to be considered a Delete vote due to BLP concerns. 23skidoo (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP nightmare and vand/OR magnet. I agree with 23skidoo that the subject is important, but the subject is already covered in depth at Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. -- Fullstop (talk) 11:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country, with which it's already largely redundant. Not a BLP nightmare, yes an OR magnet, but the fuller article has withstood that and the list is notable. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I originally removed the info from Roman Catholic sex abuse cases since it was a logical progression of that page. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: It was nominated for deletion under the old name. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Roman Catholic priests accused of sex offenses. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

11 deletes and 3 renames and it was closed as rename. Seems the renaming has not completely removed the concern of the community that this is a problematic listing. SilkTork *^YES! 09:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to "List of Roman Catholic clergy convicted of sex offenses". It is not a WP:BLP nightmare if suitably referenced. -- Alan Liefting- (talk) - 01:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a police blotter. These people are already documented elsewhere and catalogued. Wikipedia articles should not be a list of "other stuff." Scandals are great for the tabloids. Shouldn't be here. Only reason is to hold people up to shame. Poor encylopedic reasons. As mentioned above, vandal magnet, but of the tabloid variety - poorly documented stuff. Student7 (talk) 01:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia already has enough articles about the Roman Catholic sex abuse scandal and this lists duplicates a lot of what is already in Roman Catholic sex abuse cases by country. NancyHeise (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP violation, repeats info elsewhere, will lead to incontrollable vandalism and edit wars. Of no value. --Anietor (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. I don't agree with any of the reasons for deletion given above, because (1) there doesn't seem to be anything in WP:DEL#REASON or any other Wikipedia policy about articles having to be deleted if they could potentially attract abuse, (2) the article has existed for a period of time and not seen much vandal activity anyway, (3) the information isn't completely redundant, so a merge should be considered first, if anything, and (4) WP:BLP sores can be fixed by proper sourcing. Reinis^talk 21:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the list, and at the related article, Roman Catholic sex abuse cases, I find the article balanced, sober and helpful to those wishing to know more about the incidence of sex abuse cases involving Roman Catholic clergy, while the list by its bare bones listing of accused individuals is not helpful. There is an individual listed who is still on trial, 5 red links, 3 links to single sentence stubs of possibly non-notable individuals, and another link to Eugene A. Greene, a war hero not accused of any sex crime. The list is poor quality, provocative, and as it stands is of no real assistance to anyone. Delete. In the meantime I will remove the red links, the link to the war hero, the mention of the man whose case is still being heard, and PROD the three single sentence articles on the non-notable individuals. SilkTork *^YES! 09:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A simple listing like this is no more encyclopedic than a list of shopkeepers charged with shoplifiting. We're not a database of legal actions, this sort of thing seems entirely outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Significant cases should have their own articles and/or be mentioned in the Roman Catholic sex abuse cases article (which can put the events in context and provide an appropriate summary of the impact the cases have had - and so provide encyclopedic value). From what I see this already seems to be the case for the current contents of the list, hence delete rather than merge, though I have no objection to a merge if someone else identifies appropriate information to move over. A redirect may be appropriate if the list is looked for or linked to much. -- SiobhanHansa 13:31, 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.

[1] Life After Tomorrow website (2008). "Toni as Molly". Retrieved 2008-03-21. Along with Stevens and special guest Charles Strouse, over twenty former Annies and orphans are expected to attend, including Martha Byrne, a former July and Annie understudy who won two Daytime Emmys for As the World Turns, original Broadway cast member Robyn Finn, and Rosanne Sorrentino and Toni Ann Gisondi from the Annie film.

[2] "'Life After Tomorrow' Signing to Feature Special Appearances". Baltimore Broadwayworld. Retrieved 2008-03-21. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

[imdb-3] IMDB website (2007). "Toni Ann Details". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[4] (1992) The Great Hollywood Musical Pictures. ISBN 0810825295

[Award_nomination-5] Young Artists Awards website (2007). "Award nomination". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[Encyclopedia-6] Find Articles.com website (2007). "Encyclopedia mention". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[Other_acting_jobs-7] IMDB website (2007). "A Children's Story". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[Student_role-8] Atabb website (2007). "Acting role". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[Child_actor-9] Platinum Celebs website (2007). "Child actor". Retrieved 2008-02-20.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]