Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 March 31

< March 30	April 1 >

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 close. This is a self-evidently notable, core topic for an encyclopedia. Willing to assume good faith regarding the nomination, but deletion isn't a viable means of resolving editorial problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism[edit]

Quite obviously anyone who has taken part in writing this article does not know anything about communism or what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if the people who wrote this article have not read a single word of Marx's work. It doesn't give a correct definition of communism. It is completely pro western.
China- under the heading "After the collapse of the Soviet Union", there is map it says that the PRC is one of the remaining communist countries. What a load of rubbish, The Peoples Republic of China has the worlds fasted growing economy, how is this possible under communism.
Cold War Years- under this article, why does it say the words "Communist government". There can not be so such thing as a communist government. As that would imply some one running a country, which can not happen under communism and a communist country, which can not happen either as i have explained earlier. This article is awful
Criticism of communism- First, this section is criticizing something, which they do not know nothing about. So is pointless. Secondly, why isn't there a section "Meriting of Communism"? Since there isn't i believe this article to be POV, when it should be NPOV. If a person that had no idea of what Communism was, and read this article, the person would still not understand what Communism was! This just gives the pro-western perspective of communism. There is many complaints of this article in its discussion page. [1]. The article is also missing citations or footnotes, Its neutrality is disputed and Its factual accuracy is disputed. This article needs to be deleted and re-written. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SPEEDY DELETE As per above. Ijanderson977 (talk) 00:15, 1 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. John254 23:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zombie Nation (film)[edit]

Delete Appears to be a small independent dtv zombie film with no assertion of notability. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable filmmaker, over 1900 people have considered this movie bad enough to make imdb's bottom 3 worst films. Corvus cornix_talk 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I don't see how that makes it notable for inclusion on Wikipedia, especially as that list is hardly permanent. Or how Lommel is a notable filmmaker, either. He seems to be reviled by the horror crowd but that's pretty much it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 23:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per [2] [3]. --Smashville^BONK! 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while not the primary subject, the mentions here aren't trivial: [4]. --Smashville^BONK! 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources (per Smashville), and the director seems fairly notable within his genre as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep based on Smashville. Oddly, we don't have articles on (nor does his article mention) his most highly thought of and/or successful films, The Tenderness of Wolves (film) (no relation to the 2006 novel; a literary quote?), Strangers in Paradise (film) (no relation to the comic book), or BrainWaves. --Dhartung | Talk 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the references from Smashville. Lugnuts (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are sources[5] like the San Francisco Chronicle, Variety, and Fangoria. --Pixelface (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It is somewhat notable. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:45, 2 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 delete. SorryGuy Talk 19:41, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DreamStream[edit]

Article on a start-up with no independent sources; ad-like but not blatant spam. Surely fails WP:CORP - note that its first product launch is coming next month. Also note that this article has been deleted under CSD G11 twice. Mango juice^talk 23:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability. Google news turns up nothing but a different product with the same name. —BradV 00:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sort of external coverage. -Drdisque (talk) 00:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerning notability, Wikipedia states: "... smaller organizations can be notable, just as individuals can be notable, and arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations." Thus, it does not fail WP:CORP. Furthermore, within the encryption industry, DreamStream's technology is both unprecedented and unparalleled, which, from a journalistic standpoint, makes this entry valuable. Johndiff (talk) 17:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, smaller organizations can be notable. That doesn't mean they are. To pass WP:CORP, we need "coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." —BradV 17:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Unprecedented and unparalleled" is kind of a hard claim to back up when DreamStream doesn't even describe their technology. So I think that claim is quite dubious and needs to be backed up with a reliable, independent source. Mango juice^talk 21:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreliable sources, basically just advertising. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:21, 3 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 (non-admin closure) with strong consensus to merge. Skomorokh 02:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shorewood Stadium[edit]

Fails WP:RS, and WP:N Ni mi Ti ze 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with NimiTize (talk · contribs), and the article is also unsourced WP:OR and reads like spam/advertising. Cirt (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any verifiable information into Shorewood High School (Wisconsin) and redirect. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Shorewood High School (Wisconsin). It was the home of a college football team for many years, albeit one that only competed in Division I for one year and not the years it was at this stadium. No reason not to have a redirect. --Dhartung | Talk 00:44, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Shorewood High School (Wisconsin) as per Dhartung. Certainly a valid search term, and no reason not to have a mention in the school article.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect These merge comments all echo my thoughts. Royalbroil 15:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect I agree with the above comments.Thank you-RFD (talk) 14:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per above Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 02:22, 3 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 Delete. Black Kite 23:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Age of Tech[edit]

After searching in multiple databases/news archives, I was unable to find any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources that significantly discuss or analyze "Golden Age of Tech" in relation to Scientology. One book, Controversial New Religions makes a passing mention in a footenote on one page, but I could not find any other books not affiliated with the Church of Scientology that discussed this subject matter in any significant detail. Another passing mention is made in Scientology's Study Technology by David S. Touretzky and Chris Owen - but this is also briefly and in one sentence, and not enough of a significant discussion to assert notability. I found zero mention whatsoever in 2 different news archive sources, and no results in InfoTrac. Cirt (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for reasons given, I guess. It's kind of silly because we have David Miscavige acknowledging its existence as well as that of GAK. WillOakland (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This source provides a minimal description. WillOakland (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for providing that source, and that could be very useful at articles David Miscavige and Church of Scientology, but I don't think it is enough significant discussion and analysis to warrant notability. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two other mentions to Talk:Golden Age of Tech, but they're not very notable. AndroidCat (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, again could be good sources for other main articles, but they are both less than one-sentence mentions, not really significant discussion of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 20:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Scientology. Probably not notable by itself, but I'm certainly familiar with it and I think it plays a significant role in the CoS. 68.40.58.255 (talk) 02:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources to back up that assertion? Cirt (talk) 03:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable article. Merge to main article. --DizFreak ^{talk Contributions} 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is only notable within the cofs. Excerpting and merging into the main article may improve the main article, however.--Fahrenheit451 (talk) 02:18, 3 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 Delete --JForget 23:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Lair TCG[edit]

Not notable per WP:N, no refs per WP:RS. ukexpat (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be a future (WP:FUTURE) game made up by non-notable people (WP:MADEUP). I can't follow the link in the article (mainly because users shouldn't have to subscribe to view a source or reference). Bosh it! Booglamay (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems to be unsourced WP:OR, only 2 external links given appear to be self-promotion, and a message board. Agree with Ukexpat (talk · contribs) and Booglamay (talk · contribs) - no notability or significant coverage is asserted in secondary sources. The article is also poorly formatted. Cirt (talk) 23:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Gsearch coming up with a single non-wiki ghit, which is a forum. "References" in article are not showing notability in the least. Not even clear that the game exists yet -- article seems to indicate it's still being made up.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per A7 or WP:CSD#G11. Percy Snoodle (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the article is poor, I'll remind everyone of WP:BITE. That said, this topic doesn't appear to be notable. Hobit (talk) 02:26, 3 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 --JForget 23:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Plaza[edit]

PROD removed by author, saying "Wikipedia has infinite capacity, it is not cluttering the website. Why should this not have an article. I was going to expand it." Wikipedia may have a large capacity but it is not an indiscriminate collection of information and does have notability criteria - see "Buildings and structures" in WP:NPT#Places; having 20 floors, being the 30th tallest building in Minneapolis and appearing in a list of skyscrapers is not notable. JohnCD (talk) 21:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Can you just add this information in to the Minneapolis area somewhere? Brentoli (talk) 21:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KeepThere are building alot smaller that have articles, why shouent this one? Alaskan assassin (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, not much of a claim to notability. This was the most extensive coverage I could find. (Note: there are scads of Google Books hits, but all are apparently address listings of companies.) At best, it was 5th tallest in the city when completed. --Dhartung | Talk 22:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. -- Eóin (talk) 22:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is the subject of secondary sources that are beyond the scope of "trivial." --Oakshade (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per recent addition of several references by Eóin. -- Rai-me 01:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't get very excited about this building. Architecture critic Larry Millett's book, AIA Guide to the Twin Cities, doesn't cover this tower. I've been using his book pretty much as a bible for buildings in Minneapolis-St. Paul, so if he doesn't include it, he didn't consider it interesting. Midwest Plaza isn't particularly architecturally notable, and it wasn't designed by a famous architect. (On the other hand, according to Emporis, it was the fictional home of WJM-TV in The Mary Tyler Moore Show.) I guess I'm voting for a weak delete on this one. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 01:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Larry Millett's book is great but it doesn't cover the mundane and ordinary buildings in the Twin Cities. I think this article has weight as a business building rather than on its architectural merits. The article has been expanded greatly and looks nothing like when it was first nominated for deletion. -Eóin (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - do we want to cover "mundane and ordinary buildings"? JohnCD (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean buildings that one local architecture critic doesn't consider interesting enough. If an article has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" then I believe we do "want" to cover them. Eóin (talk) 18:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This building has clearly "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", as the list of 10 references makes clear. NoIdeaNick (talk) 09:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like it maybe warrants a one-sentence mention over at Mary Tyler Moore Show. Other than that.. what is there to say about this building? The article right now basically reads "yes, it's a building.. someone owns it.. and there are tenants." There is nothing to indicate why an encyclopedia would cover this topic. There are other "list of buildings" websites- Wikipedia isn't mean to be one of them. Friday (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the 10 references says it all. Cheers. _{Trance addict - Tiesto - Above and Beyond} 20:02, 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 Delete. Unsourced, no real-world notability asserted. Black Kite 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Morita (Starship Troopers)[edit]

Fictional weapon, appears to fail WP:N. Content could be merged to the film article, but anything more than a line would seem to be undue weight. Skomorokh 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also listed in this deletion debate:

There is no reason for it to be deleted. There needs to be more articles about Starship Troopers and everything in the article is fact. Who cares if it is a fictional weapon, it's in the Starship Trooper universe so therefor the article needs to remain. There are many more articles on here about fictional weapons so there is no reason for it to be deleted. Also it does not fail WP:N, it meets the requirements. General Mannino (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, General. I have responded to your comments at your talkpage. You say that "it does fail WP:N" but then say that "it meets requirements". Which requirements do you mean, if not WP:N? You may also want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, for arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Regards, Skomorokh 21:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- LOL @ the idea of an article about a fictional weapon being "fact". JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatantly non-notable. <eleland/talkedits> 21:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is it not notable? There's many articles on here about fictional weapons of movies, video games, etc. so why is this one so different? It's not different, it's the same, so if this gets deleted than that means many other articles should be deleted as well. And by the way I made a typo error, I meant to say it does NOT fail WP:N. General Mannino (talk) 22:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability is established, and the referencing is inadequate, much of the article appears to be WP:OR, and what little notable material could be seen could be a brief mention in one of the more main articles. Cirt (talk) 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both total fancruft. JuJube (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You people probably don't know a thing about Starship Troopers. It's not fancruft, which by the way isn't a word, it's true hardcore fact. General Mannino (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Neither is Morita. :\ JuJube (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- On the contrary, I read the book several times since I was 14, and (unlike most critics) I enjoyed the movie a lot, although (unlike most fans) I took it mostly as campy political satire. Please cut down on the incivility. There are other Wikis for obscure fan content, you can host your article on one of them. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. <eleland/talkedits> 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both and start a merge discussion. Nominator admits "Content could be merged to the film article." Articles that can be merged should not be nominated for deletion. Next time consider putting a {{merge}} tag on the article first, per WP:ATD . Merging certainly doesn't require a deletion discussion beforehand. --Pixelface (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These articles do not contain enough relevant information even about the film do deserve much space in that article. Would readers of The Godfather article want several paragraphs on the types of gun used? No. So to "merge" would be to effectively delete 95% of the content of this article. In such situations, calling it a merge is disingenuous, and the community should discuss whether or not the content deserves to be kept or not. Skomorokh 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. (Yes, I know it's not a character) -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to film article or a spinoff on weaponry in Starship Troopers, as per WP:FICTION. No real world notability is claimed for this weapon (nor is any likely to be found), so a stand-alone article is unlikely to meet WP:Notability.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is NOT fan content! You people probably have never seen the movie and in the movie their gun is called the Morita! Watch the movie for proof! Also what about the article M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens, it's a fictional weapon and it's not tagged for deletion so why is this? They're basically the same thing except from different movies and a different kind of gun! If this page gets deleted, so should that page! It doesn't need any real world notability because it's a fictional gun like the M41A pulse rifle! If there isn't enough "relevant information" in the article than myself or other people who have seen the ilm can add more content! This is not fan content! It is straight from the film! The information I got are from official Starship Troopers websites such as the official movie websites and the official game website! And by the way Skomorokh, there wouldn't be articles with the types of guns used in The Godfather because they are real guns. The Morita is not real and deserves an article because it is straight from the Starship Troopers film.General Mannino (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- I agree with General Mannino. I've seen all of the films and played the game, and right now I'm reading the book, I know a lot about Starship Troopers. I think the page Morita should be kept because it is something regarding the film and is not fan created. MI General (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, finally someone agrees. General Mannino (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: User:MI General's only edits prior to this Afd were to her own userpage and to the article up for deletion. Possible sock. Skomorokh 04:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined Wikipedia. I was browsing through some Starship Troopers articles and I stumbled upon this. I decided to create an account and post my opinion. MI General (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no independent secondary sources about this topic. Ergo, it is not notable. Blast Ulna (talk) 08:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable aspect of a fictional work with multiple published sources to verify information. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. General Mannino (talk) 15:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're welcome! :) Happy editing! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 16:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - What on earth is an Amazon search for "starship troopers" supposed to show? We're discussing the notability of this "Morita" weapon, not of Starship Troopers. This weapon was named only in the Verhoeven films, not in the book (although it might be in some non-canon licensed material like the RPG.) <eleland/talkedits> 17:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then it's appropriate as a sub-article or it could be redirected without deletion to preserve editors' public contributions, but there's no valid reason for outright deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's cruft, and appealing to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is an obvious no-no. Furthermore, I think I smell socks here... Sojourner001 (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ITSCRUFT is never an acceptable "reason" for deletion. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it's not in the book doesn't mean it should be deleted, not everything revolves around the book, you're basically saying that the movie article should be deleted also, the M41A pulse rifle from the movie Aliens is a fictional weapon, but it's a weapon in the movie and is not a weapon used anywhere else and it has an article, this is no different. NOT EVERYTHING REVOLVES AROUND THE BOOK! General Mannino (talk) 20:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's already been clearly explained to you that just because the M41 pulse rifle has an article, it doesn't mean that the Morita should. Neither deserves an article because knowing the name and story behind the weapon doesn't give the reader any deeper comprehension of the movie or the book, and is essentially of little to no practical use to anyone. Even if the movie were about the development of a particular infantry rifle and the political and social ramifications therein, it still wouldn't be deserving of its own article. This article is cruft because it attempts to elevate a piece of inconsequential and non-notable trivia into a subject of encyclopedic significance, which it quite clearly is not. Sojourner001 (talk) 20:29, 6 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 Delete --JForget 23:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Farhrenheit 420[edit]

Band that has released two albums. No other assertions of notability. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. Fails WP:MUSIC, as there is no indication of whether the label(s) that published the albums is a major one. ~~So tagged.~~ already declined. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only sources are to primary, self-referential sources, seems to be self-promotion and WP:OR. Also, the title of the article is wrong, should be "Fahrenheit 420". Cirt (talk) 23:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I noticed that. That's merely grounds for a page move without discussion. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 23:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's sort of a manifestation of Geogre's Law, though ... --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication that both albums are under a major/notable indie label, which is the notability criterion. General lack of sources. Cquan ^{(after the beep...)} 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing showing passage of WP:BAND. --Dhartung | Talk 01:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Possibly self promotion. (p.s. it is spelled wrongly - it should be "Fahrenheit"). — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC, no professional reviews found at metacritic, no evidence of charting found at allmusic. Only thing approaching notability I found is here, but I'm not sure a nomination for a local music award (and can't find that they won the award) is truly notable. --Fabrictramp (talk) 14:46, 1 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 make WP:DAB per Dhartung. The current content is unsourced. Feel free to come up with any other reasonable editorial solution. Sandstein (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amenhirkhopshef[edit]

Amenhirkhopshef, according to the article, is the son of a king who didn't even live past his first day. Amenhirkhopshef had virtually no impact on history. In addition to not being notable, the article lacks sources and appears to very difficult to source, since the only sources I've found seem to disagree with the article and each other. Even if a reliable source can be found for the small amount of information on the page, the information should be merged into Ramesses III and the article should be made into a redirect. Gflashwnox (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is a merge proposal, then it would be better served with merge tags. This is articles for deletion, not articles for merging. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather see the article deleted, and believe that is the proper course of action. The possibility of a merger was only brought as an alternative solution.Gflashwnox (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. —Quasirandom (talk) 01:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge and redirect. While not significant enough for an article, there's no reason to delete. --Dhartung | Talk 22:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, I suspected a transliteration/disambiguation problem, and we already have Amun-her-khepeshef (20th dynasty), who is probably the individual discussed in the article, and Amun-her-khepeshef, his brother's son. There seem to have been some later pharaohs who took the name Ramses-Amenhirkhopshef (transliterated however), as well. I would suggest making this a WP:DAB as this spelling appears in numerous sources. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ramesses III Captain panda 03:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:48, 1 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 delete. - Philippe 01:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

McConnell Hall[edit]

Delete nn dormitory building; with nothing to indicate notability - an anon basically deleted the article's contents but let's go through process. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the material present in the article demonstrates that there is nothing significant to say about it--just like almost all college dorms. If there are many more such articles around here, I think I going to have to change the tag on my page to "deletionist"DGG (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, entire article is WP:OR, doesn't assert notability or significant discussion in secondary sources, and is unsourced. Cirt (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to McGill University or an article on all the residence halls of McGill University. No special notability is claimed for this particular dorm.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to McGill University. TerriersFan (talk) 15:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to McGill University#Residential life as per reasoning of Fabrictramp. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the grounds that there is also a McConnell Hall at Northern Arizona University, one at the College of Charleston, one for the Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science#McConnell Hall, one at the University of New Hampshire, one at Central Washington University, one at the University of Idaho, one at Smith College, one at Urbana University, one dining hall at Pitzer College, a closed one at the University of New Brunswick, one that used to be a dining hall at Acadia University, and one lecture hall at Meriter Hospital. And if anybody suggests a disambig page, why don't we just make Wikipedia a yellow pages and give up on the whole idea of an encyclopedia? Blast Ulna (talk) 08:55, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why isn't it useful for someone looking up information on McConnell Hall to get a list of articles? Most encyclopedias do have indices, by the way. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that is the job of Google, which is how I found all the McConnell Halls. My point is that their are tens of thousands of colleges worldwide, each of which has several dorm buildings. Every campus has parking lots, why don't we have redirects for every parking lot? Blast Ulna (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wikipedia is manually organised in a logical fashion. Google is a search engine which looks for keywords. Ignoring the straw man parking lot and back to the point of debate: your argument is the article should be deleted since there are several McConnell Halls; my argument is the info belongs in the McGill article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Why should we have the redirect? College dorms are not remotely notable, unless there is something truly special about them. My Googling of the other McConnell Halls should be taken as evidence of just how many dorms there are, and of path to DIRECTORY=NOT that we should not be going down. Blast Ulna (talk) 18:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't believe a dab page violates WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:07, 3 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 No consensus to delete. Black Kite 23:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman Chronicles[edit]

Series of trade paperbacks with no claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. Has not made the NY Times bestseller list; gsearch not coming up with notability. Contested prod. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pn also the article seems a bit like it is advertising the comics described. Captain panda 03:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seem to be a fair number of reviews.

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=SNSB&p_theme=snsb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=11040B2DF197FBE0&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-143180516.html
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/reviews/116181173013207.htm
http://www.bookmunch.co.uk/view.php?id=1692
http://www.earthsmightiest.com/comics/review-the-superman-chronicles-volume-4/

thus Keep Hobit (talk) 03:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep per Hobit. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rather pointless article. Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the numerous sources found by Hobit. Edward321 (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the relevant entry - this is already covered here: Action Comics#Collected editions which seems to be the appropriate place for this information to go (and most series have a section for the collected volumes). If there are reviews then add them in there. This seems unnecessary duplication of effort. (Emperor (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment Not a comics guy, but unless I'm mistaken not all of those in this series will be from Action Comics, correct? Hobit (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not 100% sure of the plans but that would seem a reasonable assumption - in which case the information can be added to the relevant entry - which is where the information should be. There is an argument on precedent as there are Showcase Presents and Marvel Omnibus - although these seem a little thin. If it could be made into something more like DC Archive Editions, Marvel Masterworks and Essential Marvel then I'd be fine with keeping it. The reviews would also help expand the real world context. As it stands it is very thin and just really replicates information elsewhere, hence my suggesting a merge might be the best option (for now - no prejudice on someone working on it in their sandbox and restarting with an improved version if more information is available - history along with some comments from the DC editors/creators about it would be a big boost). (Emperor (talk) 14:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. —Emperor (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per others. No valid deletion reason given. Being a trade paperback isn't a deletion reason, neither is not having made the NT Times bestseller list. Hobit was able to produce several reliable sources that would indicate notability. Rray (talk) 01:25, 6 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 Delete. Housing estates are generally non-notable except in certain exceptional circumstances (i.e. Broadwater Farm). This single line of text certainly asserts no notability. Black Kite 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blaze park[edit]

Delete nn public housing complex, unsourced with no indication of notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with Carlossuarez46 (talk · contribs), notability is not established, article is unsourced WP:OR and does not assert notability or provide references that do. Cirt (talk) 23:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NN. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kingswinford. While I generally give geographic locations a free pass in deletions, this just doesn't have enough info in it to help a reader at all. Until it does, best to have it as part of an article on a larger area.--Fabrictramp (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete definitely not notable and probably will never be. Red Phoenix (Talk) 01:56, 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. John254 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiketsu Zubat[edit]

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and now it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified.It was a challenged prod.It fails WP:V and WP:N Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is no deadline on Wikipedia, so I don't think the "long enough" reason is valid. -Malkinann (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Because the article currenlty isn't referenced does not mean that it will never be referenced. "Lack of references" is not a means of determining inclusion. The subject is over 30 years old, and there have been no major updates since then. And I am now adding three references to the page, one of which I know of, and two which came up under a search for the title in Japanese. It in no way fails WP:V and WP:N now.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nationally aired television programs are notable. We've got the sources to prove its not made up, so the verifiability problem is fixed as well. --erachima formerly tjstrf 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references seem to be added. Not suprised, such a program is almost certain to have them. DGG (talk) 22:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Wikipedia default is that nationally televised serial programs are notable by default, much like named geographic features. There is sufficient indirect referencing in the article to demonstrate it's not a haox, and this seems to be fairly easy to come by, so notability was not very hard to demonstrate. Why has AfD become the cleanup board anyway, instead of notifying the relevant wikiprojects? —Quasirandom (talk) 14:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do we even have a tokusatsu Wikiproject? --erachima formerly tjstrf 14:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not specifically tokusatsu, that I'm aware of -- the Japan Wikiproject seems to take care of them. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's WP:TOKU.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So there is. Toss this puppy at them. They should be able to wash it up, give it a good grooming, tie a ribbon around its neck, and make it the cutest one in the window. Well, maybe not the last, but good enough to display there. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you think I know of it? :P—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:15, 1 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 delete. - Philippe 01:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Pseudo Miranda[edit]

This is a classic coatrack article, masquerading as a factual account of a large CIA operation (with a title pointing specifically to it) but in reality merely delivering the plot of the sole editor's book (verbatim). There is no other reference anywhere to "Operation Pseudo Miranda", and it appears to be entirely a construct of the author (as well as 3/4ths of his book title). There is only ONE other independent reference I could find on the book itself; it's from the Orange County Press and calls the book a likely hoax.[6] Still, it's selling on Amazon and I'm not begrudging the book it's notability, but this is a verifiably unacceptable coatrack and it needs to go. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 05:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that the articles on both the book and the author have now been speedily deleted. Bullzeye^{(Ring for Service)} 07:27, 25 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) 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why wasn't this taken care of along with the other two pages in the first place? --erachima formerly tjstrf 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article on suspected hoax, with no Reliable Sources. Fake or not doesn't really matter, show the notable impact. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article on author does not seem to have been speedily deleted (contra nominator), see Kenneth C. Bucchi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth C. Bucchi. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep / merge. The hoax book itself is apparently notable (Google News test), but obviously the presentation in this article is an atrocity. Merge this and any other related articles to an article on the book, and make sure that article gives sufficient weight to the overwhelmingly likely explanation that this is all a fabrication. <eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete G10 - article cites no reliable sources for verification and (hoax or not) appears to currently serve no other purpose but to disparage an organisation. Guest9999 (talk) 23:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Cappadona[edit]

Teenage guitarist. No reliable sources to confirm notability provided, and I couldn't find any. Prod tag and several maintenance tags were removed without explanation by an anon IP with five total edits, all relating to this subject. --Finngall ^talk 21:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:MUSIC. No albums, no labels, no tours, no coverage. Myspace and a user-submission site are the only references. Not accaptable per WP:RS. Anecdotal evidence also inadmissible. DarkAudit (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSIC - this is a puff piece. Pedro : Chat 21:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DarkAudit -Drdisque (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is unsourced and appears to be promotional WP:OR, no notability established, and no coverage in secondary sources given. Cirt (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to work with the author of this article, however when I attempted to find further information on this person to establish notability... i could not find any, apparently he plays in his parents garage and at school talent shows, he played once at a local battle of the bands which was attended by about 10k people... in which he came in 10th place and received no award, not even an honourable mention. His only references are free sites such as myspace and musicnation both of which are user created, and have absolutely no requirements of being notable whatsoever. The reason for keeping this article is so people can find information on him and "get to know him", which can be accomplished in a myspace blog, or a personal website rather than a wikipedia article and is much more appropriate for an up and coming YOUNG artist (He is only 16). So i digest,

1. No notability any notability is a mere illusion
2. References refer to user created pages that do not establish notability
3. Any attempts to gather information to establish notability (Including my calling local stations and organizations in the area) failed, in fact most people i asked had no idea who he was and most thought i was prank calling them.
4. There is no reason to believe that anywhere in the near future the person that is the subject of this article will gain any substantial notability.
5. The information in this article is more appropriate of that of a webblog or a personal website.

In-case there is any confusion... I vote for the article Matt Cappadona To be deleted due to utter lack of everything that is needed to establish a valid Wikipedia article.

Cheers. AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:56, 1 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 nomination withdrawn . Canley (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny Dies[edit]

Not an encyclopedic article, page contains nothing but a plot summary; no sources available. Dorftrottel (bait) 20:54, March 31, 2008 20:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; I believe that certain South Park episodes were put up for AfD a while ago, and the result was keep. I stand by the same reasoning; all the episodes have the potential to become more than just plot summaries, and should you put this up for AfD, you'd have to put up about 80% of all other South Park episodes also. On a lesser note, I'd say that this episode is more relevant, as it contains a crucial plot line where one of the main characters dies, effecting the rest of the series. I would understand if it was another episode which was "little more than a plot summary" put up for AfD, but the events of this particular episode seem to make it more notable than most episodes. ≈ The Haunted Angel 21:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that Kenny dies in every episode, right? —BradV 22:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if you've seen this episode and the one's that follow, you'll realise he actually does die in this, and is absent for many seasons afterwards until his later return. ≈ The Haunted Angel 22:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I was able to find coverage in a quick news archive search and regular Google search also shows lots of hits to good sources that could be used in the article. A few of the reviews in secondary sources that came up were in Winston-Salem Journal, America's Intelligence Wire, and University Wire. Cirt (talk) 23:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Episode has been reviewed in multiple reliable sources and appears to be notable. I would imagine that most South Park episodes, given their shock factor alone, are probably the subject of multiple reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Added some references, added a sourced Reception section, and a Further reading section and External links section. I'm sure that since I was able to find these sources relatively quickly that the episode has some additional coverage in other secondary sources as well. Cirt (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Consider it withdrawn by nom. I only wish AfD'ing wasn't necessary as an incentive to introduce sources which should be included on page creation. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 00:00, April 1, 2008

Frankly, I agree completely. It seems that the only reason any sources were added were to stop the deletion - they should be added, on any article, much sooner. ≈ The Haunted Angel 00:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with expanding an article and adding sources to it while it is undergoing an WP:AfD discussion? Cirt (talk) 00:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. They just should be added before it reaches this stage. It is sort of ironic that the best way to get an article fixed is to bring it to AfD. See WP:HEY for an example. —BradV 00:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that. WP:HEY is an interesting essay. Cirt (talk) 00:43, 1 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 Delete --JForget 23:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eurocat (Air Traffic Control System)[edit]

Delete nothing to indicate that this product one-liner is a notable encyclopedic subject; no sources as usual. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unsourced WP:OR, one-sentence article which does not assert notability or significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Barely escapes db-nocontent. --BrucePodger (talk) 00:19, 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. Phoenix -wiki 11:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tonis Puri[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a bread, nothing indicating that this bread is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced WP:OR, one sentence article, no assertion of notability or significant discussion in secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 14:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added some sources. Surely part of a nation's staple diet has more notability than an episode of a TV series or a goth punk death metal band that has released two albums? I'm sure there are plenty more sources available in Georgian, but I'm afraid that all I can do with that language is admire the beauty of the script rather than understand a word of it. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. John254 23:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep but the article need expanding. Cultural significance, history, etc... Otherwise, it falls under WP:DICT and should be deleted. Bardcom (talk) 01:16, 6 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 delete. - Philippe 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leonczuk[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner about a surname with nothing to indicate why it's notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability. Camillus (talk) 22:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Pete Plan[edit]

Unremarkable training plan for rowers. Can find no references in reliable sources and only reference in the article (since removed) was a blog. nancy ^(talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable exercise plan. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - there should be a speedy cat for tosh like this. – ukexpat (talk) 21:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. Maybe until it gets more famous. Just delete it for now.

O—— The Unknown Hitc hh ik er 22:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Black Kite 23:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Earl[edit]

Delete bit part actress, nn, fails WP:BIO, sourced only to imdb which is not a reliable source Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:20, 6 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 Delete with no prejudice to recreation should they become notable later on - currently fails WP:BAND. Black Kite 23:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shatter My World[edit]

De-proded by author. It doesn't appear that this band passes WP:BAND muster. "Shatter My World" band produces ~590 Ghits (52 unique)--and the highly specific search "Shatter My World" Wilczynsky hits only this Wikipedia article. The indie label that they're apparently signed to, ~~Zoo Music Incorporated, isn't of any note~~ Zoo Entertainment, is apparently of note, but being signed is hardly enough to meet WP:BAND; the single example of external coverage, an article in a local weekly altmag, isn't enough to justify an article here. — Scientizzle 20:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUS. Note to aricle creator: since the band is signed, it has the potential to pass notability guidelines later on. Just wait till they release a few albums and have a nationwide tour and such. ~EdGl 22:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 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 (non-admin closure). Sole delete comment was "per nom" and notability clearly established since nomination, meeting the Heymann Standard. Skomorokh 02:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Moffat[edit]

Delete no sources showing that this playright or his plays are notable, so nn we don't know when or where he was born, whether he is still alive, or even what country he's from. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Nabokov's Gloves received some attention at the time (1998). [7] He's also a TV writer and the creator of more than one TV program(me) in the UK.[8] There are a few sources in conjunction with individual series. He's a former barrister e.g.. --Dhartung | Talk 20:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator of television series Kavanagh QC and North Square, and winner of the Writer's Award for the Broadcasting Press Guild. --Canley (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sources have now been added showing this individual is clearly notable. --Canley (talk) 00:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it strange that the nominator managed to miss those sources in the research which he/she did before nomination.. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:09, 2 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 delete. - Philippe 01:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enfeebled Earth[edit]

Non notable demo tape. Was never properly released, sourcing is poor (questionable ezine and a mirror). Prod was removed with the comment "by a pioneer in the genre, should stay regardless". Dark Tranquility are a pretty significant band, but that doesn't mean that this is anything more than trivia. J Milburn (talk) 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a demo tape, hasn't been covered in any reliable sources and is likely very hard to verify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:Music#Albums. Info could be merged into an expansion of the Demos section of the artist's page. Gwguffey (talk) 20:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails notability guidelines. Macy (talk) 20:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As the original prodder, I still don't see how this meets WP:MUSIC. Obviously did not have huge sales if only 100 copies made; no evidence of charting; no professional reviews found at metacritic. Best to merge into Dark_Tranquillity#Demos.--Fabrictramp (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable and probably non-verifiable through WP:RS. SWik78 (talk) 20:15, 1 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 delete. - Philippe 01:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Drive (album)[edit]

Unreleased album with little or no media coverage. Fails WP:MUSIC#Albums. Article can be re-created if and when album is actually released. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may have produced two chart singles, but that doesn't mean it's notable yet -- in part due to the fact that it's not yet been released. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:CRYSTAL (and is a bit heavy on nonfree images). It can be recreated when released. Bláthnaid 20:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 23:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Studio Center[edit]

Questionable notability tag up since April, COI tag doesn't help either. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It was created by User:Chriswhite0 who is presumably the same Chris White who works for the company, and has been edited by User:StudioCenterAcct, which appears be affiliated with the company as well. Most of the sources are company press releases and the article has a promotional tone. I think this article should have been speedily deleted as spam as it needs a fundamental rewrite to be made encyclopedic. Jfire (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORP. Only sources are press releases. Not acceptable per WP:RS. No reliable, verifiable independent coverage of the subject. DarkAudit (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - little more than an advert as it stands. Deb (talk) 11:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 22:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lacks independent reliable sources. --Stormbay (talk) 16:47, 5 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. Black Kite 23:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Turney[edit]

Questionable notability tag up since April, no improvements made since. Procedural nom, I have no opinion on the article. Wizardman 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is a "procedural nom"? The idea of AfD is that you should nominate articles that you think should be deleted. No reason for deletion has been given by the nominator so there is no reason why this AfD should be pursued. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I move to have the article deleted since the question of notability has not been answered. Wizardman 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a lot of hostility lately to AFDs as a way of having a notability discussion. Personally, I'm willing to consider a good-faith procedural nom. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. There isn't a whole lot out there about him besides the potted (commissioned?) company history (the same guy has written e.g. The Legend of Halliburton among similar titles). On the other hand, founders of major companies have frequently been kept. --Dhartung | Talk 21:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search turns up nothing of relevance. The articles in the external links section only mention the subject in passing. If the subject was notable we should be able to find something. —BradV 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It looks like he's usually called "Ed" rather than "Edwin". This search finds more. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Three book sources have been provided in the article. Even if one of those is an AMD commissioned book it still leaves enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as one of the small group of founders of AMD, he;s notable--as for any similar very important company. Unjustified notability tag--better to have removed it than to sent it to AfD. DGG (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to AMD, unless significant coverage in reliable sources -- the primary notability criterion -- are located. The best sources put forth so far are three books. You can search inside two of these books on Amazon.com. In the first, The Spirit of AMD, the word "Turney" appears on 19 pages. 11 of those pages are simply captions reading "Photo courtesy of Ed Turney". The others are the index and back matter, and four other pages (listed in the index), all of which are brief mentions or photo captions. In other words, there is no significant coverage of Turney in this book. The Making of Silicon Valley contains one reference to Turney, a passing mention in a list of AMD founders. Again, clearly not significant coverage. I can't search inside Inside Intel, but since it's not even about AMD I think it's safe to guess it doesn't have significant coverage either. Unless web searches on "Ed Turney" turn up something new, I have to say this article simply fails our notability guidelines. Jfire (talk) 01:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to have sufficient notability. --Stormbay (talk) 21:15, 2 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 delete; without prejudice against recreation if notability is proven. - Philippe 02:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWISSENET[edit]

No assertion of notability; google news search yields 0 hits; google web search only 154 hits. Contested prod, with no reason given to keep article. Comment on original prod by User:Atama adds: "This is apparently a rather obscure project. The actual importance of this is not established, and the fact that it has been largely ignored by reliable sources shows that at least at this stage it's nothing worth having an article about." [9] -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no attribution of notability to independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well if the concerns are related to the fact that the project is rather obscure then I can certainly improve that by elaborating on the objectives that the project deals with so that things becomes more clear.
Regarding the comment that google search has a small number of hits I think that this will improve over time since project's results will become available. I wonder though what is a sufficient number of hits that will justify retaining an entry in wikipedia (AWISSENET has been created middle of February and by then the google search hits are constantly increased)?
Since I am quite new in the wikipedia community (not as a user but in submitting articles I would like also a clarification regarding the categorization of my article as orphaned. The explanation mentions that I can improve this by creating links to the article but does it mean from other wikipedia pages (AWISSENET is an acronym and surely it is related to many concepts with related articles in Wikipedia), from external entities or both?Nprigour (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:57, 5 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 delete. - Philippe 02:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Duniya Vijay[edit]

Non-notable and reads like an ad. Me what do u want? _{Your Hancock Please} 19:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to failing to meet WP:BIO. Stifle (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN and badly written Dreamspy (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and actresses-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:03, 1 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. John254 22:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geosign[edit]

Only has two references, both dating to its creation; any company gets that press, and none has been seen since. The page has functioned mostly as an advertising platform for the websites this company owns. Its own website seems to be gone. Tb (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Company doesn't seem to have been particularly notable during its existence, and seems to have gone under beginning sometime last year (sorta confirmed by Alexa). --Dhartung | Talk 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability does not expire. If the company was notable a year ago, it is notable today. I added some newspaper articles as references which offer a clearer idea about what happened to the company. But any company which has $160 million invested in it is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's true that "notability does not expire". It was, it seems to me, a flash in the pan. Even the new references show that it was notable a year ago, and now it's all but closed up shop. Even its own website is broken. I'm happy you found some more references--those are only helpful--but they seem to cement the case in my opinion. The company wasn't particularly notable to begin with, and now it's essentially dead. Notability consisted of two things: it was founded, and it died. Tb (talk) 03:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been brought up to weak keep. I don't know that other sources will ever appear, but this is just enough to show that it was briefly notable. --Dhartung | Talk 03:44, 3 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 Delete --JForget 23:28, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lucy Lamode[edit]

The subject is not notable. There is no article at Killer Pussy, her band or Teenage Enema Nurses her "smash hit". Captain panda 19:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy and Salt This article has been A7'd at least once, if not more. DarkAudit (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a speedy tag on the article previously, but it has been since removed. Otherwise, I would have speedy tagged. Captain panda 19:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm the one who removed that tag. Notability is asserted, and a quick Google search turns up an article saying "she once reigned as front woman of Killer Pussy, Phoenix's fave '80s punk band." That was close enough to WP:BAND's "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city", that I wasn't comfortable speedying it. William Pietri (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. (Circle gets the square.) Just saying that they were Phoenix' favorite '80s punk band without a source -- at least in my book -- isn't really an assertation of notability unless it's sourced. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about just tagged, but tagged, deleted, and recreated multiple times today. DarkAudit (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand there has to be a source, which is why I said I found it in an article. this one, which I also put on the article talk page. That still may not be enough for WP:BAND, and I don't have an opinion on keeping the article. I'm just explaining why I declined the speedy deletion request. William Pietri (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedy declined (by me) Let's just sort it out here. For what it's worth I found nothing on a brief look that vaguely supports our notability criteria. It's pretty much a G11 puff piece. I say delete but let's run the AFD on this. Pedro : Chat 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. zippo on AllMusic (Killer Pussy does have a handful of credits, but nothing suggesting WP:MUSIC would be passed). Not an A7, but not notable either. Seems like it needs WP:SALT?--Dhartung | Talk 21:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. There's no reason to keep going through this over and over again. Qworty (talk) 22:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and WP:SALT. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've cleaned it up a bit, although I don't expect that will change anyone's opinion. No opinion about whether it should be kept or no, but I do think the article is one of those that is going to suffer from the fact that the internet only really covers info from the last 10 years or so. -- Naerii 01:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In fact keep though I'm fighting against the tide, per WP:MUSIC: "has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city". Phoenix New Times called them "Phoenix's fave '80s punk band" and the sources I've added to the article seem to verify that they were indeed significant in terms of the punk scene in that area in the eighties. -- Naerii 01:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is an example of why the people that are self proclaimed editors shouldnt be allowed to edit facts- the Phoenix New Times actually did an article on this band (a few actually)- it is found here: http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2002-07-11/culture/punk-agrave-lamode/0 now if you have a personal problem with the band that is too bad but get your facts straight genius. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.184.83.65 (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Phoenix -wiki 11:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opqrst[edit]

Non notable nemonic that is not world wide/country wide/industry wide - or of importance to wikipedia Brentoli (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Well known and widely accepted. --Arcadian (talk) 20:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is now referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 21:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with it being non-notable. If this is notable, why not include every other mnemonic ever invented? I don't think that "Hot T-BonE steAk (Interleukin mnemonic) deserves a Wikipage.JPINFV (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Indeed. As long as a mnemonic is notable I see no reason we cannot have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 22:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be notable."

I guess the question then, is, are sources that are teaching assessment enough to be considered independent? It would be one thing if it was a common mnemonic (by common, I mean common in public, a la A-B-C), but I don't feel that this is the case with most of the assessment mnemonics. I think the most damning evidence is the fact that, in over a year and a half since the articles inception, the page only has one article linking to it, History of the present illness (which itself only has 4 pages linking to it, OPQRST). If it was notable, wouldn't there be more links to it?JPINFV (talk) 23:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly not going to judge an article's notability on the basis of how many Wikipedia articles link to it. That's what {{orphan}} is for. And I really don't know where this "sources that are teaching assessment" comes into WP:RS. People that know the subject are not now considered reliable? --Dhartung | Talk 01:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't citing reliable sources, but notability. Hence my direct quote from the notability page. I don't think that things like OPQRST have received enough coverage that is independent of the subject (assessment text books, in this case, are not independent of the subject) that it is notable. -JPINFV (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary but this information could be useful there. Captain panda 03:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough, with dozens of hits in Google books and Google Scholar. I don't buy the argument that assessment books and articles are not "independent of the subject". By subject, in that guideline, I read a person or organization, not a topic. Otherwise we could not use music books for notability of music terms, or chemistry books for notability of chemistry topics! --Itub (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the references added, the article should pass muster. Because this is mnemonic specifically taught to people to remember a specific sequence of procedures (or, if not a sequence, to ensure completeness), it stands above those "pass the exam" mnemonics such as those for planets, star types, music notes, etc. In that regard, it most certainly is notable. Mandsford (talk) 03:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valuable Emergency Medical Services mnemonic. I'll see if I can't do a couple quick improves to demonstrate this. Jclemens (talk) 07:05, 5 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 delete. - Philippe 02:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bratspiess[edit]

Delete unsourced one-liner on a surname without any indication why this surname is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:31, 6 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 delete. Singu larity 06:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Feed The Animals[edit]

This page has no references, nor could I find any sources when I researched for some. Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a "single" on the album, and I found it, but Gorilla Zoe recently released a single from his last album Welcome to the Zoo. I really don't think he'd start releasing singles for his new album is he's still focusing on his last album.Y5nthon5a (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Yup, I can't verify anything, therefore, until sources become available this gets classified as unsourced speculation. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 01:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Yamla (talk) 00:33, 5 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 speedily deleted (A7), for the second time in 16 minutes, by Wassupwestcoast. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 19:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Time[edit]

Non notable per WP:BK. No sources per WP:RS ukexpat (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now nominated for speedy as previously deleted per AfD. – ukexpat (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in the discussion for the article, I am getting the sources and such set. I am not very good at creating new pages {as is probably pretty evident} thus why I'm sure the page looks rough and might have some red-links. If you (or anyone) is able to make it look better why I shore up the sources, that would be great. The Rypcord. 18:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. A novel called Shattered Time Benjamin D. Kline published in 2008 is not listed at amazon.com either under title or author. This not notable. Maybe hoax. Maybe self-published. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G3. I have carried out thorough searches not only on various formulations of the name but also on formulations of the name of the suggested founder. I have found absolutely nothing. The article states that "The only varsity sport that N.N.U. offers is Male Wrestling"; I find this unlikely. It also claims that "The University is part of the Western Acredited Schools and Colleges". I have found no trace of this body; the nearest I can find is here and they have not accredited this University. I accept the point, made below, that sources may be available other than the internet, but for an article to survive it must meet WP:V and at present there is no basis for compliance with this policy. If reliable sources are subsequently produced then the article can be recreated. TerriersFan (talk) 22:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nolan negrete univeristy[edit]

Unverifiable. Possibly existent, but without sources does not deserve an article. Skomorokh 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no sources, possible hoax. Stifle (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the content seems unverifiable. Even a google search for the school's founder turned up unsuccessful and so seems to fail the notability critera for schools. AngelOfSadness talk 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I've just typed "Nolan negrete university" (in quotes) into Google and the Wikipedia article is the only result it throws up. I very much doubt the place exists, and think this is almost certainly a hoax. Paul20070 (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3 Clearly a hoax university given the utter lack of verifiability -- you'd think a college would turn up something else than Wikipedia. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that there are other sources of information than the Internet? Don't you think your tagging reflects a lack of good faith in the article's creator? Skomorokh 20:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not sure if it should be speedy deleted just yet, but according to, yes google [10], it cannot be found. Doesn't even correct the spelling. However, it's a possible WP:HOAX. Either way, it ain't notable. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:HOAX. Macy (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 a1 (no content once unsourced content is deleted, which is all of it); also possibly fits under g3 (obvious hoax, see below). NawlinWiki (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shattered Time[edit]

No sources are given in the article and I can't find any results for the book on Google or Amazon, seems like it's a hoax or a non-notable book by a non-notable author. Guest9999 (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was User:Paste is right, this got speedy deleted by User:Stifle just as the AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jim van blaricum[edit]

Non notable businessman, fails WP:BIO. Paste (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's history, deleted by a speedy! Paste (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SNOW and apparent joke nomination. Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 01:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Connolley[edit]

NN WP:BIOgraphy: just some scientist. His only claim to fame is that he contributes to WP and the like. Note also that his buddy Ed Poor authored the article. April Regina (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep this is now the 5th AfD on this article - and most of the rationale seems to have been "he is a wikipedian". Nothing has changed since then (except that the article has improved). Naming User:Ed Poor as WMC's "buddy" is rather funny though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO (namely WP:PROF). Represents non-notable academian. Being on a fairly popular blog is not something I see in the criteria. Not regarded as significant in his field (climate research or software engineer). Published research is not "well-known," given the lackluster citations from other academics. Has not contributed body of works or concepts that have been particularly meaningful to climate research or software engineering. Lacks notable awards or honors. The only real claim of support I've seen is "he's my friend" or "he's an expert on Wikipedia" or "ex-member of blog." People who point to previous AFDs refrain from discussing the issues of any relevance or importance. ~ UBeR (talk) 18:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notabilty seems to be established. Dreamspy (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Do people talk about him? Yes. Has he published stuff of academic note? Yes. Does he spell his last name funny? Yes, but lets not hold that against him. Nick Connolly (talk) 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. The result of the fourth nomination was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SNOW. It is not the case that the previous AfDs had insufficient community participation to say that there is clear consensus on this matter. Nothing new is offered in this nomination that was not addressed and disposed of already. RJC ^{Talk Contribs} 19:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This isn't really questionable for me, he's not just some academic - meets WP:PROF. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Look, if you're nominating an article for the 5th or 6th time, you've got to present some new reasons it should be deleted. The old ones repeated here have been decisively rejected quite a few times, so this looks like AfD roulette. Also, the fact that this AfD nom is the nominating account's first contribution of substance to Wikipedia (other than a bit of history-padding back in October) is a huge red flag. MastCell ^Talk 20:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ It does not look like he has made a sufficiently big impact within academia itself. GoogleScholar gives only two highly cited papers, with several co-authors, (citation hits 68, 64) and after that the citation rates drop precipitously. His H-index appears to be fairly low, only 7 per GoogleScholar search. There is some coverage of him in mainstream press in relation to climate change controversies, but I found only a few such newsarticles and he is not covered by them in substantial detail but rather in passing (the Nature and the New Yorker articles are mentioned in his WP article, but I also found a few more by doing GoogleNews search). It certainly does not appear that his opinions on the issue of climate change are quoted regularly in the mainstream press. So he does not seem to satisfy either WP:PROF or WP:BIO. Absent some new information, I think the article should be deleted. Nsk92 (talk) 20:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I get the h-index to 15 (with publish&perish), using W.M. Connolley - the name is sufficiently unique that it doesn't get false positives. (and i did check ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct. I am changing my vote to Unsure. I'd like to hear from some-one familiar with the climatology/climate modeling field about what whould be considered a high citation rate there. Nsk92 (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scopus gives him a h-index of 11.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Kim and Mastcell. Also, the peculiar contribution history of the nominator doesn't inspire a good faith assumption from me either -in this, the 5th instance of this article's nom for deletion. Dubiously, R. Baley (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominators name and the date in her claimed location suggests this nomination was not meant seriously.Nick Connolly (talk) 22:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

missed that one. good enough justification for a speedy keep. DGG (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; we've been over this before, and he still seems to be notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:28, 1 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 Speedy Keep, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 15:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aldo Franchi[edit]

Appears that the gentleman drove in just one race. Google hits appear to show just this same information in various forms. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep per WP:Bio#Athletes. Playing in a single MLB or NFL game satisfies notability, I'd think a single Indy 500 would do the same. That said it'd be nice to have more then a single line.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to [11] and [12] he didn't just race at Indianapolis in 1916 but also in another three races that year, including one )at Omaha) where he was involved in an accident that killed his mechanic. It looks as if he passes WP:Bio#Athletes - therefore Keep.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Meets WP:Bio#Athletes with the references above from Nigel Ish. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My fault, I didn't know the Bio Athlete guideline...can we go speedy keep and I'll go read more... LegoTech·(t)·(c) 02:58, 1 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 Delete - This is a WP:Neologism, the only reference provided to the article name is to an unreliable source. Interestingly this article was previously deleted via a WP:PROD in September 2006 as a WP:Neologism for an entirely different usage of the term (Anthrosexual = attracted to men). Although the history of Greek sexuality is notable, it is covered, or should be, elsewhere and lends no support to the usage as the term was never used by the Greeks and there are no reliable sources provided where this is used to refer to Greek sexual beliefs. Although Google searches are great, contrary to the creator's assertions it's the contributor's responsibility to source his or her contributions not the community's to research outside the references provided; furthermore, a Google search provides only unreliable sources, including numerous blog results which beyond being unreliable indicate a lack of an accepted definition of the term. Additionally, identifying this as a peculiar phenomenon is WP:OR absent reliable sources. If the Greek history sources were removed, the only remaining sources relate to homosexuality and two references of questionable notability where notable persons have identified themselves as of undefined sexuality but without any explanation in the references to what that means to them.
Procedural history: this article was created with the title Undefined sexuality on 2008-03-27, tagged for CSD#A1 by User:Undead warrior here and CSD declined by User:Victao_lopes. The article was then proded by User:Undead warrior per WP:NEO and WP:N with this edit; Prod removed by the creator here, and was nominated for AfD on 2008-03-28 by User:Undead warrior with this edit. On 2008-03-30 the article was moved by User:Cooljuno411 to Unidentified sexuality with this edit. The article was then copy-pasted back to Undefined sexuality with this edit, AfD tag and all. On 2008-03-30, User:Cooljuno411 moved the article to Anthrosexual with this edit and removed the AfD tags from the article with this edit; User:Undead warrior replaced the AfD tags here resulting in a new date. Although this article remains the subject of a 2008-03-28 nomination notwithstanding the date on the current tag, it has been five days since the tag was replaced, nonetheless. (BTW, although unrelated to this decision, this was improperly partially closed by User:Cooljuno411 with this edit which made closing a pain as I searched for where {{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD}} had gone, so this was not categorized for the last few days). I note all of this because 1) I needed to sort it all out for myself, and 2) in case there is a DRV, due to the cut and paste, the article Unidentified sexuality contains history related to this article which would need to be restored and the histories merged if this article is ever undeleted. Unidentified sexuality and Undefined sexuality are both being deleted per CSD#R1. Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:22, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post closing note: While deleting articles and redirects, I additionally identified the page Anthrosexuality which was changed to a redirect to Pansexuality in Oct 2006 and which User:Cooljuno411 changed to a redirect to Anthrosexual. Because there was discussion and consensus in 2006 to have this redirect to Pansexuality, I have reverted to that version rather than deleting the redirect.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined sexuality Note: this article has been retitled: Anthrosexual[edit]

PROD tag was taken off, but notability is still not asserted. The one source cited is a dictionary. I think that the information is trivial, and online searches, both Google and Yahoo, yield a wide variety of strange topics, but none of them cover Undefined Sexuality. Delete under WP:N. Undeath (talk) 22:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: Article does not assert notability, but it may have potential. The Google and Yahoo! Searchs really take us to strange and/or unrelated links. I think we should remove most of the unsourced and irrelevant content, no matter how small the remains of the article will be. Merging to a related article also sounds great. Victao lopes (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd suggest a merge/redirect to Asexuality (I suppose Bisexuality would be better), but this article's title "Undefined sexuality" seems an unlikely search term. I see no evidence of "Undefined sexuality" used in the sexology literature, and very little in the non-RS blogosphere etc, at least not in the sense used in the lead section. This article has one paragraph in the body, and I really don't see how its related to the material in the lead. There's no WP:RS, and I've looked for WP:V, and find none, which makes this look like WP:OR. Pete.Hurd (talk) 22:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is bisexuality and asexuality the same thing? No, neither is this.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Asexuality - not notable enough for its own article but what can be sourced should be merged into the Sexuality or Asexuality article--Cailil ^talk 22:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asexuality is NO sexual desire or attraction. This is an undefined sexuality. Did you even read the article or doing any background research on this topic before you posted? For future reference, you are supposed to read the article and do major background research before you voice your opinion on deleting an article.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ancient Greek sexuality is clearly a notable topic (we have, more narrowly, Ancient Greek eros and Pederasty in ancient Greece). But interpreting it as an example of a cross-cultural sexual category is original research, and the term "undefined sexuality" seems to be a neologism. EALacey (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bisexuality. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a form of Bisexuality, did you even read the article or do any background research on the topic before you posted here? --Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no encyclopedic content. That does not mean that a proper sourced article could not be writen on the subject. DGG (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty reffed. to me. And besides, your supposed to do background research on a topic before you post an opinion on deleting it. Did you even go to google? Cause if you did you could find many things on this topic.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per DGG. Also insufficient references. Stifle (talk) 23:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, can you please link to that, when i search DRG, i find a disambiguation with no wiki guideline article--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Important to history and today. The Ancient Greeks are a perfect example, see article. Not to merge with Bisexuality because it is like mac and windows, both OS but have different rules and bases. And is not a form of Asexuality, it is how sexuality was contemplated in the ancient and more recently in the modern ages.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that User:Cooljuno411 is the article's creator. Also, to Cooljuno, comparing this article to bisexuality is nothing near like comparing Mac to Windows. Anyway, you only provided the one source for the article. It fails WP:V in that aspect. Undeath (talk) 05:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided additional sources. And for your future knowledge, you only have the right to speak your opinion about deleting an article if you do your own back ground research as well. And i don't know about you, but when i hit google i founds lots of things of this subject.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remain civil when discussing AfD debates. Your comment, above, was very un-civil. And for the record, I did many google searches on this subject, and when I come up with things like the Urban Dictionary or other various non notable online sites, I nominate it. This term is non notable for it's own article. Being merged is the best option for it, other than delete. Undeath (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep and rename-to somthing more in line with a term in actual use for this demographic such as "unsure sexual orientation" or "questioning" or "anthrosexual" —Preceding unsigned comment added by NewAtThis (talk • contribs) 10:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick google search, I agree that the article should be renamed to anthrosexual, and i will do so, thanks. I knew this concept wasn't new, or "neologism" or whatever, but i just couldn't get a name on the concept so i just titled the "undefined sexuality" but you have proven the power of wikipedia, that sharing knowledge is a great tool. AND TO ALL YOU PEOPLE WHO JUST SIMPLY SLAPPED A NEOLOGISM ON IT, maybe you should of did a quick google search too, cause its obvious you didn't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - not sure that masters being screwed by their slaves is mentioned elsewhere. Maybe a rename to something like Sexually Deviancy In Ancient Society, if not keep then aim to merge. -- BpEps - t@lk 11:10, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note the article was moved to Anthrosexual at this point.

ResolvedThe article was renamed to anthrosexual. And for future reference, please do research before claiming WP:N because this case proved that many don't. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 11:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This AFD remains open until April 2, per the usual five-day rule. Stifle (talk) 12:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UrbanDictionary.com does not establish notability. Fireplace (talk) 13:43, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will add additional refs. but for your future knowledge, if you are going to post here you are supposed to do your own background research as well. So please don't base your opinion on one ref. and also, why should it be deleted? I don't claim a sexuality, so that would make me a living reference. And others don't either, so why should the article be deleted? Not everything has to fall into the western culture fashion of hetero,homo, and bi-sexual.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 15:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Google Scholar turns up not a single hit on this term. I conclude, therefore, this is a neologism and it should be deleted forthwith as such. Eusebeus (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, if this doesn't exist, then please tell me how sexuality was highly practiced in the ancient world especially in ancient Greece? Lets see, a system of passive and active, which is a form of athrosexuality because they do not claim a sexual orientation. You know the term homosexual and heterosexual were invented less then 200 years ago. Did google scholar tell you that? In addition, if i claim this would it be true? if others do wouldn't it be true? It's the 21st century, people don't have to choose one of the three common sexualities placed in front of us, when can chooce to be like many ancient cultures and not claim an orientation and simply go with what feels right.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 16:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CoolJuno411. This is the last warning to remain civil. Your comments are becoming more and more offensive and disruptive. Please stop making sarcastic comments directed at other users. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that i offended you. But i think i have every right to questions peoples motives on why they made that opinion. People should place opinion and reason for opinion. I only reply to people who do not completely justify their answers.

They do justify their answers, you just do not always understand their justification. Don't badger the other users. Undeath (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ref. where i do not "understand their justification", when i respond i am generally telling them that their justification is insufficient and that they need to go into more detail why. Or i have been asking if they even read the article, because saying this is a form of asexuality or bisexuality, which has been the two most common suggestions, just makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, there you go. "...that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article or even googled the term". Just because they state something that may seem vague to you, does not mean that they did not do any research. Most AfD debates will have a simple delete with a simple explanation. Having the article's creator badger them over it is bad, and it also shows a bit of article ownership. Undeath (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said it "makes me think that person hasn't even read the first 2 words of the article..." and if people have the "right" to say it is a form of asexuality, then i should have just as much right to think that they didn't read the article and question their motives on their answer. And i don't have a sense of article ownership i am try to protect a legitimate article form being wrongfully deleted by people who i think haven't even read or researched the article. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done arguing this with you. Just stop attacking other users on wikipedia. Let the course of AfD take it's own route. Undeath (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in either Sexual orientation or History of human sexuality. This term is in use, but not commonly enough to merit its own article at the moment. Delete section 'Anthrosexual and Undefined sexuality in popular culture' since there is no evidence that the examples given use the word "anthrosexual". David-Sarah Hopwood (talk) 16:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. It appears to be in moderate use, but the mentions I've read through google seem contradictory to its exact definition, and at least one does call it a neologism. Any article that relies on a LiveJournal definition as its primary cite has problems, and it would appear that much of the article are the opinions of the page creator, who has decided which definitions she/he likes, and which are "confused". Perhaps this doesn't belong on Wikipedia until a more authoritative definition can be sourced. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please ref. sites that have a different def. please, i would like to see them.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm continuing to endorse deletion. The term "Anthrosexual‎" turns up zero hits on ISI, which indexes Archives of Sexual Behavior, Journal of Sex Research, etc.. This term seems unknown to science, there is no evidence that this term is used by sexologists. More relevant to WP:N, I see no evidence of the extensive use in reliable secondary sources required to meet the criterion of WP:N. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What about Pansexuality? From where I'm coming, that seems to be do the most similar thing to what the article describes. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BUt there is a major difference that does not allow them to be similar. Pansexual is an active sexuality, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Anthrosexuality is an unclaimed sexuality. See article for more information, there is a whole sub portion on the difference between the two.--Cooljuno411 (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subsection you added yesterday has no references, it's hard to evaluate the supposed difference between these two topics on the basis of a section that appears to be WP:OR. Your concept of "active sexuality" seems quite different from the examples that turn up in the first few pages of hits on Google Scholar, and appears -like this article- to be Original Research. Pete.Hurd (talk) 20:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Pansexuality, which also deprioritizes gender. It says, "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we can be attracted to any and all genders" whereas Anthrosexuality, if I am to believe CoolJuno, says "Gender doesn't matter much - therefore we are not particularly attracted to any or all genders." So it just inverts the same meaning, which perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by it not being active. Even if it is merged, however, the content needs serious work. It seems to contain sections which have no inherent value, and are just uncited responses to the discussion on this talk page. I thing the whole thing could be boiled down to a sentence in Pansexuality. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 02:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a problem with "if I am to believe CoolJuno", and "perhaps was what CoolJuno meant by", which is that an encyclopedia is supposed to be a compendium of reliable information, not a compendium of CoolJuno's opinions. Without reliable sources to document the veracity of the claims made in this article, the article is worthless.

Pete.Hurd (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely, Pete.Hurd. I wasn't intending to defend the article's validity, nor CoolJuno's authorship - I think it's pretty apparent that they aren't acceptable for Wikipedia - but to clarify my proposal of a parenthetical sort of inclusion of it in Pansexuality, saying "some individuals self-identify as anthrosexual, which may be a similar construct"...a little like we've done with omnisexual, which is treated as synonymous. That said, I understand the argument to be had in waiting for anthrosexuality to be documented in reliable sources before including it in anything, period. I've been in the mindset of giving it a mention, because it cropped up in the pansexuality article - in the form of a disambiguation note saying "not to be confused with anthrosexuality" at the top. As a result, I was under the mistaken impression that anthro had more of a general presence on wikipedia - until about 2 minutes ago, when I just checked and realized it was CoolJuno who added it. --99.231.118.172 (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely fails to satisfy WP:N let alone a stronger standard of WP:V/WP:RS. Putting Livejournal as a source in the first paragraph was a nice touch, though. --Dhartung | Talk 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article does not cite reliable sources that actually speak to the existence of this term and concept. WillOakland (talk) 00:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although the fluidity of sexual roles in Greek and Roman cultures is reasonably well documented, the use of the terms "undefined sexuality" and/or "anthrosexual" to describe this phenomenon is not. (LiveJournal community profiles are about as far from reliable sources as you can get.) Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to sexual orientation or pansexual. --Alynna (talk) 12:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Zetawoof. We've got a concept, exemplified by but not limited to, Greek and Roman understandings of sexaulity, that was actually pretty common in a number of cultures until recent centuries (see, especially, Michel Foucault's The History of Sexuality which deals with this concept in detail). The problem is that it doesn't have a name. CoolJuno has gone and made two titles for this Wikipedia article which return very few hits, and the only refs that can be found are non RS. So we're seeing (understandably), a pile of delete !votes. I'd ask others to reconsider, given that this is a genuine concept, which was synonymous with Greek sexuality (but not limited to these - Venn diagrams would be nice to demonstrate this). Definitely do not merge to pansexual or sexual orientation, which are separate subjects. I suggest that CoolJuno accepts a delete (which will be the likely outcome of this AfD), moves this to userspace, and finds more references, starting with Foucault. Mostlyharmless (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think it is important to get an opinion from someone who belongs to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and Wikipedia:WikiProject Sociology. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have messaged the users who currently belong to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, if for some reason this AfD is about to end soon, please allow the people who specialize on these subjects to have time to voice their opinion. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 06:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Instead of messaging over 30 people about this AfD, it would probably be best (and save you time) to post a topic at WT:SEX. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 07:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality I reviewed this article as well as the current Wikipedia article for pansexuality as well as doing a google search on the topic. Generally, I feel this term is ill-defined. Just when I thought I understood its meaning the Urban Dictionary article on the topic turned my understanding up on its head. There seems to be a confusion and conflation between the terms "gender" and "sexual orientation" between the anthrosexual entries themselves. It is true that there is a history to the creation of what we know as "sexual orientation," and particularly of people not assigning meaning to their sex acts under the rubric of an identity or orientation. One needn't go back so far as ancient Greece for the evidence. You can find references to this in Chauncey's book Gay New York going back to the not so distant past. However, 1) as this viewpoint of defining one's sexuality by sex acts rather than orientation was never a phenomenon that was historically and particularly named (par for course considering what we are discussing, yes? In this sense the term "Undefined sexuality" is actually more appropriate.) And 2) The term does not seem to have a definition that is currently used and understood by those in the field of sexuality. I feel that the *information* raised here should be moved to a different article if it hasn't already been highlighted elsewhere. Perhaps if appropriate with a note that an emerging term with small usage, "anthrosexual" is beginning to emerge in pop culture to describe this way of viewing sex. As it is, this article seems to be more of the beginning of the creation and legitimization of a term rather than the definition of a term that is already understood. Also the definition given is a quote on the users page and the definition is a Livejournal article. This does not suffice as references. Links to recognized organizations, activism and social movements, terminology used in sexuality documents, academia or other verifiable research, would be convincing. That is my opinion as of now. I will return if there are any amendments.--NoMonaLisa (talk) 07:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References such as LiveJournal, other WP articles, and a movie review on a blog are not RS. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: If this is indeed the technical definition for this type of sexuality (or lack thereof) - considering that the dictionary reference pans out - then the article is worth keeping. However, it definitely needs to be expanded, and more detailed sourcing is a must. Also, a good portion of the material relating to Ancient Greece and Rome doesn't seem to belong there, and likely needs to be cut. ~ Homologeo (talk) 06:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as stub - it looks like this concept does exist, but right now the sourcing is atrocious. One of the "references" is Cooljuno's userspace. As others have pointed out, blogs are not considered reliable sources either. This should be turned into a stub and then rebuilt using real sources. Aleta ^Sing 12:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly this is an academic term and clearly it is new. Fine. No problem there. But it must be sourced from academic sources or other highly credible sources such as New Society. Otherwise it's just somebody's internet theorizing. This is no place for Original Reseach. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without prejudice for recreation if notability can be established as per WP:NOTABILITY and WP:VERIFIABILITY. John Carter (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither Google-news nor Google-scholar returned any hits for the term anthrosexual. Aleta ^Sing 14:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No scholarly sources found in journal databases.-Wafulz (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
THE STRONGEST POSSIBLE EVER KEEP, this is an encyclopedic article that should be included here. Concept exists (see above). Dusti^{talk to me} 18:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: With such a strong keep, can you give any sources to improve the article? It's sorely lacking in them right now. Aleta ^Sing 19:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the LGBT WikiProject discussion board. -- Aleta ^Sing 19:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whether notability exists or not, I feel that this article should exist because as long as people identify themselves as this; this article should exist. User:Lighthead ^þ 23:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But it needs RS to exist on WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that chat rooms, online groups, and other organizations that have been formed around Anthrosexuality is a good enough RS for me. By deleting this article, we are simply denying it existence, but we have to own up to it, it does exist, and i don't think we have the right to deny its existence just because it doesn't turn up a search in google scholar. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well strictly speaking we do. Without proper sourcing of articles Wikipedia perpetuates something that might not be properly defined and thus becomes the source of other peoples definitions Self Perpetuation. I can't say strongly enough that Wikipedia just doesn't pre-empt scholarly debate. -- BpEps - t@lk 00:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, that comment indicates to me that you need to read and seriously consider WP:V, WP:N, and WP:RS. Aleta ^Sing 01:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that whole paragraphs (if sections) need to be deleted for sure; but that's apart from deleting the whole article. User:Lighthead ^þ 03:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep, possible merge~~ Weak keep, possible merge: The subject does appear to exist, and as such I believe an article on the subject should exist as well, although the present article is obviously in need of some work. Is anyone here familiar with the Pomosexual article? That article could use some work as well, and seeing as they are both terms for people who choose not to identify with any particular sexual orientation I think a merge between the two articles might be in place. —Mears man (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing to light the article on Pomosexual, i can see these articles having a strong relation in the future. I also believe that this article helps debug the argument of a deleting Anthrosexual with the argument that it falls under as neologism. I don't know exactly if this word is a neologism, but i know indefinently that the concept of anthrosexaulity isn't anything new. I feel that this article has every right to be on this site, even if it is a neologism. --Cooljuno411 (talk) 01:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But can you find some more reliable sources? I would love to see it stay - properly sourced that is, and blogs don't cut it. Aleta ^Sing 01:58, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giving things another look, my position would probably be better defined as "weak keep", and I've changed it as such. There definitely seems to be historical evidence that the concept exists, and I'd hate to see the article go, but there just isn't a whole lot out there about the actual terms "Anthrosexual" and "Anthrosexuality". Because of this, it's going to be hard to confirm that the term itself actually describes the mindset being discussed. I've continued searching for references, but I'm just not finding much. If the article is deleted, hopefully someday there will be more published works about Anthrosexuality out there and the article could be recreated. —Mears man (talk) 03:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's currently a discussion at Non-western concepts of male sexuality about including perspectives of sexuality and sexual orientation that are outside the western, American Psychological Association-style mainstream. The discussion is currently focusing on, e.g., the Native American two-spirit phenomenon, but there's certainly room for a larger-scale (and well-sourced) discussion about incorporating alternative sexual concepts into WP's sexuality and LGBT articles. But a crappy stub of an article is not the best way to have that discussion. Fireplace (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the article seems is largely held together by what appears to be original research with little in the way of encyclopaedic information beyond a dictionary definition of a neologism. The subject described by the term appears to be covered in several other related articles and any relevent encyclopaedic information (although I do not think there is currentky any in the article) could be transferred. If - as suggested above - Wikipedia were to have an article on everything that exists the project would be MySpace by the end of the month. Guest9999 (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the article. Whilst there are bits which are sourced and may be factually accurate they largely do not directly related to the subject of the article and are likely covered elsewhere in other articles on sexuality and/or ancient history. Most of the sections which link all of the information together and with the article title are tagged as "citation needed" and without sourcing I think it is likely that this linking of the subject matter is original research. To me it seems like these sections are fundamental to the article. Guest9999 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mostly original research, and the only source that even defines the term is an online forum. No evidence that this term is more than a "proto-neologism." If we merged only the quality content in this article, there would be nothing to merge. Nick Graves (talk) 02:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not orig. research. Concept proven in ancient greeks. Did you even take a look at the article and read the history section?--Cooljuno411 (talk) 02:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't assume that nobody has read the article. If I invent a concept called "frizzigiggy" and say it refers to the Ancient Greek practice of creating olive oil, that doesn't mean it's been "proven". Existence is not the same as verifiability or tertiary research.-Wafulz (talk) 03:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cooljuno, people have read the article, and are making their critiques thereon. Even though some related ideas are discussed relative to the Greeks, there is nothing in the article that shows that "anthrosexual" is used to describe the situation in the Greeks. For you to combine the two ideas constitutes synthesis, which is considered a form of original research, and not allowed on WP. Aleta ^Sing 03:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - House of Scandal (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to share why you feel the article should be deleted? —Mears man (talk) 18:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to, but since you asked, I advocate deletion per almost all of the above comments. While I don’t necessarily doubt the existence of the phenomenon described in this article, it is not verifiably defined as "Anthrosexual" or "Undefined sexuality" to my satisfaction. The meat of this article is original research. The article seems to be an attempt to coalesce ideas and attach them to these terms rather than showing that these terms are actually strongly associated with the concepts discussed or even that these concepts have been concretely identified. It is, in short, putting the cart before the horse. The most solid ideas in this article might already be found in History of human sexuality and other articles. I’ll add that although it’s not a factor in my vote, I feel that Cooljuno411 could better advance his or her viewpoint through the consistent use of a more polite tone. Few flies are caught with vinegar in AfD debates. - House of Scandal (talk) 01:06, 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 no consensus to delete; default to keep. - Philippe 02:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Continental L/TSIO-360-RB[edit]

Whole page is just list! Normandiefawn (talk) 20:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an engine. That's all this article tells you. Not evident from the article, but it's used in the Piper Seneca airplane. What about the engine makes it important, relevant, or notable? Mere existence isn't really enough. DarkAudit (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (although probably should be moved to Continental O-360 or Teledyne Continental to be more inclusive : Appears to be a relatively important aeroengine - according to [13] it has been in production since 1962 - which does represent a major production run - this needs fixing, not deleting.Nigel Ish (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human-centered computing (NASA)[edit]

Very little information; notability unclear; no refs; orphaned. MaxVeers (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rapid keep. No brainer. Goog on "Human-Centered Computing" nasa throws up good secondary sources in the hundreds. Clearly notable and important. Halfmast (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It would seem that sources abound. The fact that an article is currently a stub isn't grounds for deletion. That fact that the article lacks references and is orphaned is a case for cleanup, not deletion. I'd gently suggest that the nom review the deletion policy. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:09, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many things NASA does are in fact notable. This does not seem to be an exception. [14] --Firefly322 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of references are available. [15] Below are some good references:
- Review of NASA's Aerospace Technology Enterprise, 2003, ISBN 0309090806
- Handbook of Multisensor Data Fusion by David L. Hall and James Llinas, 2001, ISBN 0849323797

Why the nom did not check carefully if there are really references available or not. I smell disruption with this kind of irresponsible nomination. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:05, 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 Speedy Delete (non-admin closure), author requested deletion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Midwest Conference (Football)[edit]

Midwest_Conference_(Football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - ([[{{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}|View AfD]])

I created this article before i knew that it already exsisted as Midwest Conference. They're the same article but i didn't knkow untill i found the other. Sorry. - hdxstunts1 8:57pm 2/29/08

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy eligible for {{db-author}} and tagged as such TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The author also restored the content, so I don't think that it applies. I'll leave it to an admin to decide. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I was going by this nomination TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 00:03, 1 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 Merge to Gilbert_Public_Schools. - Philippe 02:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

South Valley Junior High[edit]

The article does not even claim the school is notable, let alone give any reason why, or evidence. Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. —Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Zsero (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge to Gilbert Public Schools, its school district, per WP:SCHOOL. Just one hitch: there is more than one "South Valley Junior High". Otherwise, no evidence of notability found. • Gene93k (talk) 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Gene. CRGreathouse (t | c) 05:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Gilbert Public Schools per established precedent. TerriersFan (talk) 15:21, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do we do about the one in Missouri? -- Zsero (talk) 17:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have created a DMB page South Valley Junior High School. TerriersFan (talk) 18:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gilbert Public Schools per WP:SCHOOLS TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual-OS[edit]

Originally deleted as a PROD by myself, but restored and sent here per a request on my talk page. Virtual OS was deleted three times, and seems to be a spin-off of that article. A bit confusing, but I am not so sure this product is notable, and seems to be just a jumble. Jmlk 1 7 07:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Virtual-OS ( virtual-os.com ) refers to an application being developed by Advanced Webhosting Network in Mississauga, Ontario with provincial approval and funding by the Region of Peel. To the best of my knowledge their 2008 release is still in closed beta despite their 1st quarter release projection. I can still access the active 2007 beta support forum at chat.virtual-os.com but there's no additional information about the 2008 beta other than it's only open to Twine users.

The article "Virtual OS" ( coreweb.virtualos.net.eu.org ) which is erroneously referred to in the PROD pertained to an unrelated project by Sin Com (Europe), although I'm assuming that it was discontinued due to trademark infringement regarding the actual application in question.

The Virtual-OS project asserts notability based on a highly publicized security breach in 2006 that spurred a wave of news reports in the Greater Toronto Area regarding "online information privacy" concerns which featured Virtual-OS as a prime example.

Side Note: Ironically, partial snippets of the 2008 "Vixen" source code seem to have been leaked already and can be found via Google, although an official distro package has not been released. http://www.google.ca/search?q=Virtual-OS+Vixen

99.229.222.154 (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

99.229.222.154

is located in ontario[16] and seems to only comment on Virtual OS related topics, especially keeping wikipedia pages from being deleted.

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 17:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of notability. This software is still in development, only available to Twine users, only notable for one thing (and that a bad thing). Of course, this article could be re-created if and when the software gains notability in its own right... as long as the new article doesn't get anything like this tacked on. I don't think that's at all compatible with the GFDL. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The original application use to be publicly available and can still be downloaded from unauthorized mirrors. It's alot like YouOS except you run it on your own server rather than using someone elses service. I also beta tested the closed 2007 revision which required sign up but it didn't have all the features of the original release. Notability wise it was reported on prime time news in Toronto and in the press. Good or bad, either way it seems to me to be significant in the timeline of events relating to remote desktop systems. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 19:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. The disclaimer at the bottom of the article kind of gives it away. This belongs on your own website, not Wikipedia. —BradV 21:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing that makes me think this software is notable: [17] - trivial stuff like answers.com, download.com, company website etc..etc.. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL Note: I believe the disclaimer that has since been removed in a rather odd flurry of recent edits/vandalism actually granted wikipedia the right/license to unlimited reuse of the Virtual-OS trademark to abide by GNU licensing schemes. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search Result Note: The dual exact strings search used by Wisdom89 yield results limited to mentions of BOTH the actual developer and the application; where as queries such as "virtual-os" + "security breach" yield more relevant articles and broader queries such as "virtual os" (with or without quotations) shows that virtual-os.com is the top result above even the monolithic vmware.com and the application is also mentioned in several of the secondary top results out of 9,210,000 google hits for the term (141,000 exact string query). There's also related content indexed in MSN, Yahoo, DMOZ, etc. 99.229.222.154 (talk) 11:45, 2 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 Speedy keep per SNOW. No valid reason to delete and appears that there never will be. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Marsden[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Marsden is not particularly notable - the article is more trouble than its worth, the site of constant drama and the subject wants it deleted. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

STRONG keep. Looking through the references, she seems quite notable to me. I don't really see something getting vandalism as a good reason to delete said something, which really seems like the only thing here. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep - references establish notability on multiple grounds, several times over, beyond all reasonable doubt. The information is already in the public domain: the subject's desire to have it removed from Wikipedia does not carry any weight. Skomorokh 17:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a growing trend of "Please delete mah article" on AfDs these days... Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think thirteen minutes might be a bit quick for a snowball keep. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was a prediction that this did this Afd did not have a snowball's chance in hell of succeeding - it is the closing admin's decision when to judge the probability of that prediction's chances of being true is sufficiently high to close. Regards, Skomorokh 18:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An article that has passed AfD numerous times before would certainly suggest to the objective viewer that it passes notability requirements. A Google search and news search would suggest the same. And controversy is never a reason to delete an article: see Race and Intelligence. Joshdboz (talk) 17:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and police without mercy. Notability asserted even beyond marginal notability. A couple of odd observations here though. If we were to invoke BLP the proper course would be to cover the event. Do we really want that in this case? Second, any nom with less than 100 edits who leaves right after AfD'ing a BLP makes me wonder what is going on. Sorry, I'm well aware of AGF but certain things can't be ignored that easily. EconomicsGuy (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been here for a year but not very consistently. This matter and other things I've read have caused me to lose interest in continuing with wikipedia. I just thought I'd try to get this thing deleted before I left and saw some support for this on Talk:Rachel Marsden. Also, since I couldn't find any AFD since this whole matter became a big issue I thought it was worth testing the floor. If you still think I'm somehow acting in bad faith I don't know what more there is to convince you that I'm not. SuperVideoGameKid (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Okay, since the article was deleted, the previous AfDs weren't immediately visible so I'll take your word for it. EconomicsGuy (talk) 18:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources in the article establish notability very very easily. Davewild (talk) 18:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability and continuing to seek out speaking engagements trumps the wishes of the subject. Vandalism is not rationale for deletion. DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good and reliable sources that go back a decade. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Tree Friends deaths and injuries[edit]

32 kilobytes of unreferenced trivia that belongs on a fansite. Guy (Help!) 17:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete basically a list of stats of kills from the show, rm per WP:NOT#STATS -Gwguffey (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Wikipedia is not a place for accumulating unreferenced, non-notable statistics. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fan trivia. WillOakland (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete essentially just fancruft. JuJube (talk) 01:34, 1 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 delete. Singu larity 06:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improbus Atrum[edit]

Non-notable Myspace band. Fails WP:MUSIC. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 14:48, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 15:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a blatant failure of WP:MUSIC per [18] (no news coverage at all) and [19] - not even a lot of ghits. For now, there is no notability - hopes for the future though. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:28, 1 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 'delete. DS (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jobian Day[edit]

A previously A7 deleted biography that cites no sources. The article makes claims of importance but I can't find anything to verify the content. I think the article may refer to this MySpace profile and I can't find any results relating for the person outside of MySpace - which is not a reliable source. Guest9999 (talk) 15:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything but Myspace. If it is that guy, his profile says "p.s. I have fun causing trouble." JohnCD (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dusti^{talk to me} 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per CSD:G7 as the original author blanked the page. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpace Demos[edit]

Not-notable, unreleased album ukexpat (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Has already been deleted once today as Speedy A7, Does it need to go through AfD or can it just be speedied a second time? Eve (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL if it can't be speedied. Subject doesn't seem superficially notable outside of myspace (somewhere I dare not go, where crappy HTML and badly written CSS abounds). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). No delete comments, some consensus to merge; merging is a question for talkpage discussion. Skomorokh 02:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhaalu Atoll Hospital[edit]

A sentence is not an article, incurable failure of WP:ORG for local orgs. Earthtried1985 (talk) 21:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is about a hospital, not an organization. Does not need to meet WP:ORG. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 22:59, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A hospital is a type of organisation. Why should a hospital be exempt from notability guidelines? Unless someone can point to sources in Divehi language or offline sources, as far as I can tell this clearly fails WP:N with no GHits besides Wikipedia and their own website under either their current or former name: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. cab (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to locality Dhaalu Atoll? cab (talk) 00:28, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 00:29, 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, Dusti^{talk to me} 16:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. I would normally be inclined to include these kinds of articles, but there is little to no information on this hospital on google or google books. And even without that secondary-source notability, the own site has very little usable primary source information. Perhaps there is more coverage in the native language, but at this point it doesn't suffice for its own article. Joshdboz (talk) 18:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the above. I wanted to refer it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Maldives, but it doesn't appear to be an active project. I think there are probably non-English sources but I don't know where to start with that. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 21:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Dhaalu Atoll, fails WP:ORG and WP:N. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Philippe 02:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

East Magazine[edit]

Not notable per WP:V. 'Nuff said. ukexpat (talk) 16:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No inherent notability; no 3rd party nontrivial coverage. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I live in the area and it does deserve an entry on Wikipedia as the magazine is credited by the majority of the area as having vastly helped attract bigger name entertainment to the area through positively promoting what's on. The area's cultural activity would not be the same without it. However, these are just views and naturally impossible to find on the web to use as citations. Unfortunately, although the subject deserves recognition, it's very difficult to describe why. I would hate to see the article deleted but I guess it has to be under Wikipedia guidelines. theolimeister (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source your claim and bring some references to prove the article is under wikipedia guidelines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiring conference[edit]

Reads like an essay. OR, and possibly a veiled promotional piece - see final para. ukexpat (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, mainly as unsourced original research, but also as advertising - ever so tactful and unobtrusive, but advertising none the less. JohnCD (talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research with a side of spam. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Original research. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:57, 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 delete. - Philippe 02:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop This Car[edit]

Non-notable and unreleased song which may or may not be released as a single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: It is an upcoming single, it will be recreated somewhere in the future. Wiki is not a crystal ball, BUT, Williams' label and Billboard already announced it as second single from this music project. The article just needs a clean up like I did with We Break The Dawn. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There is no point over the deletion of this article as it will be recreated in the future, and the nominee isn't clear at all. There is a clear statement on the site that it will be released as second single. If a trustworthy source isn't enough, then what can I do? I think that the responsible for the nominee is just too Deletionist. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment What point am I not being clear on? That Billboard reports the song is planned as a single is verifible and from a reliable source so it can be included in the artist and album articles. It does not, however, impart notability upon the song. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 20:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:17, 6 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 delete. - Philippe 02:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crash Test 02[edit]

No reliable sources provided, none found. Fails WP:MUSIC. Mdsummermsw (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Article quotes musicians as stating the project has been put off again and again, so we should wait until the project is realeased and meets WP:MUSIC. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 23:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Bardcom (talk) 01:18, 6 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 Speedy delete. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:01, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

National BackUp Day[edit]

Article is both a personal essay and a soapbox for the author's page www.nationalbackupday.com Gihanuk (talk) 15:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable, no independent nontrivial reliable coverage at all. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Personal essay, not an article. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same reason as all above. Not "article" enough.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhik er 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spammy TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Vanispamcruftisement, I believe. Maxa megalon 2000 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a a personal essay by a single purpose account that advertises the website with a bit of WP:COI and article ownership thrown in (use of I, the inclusion of email at the end) Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, including all the backups (hah). Ten ghits for what's supposed to be an online phenomenon. Two of them are Wikipedia, four (maybe five?) are social news sites, and the rest are unrelated. Also, the article content is totally inappropriate for an article. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete WP:CSD#G11, blatant advertisement. So tagged. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 3 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. he made his professional debut. . - Philippe 02:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danleigh Borman[edit]

Contested prod. Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league [20] (the PDL is not professional). Claiming that he will play (as the article's creator has done on his talk page) is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Move to withdraw as he now meets the criteria, having made his debut at the weekend. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP:ATHLETE, Borman has played in the Rhode Island Stingrays, the U.S. top-level amateur men's competition of the United Soccer Leagues, leading his team in 2006 in goals. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria you refer to uses the phrase "highest level in amateur sports" - not "amateur league". Football is not an amateur sport in countries like the USA where there is a professional league. If we accepted the "amateur league" interpretation, then we'd end up with tonnes of articles on Football Conference and Scottish Second Division players, which is why WP:FOOTY seems to have a consensus on this issue. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't believe the player's collegiate or amateur performances are sufficient to confer notability. Re-create after player has appeared in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep now that he has appeared in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 20:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment FYI, Borman is projected to start on Saturday night in New York's season opener. I think it would make sense to keep this AfD open through Saturday night and make a decision based on whether or not he gets in the game. --Balerion (talk) 13:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It shouldn't be closed until Sunday anyway. As with the last one, I'll withdraw it if he plays. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmm - There seems to be no record of him playing for South Africa. His uncle, Randall, played for the national Under-20s and Under-23s, but there's no record at safa's official site of DANLEIGH playing for S Africa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.30.153.18 (talk) 11:08, 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 delete. Singu larity 06:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gargantua-1[edit]

Real-world notability not asserted. sho y 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and insufficient notability in the show to warrant its own article. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to see here, move along. JuJube (talk) 01:38, 1 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. John254 22:49, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Break the Dawn[edit]

Unreleased single (crystal ballism) with little or no media coverage and no references. Fails WP:MUSIC#Songs and WP:V. Prod removed without comment. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 14:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: The single has a release date (actually it was released today), it was already premiered through People Magazine official site, making headlines right there. This article is very important because it is the first single from the artis to reach mainstream, the article is now sourced with references, it has high media coverage (for being released by a major site), and it was previously announced by another major media reviewer, the Billboard official site. So why delete this article? To be re-created? Tomorrow? Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 17:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Premiering as streaming audio is not the same as being released as a single. Once the song establishes notability with significant coverage in the media (a tiny blurb on People 's website is not significant, and the Billboard article is about her and the album, only mentioning that the song was slated to be a single) or when it's actually released and charts (which, hey, it's a catchy song, I don't doubt it will chart) then the article can be re-created. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 18:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Not only streaming, but being on the main page of www.people.com as headline (it isn't just a tiny blurb), alias if it is not significant, so what it is? The article on Billboard isn't about her, but her album being dance and moving away from gospel, also which song will be first and second single, also on her official website there is a statement of official release through people.com site. If this article is deleted it will be re-created, so there is no point to delete it. Deleting an article that actually will be re-created in the future even sounds controversy! Coz we can develop it, waiting for more reliable sources. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 20:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per http://www.people.com/people/article/0,,20186964,00.html, notable due to that alone. Corvus cornix_talk 23:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I don't see how a single promotional blurb on a magazine's website equals notability. There's nothing like that in WP:MUSIC#Songs. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 00:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: We Break the Dawn is a new single from Michelle Williams its even stated on her official webpage Michelle Williams Online. Wether or not a release date has not been set other websites including Billboard and Michelle's own blog on YouTube talks about the new single [21]. I wonder why the geeky wikipedian would put speedy delection code on the page. Ceddy 06 16:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Please remember to remain civil and discuss the notability of the subject, not the motives or the character of the nominator. Corvus cornix_talk 21:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song has not been released as a single. You can't buy it or download it and radio stations aren't playing it yet. The only way you can listen to it is by streaming it on the People website. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is going to be a huge hit (subjective I know but look at the evidence - ex DC, all star writing and production, hugely catchy, already getting popular across the world - I live in France and I'm not even a fan of Williams')...why would the page be deleted? I was trying to find info on it, this page is useful. And will only expand and evolve rapidly... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.100.164.21 (talk) 22:34, 3 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 speedy delete as advertising. - Philippe 02:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zabala vineyards[edit]

Written more or less like an advertisement. I was unable significant coverage from third party sources and seriously doubt that any such coverage exists. It only makes sense to keep articles about specific vineyards if it has a sufficiently rich history or a place among the world or the region's most celebrated producers. This one fails on both counts. Perhaps a redirect to the wine-region is an option. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-Yes, the article is very biased. And, without the proper sources, I think it ought to be deleted. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom; it reads like an advert and doesn't assert notability in any way. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 14:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. While I would love to tease consensus out of this, I'm afraid that I can't, and I do not believe relisting is likely to help. Arguments on both sides of the debate are within policy; this article's fate seems to hinge on the question of WP:N and whether or not coverage and contributions are trivial. Contributors on both sides of this have put laudable effort into resolving this question, but rational disagreement persists on this divide.

Although the larger concern raised by this AfD—specifically, the reliability of the individual as a source in other Wikipedia articles—may be a serious matter for consideration, it does not necessarily relate to the individual's notability. Notability is distinct from importance; notability guidelines only pertain to the encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles. The question of the authority of this individual's writing is a matter of what sources about this individual actually say and may be better handled by shaping the content of the article than citing its existence or non-existence.

Of course, it may be appropriate at some point to revisit the question of notability and see if a more clear consensus can form. In the meantime, the weight due this individual as a scholar in other articles may be separately addressed. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Polak[edit]

This appears to be a non-notable person. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Writing a few books, and teaching at university does not make a subject notable. Jehochman ^Talk 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Notability (people)), Christian Polak does fulfill the notability guideline: "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." PHG (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since the main assertion to notability is as a scholar, WP:PROF (rather than WP:BIO, which you cited) is the operative guideline. I do not see the requirements of WP:PROF being satisfied in this case (see my comments below). If one were to assert Polak's notability as a businessman, WP:BIO would be the correct guideline to use, but I have seen very little to justify his notability as a businessman. Nsk92 (talk) 01:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nsk92, if a subject meets any notability guideline at all, the subject is considered notable. WP:Notability explicitly states the general guideline is an alternative to any of the specific guidelines, and WP:BIO has similar language. WP:PROF ~~probably should have that language, but, regardless~~ says the same thing (second sentence, "Criteria" section), so we're entitled to shop around. Noroton (talk) 17:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, he doesn't seem to meet the WP:Notability standard of "substantial" (more than a little detailed) coverage of him by independent, reliable sources. WP:PROF is probably the best guideline to look at.Noroton (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N, so WP:PROF is not meant to override the general requirements of WP:N (which still always apply) but rather to detail them. Nsk92 (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respond below at the 01:32 April 3 edit. Noroton (talk) 01:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If he really is a notable specialist, what information can be provided to substantiate this claim? If sources can be found, keep; otherwise delete. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added in the article a sampling of books and publications which use Christian Polak as a reference for Franco-Japanese relations. Regards. PHG (talk) 15:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He has also been described as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations" by Philippe Pons, Japan correspondent for Le Monde (2005). PHG (talk) 20:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-The man certainly does not stand out. Based on Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, only a notable person may have an article designed after him (is "designed" the proper word?). Since this man does not fulfill the criterion, I suggest we delete it. Cheers, Zacharycrimsonwolf 14:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a significant author and a quite well-known French specialist of Franco-Japanese relations. PHG (talk) 14:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The article needs a more difinitive, sourced statement establishing that this is the notable aspect of this subject. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability hasn't been established through coverage in independent reliable sources. User:PHG has provided this google search--the first two results listed there aren't about the person Christian Polak, but combinations of the adjectives "Christian" and "Polak". The other results don't devote substantial coverage to Polak as a subject of biographical interest; they're merely passing mentions. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NN Dreamspy (talk) 18:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (ec) The comment from Akhilleus attempts to impeach the sources provided, but that the "first two" (and, in fact, quite a few other) results did not relate was irrelevant. The source is a GoogleBook search, and turns up books by or mentioning Christian Polak, the orientalist,[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] One of these is a general bibliography of French publications. Many sources can't be examined in detail through Googlebooks, but one source, Photography in Japan 1853-1912, by Terry Bennett, 2006, states: "As this book was going to press, the collector and writer Christian Polak, and expert on early French -Japanese relations, passed me a copy of an article ...." It is reasonably clear that, in his field, Christian Polak is notable. That was just a Googlebook search. The source japantimes likewise mentions: "Christian Polak, an expert on Jacoulet who contributed a biography of the artist to the catalog." Given that this article was just created yesterday, and that many sources regarding Polak may be in Japanese, and could take time to develop, this AfD would be oddly precipitate. Is it a coincidence that the author of this article is involved in a current request for clarification on an ArbComm decision, with nominator Jehochman? From what has been established, notability is marginal. I'd give this article some space to breathe before squashing it beneath the jackboot of AfD.--Abd (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Being mentioned does not make somebody notable. The subject needs to be written about, as a subject, not merely cited or referenced. Writing about oneself or other topics especially does not count towards notability. Again, Abd, your choice to involve yourself in PHG's business and add noise to the discussion is disruptive. Jehochman ^Talk 19:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When editors are piling on to find and complain about every deviation from the strictest interpretation of the standards of Wikipedia, ranging across the entire set of contributions of the editor, it becomes harassment. An arbitrator just suggested that one user involved might drop the crusade, though milder language was used as befits that body. I'm involved in Wikipedia. I'm not following any user around and jumping into every spat I find. Rather, this particular one (the situation with PHG) inserted itself in front of me, as a particularly egregious abuse of an ArbComm decision, and when I commented, legitimately, I was attacked. I'm allowed to state facts, and a decision that those facts are irrelevant, which is up to the closer of this AfD, does not make the statement of them disruptive in any way, unless they were clearly irrelevant, which they are not. And Jehochman just repeated his attack. "Disruptive" is grounds for block. As I wrote before about this, make my day. But, don't do it unless you desire to disrupt the project, because it would be exactly that.--Abd (talk) 18:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are allowed to state facts, but the problem, Abd, is that you have a tendency to make incorrect assumptions about the history of a dispute, and then you start chastising people for perceived misdeeds. You often act as though you know what's going on, even though you don't, and indeed, your participation tends to considerably increase confusion, for those other readers who can't tell who is right and who is wrong. This type of activity is not helpful. --El on ka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The citations provided by Abd are valid but there are too few of them to indicate that Polak has made significant impact in his scholarly field. A GoogleScholar search for him turns up almost nothing. I disagree to a point with Jehochman's logic: in scholarly articles people do not generally write about somebody else's research. They write articles containing new original research where the work of others is mentioned and/or discussed in context. So a high citation rate and a high H-index would be substatial indicators of academic notability. But that is not what we seem to have here. The total number of citations (per GoogleBooks and GoogleScholar together) seems to be rather small (maybe two dozen in total). So while he may be an expert (as are most people who got a PhD in something), there is not enough evidence to conclude that he is a significant expert in his field who made a substantial impact on that field. This tells me that he fails WP:PROF and I did not see arguments for other kinds of notability, per WP:BIO, offered here. Nsk92 (talk) 21:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete per Jehochman & Nsk92's reasoning. Pete.Hurd (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for transparency's sake, it should be noted that this AfD, the article, and the article's creator PHG (talk · contribs) are related to an ArbCom case. The result of the case was that PHG, the creator of this article and many others, has been found to be misinterpreting sources. He was banned from working on articles about medieval and ancient history, but then immediately after the case closed he created the article France-Japan relations (19th century), which has some information about the 16th century (just outside the definition of "medieval"). His major source for that article was the works of Christian Polak. When challenged about the source, PHG then created this Christian Polak article, but with few solid sources. This AfD was then filed by Jehochman (talk · contribs), the same editor who filed the ArbCom case to begin with. There is currently an open Request for amendment (filed by PHG, against me Elonka (talk · contribs)) which is being considered by the arbitrators, which mentions both articles and some other related issues. I'm not weighing in on whether or not the article should be deleted, but I did want to make it clear that there's a larger dispute here. If any editors here at the AfD would like to offer statements at the Request for amendment, please feel free. I also recommend reading the discussions at Talk:France-Japan relations (19th century), as it would be helpful to get more knowledgeable opinions there as well. Thanks, --El on ka 22:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Small point. PHG was found to have, in a few cases, out of voluminous contributions, misinterpreted sources. This was not considered serious enough, apparently to prevent him from editing in general, and the topic ban was only as Elonka stated. ArbComm specifically encouraged him to edit outside the banned topics (and within the topics through Talk, similar to a COI editor; the theory seems to be that his errors were due to his enthusiasm for what may have been original research). The article on France-Japan relations is *solidly* outside the field of "medieval" history, and that it has "some information" which is "almost" medieval doesn't change that, the focus is clearly as stated, 19th century, and does not make it even mentionable as some kind of violation, which has been done, unfortunately (not so much here, but definitely elsewhere), nor does that article -- nor this one -- seem to be promoting any novel theories or extraordinary claims. Yes, knowledgeable opinions sought, and sensible editorial review from those not involved with what was obviously a bitter content and behavioral dispute.--Abd (talk) 04:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd, please review the updates being considered to the Arb case where they clearly state they were signaling to PHG that his behavior needed changing; it is not helpful to anyone, least of all PHG, that you hamper the possibility for those changes through your misguided advocacy. You continue to misstate the breadth of the sourcing issues and the scope of the case despite several editors informing you of your errors; you continue to twist the facts to help your "cause" and advance these supposed "theories" that in truth belong only to you. Your habit of jumping from dispute to dispute to stir the pot is starting to grate. Shell ^babelfish 05:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weakest of keeps -- several citations of someone being called an expert is borderline, but considering he is attracting such attention outside of either of the main languages in which he is working pushes it slightly towards keep for me. Google Scholar is positively horrendous in documenting published work in the humanities. However, it should be noted against keeping that (1) JSTOR has no hits for him, and (2) some of the excerpts in the Google Books search for "Christian Polak" are not for him (they refer to a coauthored book by "Lastname, Christian/Polak, Regina") -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 01:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just in case I also did a WebofScience search and a Scopus search that also yielded no results. I think that being called an "expert" by a few sources is not enough to signify academic notability. One needs to be considered a "significant expert" per WP:PROF which usually requires some positive evidence of having made a substantial impact in one's field, either in terms of citations or academic honors and awards. Nether seem to be present here. Nsk92 (talk) 05:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that I excluded those hits in the list I gave above, unless I made a mistake.--Abd (talk) 04:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Again, wrong standards are being used. The standard for notability is coverage by multiple, independent, reliable sources. The man may be the finest of experts, respected by all, but if nobody is writing about him in reliable sources, we cannot create a proper Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original material. I like to write original material too, but I don't do that here. Jehochman ^Talk 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I politely disagree -- mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. Note also that Web of Science has next to no information on the humanities--Here are some top names in music research: Thomas Forrest Kelly (10 records, the most cited twice! Missing all his major books and articles); Margaret Bent (30 items with the most cited 8 times? I've cited that article at least 8 times in publications myself; her C.V. lists over 150 publications) ; Christoph Wolff (finalist for the Pulitzer prize and University Professor at Harvard: 20 articles on WoS, the most cited six times?); and all the music research world is gathering this June to honor the 10th anniversary of the death of Nino Pirrotta, a man who, according to WoS was only ever cited 9 times. These numbers have no connection to the number of citations in the real world, mostly because WoS has never learned to parse footnotes in the humanities, in foreign languages, or in printed journals: the staples of citation in the humanities. So, where does one go for information on the importance of a writer in the humanities if there aren't accurate citation counts? We look for clues such as "expert" given by people who read the journals and not just count citations. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GoogleScholar and WOS are pretty awful when it comes to humanities. And I agree that a mention of a scholar as an expert in a peer-reviewed journal or book published by a respected press is coverage by a reliable source. But one or two such mentions are not enough to indicate notability. Yes, establishing notability for academics in humanities is a difficult problem but we still have to use some kind of positive and verifiable evidence. I have a couple of thoughts on this (although, being a mathematician, I am a bit of an outsider to the world of humanities). First, it seems that GoogleBooks is a more reliable indicator of notability in humanities than GoogleScholar, WOS and Scopus. Second, I noticed that in other AfD discussions DGG often cites information about how many libraries carry books by the academic in question. I don't know where and how DGG gets this data, but it could be used, including in this case, as an indicator. I hope that DGG will participate in this discussion as well. Coming back to GoogleBooks, I did searches for the notable musicology names you mentioned. For "Thomas Forrest Kelly" there were 184 hits [35] and for "Christoph Wolff" there were 674 [36]. By comparison, for Christian Pollak, the total humber of hits was 28, from which at most 9 appear to be about him.

As an experiment, I did a GoogleBooks search for a few other people that I picked, more or less randomly, from the websites of the history departments of several U.S. universities (not particularly major). The first is Sarah Kovner, who is a faculty member at the University of Florida (the web site says that her PhD is 1995 and that she is an Assistant Professor[37]; her area is listed there as "Japanese History, Gender History, and International History"[38]). A GoogleBooks search gives 57 hits [39], most of which appear to be about her. Another person I checked was David Bachrach, an Assistant Professor in the history department at the University of New Hampshire. His area is listed as Medieval History[40]. A GoogleBooks search for "David Bachrach" midieval gives 13 hits [41], all related to him. (Without the midieval addition one gets 154 hits, but many of them are not about him). Another example: Thomas J. Finan, Assistant Professor, history department at the University of St Louis (PhD 2001), specialization listed as Medieval History: [42][43] GoogleBooks gives 38 hits,[44] at least a half of which seem to be related to him. All three of these cases concern fairly junior researchers (Assistant Professors), and in all three cases GoogleBooks results are better than for Polak. Nsk92 (talk) 23:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Ignore my comments in the long thread just below. There isn't enough sourcing to meet any of our notability requirements -- neither WP:N, WP:BIO nor WP:PROF. The closest criterion this might meet is WP:PROF #1 (regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources) but Example #2 in that guideline requires that there be plenty of those sources, and we don't have that many, even though there's been plenty of searching for them. Thanks to Nsk92 for help with understanding WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ {See my comment just above) I'll admit up front that I haven't read every word of this discussion (I did scan every contribution), so please feel free to excoriate me if this point has been thoroughly hashed over: WP:PROF states The person is regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources. Meeting this single criteria (or others) is enough for WP:PROF to declare the subject notable (see the paragraph just above the quote, in the "Criteria" section). Now, I see these two sources listed high up in the footnotes:
"The collector and writer Christian Polak, an expert on early French -Japanese relations", Photography in Japan 1853-1912 by Terry Bennett, Page 143

"Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises", Philippe Pons, Japan correspondant for Le Monde, in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005

Forgive my bad French, but I translate that last as "the best specialist of the history of Franco-Japanese relations". Am I mistranslating? These appear to be reliable sources, therefore the criterion is met, therefore WP:PROF is satisfied, therefore he's notable, therefore keep.Noroton (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

second thoughts: The first item I cited, where Terry Bennett calls him an "expert" is not enough. WP:PROF wants "significant expert" (emphasis added). There may or may not be a second reliable source that essentially calls Polak a significant expert, but it one potential second source was added by User:PHG and, given the RFA, and given that online translators give different wording, it's too difficult to put any faith in the accuracy of the translation. I've put a note on the Talk:Christian Polak page about it. If that translation holds up, the article unquestionably meets WP:PROF. Noroton (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC) -tweaked wording (replaced "it" with a phrase) Noroton (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These are certainly valid references, but I don't think just these two references are enough to justify that he is regarded as a significant expert in the field. In practice, when WP:PROF is applied, one needs either a substantial amount of coverage of the person in question in the mainstream press as an expert in a particular area or some substantial evidence, in the form of citations in scholarly publications and books, academic awards etc, that the person has made significant impact in the field. This is how WP:PROF has been consistently interpreted in other AfD discussions related to notability of academics. The same is true for the general applicability of WP:N and WP:BIO: having one or two references by reliable sources regarding the subject, even if they explicitly assert notability of this subject, is almost never sufficient for satisfying the notability requirements. So having just two mentions of him in the mainstream press does not, in my view, satisfy the requirements of WP:PROF in this case. Nsk92 (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with WP:PROF AfDs, and the past practice may well be just as you say, but I try to follow the exact language on the guideline page. At WP:PROF, Criterion #1 doesn't require any substantial coverage from those particular sources. That's true with some criteria you find in other notability guidelines, such as WP:MUSIC. Each notability guideline sets up alternate criteria to WP:N that do not rely on a substantial amount of coverage by individual sources. I find in that in AfDs there are too many different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, so the way I do it is by going with the exact wording I see on the page (and, of course, common sense). I think closing admins, when they need to interpret policies and guidelines, have to look at them the same way. Noroton (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the language of WP:PROF needs to be clarified but I am fairly sure that I am correct about how criterion 1 has been traditionally interpreted. This is supported, in part, by an example explicitly given in WP:PROF: "An academic repeatedly quoted in newspapers or newsmagazines may be considered to meet criterion 1. A small number of quotations, especially in local newsmedia, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." This seems to be on the mark in this case since the number of references to Polak in traditional newsmedia is very small. I should also mention that, in my understanding, WP:PROF is a subguideline of WP:N and it is not meant to override WP:N (unless explicitly stated so) but to detail it. Nsk92 (talk) 23:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about that example. I read that, but not carefully enough. I'll probably wind up voting delete. But reread the first sentence in the "Criteria" section. WP:PROF and all other notability guidelines provide alternate routes to notability that don't depend on WP:N requirements. I don't think there's any other way to interpret their explicit language on that. Noroton (talk) 01:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 09:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 1[edit]

Keep: I'll bite. With absolutely zero experience in this field, I just added a sentence showing Polak's links to the Minister for Foreign Affairs (Japan), Japanese publishing house Toshi Shuppan, and its journal with contributions from the likes of Strobe Talbott. That and the other cites seem sufficient to break the pro-Anglophone glass ceiling. Feel free to pick apart, but the presumption of notability has been met for me; Polak is "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources" sufficiently for such a narrow field, and is "the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I'm also wondering what happened with the preferred deletion alternatives of regular editing, merging, discussion, and/or proposed deletion, in the 7 hours between article creation and this AFD. With so little time for determining notability in such a layered situation, how can one claim consensus to delete has gelled? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- John, though uninvolved opinions are often helpful, and I am trying to assume good faith, I have to question your participation here. You wouldn't by any chance be weighing in here with "zero experience", because of the long discussions that you and I were having over your behavior at the Ron Paul and Moneybomb articles, would you?[45] I see from your contribs (John J. Bulten (talk · contribs)) that your main area of participation on Wikipedia is still in topics related to the U.S. Presidential election. It seems a bit odd to see you suddenly weighing in on matters so far afield, such as this AfD, and an "out of the blue" statement at ArbCom.[46] Which doesn't mean that you can't participate, but for total transparency, it would usually be best if you identified that you were involved in a prior dispute with one of the participants. --Elonka 00:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Elonka, that is seriously out of place. An arbiter has recommended you abstract yourself from your "multiple interventions" with respect to PHG, and now you raise suspicion about an editor who actually comes up with sources for an article under AfD? I'll join that arbiter, it's time to pack it up, Elonka. As to disclosing some prior dispute, did you do that when intervening here, above?--Abd (talk) 04:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, I believe I did. And Abd, as I (and others) have mentioned to you before, I think it would be wise if you spent more time actually working on articles, rather than just jumping from dispute to dispute. --Elonka 04:14, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you so much Abd! I really appreciate finding a kindred spirit on the view that AFD comments should focus on hard proof of reliable sourcing instead of side issues-- especially from other editors with "zero experience" in 19th-century Franco-Japanese relations. And I'm so glad I can step in as an editor who has recently grown beyond WP:SPA, because though I may have formerly faced unthinking attacks for choosing to edit only one topic, I can now confidently face the next level of WP instead. I think the points I made, about having many notable links, the risk of improperAnglophone bias, the meeting of the plain words of both WP:N and WP:PROF (to the point that another editor is now questioning whether WP:PROF itself should be edited for clarity), the failure to pursue deletion alternatives, and the hyper-immediatist Hobson's choice forced by this AFD ("source or delete now"), should be probative against the nonarguments of the deletionists. If anyone (especially the closer) has any questions about the topic Abd is responding to, well, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 14:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
library holdings I get my data on library holdings primarily by searching WorldCat. It has limitations: it includes all US and Canadian academic libraries, most of the larger USD public libraries, many of the major academic libraries in the UK, and a few major academic and national libraries in Europe. It has to interpreted in that light--a book primarily of interest in Japan or even in both France and Japan will not usually show many copies in the US except in a few very specialized collections. That's the case here--many of dozen or so major US libraries collecting academic works on Japanese art have some of this books. there is presently no easy way of doing quite as well for other countries, except by looking in catalogs of individual libraries. There's no special art in doing the search. For the obvious sort of recent academic or general interest books, a negative or near-negative result is a pretty good indication t hat the works are not notable, but this does not necessarily apply for books like these. The comparative method of Nsk is a good way to go, except that the comparisons he gives are not really valid here, since one would expect much more for a US scholar. This applies not just to WorldCat, but to Google Scholar or Google Books also--they are in practice very much US-centric (Google Books is relatively international for all European countries for earlier works, but for recent ones it only puts them in with publishers permission, and basically only the US publishers cooperate) --I consider a low or negative result not very meaningful for someone is his specific position. He's clearly not a very major figure, but he might still be significant in his niche. All i can say as a conclusion is:

Very weak keep.. DGG (talk) 05:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to raw standards, I agree. Frankly, though, the harm to the project by keeping this is minute, if there is any at all, and is far outweighed by the fuss created by the AfD, which was blatantly created because the nominator is involved in a conflict with the author of the article, as is another contributor here intensely arguing for deletion. (Whether or not they were originally neutral would be irrelevant; their comments here and elsewhere show some serious personal involvement.) I would never have become involved here if this were not part of a pattern of harassment of the user, intended or not.--Abd (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above statement by Abd, as usual, is incorrect. The nominator is not involved in the conflict with PHG. Administrator Jehochman did start the ArbCom case, and this AfD, and has offered comments and statements, but to my knowledge has never interacted with PHG on any article talkpage. I am extremely familiar with the last several months of this dispute, and I would be hard-pressed to identify a single article that both PHG and Jehochman edited. In fact, Jehochman unblocked PHG when he had been blocked for disruption in December.[47] Next, Abd, your comment that another person involved in the conflict is "intensely arguing for deletion", who exactly would that be? I have reviewed this page several times and cannot identify who you are talking about. Please, if you are going to make these kinds of incendiary claims, try to provide diffs to back them up, otherwise it is just more empty accusations which tend to confuse the issue. More "smoke than light". --El on ka 20:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the ulterior motives happening beneath the surface (and they might exist for all I or anyone knows), the AfD issue here is really about whether we can research and write an encyclopedia entry based on the policy and guideline criteria. Regarding the argument that it doesn't do any harm to the project by keeping this article, here is an interesting essay that covers that issue as one of the "arguments to avoid" in deletion discussions (see WP:NOHARM):"As for articles about subjects that do not hold to our basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and using reliable sources), keeping them actually can do more harm than one realizes - it sets a precedent that dictates that literally anything can go here." It's a legitimate and thought-provoking point, I think. J Readings (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, to Abd:) Thank you again. I agree that, for similar reasons, there is much more harm to WP by deleting than by retaining. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JR, to expand on your good point, and considering my latest sources, any harm related to any less-than-verified portions of this article pales in the face of the harm that may result from setting a precedent that literally any article can be deleted for nonnotability (which is not provable) without a fair chance to show notability (which can take time to prove). As to the harm that may be engendered by either deletion or retention being misused as a demonstration of consensus in the larger personality conflict, I think that either evens out or tips in favor of retention being less harmful. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your last point first, I think you're referring to the bad faith that a couple of editors are alleging against a few other editors here. In my personal opinion, it's not helpful to focus on that issue if the AfD attracts third-party editors who were not involved in any of those previous scuffles. Speaking only for myself, I'm here for the subject matter as it relates to Japan. Second, despite a common misperception, an AfD is not a vote. The closing admin is entrusted to read through the arguments as they relate to the substance of the subject in relation to the policies and guidelines. Third, in terms of that substance, I think that it's helpful to remember that we're trying to establish the notability of a biographical subject (which is possible within a 5-day AfD), not completely re-write the article within 5 days (that can come later). On the former, the six databases I mentioned (JSTOR, WorldCat, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Books) are excellent sources of information. The general notability requirements call for independent, third-party sources that are both "reliable" and "significant" in their coverage of the subject. To quote the notability guidelines: "'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." The problem with Christian Polak, excluding his own books which are irrelevant for the AfD and the few one-sentence mentions in newspapers and magazines, is that there hasn't been any "significant coverage." That's the issue that needs to be addressed. If his writings are notable, where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers? Where are the academic book and journal citations? Where are the "major" write-ups in the media, more generally? As far as I can tell, having researched this gentleman over the past couple days, he hasn't experienced any of that coverage (yet). J Readings (talk) 06:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Search results for "Christian Polak":

Google News: zero articles.

LexisNexis: 14 articles, most of which are false positives. Only one makes a major mention of Polak in connection with his comments on the Tom Cruise movie, The Last Samurai (not a good start for writing an encyclopedia entry). The rest are one sentence mentions that don’t conform to the criteria of WP:N.

Factiva (English): five articles linking him with Japan, so as to avoid false positives. Once again, he gets one-sentence mentions in these articles, but they are not about him or his ideas. These do not really support the WP:N requirements.

Factiva (French):17 articles—obviously a slightly more substantial accumulation for Polak in the French media, but still we’re talking about single-sentence mentions within these articles.

Google Books: 28 hits, some of them are false positives. For example, “Millie Graham was a Christian, Polak a Jew, but their real religion….” Looking through the books, I found a few that do indeed mention Polak in passing, but nothing substantial to indicate that his work was being cited or taken seriously.

JSTOR: zero hits. The fact that academics have not cited Polak at all in any academic journal article that is recorded on JSTOR hurts his notability substantially.

WorldCat: only four hits. Two of which are books that Polak published Paul Jacoulet (in French) and another entitled Kinu to Hikari (in Japanese). A third and fourth book (are the same, different editions), apparently written about Honda in Spanish, mentions “Christian Polak” in the keyword search, but it could be a false positive.

— J Readings — continues after insertion below I appreciate your work. Please note the third book in WorldCat is in French and Portuguese (not Spanish), and Polak is listed as collaborator, per the Details tab. [48] All three are now listed among the seven or eight books mentioned in the article. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you're using a different WorldCat site (my entries were in Spanish but it's restricted access). In any case, fair enough. This one appears to be in French. J Readings (talk) 16:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Actually, strike. You're right. I went back and checked WorldCat again. See [49] They're in French and Portuguese. My apologies. You're right. J Readings (talk) 16:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote: ~~the weakest of keeps~~. Christian Polak is a borderline case of notability. Based on the evidence, I wouldn't be surprised if the closing admin decided to delete the article. There's not much we can use and cite from the the independent, third-party sources to justify a good article. J Readings (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strike my last comment. This article is really a delete, in my view. Having looked thoroughly through these six databases now, there is not enough objective material to justify the article's notability requirements which will likely lead -- sooner or later -- to a lot of primary source citations (if any) and puffery (none of which is really good for a tertiary source like Wikipedia.) J Readings (talk) 09:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

JR, I politely disagree with your idea above that 5 days to establish notability is proper in this case, because (1) no other steps were tried by the nominator in the 7 hours after creation, (2) one bio tag and one source question at talk do not constitute sufficient prior steps by others, (3) the nominator (and the questioner) were just in arbitration with the creator, and (4) the desire of these two parties to assist the new-article patroller is certainly understandable within good faith, but any good-faith explanation for this particular choice of forum is at least as weak as you think the notability is-- good faith would be more likely to wait more than 7 hours before AFD. But even so, the article seems clearly to have surpassed WP:HEY by now. (Also I don't think I'm referring to any bad-faith allegations made here, although of course the ArbCom case was documented to have many bad-faith allegations.) As for the possibility that rewriting can come later, recall your !vote and that ArbCom is considering a ban on the creator reworking deleted articles in his userspace. Since I don't think "his own books which are irrelevant" and "few one-sentence mentions" are a sufficient characterization of everything unearthed, I guess I need to make my own list:

Your Google news analysis looks mistaken, I found 10-12 (not 0) relevant pay articles here, 7 from Le Monde and Les Échos (which reviewed Sabre et pinceau and Honda par Honda in the face of the question "Where are the book reviews in reliable newspapers").

— John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below The Google News was accidentally set for "last month", so yes it was a mistake. Unfortunately, your "all dates" isn't much better. "Christian Polak" and "Japan" still receives no hits whatsoever. As for just "Christian Polak" you need to be aware of false positives which could very well exist without reading every article in detail. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have (say) 3-6 LN articles and at least 22 Factiva articles; single-sentence mentions add up, and surely there must be more than just one with multiple-sentence coverage. Several of the above mention The Last Samurai, not just one. Japan Times says "expert".

— John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below Single-sentence mentions amount to little, I'm afraid. Sorry. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As PHG and Abd pointed out, 12 or 13 of the Google Books results are relevant. (Using JSTOR is arguing from a negative, and in a field JSTOR is weak in.) Bennett, Photography in Japan, says "expert".

— John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below John, where did you read that JSTOR is "weak" in academic fields such as diplomacy, history, international relations or the humanities? Surely, not from JSTOR itself which is actually quite strong in 47 disciplines with 1,856,206 full-length articles. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need to interject a comment on this. JSTOR contains 1100 journals total, including about 5% of the available academic titles in the humanities ; more important in this connection, it is almost totally limited to journals published in English. Very little French, no Japanese. A negative result in JSTOR is in my opinion meaningless here. DGG (talk) 23:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Further follow-up based on this discussion [50]. I did check two major French-language academic databases Francis and Répère. There were no hits on either.Slp1 (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We're up to 10 books authored or co-authored now, more than "a few".

— John J. Bulten — continues after insertion below Which, once again, has nothing to do with independent, third-party reliable sources covering a subject. J Readings (talk) 21:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's about 40-50 total references, and he also has numerous significant linkages to notables. I would think cowriting the autobio of Honda's founder is notability almost by itself. Also, Museum director Hiroshi Ueki wrote a preface for him; he speaks at the Japanese Paris Club, the Kanagawa society, and the CCIFJ, a chamber of commerce in a serious 90-year-old union; he was published in the Gaiko Forum (not noted in the above links); and he has a few more cites and relationships in the article.

I'm not pushing for "no consensus", I'm pushing for a full "keep notable" on these grounds. WP:N: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; "sources address the subject directly in detail". WP:BIO: "subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject"; "significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, which has been the subject ... of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". WP:PROF: "regarded as a significant expert in his or her area by independent sources"; "collective body of work is significant and well-known" (it is in France); "received a notable award or honor" (no one has questioned the notability of the Légion d'honneur, though I grant it has 100,000 recipients); "academic who has published a book or books of general interest ... or non-academic articles in periodicals with significant readership is likely to be notable as an author (see WP:BIO), regardless of their academic achievements"; "academic repeatedly quoted [not 'small number'] in newspapers or newsmagazines" (the wikiblur is obvious between "repeatedly" and "small number", but I think 40-50 is on the safe side); and note emphasis added in "numbers of publications can be judged quantitatively to a degree". Thanks for your attention. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would appreciate it if the deletionists would have anything to say about my new information in the article that Polak knew Soichiro Honda, the founder of Honda, and knew him well enough that Polak's biography of Honda (whether as collaborator, ghostwriter, or coauthor) was cited repeatedly as an authoritative source by Les Échos in its article on the 10th anniversary of Honda's death. Also comments on the suddenness of this AFD compared with the time it takes to verify notability would be nice. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:04, 3 April 2008 (UTC) I forgot, I also need a Francophone to judge whether this, which appears to contain a 2-page review of Polak's book in the monthly newsletter of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan, has anything that might be used within the limits of WP:SELFPUB. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. This is the Monthly newsletter of the French Chamber of Commerce and Industry in Japan. It has a 2 pages review of Sabre et pinceau. The article describes the content of two of Polak's books, first "Soie et Lumières", which explains "how Japan's raw silk saved the silk industry of the Second Empire, in exchange of what France brought the technologies necessary to the Industrial modernization of Japan". Second, it describes in details the contents of Sabre et pinceau, as a book focusing on military and artitistic relations. In conclusion it says that "Sabre et pinceau is like a time-machine. As for the first book Soie et Lumières. Sabre et pinceau draws from first-hand original documents, gathered over a period of more than 30 years either from French, Japanese or foreign official archives, or from private archives, especially those of descendants of Frenchmen who lived in Japan, or still from new documents found among booksellers in Paris, London, New York, Kanda inn Tokyo or elsewhere, or documents purchased in auctions around the world on the occasion of personal travels, and also from Internet." Later on: "This is a true time-machine, delivering with sometimes violent strength the reality of the past.". Cheers PHG (talk) 16:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Since a lot of folks here don't speak French, I can confirm what PHG said is in the article, but unfortunately it was written by the subject. Shell ^babelfish 16:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooops, sorry for that, you're right Shell. Just saw it. Thanks for the keen eye (the font is barely visible on my printer, and I missed it). I understand better now why John J. Bulten was mentionning WP:SELFPUB. I guess we'll have to remove this part from the article then. Cheers PHG (talk) 16:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Thank you so much monsieur! To explain my meaning, WP:SELFPUB would tend to exclude some things from the CCIFJ's review because they are close to Polak and the claims might be controversial, such as "true time-machine" and "saved the silk industry". However, within the limits of WP:SELFPUB, basic noncontroversial claims can be gleaned, such as that the books are about the interaction and trade between Japan's silk trade and France's technology, and about the military and artistic relations of the two countries. I will add that source myself. Merci again! John J. Bulten (talk) 17:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC) For me, I can't tell whether it is intended that the article or the book reviewed is by Polak. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 2[edit]

Keep "He received the Medal of the Légion d'honneur (Chevalier) in 1989." is enough to claim its existence here. --Appletrees (talk) 18:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

_{I was told to strike my above comment by Jehochman[51], but all below discussion is related to the title, so I do not alter it. --Appletrees (talk) 01:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)}[reply]

- Disclaimer "He received the Medal of the Ordre national du Mérite" (Chevalier on Septembre 29, 1989, then Officer on April 30, 2002) according to the reliable source.[52] Even though the changed fact (well, I think that is a mistake by translation), I still hold my position at "keep"--Appletrees (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Winning the highest military honor offered by a country is automatic notability. Do we have a reliable source to establish this claim? The man does not appear on List of Légion d'honneur recipients by name. Jehochman ^Talk 18:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the list misses him, or PHG made up to glorify the subject in order to prevent the article from being deleted. If he forged the information, I would retract my vote and start reconsidering whether his seeming established articles have credibility.(Franco-Mongol alliance looks interesting, so I intend to translate it) However, the article looks great at this status. --Appletrees (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a Google search and cannot find any reliable source that makes this claim. I do not trust PHG's obscure foreign language sources, given the results at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance. Jehochman ^Talk 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the reference is written in Japanese and according to the source, he received the honor. (平成元年、フランス政府より国家功労賞（シュバリエ）受勲。平成14年、フランス政府より国家功労賞（オフィシエ）受勲) However is "the site" reliable? I'm not sure.--Appletrees (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting. I checked Factiva (French) and there was no mention made of him being granted these honors. Le Monde makes mention of a Pierre Polak being granted the Légion d'honneur in 1995, I believe, but nothing for Christian Polak in 1989. Curious. I welcome other people to double-check the results just to be sure. That said, Appletrees is correct. The Japanese does say that the French Government bestowed two national distinguished honors upon him, one being the "Shubarie" in Katakana. Whether that's the Legion d'honneur or not, I don't know. The Japanese just literally translates as "national distinguished service award." In addition, it's unclear whether the source is reliable, but that's a separate issue. Someone should doubt-check if this website is not affiliated with Christian Polak, which would definitely be a WP:SELFPUB problem. I haven't looked yet. J Readings (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the bottom of the page, in English, it says "Copyrighit 2004, Nekono ebook publisher All rights Reserved." The URL necom.cool.ne.jp has a Google PageRank of 3/10. My personal website is 5/10. From all appearances this is self-published information on a very minor website that has not been verified. Jehochman ^Talk 19:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, 国家功労賞 seems to be Ordre national du Mérite. シュバリエ is Chevalier (the first rank), オフィシエ is Officier (Officer, the second rank). Would somebody have access to the list of recipients of the Ordre national du Mérite? PHG (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just checked their website, but Jehochman beat me to it. According to the Japanese on this website, it reads: 猫の本屋さんは、インディペンデントな電子本作品を販売するオンライン書店です。Nekko-no Honya-san is an online bookstore which sells independent soft-copy (digital) works. ????? Whether that qualifies as a reliable, independent third-party source with editorial oversight and reputation for fact-checking leaves is huge question mark. The more I read the website, the more suspicious I am that they're not simply taking whatever the author gives them and running with it. Incidentally, I just checked: no mention made on Factiva (French) of "Christian Polak" and "Ordre national du Mérite", but I'll check again to be sure....nope, just checked again. Nothing. Curious. J Readings (talk) 20:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is getting interesting. How about this site? My French is ....very poor, but I can find his name on the list.[53] Au grade d'officier, M. Polak (Christian), président de société (Japon). Chevalier du 29 septembre 1989. However, the cite looks also far from reliable sources. --Appletrees (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like unreliable sources quoting from each other. In the United States, it is a federal crime to falsely claim winning the Medal of Honor, or any other military award. Jehochman ^Talk 20:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The last sentence sounds threatening. The claim is from the Japanese site and also dubious French site not from PHG even though PHG has the responsibility to introduce the unconfirmed claim to Wikipedia.--Appletrees (talk) 20:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need for big words or Legal threats :) This is actually a French Administration site (admi.net), publishing the announcement of the "jo" ("Journal Officiel", the official medium to convey Government decision) [54]. This is a highly reliable site: nothing more official than "Journal Officiel" announcements. Thank you Appletrees for finding it! PHG (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, the bottom line is that Christian Polak did receive the Medal of the Ordre national du Mérite (Chevalier on Septembre 29, 1989, then Officer on April 30, 2002). Source: Journal Officiel Avril 2002.PHG (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, thanks for absorbing this correction so quickly. This is a very slight dent in my argument above, but nothing serious. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm guys, I've searched the official site http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr and can't find his name listed as ever winning this medal. It doesn't make sense that it would be in some random supposed copy of the official records, but not in the official records. Do we have any reliable source which states he won this medal? Shell ^babelfish 21:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't find any recipients in the official site. I tried to find several people with the title in the site, but none returns. --Appletrees (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With Slp1's help, it is proved that the same official site still has the same list as the one looking dubious. http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000000408880&dateTexte= It is also confirmed that search engine is not reliable either. --Appletrees (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a question for the French speakers. What does "promotions et nominations" mean in this context? Does it literally mean just that: nominations? And if so, which "nominees" are distinguished from the actual "promotions" on the list? This situation is curious and still quite unclear. J Readings (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomination" means "appointment" in French. I think that people are given the Order at various levels (nomination)and then some are later promoted up the echelon of honours from one level to another (promotion). --Slp1 (talk) 22:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the reliability of the French site, did Polak received the honor according to the source? --Appletrees (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, well here is the thing. I don't actually doubt for a second that Polak got the Ordre (not the Legion d'honneur, though, of which more later). But the proof appears to be posted on some sort of mirror site,[55] which despite PHG's claims, does not seem to be a government administration site (see the ads at the bottom of this part of the site [56] and the link to the official site at the top). The link at the top goes nowhere, though assuming good faith as I do, I assume it did at one point and that after 5 years or so, these things become history on a government website. And indeed the Wayback Machine comes up trumps [57], showing that yes, Polak did get the Ordre. (Yeaaah, my hunch was right!). However, what I find disconcerting is that PHG would leap to the conclusion that he had received at Legion d'honneur when presumably using a machine translated version of this Japanese blurb for a book, which doesn't say Legion d'honneur in Japanese [58] or in the English translation,[59]/ (I can't see that online Japanese-French translation is available, but I may be wrong) and that s/he would claim so confidently that admi.net/jo/ is an "administration site" when it isn't anything official at all. [60] On the plus side, PHG did delete the info posthaste when s/he realized s/he was wrong.--Slp1 (talk) 23:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think AGF is that warranted. Let's just say he deleted in information quickly once it was apparent that it would not be accepted quietly. — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may well be right, but then I tend to try and find a bright side somewhere! And I guess this is still an improvement on previous strategies of fighting tooth and nail for a lost cause.Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who came up with the right translation (Ordre National du Mérite). When I make a mistake, a gladly acknowledge it and readily apologize. If I believe I am being wrongly accused however, that's a different matter :) Best regards. PHG (talk) 07:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; A quick analysis: The rank of Officier of the Order National du Mérite, even if verified (which it appears to be), is hardly enough to establish notability— it's not quite given out like candy, but being a civil servant in good standing for a few decades pretty much garantees it. PHG's behavior does not otherwise enter into it. — Coren ^(talk) 00:35, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The rank given by French government is verified with a "reliable source"[61] and you missed people's saying over it. --Appletrees (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no I didn't. That's what "which it appears to be" means. I dispute the fact that it makes its holder notable. — Coren ^(talk) 00:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, you blocked him because Jehochman reported that PHG deliberately introduced error with the information before this AFD is even closed. --Appletrees (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) I think you have misunderstood Coren's remark, Appletrees, which clearly states that Coren believes that the honour has been verified, but that getting the Ordre doesn't make him that notable per se. The Legion d'honneur, as originally claimed, would have done. I agree with Coren in this. We don't need articles on every one the 100s of people who are given this award every year.--Slp1 (talk) 01:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflicts) Huh? I did not. Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I know that "even if" is not telling current fact. That is the subjunctive. I "understood" his argument as it is but I disagree on his point and his blocking PHG. --Appletrees (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c)Discussion about the block does not belong here. Please join the AE thread where a more detailed rationale can be found. — Coren ^(talk) 01:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PHG's block[edit]

Moved to Talk; let's stay focused on the issue at hand with minimal distractions and fragmentations. Thanks. El_C 00:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by PHG

Please find my comment on my Talk Page: User_talk:PHG#Comment_by_PHG. Best regards. PHG (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience break 3[edit]

Restoring comments to this page which were understandably moved to talk page along with other potential tangential: (John J. Bulten (talk) 02:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

In haste, Appletrees, this from gouv.fr shows that PHG's unofficial (?) archive has official sanction, as can be told from the page numbers when WP:AGF is applied. That means that AT MINIMUM Polak received the Chevalier of the lesser medal and was nominated for the Officier, officially. There is probably a better analysis available to someone at convenience: I'm too busy changing diapers and writing unblock defenses at PHG's talk. If we were mistaken about Polak receiving the Officier, we were under immense pressure. Again, if anyone has any questions about other statements made on this page, ---> John J. Bulten (talk) 23:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As my closing argument in favor of retention (really!), please note that the harm already done to WP consequent upon this AFD and its nominator's report today to WP:AE has now far exceeded all the potential harm that might have arisen out of our discussions about whether Polak got the ninth-rate or the tenth-rate medal. I hope our Francophone returns. John J. Bulten (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep First, the strong French influence in Japan during the Meiji era, especially on the Japanese military, is widely ignored in the wonted English language treatments, so there may have been a bit of incredulity among some editors to begin with. Likewise with modern French arts and letters in Japan. Either way, this is a published and recognized historian (even if the French MoC does hand out medals like Snickers bars these days), writing in French about Japan. The article asserts his notability and thoroughly cites it. Helpful articles like this are what Wikipedia is all about. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your comment Gwen. I do agree that incredulity towards little-known non English-centric subjects seems to easily translate into rejection sometimes (I paid for it). These subject are crucial however, if indeed Wikipedia is supposed to be a universal tool, "the sum of all knowledge". France-Japan relations (19th century) for more information. Best regards. PHG (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hold off till the smoke clears, and then gently rewrite. I find the article strange and slightly repellent, and when I ask myself why I realize that it's because of what look like rather desperate attempts at convincing citation (which cumulatively look flattering and unconvincing) of some rather uninteresting claims for Polak -- despite all of which, Polak's actual notability is apparent. Let's not worry about which gongs he did or didn't win, or about who called him what: he's written substantial books that are cited; this is enough. -- Hoary (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After wading through a lot of murky water above, while there is some possible dispute over his exact honors and acheivments, it's more or less clear that there's enough of them to make the subject notable. Or, I could just say "per Hoary" and be briefer, I suppose. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability is borderline, but he's had several publications that are (if the notes in the article are correct) referenced by travel pieces. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I fail to see anything wrong about the article, apart from it needing more biography of the subject. RoryReloaded (talk) 20:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - having read through all of this discussion, and examined the references in the article, I'm still not convinced there is significant coverage in reliable sources. While I acknowledge that he has been awarded various medals, again I'm not convinced that conveys automatic notability. PhilKnight (talk) 13:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What I would like to know, in all seriousness and after great scrutiny, is why we are unable to find serious third-party academics (indeed any academics at all) and third-party journalists (emphasis on the word "third-party") who have reviewed Polak's work. Surely this is a puzzle and problem for even PHG because he is essentially relying on the limited soundbite quotes of a Japan Times staff writer (who made the "expert" comment in passing), two ostensible colleagues and/or friends of Polak writing in 2 of Polak's book forewords (hardly reliable third-party sources by any means), and the passing mention by an outside author of art books to make the case that Polak is a notable academic. Slp1, DGG, and I have looked through several databases and indices (including French academic databases) without being able to find anything of third-party substance on Polak. Rather, what is cited in this AfD is always the same: the limited throw-away comments of someone who is sporadically used for soundbites by an obscure newspaper staffer or Polak affiliate. The argument that these -- what I would call "throw-away" -- comments somehow justify an encyclopedia entry is still a puzzle in need of great explanation. I'm astounded that we cannot find an academic journal article or newspaper article written by a reliable third-party source not affiliated with Polak who reviewed or focused on the substance of his work. Like the many other contributors in this AfD, I remain unconvinced of any clear objective notability of this gentleman. J Readings (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an appearance that this article was cleared to establish that Christian Polak as an expert. PHG has been citing this fellow in other articles, [62] sometimes as the only reference. [63] If this person's work has not been independently reviewed, it is unreliable, original research, and it should not be cited elsewhere. I remain concerned, per the evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence, that PHG continues to create walled gardens or original research. Jehochman ^Talk 14:53, 7 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 delete. - Philippe 02:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Gap (book)[edit]

fails WP:BK; non-notable book by non-notable author - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 13:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This doesn't seem to assert any notability. I can't find any substantial reviews about the book or commentary about the author.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I also cannot find any information that would make this book notable. Bláthnaid 20:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Singu larity 06:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheherazade (Soul Calibur)[edit]

Minor character from an upcoming video game, about which the article even admits we know little. Doesn't really merit a separate article. Graevemoore (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. JJL (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulcalibur IV; clearly not notable, even if the game wasn't pre-release. (I'm a little miffed that we have a whole series of articles on Soul Calibur characters, actually, but whatever...) <eleland/talkedits> 21:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per eleland Captain panda 03:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find a compromise. I'm the guy who put the picture of Scheherazade. What if there was one article but with all the bonus characters in it from Soul Calibur IV. Huh? Huh? Hobocrow (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you being so hasty with this? We don't know yet how important Scheherazade or the other Bonus characters are in Soulcalibur IV. So why don't we wait until the game's actually released in a few months before making any drastic changes? Let the articles evolve as information trickles in. And Eleland, why are you miffed about what you said? Is it somehow taking something away from you that there are separate articles for separate characters? There's certainly enough information about each of them to justify it... SamSandy (talk) 14:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulcalibur IV until it becomes clear that the new characters need individual articles or a group article. Someone another 19:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soulcalibur IV. I'd point towards WP:SCRABBLE here as well - it's impossible to know how notable a character will become in the future, but if he does become notable then is the time to create an article, not now.--Gazimoff (talk) 20:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - given that this character will only be present in this game, it is doubtful that adequate notability could be asserted even after the game comes out. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:00, 5 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 delete. - Philippe 02:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CMGN News[edit]

Possible hoax - no Ghits or Yhits on company name, Max Croft or Theo Croft. Hits on Annabel Croft say nothing about this company. In any event, not notable and no RS. ukexpat (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep" It doesn't possibly have to be a hoax, mainly because it only ran for six weeks and isn't very notable. But I think it can become an article if people worked on it and it's interesting enough.

O—— The Unknown Hitc hh ik er 15:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jam signal, uh, delete. No evidence this ever existed, let alone achieved notability. A worldwide news broadcast would have received attention if real. --Dhartung | Talk 21:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portable games[edit]

The article needs a complete re-write as it's pretty much unintelligable. I thought I'd have a go, but I've found it next to impossible to find any sources (not that that worried the article's creator!) I suggest deletion - if any reasonable sources are found, the article can be recreated. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 13:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suspect a hoax. The image is that of a XaviXPort gaming console, so if the creator knew what they were talking about and the article was true, they would not have used that picture ( I thought it was a bit modern for a 1974 console). It seems very unlikely that Nintendo would release a handheld game in Canada, Columbia, Japan and Denmark, with absolutely no trace on the internet.--Canley (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Tagged as hoax. Picture is a console released in 2004. DarkAudit (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, only blatant and obvious hoaxes can be speedied. Adding a new 20th century US President would be obvious, but this one is much less so, as the discussion above suggests. Let's get a little more consensus that this is a hoax, and then we can snowball this AfD. Thanks, William Pietri (talk) 15:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retagged G3. The picture is of a console released thirty years after the article says it was. It is quite obvious. DarkAudit (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as hoax. Picture is of an already identified console a couple of decades off of the release date from the article. It says right on the console what it is. This is a blatant and obvious hoax. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Poorly written, no sources, probably a hoax.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhik er 15:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:44, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notre Dame High School (Calgary)[edit]

Non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. DGG (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I just added two sources that meet all the requirements of WP:N and WP:SCHOOL. Technicallly: the two sources (news articles) obviously include substantial coverage, and they are used in the WP article to cite information, but not much. I didn't pay to go behind the Calgary Sun's subscription wall to actually read them (the information provided at the website's search results page gave me the information). The purpose of the notability guidelines is to insure that the subject is notable enough, and these two footnotes prove that it is, so adding these kinds of footnotes doesn't seem to be wikilawyering (evading the actual spirit of the guidelines). Of course, the article remains lousy. Noroton (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles you referenced are that the school was planned and that it opened. That imho isn't notable, the references also doesnt link to the articles themselves. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia defines what kind of sources meet Wikipedia's standard over at WP:Notability#General notability guideline where the guideline says that the article is safe if objective evidence meets the criterion, without regard for the subjective personal judgments of editors. Newspaper articles devoted to the opening of a school will necessarily cover the subject "substantially" as WP:N defines it -- that is, with a substantial amount of detail. It's not reasonable to believe that these two articles don't do that. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to WP:NOT#NEWS, a simple announcement that something is opening or being built does not add to it being notable. Also the link of a reference should be to the reference, not to the search the news site page. WP:VER requires a reference be "cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question". A link to the "search the archives page" is not precise or clear. AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - substantial high school that is significant in its community. We delete not because the article is not sourced but if sources are not available and there are sufficient available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOL bows to WP:Notability and also allows some schools to pass AfD with a different notability standard, so meeting one or the other standard can allow a school article to be kept. Noroton (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so, under that definition the Walmart down the street is notable, so is the sewage treatment plant they are planning on building on the next county. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORG makes the individual WalMart difficult. Find sources for the sewage treatment plant in the next county that are as good as these for the school, and WP:N is no bar to it. Your argument is with the guidelines. Noroton (talk) 00:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, imho, the articles saying something is opening or being built only prove it exists. Everything is planned and opened, that doesn't mean it should be included in wikipedia. Its an announcement that its being built or opened WP:NOT#NEWS. Also the references should be to the reference, not to a "search the paper" page. Otherwise it is private, and being private is not notable. AlbinoFerret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is generally trivial to find reliable sources for expansion of high schools. Should you believe this is not the case for this school, WP:SCHOOL#Failure to establish notability procedure is not to delete but to merge to the district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination wasn't that it hasn't been expanded, but that it lacked notability. Please find some references that suggest the nominated school is notable according to WP:SCHOOL criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - High schools generally have secondary sources written about them. That's why they are almost always kept (I've personally never seen one deleted). Sometimes high school articles don't have those sources placed in the article yet. That's a reason for article improvement, not deletion for notability reasons. This topic is in fact the subject of secondary sources which are beyond the scope of "trivial" (passing mention, directory listing, etc.). --Oakshade (talk) 19:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep; we NEVER delete high school articles on the basis of notability, because through an exhaustive series of attempts at doing so, over a very long period of time, EVERY high school inevitably is found to easily meet the primary retention criterial of WP:N. High schools are the sort of a central institution within a community that inherantly generates news, and as such through a sufficient search of archives can be shown to be notable. It is a matter of conveneience to preassume them to be notable to avoid unnecessary deletion discussions that NEVER result in deletion. There is ample precedent to summarily dismiss deletion nominations for high schools; hence the basis for the draft guidance in WP:School, which although not de jure in force, it is certainly de facto in force. So: keep per WP:School. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... well apparently somebody deleted that part of WP:School in the past 2 weeks... It is in effect, none the less, so modify my previous statement to "keep per what should be in WP:School". Or -- keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎.Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:24, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[64]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unusual in AfDs for users to point to essays for further information on a point of the debate. DoubleBlue (Talk) 15:37, 3 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. John254 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Lawn High School[edit]

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia, sites no references AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. DGG (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial high school that is significant in its community. We delete not because the article is not sourced but if sources are not available and there are sufficient available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is generally trivial to find reliable sources for expansion of high schools. Should you believe this is not the case for this school, WP:SCHOOL#Failure to establish notability procedure is not to delete but to merge to the district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. It satisfies my personal high school notability criteria.—RJH (talk) 20:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎ Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[65]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:20, 3 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. John254 22:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clear Water Academy[edit]

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand and edit out some PR talk. . There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. DGG (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a criteria for inclusion WP:SCHOOL, just because a school exists does not mean it should remain on Wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Apart from including a high school, the elementary department has an average rank of 1st amongst elementary schools in Alberta over the last five years - clear grounds for notability. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a reference that it has an average rank of number one amongst elementary schools in Alberta over the past five years. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:SCHOOL, there must be "significant coverage in secondary sources". The Fraser institute that the reference links to is a primary source since it releases the report. Therefore it cant be used as a source of notability according to WP:SCHOOL AlbinoFerret (talk) 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect - it is independent of the school so it is a secondary source. WP:SCHOOL is, in any case, only a proposal and cannot be cited as a standard. To argue that the best elementary school in a province over 5 years is not notable is frankly bizarre. TerriersFan (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to read up on secondary sources. AlbinoFerret (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? The Fraser Institute report is not a secondary independent source about this school? If you think that, then I would suggest you read up on secondary sources. --Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Being ranked #1 by the Fraser Institute, the schools passes the proposed WP:SCHOOL. Additionally it has received significant secondary coverage by the Calgary Herald [66] which is far beyond the scope of "trivial". --Oakshade (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The Herald article is an extensive profile that will be very useful for adding references to the article. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎ Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:40, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[67]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since a reference was found in the Calgary Herald please close this nomination as withdrawn, the reference establishes some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:18, 2 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 speedy delete as copyright violation. Canley (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cassette Vision[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Super Cassette Vision

There is already information about this console at Epoch Cassette Vision. I would suggest that the articles be merged.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete I have also tagged the page for a speedy delete, as the article is a copyvio of this site - I didn't realise this until I had already begun the AfD process. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 12:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:42, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centennial High School (Calgary)[edit]

non notable school, does not pass WP:SCHOOL criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC) WP:SCHOOL does not state that High Schools receive a free pass on notability.AlbinoFerret (talk) 06:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - substantial high school that is significant in its community. We delete not because the article is not sourced but if sources are not available and there are sufficient available to meet WP:N. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there were any notability according to WP:SCHOOL then you may have a point. But there isn't any and no references to even suggest that there are. AlbinoFerret (talk) 18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is generally trivial to find reliable sources for expansion of high schools. Should you believe this is not the case for this school, WP:SCHOOL#Failure to establish notability procedure is not to delete but to merge to the district. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination wasn't that it hasn't been expanded, but that it lacked notability. Please find some references that suggest the nominated school is notable according to WP:SCHOOL criteria. AlbinoFerret (talk) 21:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is generally and widely considered that a claim to be a high school is a claim of notability. WP:OTHER exists, to be sure, but how is this any different from the dozens (likely hundreds) of high schools that have been kept at AFD? If those can be kept, this should be. Nyttend (talk) 03:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability (high schools)‎ Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay, written by you! Not only that , it was written this morning[68]. It also is contrary to WP:SCHOOL, the work of multiple editors that suggests that schools need to show some notability. AlbinoFerret (talk) 13:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Are you saying that I can't cite my own essay when !voting in AfD? Is there some rule about that? If so, I think I'll ignore it. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is that it holds no weight. Its not a guideline or policy. You might just as well have written it here. That you didn't disclose that you wrote it when you posted it here. I could write an essay saying that schools that don't show notability should be removed from Wikipedia, at least that one wouldn't conflict with Wikipedia guidelines. AlbinoFerret (talk) 04:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. looks to be a valid stub article.--Sting au Buzz Me... 00:15, 2 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 delete. Singu larity 06:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Millicent Lovejoy[edit]

Some doubt has been cast over whether the page is a hoax. However, on close inspection there appears to me to be nothing reliable verifying any notability of this person. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Happy to assume good intent, but even if all is true, no demonstrable notability as no reliable sources actually refer to her. --Dweller (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. likely hoax Dreamspy (talk) 18:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, none of the "references" mention her. Fails WP:V. Suggest taking persona-creation capabilities to MySpace. --Dhartung | Talk 21:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Hoaxalicious. Notice that the info for the image shows that it was a photograph taken by a digital camera in January this year! Camillus (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See Dweller's talk page for more info suggesting it is a hoax. TecmoBo (talk) 23:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per WP:BIO#Athletes. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Alamo[edit]

Contested prod (by an IP without explanation). Player fails WP:BIO#Athletes as he has never played in a fully professional league [69] (the PDL is not professional), and claiming that he will play for them is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, as for all we know he may get injured and have to retire before ever playing. The article can easily be recreated as soon as he actually crosses the threshold and makes an appearance. Also nominatinf Vito Higgins [70] for exactly the same reason. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP He IS a professional player on the roster of a team in Major League Soccer. This has been discussed endlessly and I still fail to see the reasoning behind people constantly wanting to delete these articles. Just because he has not played yet does not negate the fact that HE IS A FULL MEMBER OF THE ROSTER OF A FULLY PROFESSIONAL SOCCER TEAM and is therefore notable. --JonBroxton (talk) 19:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It may have been discussed endlessly, but WP:BIO#Athletes remains unchanged; the fact that he has signed a professional contract is irrelevant. He may never play a game for all we know, and without playing, it's unlikely that he'll be notable, which is why WP:BIO is quite clear on the having to play issue. See this recent discussion on WP:Footy for more rationale. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 22:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Most people who sign a contract with a professional team end up playing. He can be deleted if he proves to be one of those rare exceptions. Edward321 (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Whilst most may do, saying that this particular player will is WP:CRYSTAL, and if he doesn't, how long do we wait? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being contracted to a professional football club is not an assertion of notability. --Angelo (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article does not assert sufficient notability as he has not yet played in a fully professional league. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still strongly disagree with these articles being deleted, but democracy will win, so I guess that's that. The whole thing about deleting these kinds of articles in particular just strikes me as being contrary to the point of Wikipedia existing. This encyclopedia is a data source of information which people all over the world use; does it not occur to people that soccer fans - epecially, in the case of Mr Alamo and Mr Higgins, Los Angeles Galaxy fans - would turn to Wikipedia as a reliable and accurate source of information on their roster? Irrespective of whether the player has actually played yet or not, he IS on the professional roster, and he IS listed on the Galaxy website as a member of the squad. So when people come to Wikipedia, knowing that it is a valuable and comprehensive resource, hoping to find more details about these two professional athletes, they can't find anythingg because the articles have been deleted as a result of pedantry about whether or not he is notable yet. I just don't get it. It's not like these are frivolous articles - they are supposed to be helpful, informative, accurate pieces on professional soccer players that lots of people are likely to want to know more about. --JonBroxton (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fundamental disconnect comes from the fact that being "on the roster" is much more significant in American sports than it is in European soccer. In American sports, you are on the roster or you aren't, you don't train separately with the reserves or the youth squad. The policy/guideline/etc on Wikipedia is based on the European system, where there legitimately are rather non-notable youth players who happen to be thrown a squad number but aren't notable in anyway. In the European system, there is no clear line as to what constitutes a "senior roster player" and what constitutes a reserve/youth player and as such a harsher guideline had to be enacted to prevent non-notable 15 year old academy players from getting articles. I share JonBroxton's position because as someone who, like him, is intimately familiar with US sports, it is frustrating to see this unique situation trampled by well-intentioned guidelines that work better in other league environments. --Balerion (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I wouldn't say it's aimed at youth players - if a club signs someone from non-League, they don't become notable until they play. I would have thought that even if someone makes the squad in the MLS, that without playing, they are still not notable - what would your opinion be on a player who signs with an MLS team, gets squad number 30, but then doesn't play and is released at the end of the season? I would say that player will never be classed as notable, and therefore we have to consider the fact that any player may end up falling into this category until they've actually crossed the white line. пﮟოьεԻ 57 07:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The MLS website only tracks players that appear in a regular season or playoff match. Every season there are some players assigned to a MLS squad that never get a match (especially the 3rd GK) and are not notable in my view. Jogurney (talk) 15:14, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        What do you mean by tracks? This guy has never played in a game but has a page. They haven't bothered to create pages for some of the newer players, but that doesn't have to do with whether or not they've played. --Balerion (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I mean the All-Time Player Register has no entry for guys that never played. You won't find guys that were on the Chicago Fire squad like 2005 draftee and signee Hollis Donaldson who had squad #33 ([71]) because he never played in a league match. Until a guy plays, he has a real risk of winding up like Donaldson, who I don't think many would suggest is notable. Jogurney (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        But that's just your opinion - in every other professional US sports league, there are plenty of players with squad numbers who never play a game yet still have an article (for example, Nehemiah Broughton) simply by virtue of being in the squad - or, even more outrageously, because of their college achievements (gasp!). Cite WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS all you want but the fact is, this article would not be the slightest bit controversial if the player were an NFL, NBA, or MLB roster player. ugen64 (talk) 17:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom BanRay 10:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:43, 6 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 No consensus to delete; I'd like to see this made into a category, though. - Philippe 02:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional magic users[edit]

Is pretty much an indiscriminate collection of information, due to the fact of the sheer number of fictional universes that have "magic" in them, is much better covered in related categories (ie. Category:Magical girls), and completely unsourced. Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: If deleted, please place a copy of the list at the time of deletion on a subpage of my userpage so I can rework it into List of fictional magic users by universe and address the 'making it better than a category' issue. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. It's a list, therefore doesn't need to be sourced as the appropriate sources should already be in the article. It is not indiscriminate--in fact, it is quite discriminate as 'fictional magic users'; although it can certainly be sub-listed for "fictional female magic users", "magic users in universe x", etc. Furthermore, categories do not replace lists. From WP:CLN (emphasis mine):These methods should not be considered to be in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa., and Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted because they overlap. Doing so may disrupt browsing by users who prefer the list system. Also, lists may be enhanced with features not available to categories, but building a rudimentary list of links is a necessary first step in the construction of an enhanced list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This list just seems too broad to be of any real usefulness.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a corect use of a list according to guidelines. It is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it has clearly stated criteria. Though the red links could be removed and the formatting tweaked, needs sections etc and maybe a title change, it has clear worth. --neonwhite user page talk 14:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I can see this being useful as a list of lists, but as a general catalog of all fictional magic users I can see it being VERY indiscriminate. Nearly every piece of sword and sorcery fiction has a magic user, many video game characters can be considered magic users, many comic book characters have a magic user class... television... horror fiction... I just don't see how this list can ever be useful for actual research as it is currently formed. It appears to me as indiscriminate as a list of fictional characters who use guns.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What would be wrong with that list? Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I probably would have done this a bit differently; alphabetical order may not be the ideal arrangement, and alternative schemes for arranging the information by archetype might be better. Still, the list has clear criteria for membership and serves the valid purposes of cross referencing and arousing curiosity. Actually, a list of fictional characters that use guns might also be a valid list, and a list of adventure heroes that refuse to use guns would also be a good list to make. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then where do we draw the line for indiscriminate? The point can also be raised that I can't find any actual guideline (not essay) that specifically discusses any criteria for deleting lists, so AfD's like this I always feel are a little bit of barking in the dark. List AfD precedent is split on the matter [72] [73] and I think it comes down in most cases to personal opinion. If I'm very far out of the park, please correct me.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of chemical compounds with unusual names isn't discriminate at all, for obvious reasons. It's entirely subjective, as is list of fictional obese characters. My general test for whether or not something is indiscriminate is by taking this first possible thing that could go in. If it's debatable at all whether it should be in there or not, then I see it as indiscriminate. In this case, we have a clearly defined criteria of what goes into the list: This list includes fictional characters who use actual magic, in fictional worlds where it exists. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As to finding some policy, a lot of people throw 'indiscriminate' around with lists, but the indiscriminate that the policy in question refers to actually refers to Wikipedia as a whole, not lists in particular. Relevant information may be found at WP:CLN and WP:Lists (stand-alone lists). Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This list (and most WP:LIST lists) do not closely match any of the actual items claimed to be "indiscriminate information". The sheer vagueness of that very problematic label makes it an inviting substitute for "I don't like it". Some people hate detailed coverage of fiction with the same vehemence that I hate management-fad gibberish. The other arguments about "indiscriminate information" expanded beyond the text boil down to arguments aimed not at the merits of lists, but rather at the diligence (or laziness) of editors. That a list or category contains a large number of entries that potentially qualify is not a good reason to delete it in my opinion. Perhaps the most indiscriminate, arbitrary, and hard to maintain list of all, Category:Living people, exists because of Office mandate. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to keep in mind regarding this last point is that Wikipedia is not working toward a deadline. It's perfectly fine if a category and a list sharing a subject don't match up at any given point in time. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 15:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which is exactly why I believe these types of AfD's are difficult to assess, they really hang on personal viewpoints and I just personally think this list might be too wide. In response to Celanor's criteria for inclusion here are a few more precedents that might apply better, but I'm sure you'd be able to find just as many to bolster a keep. There really needs to be some kind of consensus on list guidelines. [74],[75],[76],[77],[78]--Torchwood Who? (talk) 15:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These things that you keep pointing to are generally lists of things that aren't notable (List of basilisks in fantasy fiction and games) in and of themselves; the information in the list doesn't have to be sourced within the list, it has to be sourced within the linked article. Since there aren't many notable basilisks on Wikipedia, that list isn't going to be very useful. Same with the list of women in playboy by birthday. Others suffer from verifiability and RS issues (List of Final Girls, List of people who have taken psychadelic drugs). With the possible exception of the last one, none of those were indiscriminate collections of information. If anything, they were too discriminate. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, everyone but you seems to be just fine going on our existing guidelines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some would argue that fictional characters don't deserve a place on wikipedia because they can not be sourced outside of the fiction that they are part of, and that too has a split precendent. Just a note.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe they deserve a place unless they can meet the notability criteria. However, there are several that do. news pieces and scholarly articles are written about characters all the time. Thinking just in terms of this list and off the top of my head, Gandalf, Saruman, and Faust come to mind. All have been the subject of scholarly literary research. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 16:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your point of view, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on this topic and let the AfD run its full course. I'm just voicing my thoughts on the matter, same as you, and I will gladly accept whatever consensus is offered up, but I most likely won't make further comment.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 16:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The criteria for inclusion appears to be pretty clear, and I don't see subjectivity being an issue. I'd like to see some improvements (like maybe the work of fiction from which these names come) since if the list is being used as a reference it would be more useful at a glance if there was a little more information about each entry. Other than that, I don't see any violations here. ◄Zahakiel ► 16:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When this is over (assuming it doesn't get deleted), I'll get something going on to the talk page to try and move it to List of fictional magic users by setting and make it so it's something other than an alphabetized list. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in present form. I see nothing here a cat can't do. However if significantly improved beyond a cat, may change my opinion. Halfmast (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This should definitely be a category, not an unreferenced list which will then spawn 1-2 line articles most of which will end up as candidates for deletion. I agree with Torchwood, you might as well have a list of characters from novels that use guns. I'm recognise some of these and I read some of the books they are in, but I still find it useless.Doug Weller (talk) 18:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While it's just an essay, WP:USELESS does make a valid point re: the previous two "delete" !votes. If these characters are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia entries, nothing in policy excludes a list of them. While it can certainly be better categorized (see the comments above) there's no valid cause offered here for deletion. ◄Zahakiel ► 19:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But -- not all of them have their own Wikipedia entries, and what is going to stop anyone from adding characters with no entry? And just because they have entries doesn't make them notable or the article not a typical candidate for deletion. Take Ezekiel Zick which I picked at random. It redirects to List of Monster Allergy characters, another list. Or Caster (Fate/Zero) - I'm not clear about guidelines about characters, but if barebone plot articles don't meet guidelines, how do these?Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is a content problem, not a problem inherent to the list. The list itself is perfectly discriminate. As is standard, the articles that are listed have to contain references to the information that they are magic users. The ones you listed should be removed from the list and replaced by verifiable, sourcable articles on characters that have their own independent coverage, such as Gandalf, Faust, Saruman, Skeletor, Merlin, Andrew Ketterley, Albus Dumbledore, Voldemort, and Harry Potter, for starters. Remember that this isn't a "we should delete this" argument, this is a "we should improve this list" argument, as the problem is fixable by methods other than deletion. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 03:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have no issues with the notability of the list entries or putting refs in the list. Why would you need refs there rather than in the main articles (unless this list had additional data, which it does not)? My reason for deletion is that a list is the wrong format for this information. It should be a cat.Halfmast (talk) 05:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:Five pillars: notability to a real-world audience, verifiable, discriminate and organized, and consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning fictional topics with importance in the real world. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With resepect, Wikipedia:Lists is a style guide and says little related to this discussion. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigational templates is a better guide and gives the advantages and disadvantages of lists v cats. All of the very sound arguments you make to keep the list also apply to a category. Converting this list to a category would not remove any significant content or functionality, but it would add automatic sorting and updating. It's what you seem to want and more. Halfmast (talk) 05:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could live with a category on this. At least a category could be manageable.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would remove the potential for improving navigability. As a category, it could never improve beyond what it is now; i.e, it would just be a page with a bunch of names on it. You couldn't organize it in any meaningful fashion for humans, rather than the MediaWiki software to read. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 06:15, 1 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 delete. Singu larity 06:11, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alison Weir[edit]

Weir is a political activist who apparently created her own page, which she apparently edits, mostly citing herself on her own importance.

She did make it into actual newspapers twice. Once when she gave a talk at UC Berkeley and cliamed that she had gotten a death threat about which she make a big fuss.

A second time when a private party (i.e. not an organization) booked a room for her in a public library and the library board tried to cancel because of the "offensive" nature of her material. There was a fuss not particularly about Weir but about library policy, which stated that any citizen of the town could book ar room and bring in a speaker.

I attempted to imporve the page by documenting these two incidents, bu it still seems a paltry record to justify a page.Thomas Babbington (talk) 15:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbingotn[reply]

The original aouthor of the article has not been notified because s/he has been banned from editing WikipediaThomas Babbington (talk) 11:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

Delete doesn't seem like a bio page as much as a self-promotion/advertisement for views and such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although there is an obvious conflict of interest issue here I don't think we can delete the article based on that alone. After reading the references it's clear that she meets the notability standard. The rest is a cleanup issue. I do see some hard times in this article's future but AfD doesn't seem like the venue for addressing the problems presented.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 14:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Alison Weir (historian) deserves first recognition here, both by priority of birth and by significance; she has written ten best-selling history books, mostly about British royalty. Whatever the fate of this page, I would move the historian to the main article and move this to Alison Weir (activist) or some such. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right. Thomas Babbington (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]

Good move. Noroton (talk) 17:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is perhaps relevant that Alison's Weir's organization ]]If Americans Knew]] has a Wikipedia page on which she boasts about her accomplishments.Thomas Babbington (talk) 00:11, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Thomas Babbington[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. There is absolutely nothing cited that gives a significant amount of coverage from a reliable source independent of the subject. Noroton (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Noroton. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Vanity page. Only mentioned in newspapers in the two incidents described by Babbington above. All we need to know about her can be found on the If Americans Knew pageEvidence-based (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)Evidence-based[reply]
Delete - non-notable activist whose bio Fails WP:N and WP:BIO. The COI issue alone would be enough to have the page deleted. Whatever info there is here that is sourced to reliable sources could be merged into If Americans Knew. Canadian Monkey (talk) 03:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Noroton (talk) 18:04, 1 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 awards.. - Philippe 02:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Texas[edit]

seems to fail Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I edited the page to remove various POV statements. I have just done a google search, and she doesn't appear to meet Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Pornographic_actors, no awards I could find. BananaFiend (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Vinh1313 (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She's been nominated Best New Starlet by XRCO and AVN. Whether that counts as a serious nominee for an award that satisfies wp:bio, I'm staying out of it. Heh, since I uhh nominated her. Vinh1313 (talk) 14:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per award noms. Epbr123 (talk) 19:01, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per award noms. Tabercil (talk) 23:34, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two major awards. KyleSmithX (talk) 08:37, 5 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 Merged and redirected to Islands of Kesmai. Black Kite 08:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Legends of Kesmai[edit]

No references. Nothing to indicate satisfaction of WP:N guidelines. 229 relevant ghits doesn't give much to pick from. Best I could find was an interview (with a developer?) [79] but I'm not convinced about the reliability of the site. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Marasmusine (talk) 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I suggest merging the article with Kesmai rather than deleting it. I honestly thinkg the merger of this article, GameStorm, and Island of Kesmai should all be merged into Kesmai. The Island of Kesmai article obvious can me trimmed down a lot to remove the garbage and then you could have a nice stub/starter article with Kesmai and have redirects of the related names to just the Kesmai article. -Jahnx (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kesmai at worst. I found a lot of sources for Kesmai and cleaned up that article. There are many more. It would make a reasonable home for this stub, but it's not really fair to use the lack of Google hits as evidence for non-notability, since this game was from an era where not many reliable sources were available online. — brighterorange (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 06:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leftist-Islamist Alliance[edit]

This page is structured around a supposed "political neologism" or catchphrase. However, it's not actually about any one neologism; instead it stitches together a series of unrelated sources (mostly unreliable, such as a Free Republic message board posting alleging that Virginia Tech shooter Seung-Hui Cho was a sooper sekrit Mooslem![www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1819044/posts])

The only common ground between the sources is that they claim a nefarious connection between the far left and Islamism. While the topic of Leftism and Islamism might well be worthy of an article, it's impossible to write an neutral article on this topic, without resorting to original research, as long as it is based around a dubious conglomeration of nonce phrases. <eleland/talkedits> 10:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yes, I suppose it would be impossible... if you try to delete it.--WaltCip (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is, the concept of a relationship between the European Left and radical Islam might well be notable, however, when it's framed in terms of a "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" or a "Marx-Muhammad Pact," we are stacking the deck. If the only people who use such terms are right-wing Islamophobes, then the article effectively becomes a soapbox for right-wing Islamophobia. If you can find a handful of reasonably mainstream sources discussing the term "Leftist-Islamist Alliance" in depth, then maybe we can write a neutral article. If not, then it's not compatible with Wikipedia policy. <eleland/talkedits> 22:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing Islamophobe" has as much credence as a neologism as "Marx-Muhammad pact."--WaltCip (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; that's why Right-wing Islamophobia is a redlink. (A redirect to Islamophobia might be in order, and would not undermine the point here.) <eleland/talkedits> 14:12, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unrelated sources have been brought together to provide a means of expressing the author's beliefs - i.e. that left-wingers, Europeans, and Islamic terrorists are basically the same thing. Oh, and no mention in independent reliable sources means no notability. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism. Obviously Marxists have taken a leading role in opposing the WoT (International ANSWER etc.) but this term is not widely used, any more than Chomsky's "US-Nazi Alliance" is. We have a "Critism of the WoT" article. WillOakland (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/Keep I've seen a few documentaries about this topic, a couple good ones by David Aaronovitch. I don't like the current article title very much, but I definitely feel that there is room to expand and create an encyclopedic article to this subject matter. Perhaps "allegations of a leftist alliance with Islamist ideologies". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC) rephrase suggestion. 23:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move to Leftism and Islamism, as the nom suggested, that would be a worthy topic. Obviously the article needs rewriting, but the topic does seem to have sources. Adding "allegations" to the title is problematic. Yahel Guhan 05:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable neologism being used to push POV through unacceptable synthesis of original research. csloat (talk) 05:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, soapboxing with little encyclopediatic value. --Soman (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Yahel Guhan 05:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Right-wingers have plenty of soapboxes already, and this looks more like a prank than a POV. Under the original title Marx-Muhammad Pact this was a smear term {crackpot theory?) not deserving a standalone article. Nothing here would be useful in an article about Islam & the Left, however retitled. / edg ☺ ☭ 05:43, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to New Anti-semitism. Or Eurabia. Or whichever is the appropriate Useful Idiot article of the day, we have a wide choice. Relata refero (disp.) 12:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:SOAP, WP:SYN, WP:NPOV, WP:COATRACK... the acronym list goes on and on.. ITAQALLAH 12:37, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:SOAP and WP:SYN. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep This article was already submitted for discussion less than a month ago, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marx-Muhammad Pact, and the consensus was keep. I see no reason why this should be brought up again so quickly when the article hasn't changed much. This as a very notable neologism and has been cited by reputable researchers/scientists like Daniel Pipes, William S. Lind and Tom G. Palmer. Obviously this is a very sensitive topic for the leftist majority at Wikipedia. /Slarre (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Or, alternately, for those who've looked up the word "reputable" in a dictionary. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 20:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Such claims are well known, notable, and sourced in this article. However they must be sourced much better - some statements are ORish. An inflammatory subject is not a reason for deletion. A lot of comments here sound as "I do not like it".Biophys (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd disagree. We just have a lack of sources discussing the term rather than advocating it. Firstly, what source that we have says it's a neologism? What source shows that "Marx–Muhammad Pact" was coined by Lind? The Lind source only shows that he used it--not coined it. The only thing we can do in this article with proper citations is quote from the proponents of the idea--and that's not writing an encyclopedia article. gren グレン 01:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't the place to discuss it, but could Wikiquote use articles on Leftist-Islamist Alliance or Marx-Muhammad pact? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best a non-notable neoblogism. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there aren't many sources about the idea... just sources advocating the idea... which would introduce OR. gren グレン 01:15, 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 no consensus to delete; default to keep, without prejudice against renomination. - Philippe 02:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Odette Krempin[edit]

Contested prod. I'm sure this is a worthy person, but I can't see anything biographically encyclopedic here. Doc^g 10:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Author: Please, the article is being rebuilt now. What's the reason it is being submitted for deteletion and what shall i do to keep it. jose ugs (talk) 11:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on your talk page. We need an indication of why this individual is notable (per the guidelines and we need independent evidence (reliable sources) showing that importance.--Doc^g 11:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, i just find myself lost reading all these details and guidelines ... i will think of an indication of why this individual is notable and also the "independent evidence" ... you're not making it easy for the rookies in here jose ugs (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Put a {{hangon}} at the top of the page will hopefully give you a bit of breathing time while you dig out some references too. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep some RS coverage of her work as a designer. Are there other language sources available? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 16:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Seems to be a moderately well-known African designer. [80][81]. (Africa designers as a whole seem to have much less on-line coverage than US counterparts and I would not vote keep on this coverage for a US designer.) Halfmast (talk) 17:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 nom withdraw. Dusti^{talk to me} 17:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quartz Hill High School[edit]

AfDs for this article:

The usual bog standard school - utterly unverified stuff written by people with first hand knowledge and the normal target of IP vandalism adding alleged porn stars to the alumni. Doc^g 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, source, and clean up as necessary. High schools are notable and vandalism is no excuse to delete. I don't have time to edit right now, but Google searches show that the 2 athletes listed as notable alumni and at least one sports title are readily verifiable. • Gene93k (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Edit history indicates that the nominator removed the aborted school attack due to a dead link. It showed up prominently in Google News. From a more direct search: [82] Replacement sources are easy to find ([83] [84]). Nominator should try harder next time. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- update: The planned school attack section has been restored with replacement sources. It needs an update since the plotters are now jailed. I'll fix it later today if another editor doesn't get it first. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Keep. All of the high schools in the Antelope Valley Union High School District appear to have articles, and this may well be the best of the lot. (Lancaster High School (Lancaster, California), which consists mainly of a schedule of class periods, could use some attention, though.) Deor (talk) 13:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It definitely needs cleanup, for example, the "Activities" section can probably be deleted. And of course it needs to be checked to ensure that it's not getting "eyewitness" information added to it by students. But it clearly passes notability guidelines. Why was this even nominated a second time? The first AfD in 2005 was a speedy keep... Is there some reason we really need to be re-discussing this? --El on ka 13:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to schools via that silly "notability" thingy, however, this article like most others of its kind has proven unmaintainable. Unsourced target for vandalism. Basically, not very encyclopedic and not worth the hastle of maintaining.--Doc^g 13:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand. There is almost always suitable sourced material available for high schools-- and our practice is to consistently accept them rather than argue about each one, since it will almost certainly be notable. If we removed articles as vandal targets we'd remove most movie stars and musicians and the president of the US. One thing we do effectively here is vandal fighting. DGG (talk) 13:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A 40+ year old high school is usually presumed to be notable, and this one certainly seems to be. Poor writing and vandalism are not deletion reasons.--Fabrictramp (talk) 13:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough.

O—— The Unknown Hitchhik er 15:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nominating articles about high schools doesn't lead to a better encyclopedia. It just contributes to people getting burned out faster than they would otherwise. --Eastmain (talk) 15:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, close as keep because the result is obvious. But really, the keep arguments are pretty crappy. "A 40 year old high school is notable"? No, actually where 40 years is not remarkable - nearly all are. And the last argument is silly, and invites me to respond that keeping unsourced vandalism targets just burns people out even faster. But whatever.--Doc^g 16:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged and redirected back to Kangaroo word. No idea why it was spun off, really. Black Kite 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English Kangaroo Words[edit]

This is an apparently original-research list of words that contain the letters of another word "with the same meaning". The article does not provide any sources, and the subjective nature of whether or not two words have "the same meaning" just makes this an indiscriminate list. The Kangaroo word article already explains the nature of kangaroo words and illustrates them with sufficient examples. --McGeddon (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Article already exists. Redirect is pointless as no one is going to type "List of English Kangaroo Words". Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any examples that can be reliably sourced into Kangaroo word which isn't really long enough to justify a seperate list. Guest9999 (talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Aren't these more-or-less self-referencing? No interpretation is required to directly determine whether a word-pair are kangaroo words. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at some of the examples I think that there is definately a level of interpretation required. For example most of the words don't actually have the same meaning, they have very similar meanings or they relate to the same subject area - are these considered kangaroo words? How far can the definition be stretched - I don't think this is even made clear in the Kangaroo word article. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not original research, but a centralized collection/reference of all known kangaroo words. Kangaroo words are very rare and deserve a place in wikipedia. Surely there is a place in the internet to archive a wiki collection of known English kangaroo words. We have separated them into a different page/entry so that it doesn't confuse the readability/neatness of the main Kangaroo word article already. The sprawling list of words is outside of the main entry. In fact, they are not sprawling, but an archive of rare objects. By the logic used against this entry, we should also delete List of palindromic places and List of English words with diacritics. Note that the main article kangaroo word was threatened to be deleted before too. Powerslide
Delete - I don't think any listing of words belongs here. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Kangaroo word. Neither this list, nor the article itself, is large enough to justify a spinoff article. Nor will it hurt anything if all 150 or so of these examples get put in the main article. Mandsford (talk) 03:35, 2 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 nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Skinner (footballer born 1972)[edit]

2 Premier League games is hardly Notable Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:BIO says an athlete must have competed at a fully professional level. Nowhere does it stipulate a minimum number of occasions on which he must have done so ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep So how many Premier League matches is notable? Five? Ten? The football notability guideline is pretty clear, and has to work both ways – plenty of footballers who have played one match in a pro league are kept in AfD, while well-referenced articles of footballers who have signed to a major club are often deleted citing the same guideline. --Canley (talk) 07:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His 16 appearances for Bournemouth and 5 for Wycombe were also at a fully pro level, so he made 23 appearances at a fully pro level, easily enough to satisfy the requirement of WP:BIO ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this should never have been nominated. •Oranje•·Talk 08:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per the above. Why was this ever nominated? Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:BIO. Nominator should be more aware of policy/guidelines before nominating. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination I didn't relise that WikiProject Football required such a low level of games played. I though it was just some ex-players vanity piece.Aiden Fisher (talk) 08:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:59, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediism[edit]

The phrase is an obvious neologism. A would not even spell this word that way, if it was a word at all.Aiden Fisher (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. BWH76 (talk) 07:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I cannot find any sources for this supposed belief system. --Pixelface (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; only two Google results for the word. --McGeddon (talk) 07:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per said above. Unknown User (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with other statements. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:NEO, and the only two ghits are informal references to the term. And while there's more results for the word "Wikipedism", again, there's no official reports of it. --JamieS93 13:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Maxa megalon 2000 16:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. Kids playing. A similar 'article' was deleted the other week. Don't know if the culprits are the same.special, random, Merkinsmum 23:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and break out the snow shovel. This is a pretty clear-cut case of a non-notable neologism. Bfigura ^(talk) 00:21, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Parody of Church of Google. Zero Kitsune (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete religioncruft. JuJube (talk) 01:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. KleenupKrew (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:24, 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 speedied, blatant copyvio. Singu larity 05:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nikolai Madoyev[edit]

I'm having a hard time gauging whether this guy is notable or not. Looking his name up on Google gets under 1000 hits, many of them on YouTube, a few puff pieces on forums here and there, but nothing substantial that would befit the claims this article makes. JuJube (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non noteable subject. Doctor Will Thompson (talk) 09:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by Wassupwestcoast (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. JuJube (talk) 06:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk Through Salem[edit]

This seems to be purely a vanity article with no hope of notability: it appears to be about an art project for whose existence there is no evidence except on its author's own website, which refers to this very article as "our new Wikipedia Ad!" Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a place for would-be artists to advertise their own local vanity projects. "A Walk Through Salem" does not appear to be mentioned on the web sites cited in the article as external references, or on the web sites of institutions described as being involved with the project. AJD (talk) 06:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

: Speedy Delete. This is an ad. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; default to keep. Lack of sources doesn't always mean delete - it's an invitation to clean up, and I truly hope that the editors of this article will do that. No prejudice against later nomination for deletion.. - Philippe 02:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceships of EVE Online[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This was nominated for deletion in April 2007 - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spaceships of EVE Online - and kept. However, I believe that the those calling for a keep were largely motivated by WP:ILIKEIT arguments, and additionally, that community standards have moved even further away from such articles being acceptable.

For example, Ashenai argued that "Pages like this one are par for the course for popular MMORPGs, see Runescape skills, or Classes in World of Warcraft." However both of those articles have since been deleted and redirected via AfD discussions here and here.

The article is 100% game guide material, and Wikipedia is not a game guide. There are no reliable third-party sources. In short, this article's content is of exactly the same nature as many that have previously found consensus to delete.

Additionally the entire content can be found on www.eve-wiki.net, see [85]. Stormie (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The EVE page is too large to support the ship page as well, while Wikipedia isnt a game guide - ships are the main part of the game. So it is notable and there is no way to merge it. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- According to Wikipedia:Notability, a topic is presumed to be notable if it "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". If you could add references to such sources to the Spaceships of EVE Online article, that would go a long way towards supporting keeping the article. --Stormie (talk) 06:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete not one reliable source independent of the subject. WP:GAMEGUIDE means what it says, NOT "tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides", and this is a game guide. Sites like eve.wikia.com and www.eve-wiki.net are appropriate places for this sort of material. The EVE Online article is long, and brushes right up to game guide material in some sections. The material in Spaceships of EVE Online should not be merged there, it ought to be deleted. Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete. WP:GAMEGUIDE and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Not sourced. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm curious: What would happen if I nominated, say, the 10 or so Star Wars planet lists for the same reason? Makes me wonder. --Izno (talk) 08:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge. Either lose everyone's work by force, or cut and paste it somewhere else congenially. Don't delete the whole thing! (If you're more of an inclusionist, pretend I'm saying keep). Xavexgoem (talk) 08:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Retracted per Minimaki's comment below. I just get the feeling this is dealing a sharp blow... Xavexgoem (talk) 09:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- As I said in my nomination, this content is all on eve-wiki.net, so nothing would be lost. --Stormie (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

***Um, yes, it would. eve-wiki is terrible unless you're looking for shield resistance bonuses by level or something. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Well, apparently it is there; it's odd that I didn't know about it. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pure gameguide material. Of course the work should not be lost - just put it to another wiki. --Minimaki (talk) 09:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the game is obviously the primary source for this sub-article of EVE Online. Ships in EVE Online appear to play a major role in the game (and the virtual economy of the game), much like Businesses and organizations in Second Life play a major role in Second Life. Does this article tell you how to beat EVE Online? This article doesn't look like a how-to guide or an instruction manual to me. I'm sure there are reviews of EVE Online that mention the ships — much like review of Star Wars mention Star Destroyers or TIE fighters. --Pixelface (talk) 10:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That the article cannot comply with WP:RS (is entirely based on primary sources and game play experience) simply underlines that this article is of no interest to anyone not playing the game. It's all in-universe. By contrast, the Businesses and organizations in Second Life and TIE fighter articles (for all their failings) do relate the subjects to aspects in *this* world. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Game reviews are generally considered reliable sources for videogames and there are many reviews for Eve Online that could be cited in this article.[86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] The in-universe material can be rewritten. And I'm sure some of the reviews contain information on the development and design of ships in the game. Google News also turns up several potential third-party sources.[94] --Pixelface (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a player of eve and an editor of the Eve Wiki, deleting this article would ruin a lot of people's live. A quick look at any of the ship's entries show utter crap; while, numerically, the content is good, it lacks focus, presentation and centralization, which is great and easy to find here. The information can not be merged to the main page for the game, as it is far too large. Barring someone pointing out that OTHERSTUFF exists, we have lists of things in Second Life, lists of things in Star Wars, lists of things in Final Fantasy universes... this isn't different. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 12:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate break out article. RSs for the actual obvious content of a work of fiction like a game can be the work itself. It's of interest to people like me who have heard about the game and want a reasonable amount of detail to understand what people are talking about. DGG (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as verifiable and notable. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 15:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep The main article could not contain the amount of details required to provide a comprehensive overview of this critical part of a notable game. Breakout article - Fosnez (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see tendencies to the article becoming a game guide, however, it largely describes objectively what the ships in EVE Online are about. An example for a more game guide-like section is Command ships. It says, the "Vulture can mount, arguably, the best [sub-capital] shield tank in the game." Thus the paragraph provides a recommendation to some degree instead of writing about the characteristics of Command ships neutrally. I consider these sections slip-ups that we can and should improve upon. However, I don't think these mistakes justify it to call the article as a whole a game guide. I'd rather see us keeping and improving the article instead of deleting it.
The lack of sources that meet all of Wikipedia's standards, i.e. in terms of notability and no original research and reliability, is a valid concern though. And while the developer hosts a database about ships and other in-game items on its website this database does not contain all the information that's currently part of the article. For one thing the database isn't complete as it lacks information e.g. about the so-called Jump Freighters. Then there are also Unique and Limited Edition ships and Game management, event and prototype ships that are hardly officially documented. To me it's a valid concern that there's currently no way to completely validate the article with reliable sources. I don't see a way around this issue, however, I think it's the very nature of EVE Online and it therefore shouldn't count as a argument towards deleting the article. I say we keep it.
-- Aexus (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, qualified; if not, Merge. However inclusionist I may feel, those claiming WP:Gameguide do have a point. Racial distinctions are written too in-universe, there appears to be overuse of terminology and data, and so forth. I would point out, though, that the article violates the spirit of the policy more than the letter. However, as Pixelface noted, the whole point of EVE Online is the ships. I would also add that, due to the nature of the game, EVE's ships are more important than, say, WoW's classes, because EVE places much more emphasis on ships and items (armour, weapons, etc.) as opposed to character skills or rank. Without a doubt, the ships of EVE are easily the most important aspect of the game, and given their number and variations, this seems to be a textbook case for a subpage. Severe pruning seems to be called for, however. Lastly, if the vote goes 'no', I would urge a merge to the primary EVE page--not necessarily in terms of keeping current content; rather, in order to sufficiently cover the primary aspect of the game, an article on EVE Online must have at least a sizable section on ships. Ourai ^тʃ_с 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 08:45, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean-up The problem the article currently has is that it's latched onto the ships and started going into meaningless details, such as the tables of ship names, which tell the average reader absolutely nothing. This is in effect a large, spun-out gameplay article and needs to reflect that. There's a lot of interviews etc. out there covering this game, they should be used to anchor it in reality and provide reception and development details. It could be a very tidy article. Someone another 21:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or massive cleanup. The short answer is that if there's anything here that could possibly blossom into a WP:GA-worthy article it's very well hidden. Here's an overview of the most egregious problems (even before the problems of things that aren't there, like a grounding in reality):
- Obvious minutae: A bulleted list of module slot numbers, and over a dozen tables solely for listing the names of racial variations on ships.
- Reiteration of information in lingo: "railgun-based offensive weaponry" and "bonuses to kinetic damage" convey the same information two different ways. The former is relatively easy to understand. The latter is simply redundant gamer-speak.
- Overemphasis on flavor text: There is this tendency to place emphasis on the description of items equal to that of their function, and often unnecessary attempts to tie the two together lead to redundancy and wordiness. Example problem sentence: "It would seem that this type of emitter is the most advanced, since Caldari have the strongest shields of any race." Also a problem: the word "presumably".

Hopefully this article won't lounge about for another year doing nothing upon which we'll have this discussion yet again. Nifboy (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to the reasons stated above, there are only nine sources, yet the article is 74 KB. An article of that size should certainly have more sources in order to be reliable. --Jedravent (talk) 22:26, 6 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 delete; hardly worth merging.--Kubigula (talk) 02:07, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School of Physiotherapy[edit]

Non-notable constituent school of a larger university with improper naming, lack of reliable sources, and has been orphaned since November of 2006. Noetic Sage 05:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not a directory of university departments. Not notable. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and improper title as nom. Lack of WP:RS. Also be okay with suggesting partial merge to main university article. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete; Single event notability. - Philippe 02:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner Bronson[edit]

Article is about an extremely minor player on the Wisconsin Badgers basketball team. His best appearance in a game resulted in 4 points and 12 minutes, which both are minor. His claim to "fame" is being a walk-on for the team in his first year at college after starting out helping fill water bottles. I don't see how he's notable, even if being a walk-on results in some national press coverage. A single human-interest story doesn't necessarily make someone notable. Royalbroil 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. No matter how minor he is I think as long he is in the team, he should have an article. Maybe a cleanup? Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

- Would you advocate that every member on every major college basketball team get an article? Royalbroil 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry - he is very minor, changed my mind. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - No not everyone, but you said he was on a national press coverage - I think that deseves him to have an article. Or if you want you can merge it with the Wisconsin Badgers page. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#NEWS, Notable for only one event. -Jahnx (talk) 05:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 University of Technology, Sydney. Anything noteworthy can be merged in there. Black Kite 08:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHU Sydney Institute of Language and Commerce[edit]

An institute inside a university with little reason for inclusion, including a lack of reliable sources. I don't believe this article will ever satisfy notability criteria because no sources appear to sufficiently cover this topic. Noetic Sage 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With the university instead of deletion. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN as per nom. - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 06:14, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University of Technology, Sydney. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:11, 3 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 delete.. Nousernamesleft^{copper, not wood} 16:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kennesaw State University Student Recreation Center[edit]

A recreation center at a university is hardly notable by any criteria, but this article specifically fails to provide independent, reliable sources that have significant coverage of the subject. Noetic Sage 04:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of university deletions. —Noetic Sage 04:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - or Merge It would be better to merge it with the university page, but the recrational page looks quite good. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Expand- Notable as the previous basketball gym for the KSU owls as DIV II champions. --Jerm (^Talk/ _Contrib) 14:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reliable independent sources, no claims to notability (being the former gym of some lower division basket club is not really a claim to notability...) Fram (talk) 11:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial coverage PhilKnight (talk) 13:32, 7 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. - Philippe 03:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick J. Cronin[edit]

Borderline case for WP:BIO. Television actor who has a 30-year career but as far as I can tell, has never held significant roles. I seriously doubt that we can find reliable sources to build anything beyond the current stub. Pichpich (talk) 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: There is another article about the same individual at Patrick Cronin. --Canley (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's also a professor at East Tennessee State University, and as such there are some sources to be had in the college's newspaper, the East Tennessean: Cronin's return to stage brings new style to area, ETSU professor, actor Cronin runs as a cancer survivor for Relay for Life, etc. According to La Salle University, he was head of the actors wing at the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. In a case like this, I'm very much inclined to keep due to the arbitrary nature of defining "significant" roles. --Canley (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Canley. John254 22:37, 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 One of many disruptive nominations by possible sock. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Wishnow[edit]

Very non-notable individual, no sources, no RS, only one link to the IMdB that contains millions of non-notable one-bit actors. Delete it. fails WP:BIO. NewAtThis (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there's some RS coverage of his work in digital film promotion. The article needs a re-write, not deletion TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Plenty of reliable secondary coverage in the New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Los Angeles Times, and more. [95] points the way. - Dravecky (talk) 09:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable source easily found with a cursory search -- Whpq (talk) 00:34, 2 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 sources provided for notability (which need adding). Black Kite 08:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Redstone[edit]

Fails WP:BIO. Notability is not inherited. While his siblings have done big things, Brent has not. His parents own big corporations, and his sister does too, but not Brent himself. Delete Undeath (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article makes no mention of what the subject himself has done, if has actually done anything. DarkAudit (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO,NNewAtThis (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete dosent need his own article, some references in his siblings pages shoul be enough. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Fattyjwoods. Unknown User (talk) 08:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability other than being related to notables is even attempted. Camillus (talk) 22:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In-depth coverage by CNN [96], The Denver Post [97], The New York Times [98], Variety [99], The Wall Street Journal [100] and many other sources: [101]. Article needs a re-write, not deletion. - Dravecky (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per Dravecky. Lack of sourcing does not equal deletion. Lack of sourcing is an opportunity to improve the article. - Philippe 03:04, 7 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 Clearly notable, nom has bad habit of disruptive AfDs. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 19:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin von Wahrendorff[edit]

this article on a non notable subject should be deleted it is a possible hoax, does not cite any RS or any sources whatsoever, does not assert notability, no external links, is not verifiable, i can go on. DELETE IT! NewAtThis (talk) 03:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many sources to verify the article, such as [102], [103], [104], [105], and [106]. Editor appears to be trying to make a WP:POINT with these less than civil nominations. DarkAudit (talk) 04:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sources out there to establish his notability, but the article needs a major re-write to include those sources. BWH76 (talk) 07:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge to Student body president. I'll do the redirect with the merge left to interested editors. Tikiwont (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Student Body Vice President[edit]

This subject is probably not worthy of an article. We do not need an article on every possible position of a student government body. There is one source for one particular college. This is a position that is not well defined across all colleges, so I think a comprehensive article is impossible, especially based on just that one source. Metros (talk) 03:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extracurricularactivitycruft? JuJube (talk) 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep clearly notableNewAtThis (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not qualify as a speedy keep. JuJube (talk) 04:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- User is a banned sock. Jfire (talk) 01:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to the not-much-better student body president. We certainly don't need both. --Dhartung | Talk 05:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Merge Notable,, if Student Body President has an article why cant a Vice President have one? Although a merge with the Student Body President article would be better. Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 05:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Good Idea This should be connected with Student Body President article. I agree that the information could be useful to other readers, but a merger should take place...or why not create a new article called "Student Body Officers" that define the many different positions? Sirkevinalot (talk)
Redirect to Student body president per Dhartung. If you know what a student body president is, and you know what a vice president is, you're not going to learn much more from this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article Student Body Vice President Must Not Be Removed

If this article does not stay, then the article named Student Body President should also be deleted then. They both have a purpose as many people might have a question over this particular title, especially after the tragic death of Student Body President of the UNC. Not to mention this can be used for educational purposes so other people can learn about the different types of leaders a school can have that are by the highest ranking working with the school principal and other administrators. Article is also relating to education.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksuwildcats10 (talk • contribs)

Merge to student body president TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Good factual info, but not so large or distinct from Student Body President to merit a separate article. Halfmast (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We often have related topics go to the same article: for example, being flammable and being nonflammable are much more distinct than these two positions, but they both go to flammability. Similarly, I don't see why the vice president position is that deserving of its own article. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 1 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 delete. - Philippe 03:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Nagrant[edit]

Tailback for a Division II team, no evidence of meeting WP:ATHLETE B (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per WP:ATHLETE and does not meet WP:BIO#Basic criteria despite a dozen references. Appears to be an autobiography. (EhJJ)^TALK 16:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:ATHLETE Qworty (talk) 18:53, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, normally I would agree with you, but because of the extensive media coverage on this person and achievments, I will disagree and believe he pass the test of notability. Callelinea (talk) 22:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the many citations, he is always mentioned in passing, and has not been the subject of any of the articles (thus, not passing the Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria). (EhJJ)^TALK 22:59, 2 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 Withdrawn with consensus to keep. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 04:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Brooks[edit]

This article is completely unsourced and does not assert notability nor provide any reliable sources or any sources at all. This may even be a hoax, no proof of subject's existence. Should be deleted at once! NewAtThis (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Emmy-winning designer who was also nominated for a Tony and multiple Oscars per his rather extensive obit in the New York Times. Article needs to have sources added, but they aren't hard to find. This one seems a no-brainer. Deor (talk) 03:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and strongly suggest nominator do some checking before making intemperate nominations. Clearly does assert notability which is easily confirmed. --Dhartung | Talk 03:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

article still does not assert notability nor provide any sources, reliable or otherwise, my vote is till deleteNewAtThis (talk) 03:34, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added the NY Times, IMDb and IBDb references. (According to Kate's Tool, you really are new at this. Oh well, live and learn.) Clarityfiend (talk) 04:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clarityfiend has sourced this and the nomination seems to be carrying on in blind ignorance to the page itself. (By the way, someone should look at User:NewAtThis's page, which is a copy of currently up for AfD Gayelle (lesbian).) JuJube (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Motion to close, speedy keep per recent improvements that deal with the issues, that made me nominate.NewAtThis (talk) 04:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Eisenberg[edit]

This article should be deleted since it fails WP:BIO and is a poorly formatted, shoddily written, unreferenced article regarding an individual that fails WP:N, this article has serious WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR issues. Essentially this is a promotional article about this person's superfluous small time company. The article has generated no substantive edits aside from the creator, regardless of notability and wikify tags that have led to no where. Delete this mess already.NewAtThis (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being quoted in newspaper articles, which is what all the sources in the article amount to, along with all that I can find in searching, doesn't cut the mustard if there are no sources about her. Fails WP:N and WP:RS. Deor (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some coverage as an activist, significance primarily WP:LOCAL. The abuse in the nomination is well over the top and unnecessary; please try to find more civil ways to say things next time, NewAtThis. --Dhartung | Talk 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

abuse!!?? NewAtThis (talk) 03:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"poorly formatted", "shoddily written", "superfluous small time company", "delete this mess". All unnecessary to make your point. The first two are irrelevant to deletion as we have cleanup tags and hundreds of thousands of articles needing it. The second is a personal judgement of the value of someone's contribution to the world, which is not what we are doing when we look objectively for notability. The last is just commanding people to follow your lead, which is inconsistent with developing WP:CONSENSUS, a core policy.--Dhartung | Talk 05:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree the article is indeed poor and shoddy..i don't think wikipedia should have poor and shoddy articles about people without any references. Someone who owns a superfluous company is not of note because their company is not notable. If her company was not superfluous then she would deserve inclusion. The article is a mess by anyone's measure. That's why you suggested cleanup tags, thanks for proving my point. Crappy articles should be deleted, end of story. I suggest you learn to spell judgement the next time you accuse someone of judging others. As for her contributions, they are valueless here, if they were not people would vote keep. Why list something for deletion with a deletion rational if i don't want them to develop consensus for delete. Perhaps we should list articles for consensus. But we don't do we. It's called articles for deletion so i'm gonna promote deletion thank you.NewAtThis (talk) 02:59, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough sources about this person to establish their notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO - the subject of the article is not the focus of significant coverage. BWH76 (talk) 10:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Subject has received significant coverage in the New York Daily News [107], The Brooklyn Paper [108], and The New York Times [109]. Yes, the last is behind a pay-wall on the web but keep FUTON bias in mind. The key is that reliable secondary sources exist to verify and expand this article. - Dravecky (talk) 09:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lot's of people are verifiable, that doesn't make them notable. This woman certainly isn't.68.27.12.1 (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note There is convincing evidence that 68.27.12.1 and NewAtThis are the same person. - Dravecky (talk) 12:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as disruptive nomination by banned sockpuppeteer, with evidence of sock commenting. No prejudice against good-faith renomination. Jfire (talk) 01:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, whom exactly did you have in mind with regard to that "sock commenting" remark? Deor (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to Dravecky's comment above about IP 68.27.12.1. Jfire (talk) 02:17, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, it was obvious that the IP was NewAtThis, and that was pointed out by Dravecky. I've been accused of wikilawyering on occasion myself, but I think that it's probably a bit much to say "start over" when there are four "delete" opinions (other than the nominator's) and only one "keep" opinion (other than your procedural one). I don't appreciate having to comment several times on the same article merely because a nomination has been deemed to be somehow invalid. I've chastised NewAtThis for ridiculous nominations, commented at AN/I with regard to such nominations, and !voted "keep" for several articles he's nominated, but I don't think that making everyone repeat their opinions regarding this article is a good idea. Deor (talk) 02:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to direct your attention to two statements (with emphasis added by me) in WP:SK: An article may be speedy kept if "the nomination was unquestionably vandalism or disruption and nobody unrelated recommends deleting it (since calling a nomination vandalism does not make it so, and vandals can be correct)," and "if subsequent editors added substantive comments in good faith before the nominator's banned status was discovered, the nomination may not be speedily closed (though the nominator's opinion will be discounted in the closure decision)." I think it's clear that this doesn't qualify for a speedy keep. Deor (talk) 23:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep due to problematic nomination as indicated above and also because it is a coherent and referenced article. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - the sources confirm at least part of her biography. PhilKnight (talk) 13:41, 7 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 speedy delete per WP:CSD#A1; insufficient context to even establish existence of article subject. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 03:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thirlmere Primary School[edit]

No sources are given in the article and having done a Google search it seems unclear that an institution by such name exists in the United Kingdom. If the institution does exist by another name then it will probably be hard to identify it since the only identifying feature given in the article - the name gives no results when matched with the name of the school[110]. As it stands the article may be a hoax and even if it's not without evidence of significant coverage by reliable, independent sources, it is likely on a topic which is not notable. Guest9999 (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable school, even if the school exists, it must have more notability than just existing, or being in lists of schools or directories to be included in wikipedia. AlbinoFerret (talk)
Delete Nothing indicates the school's notability; the article itself doesn't really even have much context to be able to identify that. --JamieS93 02:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Motion to speedy deleteNewAtThis (talk) 03:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Teodor Keko[edit]

This article is unreferenced, so it fails wikipedia's most fundamental policy, of verifiability. The edit screen for creation of a new article clearly warns editors that unreferenced material may be deleted, and this article has been tagged as unreferenced since June 2006, which is quite long enough for references to be have been added. However, they haven't been added, and after 21 months it's time for this article to be deleted as unverified. A new article on the subject may of course be written in future, if it is referenced to met WP:V and to establish notability.

I PRODded the article, but the PROD was removed with only the comment "decline prod", so I am bringing it to AFD — the problems have not been fixed.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was I who declined the prod. I did so because its author, PDH, who is no longer with us, was one of the finest editors we've ever had, and in my opinion any article that she saw fit to create is prima facie encyclopaedic, and should not be deleted simply because she is not here to defend it. I am satisfied now that this has come before the wider community. I myself have no comments to make on the merits of the article. Hesperian 02:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable author and journalist. He also held public office in Albania.[111][112][113] Articles needing work is not a reason to delete. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:V#Burden_of_evidence: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". With all due respect to late PDH, she didn't do great work in creating an unref article, and while I'm happy rate contributors by their contributions, the corollary of rating contributions by the contributor is a poor form of assessment, as this unreferenced article demonstrates.
  WP:V#Burden_of_evidence also says "Any edit lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references" and "Do not leave unsourced information in articles for too long" ... but this one has had two years. By all means improve the article if you can to establish that it meets verifiability and notability thresholds, but right now it fails. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Re: PDH, she's not dead, she just doesn't contribute much any more. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Hesperian 03:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the volume and depth of Google Books references indicates this article can be sourced such that notability is satisfied. --Dhartung | Talk 03:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep http://books.google.com/books?q=%22Teodor+Keko&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&sa=N&tab=wp, and http://news.google.com/archivesearch?sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS176US236&um=1&tab=pn&q=%22Teodor+Keko seem to indicate notability. Hobit (talk) 04:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sources available, as outlined above. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
speedy keep as obviously notable. "may be deleted' means may be deleted if other people are convinced that no sources can be found, not, must be deleted if it is presently unsourced. The article could probably have been sourced just as easily as taken here. Deletion is the last resort, and Afd should not be used to improve articles. Sourcing should be used to improve articles. Obviously its the primary obligation of the person writing the article, but then of everyone who can help. DGG (talk) 06:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Well known journalist, poet, parlimentarian, former Minister of Culture in his country. Ample written sources to create a good article on this encyclopedic subject - Peripitus (Talk) 13:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that he was a MP, by longstanding practice here all members of national parliaments are accepted as notable. DGG (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for being the legislator: notability of national legislators isn't just convention; it's written into WP:BIO. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 1 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 del `'Míkka >t 16:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Subconscious (band)[edit]

No WP:RS, non-notable. Delete. Bstone (talk) 01:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. Non notable band. Undeath (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 03:24, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet WP:MUSIC. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Deletenot notable Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 06:05, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: This article was cut and pasted and taken from the main topic of Subconscious as part of a disambiguation from the word "Subconscious" hence the added "____ (band)" many years ago (over five years ago!) I am not the creator of this article. My name is in the edit history, but this goes back to January 2003, over five years ago. I am not the one who wrote the article, nor do I have an interest in it, but it would be fair to notify and ask those who may have an interest in it and this subject to review and comment on it. The nominator is requested to seek more input in the future, as he should have done here, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Noticeboard to improve the article and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal as well as notifying music lovers at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music. And since it's about a German band, it should also have been made known to editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Germany. This is the correct way to function on Wikipedia and not to seek out random articles to delete at whim. Incidentally, there are lesser important articles wih this kind of title, such as Sub Sub Conscious (TV episode) and it would be best to seek WP:CONSENSUS with those more familiar about any subjects before running to nominate articles related to them for deletion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 09:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No notable features per WP:MUSIC jump from the page. Google is not very helpful and the German equivalent to this article was deleteed 2 years ago per this discussion (de). Agathoclea (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Regardless of how long this article has survived on Wikipedia, I see nothing at all that indicates notability per WP:MUSIC. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 12:37, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Frankly, there's not a damn thing in WP:CONSENSUS requiring a nom to post to six different discussion boards prior to filing an AfD, a startling notion IZAK has not before now to my knowledge proposed in AfD discussions. Hundreds of editors pay attention to AfD, and if disinterested observers can't readily establish the notability and verifiability of a subject with a bit of research, then the subject doesn't need to have an article here. RGTraynor 19:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Here here~~. There, there!Bstone (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bstone: It's "hear, hear" -- and I was not defending this article with my "NOTE" above, which you seem to misunderstand, I was requesting that you try to extend yourself by notifying editors at the correct locations who may have an interest in music. I know nothing about this topic and I am not voting either way. Note, that when I sometimes come across diverse but similar sounding topics that are over-crowding a page, I try to see if it should be WP:DABed, which is what happened in this case as I neither wrote nor added to nor edited this article. Hope this is clear. Thanks for taking note. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RGTraynor: Kindly do not twist my intentions and please WP:AGF. Thanks. I was not asking anyone to post in six different places but I was pointing out that there were at least six good places to take up this issue prior to running to delete the article, and Bstone could have tried at least ONE of them before taking this sort of action. I have in the past requested of Bstone that when nominating articles relating to Jews and Judaism topics that he at least notify the ONE such right venue, at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Judaism, something he has stubbornly refused to do, see User talk:Bstone/Archives/03/2008#REQUEST x 3, again. and his responses at User talk:IZAK#Re: REQUEST x 3, again. and it is upsetting to see that he does not wish to do things that will enhance contributions on Wikipedia rather than disgruntle editors. What bugged me even more was that I don't even care about this article since I am not its creator but why try to destroy the work of others who unlike me are interested in this music-related topic without at least giving them at least a little notice at at least ONE obvious venue at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Music. Thanks for trying to see what's going on here. 21:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
IZAK, I think everyone on Wikipedia will agree when I say that your personal and professional editing issues with me are best dealt with on my talk page- not on a random article AfD. Please respect this. Bstone (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, IZAK, I don't buy it. If you had, in fact, intended to say "Here are several venues you could have tried," you should have said just that. Your "ands", "as well as" and "should also have been" are quite unambiguous; presuming you genuinely meant what you clearly stated is scarcely an AGF violation. Now, if instead of telling us that we misunderstood, you'd like to tender a "Sorry about that," and correct your language to the message you'd prefer to get across, no problem. RGTraynor 02:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RGTraynor: I was writing quickly, so the words may not have come out as perfectly as you may have wanted them to read. When I wrote the first NOTE it was to point out the options, if the language was not clear enough I am sorry. But again, let me stress, I don't care about the article, it means nothing to me because I do not know anything about this subject. My concerns were that to nominate articles for deletion without letting a wider group of editors know who may care about it for real should not be overlooked, hence my stress on trying to have it noted in the other forums, none of which were informed. In hindsight I may have worded it differently, but what concerns me is that Wikipedia should not lose articles to deletionism without due notice and due process, nothing more and nothing less. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 05:05, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No labels, no tour → no article, per WP:MUSIC. In fact, I don't see an assertion of notability, making it eligible for a speedy, even if it was split out of subconscious. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually declined the speedy based on what I saw as a claim to notability that deserved wider scrutiny, which I'm pleased to see is being done here. --jonny-m t 09:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even the new Album is only released on a very small label. Codeispoetry (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Delete due to the failure of meeting the notability standard of WP:MUSIC, but I'm kind of enjoying this little squabble and wouldn't want this afd to end prematurely :-). --brew crewer (yada, yada) 02:10, 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 delete. Singu larity 05:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NoteBurner M4P Converter[edit]

Non-notable software. Not much more to say, except "contested PROD". Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:46, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nn software. JJL (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:PRODUCT -Gwguffey (talk) 02:15, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, insufficient third-party coverage to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Non-notable software product. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 05:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Butt harp[edit]

Non notable sex toy. The only mentions are by the one person, RICHH on some blog. I can't find any other mentions on the web. Also, the book entry states only a mention of the device, but fails to give any description about it. I say delete per WP:N and possibly WP:V. Undeath (talk) 00:33, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Undeath[reply]

Delete, with a suppressed giggle. A couple of pornographic stories posted to USENET hardly count as sources! Zetawoof_(ζ) 00:40, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sounds like a hoax, at least I hope it is. AlbinoFerret (talk) 02:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not for things made up on Usenet one day -- and this clearly was made up one day, as it hasn't been covered in any reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I agree it's probably a hoax, and there does not appear to be enough coverage to establish that it is a notable hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC).[reply]
- "Hoax" would imply that it was intended to be taken seriously. The sense I get, looking at the USENET posts, is that it was intended to be a somewhat silly erotic fantasy, nothing more. Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Aye, that's what I meant - it's not a real object, but rather a bit of a joke. And one that never really caught on. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:RS and in my opinion is WP:MADEUP. Not encyclopedic in anyway. Obliterate... POOF! --Pmedema (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN, Hoax, less than 1000 results on Google — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 17:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do other string instruments come in butt varities too? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know, but you are welcome to find out. :) Undeath (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:SEXTOY. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 18:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should that be a redirect to Wikipedia:Don't be a dick? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WTF?! Anyway, I have to agree with the Hammer and Undead Warrior on this one. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. OK, I'm the article author, so I'm obviously a little biased. But I did not primarily write this article because I thought it was funny or cute or anything like that. I would not create an article just to tell a joke, no matter how good. I came across the phrase and had to dig a little to find out the definition and history. And once I did that, I thought it was article worthy for the following reasons, which I mentioned on the talk page for the article:
- this article explains the naming of a usenet newsgroup, something which I think should happen for every usenet newsgroup up to the beginning of the net explosion, around 1995. As a key forerunner of the probably millions of web forums that exist today, usenet history is important.
- it relates to the history of one of the earliest internet social groups, talk.bizarre, which I think should be documented. Up until 1995, the number of internet based communities which took on a physical component (with the members holding gatherings and flying cross-country to meet each other in person, moving in with each other, etc.) is probably only in the range of a couple of dozen; alt.callahans is the only other usenet one I can think of from this period that was not professionally based. Documenting the history of how virtual community became physical community in the early days of the net is important.
- richh is fascinating as someone who led a double life, writing numerous stories of his supposed escapades that blended in real people and real facts from his life, while never revealing that he was in fact seriously disabled. Despite having actually met and dated people via his participation in online community, the fact that he was usually restricted to a wheelchair, unable to use one side of his body, did not become public until after his suicide in 2001. I find this pretty compelling, and probably worthy of a separate article.
- I don't know if anyone has ever built one of these or tried to use it, but I'm far from sure how many people have actually performed a Dirty Sanchez either. Since the article notes that the device may well be fictional, I don't see a problem.
- It's not OR, it's not NPOV, it's verifiable. It's not a hoax, though obviously I didn't stress the probably fictional aspect enough. It's not something a friend of mine made up; I'd not heard of it or richh until around when I wrote the article. I'd agree that it was only trivially notable if it weren't for the usenet connections. -- Akb4 (talk) 07:37, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nuke it even the article contributers admit in the article that little enough is known they're not sure if its real or not. Hardly encyclopedic. --BrucePodger (talk) 21:27, 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 no consensus to delete. - Philippe 03:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fat cat (term)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

This page is a mere dictionary definition, something which Wikipedia is not. A very good definition already exists at Wiktionary. While encyclopedia pages may begin with a definition, Wikipedia policy requires that they have something beyond merely lexical content to survive at Wikipedia. Despite a number of attempts on a number of different pages, no one has yet found any content that was any better than the Wiktionary entry. I see no future potential for expansion past this dictionary entry. But if I'm wrong, the page can always be created when that non-lexical content is created. In the meantime, we should continue to point the people who want to write dictionary entries over to Wiktionary where the editors and policies (such as the verification rules) are better tuned for pages about words. Rossami (talk) 00:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Rossami misunderstands the policy. It states that articles should have genuine potential to become more than merely a dictionary definition. It has that, with a 'use in culture' section which details the impact of the term. This widely used term, covered many times in reliable sources, is no less notable than any other in Category:political terms. Mostlyharmless (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don’t see how the nominator misunderstands policy in this way, the user specifically states they think there is "no future potential for expansion past this dictionary entry" - maybe you disagree with them on this point but the issue is certainly addressed. Guest9999 (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that the statement "Wikipedia policy requires that they have something beyond merely lexical content to survive at Wikipedia" is completely incorrect, if interpreted in an immediatist (rather than eventualist) sense, as the following comment seems to indicate. In any case, the article deals with the impact of the word, which is within the scope of an encylopedia. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Currently the "Use in Culture" section is just original research. The first sentence is completely unsourced and the seocnd doesn't link to any sources that support what is stated; just to examples that a user has infered the statement from - i.e. synthesis. Guest9999 (talk) 02:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I understand the policy quite well. I also know that there is a great deal of difference between eventualism and ignoring a page which has been unable to be improved for a significant period of time. The earliest versions of this page date back to June 2004 (then simply at the title Fat cat). Ignoring the spin-outs for the Rescue Rangers character and the record label (and several short-lived versions such as the non-notable food truck), there has never been a version that rose past the level of dictionary definition. Eventually, we have to admit that there is nothing encyclopedic to say on the topic.
  To Mostlyharmless' other point, usage notes are exactly the kind of content that one would expect to see in a truly great unabridged dictionary like Wiktionary. Social commentary about lobbying, campaign finance reform or executive compensation belong in those articles, not glued in here just because a cartoonist casually used the slang term when making the reference. Even assuming that the original research concerns can be addressed, merely adding a "use in culture" section is not a free pass around the requirement to find encyclopedic content. Rossami (talk) 04:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I !voted for deletion of a previous unreferenced version, but this has the beginnings of an article. This really does have a specific political meaning in the US that lasted half a century until campaign finance reform, and a similar meaning remains in the UK, while in the US it has lapsed into a more general usage (if it's used at all). In other words, it isn't a "usage note", but an actual meaty topic. I'll add some material in this direction. --Dhartung | Talk 04:43, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having encountered the term in history studies, I think it has the potential to be expanded into something much more than a lexical page. Keep in mind that wikipedia does not have deadlines. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 05:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The essay you just linked to states "We can afford to take our time, to consider matters, to wait before creating a new article until its significance is unambiguously established." Guest9999 (talk) 06:13, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and over several years of deletion discussion nothing seems to have emereged that would indicate that this article can be anything more than a dictionary definition. The current sources used in the article aren't actually about the term, they're just examples of it being used and putting them in this context would seem to border on original research. The fact that a phrase has been used - even if it has been used in important situations - shouldn't mean it warrents an article without reliably sourced evidence that it (and its use) have been the subject of coverage and commentary. Guest9999 (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep important concept and worth an extended discussion. Encyclopedias and dictionaries overlap. This is encyclopedic. DGG (talk) 06:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per preceding. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per preceding. Lily1104 (talk) 08:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef and original research. You take out the WP:OR in this article, all you're left with is a dictionary definition. BWH76 (talk) 10:25, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictionary definition plus some vaguely related material in the History section. I don't see the potential for an encyclopedia article here. We already have an article at Campaign finance reform which seems a more logical place for the material currently included in the History section.--Michig (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Dictionary definition. The potential to become encyclopedic mentioned is not there to strain credulity. Etymology is not encyclopedic, but lexical. "Examples of people called this" is not encyclopedic, but random listing. When a lexical term can become encyclopedic is when it is itself a culturally active term. "Fat cat" is not. The fat cat has eaten all the mice. <shrug> Not much there. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

look it up on google - just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean that it hasn't been significant. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not just a dictionary def, the article also contains history of the term and other details. Fosnez (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have seen this term in many contexts outside of Wikipedia. An encyclopedia article on it can be developed. Captain panda 03:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - most of what is being added to the article isn't actually about the term fat cat - it is about those described as fat cats - businesspeople and political donors. To me this seems like a violation of WP:NPOV - articles on other perjoratives describe the use and history of the term, they generally avoid taking the description of the term and attributing it to the group it is meant to demean. If the term itself has been discussed that is one thing, it is another just to take instances of when the term has been used and then turn the article into a POV content fork of Campaign finance using the title as a coatrack(links to essay) with which to list the insults against a group of people. Guest9999 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice on recreation An article on fat cats can probably be written. It would detail things like what impact they have on the political decision making process, what is being done to curtail or encourage their contributions, and what the public in general feels about them. The current article though is a dicdef and does not belong on wikipedia. Taemyr (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, if this word is deleted, are we going to destroy everything in Category:Political_terms too? Cause that's the implications of the deletionist tone being voiced here. Mostlyharmless (talk) 01:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

wax anyone? Anyway, to your question; ABC countries is not a dicdef, it is a short article about the pact of 1915. Absentee ballot is an article about methods for casting votes without turning up, not a dicdef. Absurdistan is a dicdef and I would vote for it's deletion if it was up on AfD. The aestheticization of politics looks to be a stub about a concept, there is little other than a dicdef there as of now but that I feel has more to do with it's stub status than anything else. So using the excellent sampling method of picking the articles in alphabetical order and a broad sample of 4 articles we find 2 that is not dicdef's 1 that probably could become more than a dicdef and 1 article that probably is a dicdef. Does this answer your question? Taemyr (talk) 02:02, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this could be more than a dictionary definition, if it isn't already. — brighterorange (talk) 12:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Noor Aalam (talk) 22:37, 3 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 Delete. The Placebo Effect (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Dennett[edit]

Russell Dennett was not a full member of The Human League but was retained as a musician. This is the article’s only claim to notability. His time with the Human League was unremarkable and as he is no longer active at that level of the music industry this article will never be more than a stub. It appears from recent edit summaries that he personally does not wish to be on Wikipedia, nor be associated with The Human League. If this is genuine (and in good faith one assumes it is) the claim to notability is even thinner. This article was WP:CSD on creation. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:42, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article says that Russell Dennett played for the Human League from 1986 to 1996, though it also says that he did his own band starting in 1994. However, the Human League article doesn't place Dennett in the league until 1990 (perhaps there's some confusion with Jim Russell, who also played the synthesizer), and Human League's heyday was the 1980s. Assuming he didn't come on until after the "Don't You Want Me" and "(You're Only) Human" days, I agree that he doesn't seem notable. Mandsford (talk) 21:08, 25 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, Nabla (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC) - Nabla (talk) 23:59, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable musician, fails WP:BIO (no evidence of substantial coverage in independent, reliable sources). I'm not sure why this was relisted; WP:NOT#BUREUCRACY, so why so require more input on the removal of material when an uncontested case has been made that it fails to meet wikipedia's inclusion criteria? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am reluctant to delete any article brought to AfD without discussion. Sure the nomination was not contested but it was not supported either. One nomination plus a comment that partially agrees are hardly a sample large enough to demonstrate any kind of consensus. It's not about bureucracy, it's about having at least a bit of discussion. - Nabla (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly does meet the relevant policy Wikipedia:Notability (music):"The first release was on New Year's Eve 1994 and was the single "Tell Me When" which gave the band their first top 10 hit since 1986's "Human". The accompanying album, Octopus, returned the band to the UK top 10 and later achieved a Silver disc." HL article. Johnbod (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Session guys are anonymous for a reason: the people brought in to be on a record here or there have to meet notability on their own, and not on the basis of the bands they guest with. It's like a spouse, in that regard, and we have reasoned that spouses do not get articles unless they are independently notable. In other words, a mention in the article on The Human League is fine, but when we're talking about striking out a biography of a guest player, that player has to have achieved fame and comment on his or her own. In this case, the figure does not qualify. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed as a band member for 10 yrs at their article. Neither that, nor his article, reflects the nominators OR assertion that he was "not a full member". Johnbod (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete there's minimal RS coverage of him in connection with the band. TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 15:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for notability and verifiability concerns or, alternatively, Redirect. Redirect may be appropriate here. I'm not sure if he was a full member of the band or not. His AMG profile lists his sole credit on one 1994 album here, where he is listed as "programming". He has songwriting credit for a b-side (apparently co-written with two others.) I've scanned the 148 unique google hits on "Russell Dennett" & "Human League", and I can't find any WP:RS to verify that he was a band member for 10 years. Actually, I can't find any RS at all. Many mentions are Wikipedia mirrors or non-reliable sources that list him only as "additional personnel" (see, for example, this.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:51, 7 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 delete. Singu larity 05:34, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mud Mud Ke Na Dekkh Mud Mud Ke[edit]

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. PhilKnight (talk) 11:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- unverifiable future film. - Longhair\^talk 11:12, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It doesn't exist yet. If it gets released, gets noticed, gets patrons, and makes a splash, it'll need an article. Until then, we just have a picture of pretty people. Utgard Loki (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:CRYSTAL & WP:NFF. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN nonexistent film. Anyways, I believe that it should be spelled "Mud Mud Ke Na Dekh Mud Mud Ke" — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 17:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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