Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 May 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 1 May 3 >

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 Deleted by Orangemike at 16:04, 2 May 2008. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silverfleet Capital Partners LLP[edit]

Silverfleet Capital Partners LLP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not provide proof of what little notability is asserted. "notable buyouts" doesn't really cut it, and there is no support or qualification of this supposed notability. SGGH speak! 15:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I suggest discussing a merger or redirection; the article is largely redundant with Jurriaen Aernoutsz. Sandstein (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Acadie[edit]

Dutch Acadie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There was no place named "Dutch Acadie" or "Dutch Acadia" and historians do not refer to such a place even retrospectively. Google hits [1] return seven hits, of which the only non-Wikipedia site that actually refers to the term "Dutch Acadia" is a personal website. books.google.com returns zero hits [2]. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment google books does not hit 0. Take a look.
http://books.google.com/books?id=w4IBAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg
http://books.google.com/books?id=9sLDM9xujP0C&q=Dutch+Acadie&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg&pgis=1
http://books.google.com/books?id=n71jGQAACAAJ&dq=Dutch+Acadie&ei=W70bSIXWPJ2YtAO15pzrBg
Those are books based solely on Acadia. There are more if you type in "Dutch Acadie", breif sections of books that talk about it. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Comment Those are not correct searches for the term "Dutch Acadie". They are searches for the terms "Dutch" and "Acadie". The two are not the same, as anyone who knows how to use a search engine properly knows. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 01:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Go to google books and type in Dutch Acadie. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep and possibly rename. The Dutch Wikipedia article is very extensive with many references to this former political entity. That is a very good starting point for this article. I'm finding various terms though, like in the "Acadia was also Dutch" section of this reference.--Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The fact that the Dutch WP has an article on it is not evidence for anything. As an illustration of the problems of looking at other language WP's articles, the Dutch Wikipedia article on its own empire is seriously inaccurate, giving itself vast colonies in Iran [3] (until Red4tribe changed the map a second ago), and the editors at the Spanish WP have decided to award themselves Portugal's empire [4], though through extensive discussion here at the English WP Talk:Spanish Empire we have decided firmly against that. There appear to be very lax standards at play at the other languages' WPs and they should in no way be viewed as a reason for doing anything here at the English WP. Also, that website is a self-published one, as I have repeatedly pointed out to Red4tribe, such websites are not permissible sources under WP policy.The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response. Red Hat, you might want to check your facts. Did you actually look at that map in the Dutch Empire article? The green coloring in Iran doesn't refer to Dutch colonies, but operations of the Dutch East India Company, which in fact did have major operations in what is today known as Iran. You have not substantiated your attempt to discredit Dutch Wikipedia as "Dutch aggrandizing". As for your off-topic attack on Spanish Wikipedia for showing a map of the Spanish Empire that included Portugal, Spain did in fact rule Portugal from 1680 to 1740 (see History of Portugal (1578-1777) and Iberian Union). Spain didn't officially recognize Portuguese independence until the Treaty of Lisbon (1668) which ended the bitter Portuguese Restoration War. If you're going to attack heavily researched articles on any Wikipedia site, I would strongly advise doing research of your own before making the attacks as they are only backfiring. --Oakshade (talk) 03:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response. Yes, I did check my facts, actually. I have around fifty books on European colonial empires in my personal library, including C. R. Boxer's The Dutch Seaborne Empire 1600-1800. Perhaps you can provide a map that suggests that that large area of Iran was a "base of operation of" the VOC? Anyway let us not get off topic here. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 03:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're the one who choose to go on this bizarre off-topic attack on foreign language Wikipedias. As far as Dutch East India Company (VOC) operations in Iran, see this from "The Cambridge History of Iran" (this took a 1 second Google search. Surprising your "fifty books" make no mention of this). Just to keep this slightly on-topic, that was only reason why you felt Dutch Wikipedia should be discredited for their article on Dutch Acadia in Dutch Wikipedia. --Oakshade (talk) 03:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I see no reason why other Wikipedias should be ignored and forgotten. It is very ignorant to suggest because of one article(map) that all other wikipedias have "lax standards". If you take a look at this http://www.nationaalarchief.nl/AMH/map.aspx?lang=en you can see maps of the VOC in Iran. Anyways, back to Acadia, I don't think a name change is needed but if it has to be to keep the article that will have to be done. There is really no good reason for this article being deleted. (Red4tribe (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep & rename (or Merge information into relevant parent article(s)) – Capt. Aernoutsz only captured (and briefly held) two small French forts (Pentagouet and Jemseg) and on the basis of just the first claimed all of Acadia and Nova Scotia for the Netherlands. Since the Dutch never captured more than this tiny piece of Acadia and never introduced Dutch colonists, it’s rather a stretch to speak of a “Dutch Acadia” (which would be the proper English rendering, not “Acadie”); in fact, it is not even the name Aernoutsz gave it when he claimed it. The topic of this article is encyclopedic, but the matter is more appropriately treated as a military adventure/incursion and the title should reflect this. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am happily disposed toward Askari Mark's solution; the only thing that gives me pause is that the article is already substantially identical to Jurriaen Aernoutsz, so expansion of that article would be a better choice. I don't think the name Dutch Acadie is at all appropriate -- at best it could be something like Dutch invasion of Acadia. But still, we're back to having not much more than is in the Captain's article already. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the image in the article seems to indicate that it was called Nova Hollandia... 70.51.9.170 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Dutch Acadie never existed and appears to be a coined phrase. A Dutch ship captured two barely defended French forts and were re-taken a month later. The Netherlands never had any rule over the area. No reliable sources for term "Dutch Acadie" as per Ghits and GoogleBooks cited by The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick. DoubleBlue (Talk) 16:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a minor historical footnote which is already adequately covered in our articles on Acadia and Jurriaen Aernoutsz — it simply isn't a topic that requires a separate article. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per DoubleBlue. GreenJoe 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article contains content on a notable subject which belongs in an encyclopedia. Renaming of the article and any possible merging are matters for talk and project page discussion, not AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect, per User talk:DoubleBlue above, this does not seem to have been a significant political entity. While there is some minor coverage on Google books, I'm not certain that a Dutch pamphlet published in 1858 qualifies as a reliable source. A mention in the Acadia article is definitely warranted, but not a whole article to itself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete or Merge into Dutch_colonization_of_the_Americas - The fact remains that the Dutch took two forts from the french, claim the whole area but left unable to defend or establish trading posts. If anything, it was a victory against the french but hardly a take over espeically when you consider the abandonment and the fact that most of the French forces were elsewhere. I do not mean it to be erased but it is simply not true that the claim was valid, nor was it ever held. It could not be considered as having any part of the empire and besides a passing reference in Acadia history or in the history of the Dutch Colonies of American (see link). Again, these references should only be passing. Most of the information is taken either directly from other Wikipedia articles are private websites or a book, that does not claim fact but account. In addition, EVERY reference basically mocks the claim when they mention it, clearly deminstrating it was nothing more then a paper claim with no backing. The example I use is that the Emperor of China claimed to be emperor of everything, but clearly the Chinese empire does not encompose the whole universe because at the time he could hardly support his "claim". With nothing more than that, this was just two battles won, hardly a colony take over. -Kirkoconnell (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep renaming, and rewriting - the lead does not explain what is going on, and some context in terms of more substantial Dutch colonies in N America is needed. But the subject is worth a short article. Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability, the (deleted) article on the band claimed that they had sold "over 10 albums worldwide". NawlinWiki (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Bob Experience Discography[edit]

The Bob Experience Discography (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Discography for minor band. Band's article has been speedied twice for lack of claims to notability. Fails WP:BAND. Bad title too ("discography" is not a proper noun). — Gwalla | Talk 23:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete The band isn't notable, so their discography isn't notable either. If I were an admin I'd speedy this as an extension of WP:CSD#A7 (this is already tagged for A7). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not certain that it's absolutely true that the band's notability status is inherited by its discography article, but I agree that in this case the band is not notable and neither is this discography. Erechtheus (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Could possibily be speedily deleted per A7 (bands). Razorflame 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus. Not doing a redirect at this time, as I agree this is a highly unlikely string of characters to put into search. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We Are Hip Hop, Me, You, Everybody[edit]

We Are Hip Hop, Me, You, Everybody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable per WP:MUSIC which clearly states: "Demos, mixtapes, bootlegs, promo-only, and unreleased albums are in general not notable; however, they may be notable if they have significant independent coverage in reliable sources." (emphasis mine) This 4 disc set is a bootleg, but no sources are offered to show any independent coverage whatsoever and I was unable to locate any myself. There are plenty of Ghits but nothing that looks like it could meet WP:RS or show sufficient coverage to meet WP:MUSIC guidelines; there was nothing on Gnews. WP:MUSIC is clear that a bootleg, even by a major artist, is not notable without significant independent coverage and there is just no evidence of that here. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 23:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per OlenWhitaker's rationale. Erechtheus (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC) On second thought, this is notorious enough that the title is a useful search term. I will suggest a redirect to Mos Def, possibly protected if it appears that protection would be appropriate. Erechtheus (talk) 00:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider it a particularly likely search term if only because of the myriad ways it could be punctuated (as demonstrated in the Google search.) Still, a slightly useful redirect may well be better than no redirect at all. I still favour deletion, but redirection would also make sense; I could go along with that as well. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 01:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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. Though several people looked for sources, no independent reliable sources have been found. If they do turn up, there is no prejudice against recreation. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bijokko Yume Monogatari[edit]

Bijokko Yume Monogatari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is not notable enough to qualify for an article in wikipedia. See WP:NN. The only way to show that this is notable would be to find reliable third party sources that talk about this game. I welcome someone to do so, because the only mentions I can find of this game are on a few unreliable lists on the web. Randomran (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Contested Speedy Delete? I tried to speedy delete this, but someone contested it. Now there's nobody here with any strong opinion one way or the other. Why tie this up in bureaucracy? This is clearly non-notable and should be deleted. Randomran (talk) 17:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are the "only mentions" you found online sources? According to the article, the game is old, so we might have to dig into off-line sources like old Japanese magazines. That the notability is not established seems to be a good ground for the deletion, though. -- Taku (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I wouldn't have the faintest idea where to find any resources on this except online. But based on the online research, this fails a basic notability test. Randomran (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment while there are a few more online hits for 美女っ子夢物語 (google count ~= 40), none of them lend a great deal towards establishing notability. Even the Japanese wikipedia article on the strip-mahjong video game genre (yes, there is such a thing) ja:脱衣麻雀 does not mention this particular game anywhere that I could see. Nichibutsu's home page lists it, and MAME ROMs prove that the game existed as well, but I don't see this article being expanded from online sources. Neier (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would it be out of line to convert this article into one about the genre, in that case? Just a thought. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is an article about the genre called computer mahjong which is in pretty rough shape as is. I can't even see how this game is notable enough to warrant a mention in an article, let alone its own article. I tried to PROD this, but someone contested it. So let's wait and see if someone can establish any level of notability. Randomran (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Obscure game that fails WP:N, never mind WP:V.  Ravenswing  15:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable for the English WP. Lara❤Love 16:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the moment (the things you find out editing wikipedia). Looking through google entries the subject matter looks legitimate, and thus not a hoax. I like to think that wikipedia can be better than the internet as such and thus some attempt at sourcing beyond sitting on one's proverbial and typing into google. I recommend keep as a default option at present due to the likelihood of sources - if it were avaiable commercially then it will have been notable. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The contents were effectively merged into Yahoo! Sports, and the article was redirected. This seems to be a solution which most think is acceptable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yahoo! Fantasy Sports[edit]

 Done Selective merge of material into the Yahoo! Sports article, per WP:BOLD. --GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

AfDs for this article:
Yahoo! Fantasy Sports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - WP:NOT Wikipedia is not for sales catalogs. Look at the article and you'll clearly see that is what it appears to be. It is a blatent advertisement. Whether or not you feel Yahoo Fantasy is notable, I think we have a deeper issue here. Page has been requested for work for quite sometime now and no one has been able to upgrade it to wiki standards. It is unencyclopedic. SEE: Yahoo! Fantasy Games Site, Also a bit of copying straight from Yahoo going on. Most of the article looks like just this webpage on Yahoo. At the very least page should be merged to Yahoo! Sports without section "Fantasy Games Offered". That's why I brought the article here. The only section in the article is a sales pitch. Thanks! GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You couldn't have read my reason that fast. Please read it, article needs to be fixed, otherwise it will keep coming here. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I did read your reasoning. The subject is very notable indeed; I see plenty of reliable third party sources in a Google News search. Just because nobody's bothered to fix it is immaterial; you could always fix it yourself if you wanted. And if you think it could be better off merged (which I disagree with), you could have placed {{merge}} on it instead. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Read the page and the site I provided. It is an advertisement. What if Nike decided to change their page to just their sales pitches? Nike is clearly notable. So do we keep it! Where do we draw the line. And Broil, you requested a merge before.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check the article's history; I helped write the article! I don't feel that it is advertising, or else I wouldn't have written what I contributed. Any article about a company could be cynically looked upon as advertising. I don't want it to be merged anymore. I've had time to think about it. I was offering a compromise earlier. Royalbroil 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then fix it Royal. How come you've ignored it all these months? You said in the first discussion there was not enough material to pass it off as an acceptable stand alone article. You cannot simply say keep it cause you helped write it. That's a COI is it not? And of course any page can looked upon as advertising if you feel that way, but this page is like having the Nike page just listing all the different sneakers they are selling at the moment. -UWMSports (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, my reasoning for keeping is same as the last times. I see five independent reliable sources which verify its notability. I changed my comment to merge last time as an offering to compromise since it had been weaker on sources. That is no longer the case. Royalbroil 16:55, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Five sources yes, but five sources that only give about 9 sentences. Obviously they don't offer enough to give a full page article. The article has not been expanded by more than a sentence or two since you offered a merge. I'm still confused on how you could change your mind when you've offered nothing really to make a good article here. Right now, I think you may just have a conflict of interest with the material at hand since you helped create the page. Explain to me more why you think it can work. I would like to understand your points. This is not an attack, I'm curious to hear that's all. Now, I've offered a good compromise that greatly helps two pages. I will be WP:BOLD should this discussion receive a no consensus. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 17:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Articles can be expanded. Just because I haven't expanded it doesn't mean that other Wikipedians can't. I don't understand where you're coming from the way you keep putting words in my mouth . I offered a compromise and it was not accepted. Things went back to square 1 as if nothing happened. I am not under obligation to accept that same compromise in the future once it was not accepted. The article has changed significantly since I offered the compromise. A 9 sentence stub is enough to justify an article. An article need not achieve start class to be kept if the subject is notable enough, and my opinion is that it is notable enough. I added minimal information to the article, so my conflict is minimal. I did state earlier that I had edited the article, so the contributor who closes the article is aware. Royalbroil 18:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comentario - Mr. Broil, I am not putting words in your mouth. You're words were, change to Merge/Redirect to Yahoo! Sports. Limited content after spending enough time looking. Royalbroil 01:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC). So what have I missed? Other wikipedians have not improved the article since it was first brought up for nomination. It's your baby, you should have a big hand in improving it if there is a way. So far, no one has found a way! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - It has been that hard for those involved in these disputes. I looked at the link Husky provided and it clearly looks like the Wiki page in question. Clearly an advertisement. Just because its notable doesn't make it right. -UWMSports (talk) 23:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Yahoo! link just has some bare stats which can be presented in a table. I don't think this is that blatant of an advertisement. And furthermore, everyone keeps forgetting ARTICLES CAN BE FIXED. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then show some ways to fix it and I'll back down! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how about the tags already on the article? {{Merge}}, {{Cleanup}}, and {{Unencyclopedic}} seem to be your answer. Furthermore, it's usually considered bad form to list a page for deletion that has a merge tag on it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That merge tag has been up there for months, but no one has done anything about it. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Maybe it should be removed then, I didn't realize that it was on there so long. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Secondary references demonstrate notability. We don't delete notable subjects because they could use some work.--Cube lurker (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Immediately/Delete Definitely appears to be an advertisement. Even Hammer admits it does, by saying not that much. The material is notable, however. I say merge and make a table like Hammer says of the games they offer, so it doesn't eat up the entire page. But if our choice is to keep or delete here, I say delete. The nominator brings up a good point by saying we have to draw a line somewhere. We cannot allow notable companies to use their pages as open forums to sell their stuff. -FancyMustard (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not list any real information that cannot put elsewhere. Even that would be less than a full paragraph suggesting the information is not worthy of its own page. Most of the article consists of a listing of every game offered by Yahoo Fantasy Sports (and minimal notes on gameplay), which someone could also access just by going to the Yahoo Fantasy Sports link. Up until I removed the links a month ago, the article was just a collection of links advertising Yahoo features. It is now a list in the same capacity. Neither meet Wikipedia standards. Transfer the important information to another article and delete this article. NeuGye (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep With around 2 6 weeks elapsing since the last AfD and relatively little changing in the content of the article since then, this should absolutely not be an issue again. Anybody dissatisfied with the current article is free to utilize other methods like rewriting or attaching appropriate maintenance templates. Erechtheus (talk) 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this is a separate AfD from previous discussions. The last one was a no consensus. That does not automatically make the article immune from further scrutiny. If there have been three of these now, and little change to the article, then nobody is heeding the advice to change the article. Why was nothing done to make it better by those advocating we keep it and make it better? If you wish to make a case for the article being kept as is then please provide arguments relating to the article itself and not this process. If you wish to refute claims made by those wishing to delete the article, please do so with counterarguments that pertain to the article itself. This will help us decide what to do with the article as I am genuinely interested in valid arguments for the article and valid refutations of delete opinions. This was not intended soley for Erechtheus but all involved. NeuGye (talk) 00:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You misrepresent the outcome of the last AfD. It was clearly a keep. There was absolutely no reason for this AfD to happen. Erechtheus (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My mistake. The first one was no consensus. Either way it does not mean the article immune to scrutiny. If the last AfD was all keeps, and this one is half and half, doesn't that show this needs to be a separate process. Maybe only like minded people took part last time. I have seen reasons to delete still standing and reasons for keeping refuted without readdress. Please tell me why we should keep the article, with arguments about the article, and refute my claims for deletion.NeuGye (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there was a problem with the last process, the place to take that up is WP:DRV. I'm specifically not getting into the substance because I feel strongly that this AfD needs to be decided on the procedural grounds. It is emphatically not acceptable to re-nominate articles on a biweekly or even a monthly basis. Erechtheus (talk) 01:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not calling any past discussion into question. I am only pointing out that the verdict lies within the discussion. It has been different every time. Maybe we should examine the article logically and reach a real consensus that would not be challenged right away. If the article was acceptable and logical arguments prevailed in its favor, then these arguments would not rise again new here to an unchanged article. When you get it right these things don't happen this way. NeuGye (talk) 01:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How could you not be questioning the prior discussion based on what you write above? You concede that this is essentially an unchanged article going through its third nomination, and you indicate that it's because the prior discussions weren't up to par. Erechtheus (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not questioning the process to the point of saying there was a problem. I am only pointing out that maybe the discussion could be more fruitful this time. I am interested in why this article should be saved, not how many people will say keep. NeuGye (talk) 02:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clearly advertising! -Airtuna08 (talk) 00:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep has multiple non-trvial, independent reliable sources. Nominating it again so soon after the previous nomination is also not helpful. Consensus can change but there's no need to think it has. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has four sources within five sentences all in the opening paragraph of the article. Does this excuse the rest? Can it even be expanded? Can the paragraph not go into another article? NeuGye (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are arguing for merging to somewhere else that is a distinct issue that can be dealt with on the article talk page. That's not a reason to AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not suggest a merge but a deletion. My reasons are already stated. The information in the article that is valuable could be placed elsewhere. NeuGye (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Placing it elsewhere is the definition of a merge. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the entire article should be scrapped. I am refuting the idea that it contains valuable information by saying that other articles could include this possible valuable information. There is no reason any information in the article needs to stay in this article. I suggest a deletion not a merge as previously stated. NeuGye (talk) 01:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um, I think you are confused. You said "The information in the article that is valuable could be placed elsewhere" - that would mean that we would be merging the information from this article to wherever "elsewhere" is. (Also note that "refuting" requires actually giving a response not just declaring disagreement). JoshuaZ (talk) 01:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you I am not confused. You might be reading my wording too much if you choose to quote it. Arguments here, including yours, allude to the idea that the information here is valuable. Indeed all who said keep has made the argument, in some form, that the information of the article is valuable and worth keeping in its present spot. I refute the idea presented that the article itself has any valuable information that needs to remain in the article. I do not care to keep the infomation in the article, and even if you said it was valuable you could not say it had to remain here in this article. NeuGye (talk) 01:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those who feel the article should stay just because its notable are missing the point. I agree, Yahoo Fantasy is notable. I have fantasy baseball and football teams on Yahoo, but the site is patent advertising that no one has fixed in the 4-5 months this article has been under scrutiny. It continues to sit as free advertising for Yahoo. Believe me, they don't need it. There is NOT enough material to upgrade this page to Wiki standards. So again, while I propose a deletion, we should see a merge at the very least. And if there is a "no consensus" decision again, that wouldn't help matters. The page will just end up here again in the same condition two months from now. Look at the discussion from the first nomination. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GoHuskies, if you think that the subject is notable, then how can you possibly argue for its deletion instead of cleanup or a merge? For this to show up on AfD again in a few months is a problem with such a nomination, not a problem with the article. Maxamegalon2000 06:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again... it would be more helpful to defend the article rather than attack the process. Not everything notable needs it own article. If I want to know about Albacore I will look here. If I want to know about the internet company Yahoo I will look here. To find out what they offer I would hope the article includes a summary of features. To further explore the internet site, such as a list of games they offer, I should just visit that internet site rather than this one. Please defend this article with reasons other than the process and address the reasons for deletion. Otherwise this disscussion will be pointless —Preceding unsigned comment added by NeuGye (talk • contribs) 13:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maxamegalon, look at the first subsection of the Yahoo! Fantasy Sports page because Huskies brought up a great point in his opening comment. "Fantasy Sports Offered", then it is followed by every game they have and whether its for free or for pay. That's a sales catalog as Huskies put it. There's a difference between saying Yahoo offers many different games and lining them all out with free or pay next to what they are. You've got to see that. Notability is nice, but Wiki cans things that are notable. Bios, Copyright violations, etc. So things superceed notability. And a clear violation of advertising on Wiki should superceed notability.-SlipperyPete411 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just took the two seconds needed to do away with the list that so many seem to find so controversial. Now the article is clearly not advertisement and is a full level above a two line, unreferenced article. It's about a notable topic, is verifiable, and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless we want to go down to an encyclopedia with 50,000 articles because we're going to change consensus to require more than what is presently there in this article, this needs to be kept both because this AfD is improper at this time and on the merits. Erechtheus (talk) 19:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now you have a stub that no one has been able to expand. I do still think it should be deleted and I don't find it improper to bring an article that has had no improvement to another AfD. However, I'll drop the nomination to delete and compromise with a merger here if that will make something happen here to improve this situation. So, lets merge it as a compromise in a situation that will continue to be deadlocked if we simply go keep/delete. If the decision is "no consensus which it seems it will be, then this article will surely end up back here in a couple months. Now if someone in the future can come up with a great article for Yahoo! Fantasy Sports in their sandbox or something, then we can reassess the article standing on its own. But until then with the inability of people to create an article worthy of standing on its own lets merge it to Yahoo! Sports. Agree? Lets put an end to this madness! And I also think the merger would help the Yahoo! Sports page which leaves alot to be desired right now as well. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I like the deletion, but the article does not stand up as its own. Its a stub at best. If you look at the Fantasy Sports link in the box they link to the articles of parent companies like CBSSports and ESPN.com, not to a page on the games themselves. This is a feature of Yahoo Sports that could be noted in that article. The five or six sentences do not merit thier own article. NeuGye (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What we now have is what I'd call a fat stub that is at the same or higher content level of likely hundreds of thousands of articles in the English language Wikipedia. There is too much verifiable detail for a merge. It would be better to have a more detailed article, but it's not a sin for this to remain at the level it's at forever. I think after 3 AfDs in ten weeks, a fourth nomination in much less than a year would look a lot like bad faith. Erechtheus (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looks like the list is back in again already. Lets address the article and not have a quick fix NeuGye (talk) 19:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's back out now, with an explanation to the editor who apparently put it there as to why it's not appropriate content at this point. I understand that I'm new to this article and this has been going on for a little while, but it makes me wonder why those of you who have been hovering around it for a longer time haven't taken common sense steps like actually improving the article and building consensus. Erechtheus (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is not bad faith when I'm showing willingness to compromise right now. Look at the Yahoo! Sports and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports pages and tell me they wouldn't be great together. Of course its not a sin to have a stub, but Wiki's goals are to improve those wherever possible. And merging the paragraph from Fantasy to the Sports page would do that. The Sports page is nothing more than a list of facts right now which Wiki hates. Put the two together and we have a half way decent article. Not great, but a definite improvement over what we have now. I also think having one central page increases the number of web browsers that will see both. People see the shape Yahoo! Sports is in now they aren't going to be intrigued to read any further. And again, those saying keep haven't really offered ways to expand the article in a constructive way.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Merging does not require AfD -- it simply requires consensus building (which pretty apparently has not been attempted) and a bold change to move content and create a redirect once there is clearly a consensus. Maybe there should be a merge, but that's not really what we should be deciding here. This article is good enough to stay around in its current form. It doesn't advertise. This should be a keep, and effort to get a consensus behind a merge should be made. Erechtheus (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Its a compromise. I feel it should be deleted, hence why its here. So telling me I shouldn't have brought it here is irrelevant. I'm trying to compromise now because this argument is going no where. Merging is something we can do to end this disagreement which I think all of us want and to keep this page from ending up here again. A "no consensus" would just buy the article a couple months if not improved. I hope if that's the case I'm proven wrong and it is improved, but I just don't see that happening. Those close to the article such as RoyalBroil and SportsMaster have been unable to expand the article in the proper Wikipedian way. Even RoyalBroil in the first discussion changed his opinion to merge because he felt there was not enough material to build a constructive page. A merger here helps two pages you call barely passible become better. Just because other stubs exist doesn't mean this one should. We try to improve every which way possible. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Huskies. A merger would improve both articles. A good compromise to end the gridlock we have here. The material would stay which would satisfy those who say keep, and the deletion of the advertising list that would satisfy those who say delete. I also agree with Huskies. If someone puts together a fantastic article that warrants being on its own, we'll will re-investigate this issue. I'm not opposed to the page ever coming back, it just needs to come back in a constructive way.-UWMSports (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with NeuGye. If everything notable deserves its own article, there will be millions of crummy one-two line articles. This article should not stand alone. I brought it here for deletion because it is clearly an advertisement. That is a clear violation of Wiki policy. If everyone would take a look and read through the article and compare it to the website I provided from Yahoo you'd see that. Those who say keep, how about a proposal on how to clean up and fix the article? RoyalBroil, who is close to the situation, said there was not enough info to have a stand alone article for Yahoo! Fantasy Sports. Look I'm all for the lead being re-written into Yahoo! Sports, but that merger tag has been up there for months and no one has done anything about it. And I really believe the page warrants an AfD because of its advertising style. IT IS NOT Wikipedia standards. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Users have admitted there is nothing that can be done to fix this page to make it a quality wiki article. I realize thousands of crummy articles exist on Wikipedia, but that isn't an excuse to keep this one. But isn't Other Crap Exists an unacceptable reason to keep something. Where do we draw the line? Pages like this one are reasons why people frown upon Wikipedia. -SlipperyPete411 (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He'd be refering to this, WP:OTHERSTUFF -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 18:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have now reordered some of the information in the article, breaking it into three paragraphs. I also added some information from an article about market share. Erechtheus (talk) 23:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Three one-two sentence paragraphs. Its a nice effort, but not much change. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree. The few things in it do not justify its own article. If you insist the information needs to remain on Wikipedia, then it is clearly a part of the larger Yahoo Sports, or even the Yahoo article itself. Just because many other people do not request deletion for stub articles that could be removed doesn't mean this one should stay. Why should it stay in this article in this form? NeuGye (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge After reading through the endless diatribe that is this page, I agree with the compromise of a merger. Fantasy Sports is notable hence it should stay somewhere on Wikipedia, but I don't find it notable enough to have its own page. I use AOL Instant Messenger as an example. It has many different features. Such as talk, direct connect, send files, etc. which are all very notable for those teenie boppers that use those features. However, they should stay under the AOL Instant Messenger umbrella and not each have their own page. Yahoo! Fantasy Sports is a feature on Yahoo! Sports. Merge the pages together and you have yourself a hell of an article. -SamEarlson030578 (talk) 19:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like the merger is getting great support as a compromise. I think this discussion should be kept open another couple days to get more opinion since it hasn't been clear cut. But I think the merger is the best way to put this issue to bed. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Adding to the endless diatribe that some must feel compelled to read, I too think a merge might work as a comprimise, as long as we merge the info and not the list. NeuGye (talk) 02:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete.--Kubigula (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reptilianized Lion[edit]

Reptilianized Lion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Forget the lack of references and Google hits for a moment - what's the conspiracy here? A lion that looks like a reptile, OK, so what? This might even be a hoax. Biruitorul (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep. John254 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaudapada[edit]

Gaudapada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not link or cite any references. It was marked as such in December 2006 and nobody had a look at it since 2006. MBest-son (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. John254 02:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sahadeo Tiwari[edit]

Sahadeo Tiwari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable links to support need of this persons bio on Wikipedia. Should be removed MBest-son (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Actions for which notability is claimed are long enough ago that it is reasonable to assume a gsearch won't verify them. Printed sources are listed in article; I'll AGF and assume they are good unless someone can show otherwise.--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. A well sourced article on a notable subject. There is absolutely no requirement for sources to be online - it fact print sources are usually better than web sites as it takes much more effort and expense to produce them, so the fact that someone has bothered to do so is a strong indication of notability. For those that like to see online sources this snippet from Google Books confirms the subject's connection with the Sanatan Dharma Board of Control, so there is no question of this being any sort of hoax. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Article has numerous reliable sources attesting notability.Bakaman 02:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete all as articles about fictional spacecraft covered entirely from an in-universe perspective and with no sources, let alone to third party coverage. Feel free to recreate as articles about real-world ship classes. Sandstein (talk) 06:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawkwing-class[edit]

Hawkwing-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Nike-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Medusa B-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Mars-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Ferret-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Shrike-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Medusa class superdreadnought (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Edward Saganami C-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Avalon class cruiser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Courageous-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Katana-class (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Adding after AfD has begun; please strike out if you have a bona fide objection to its inclusion here -- its content is comparable to the articles listed above. --EEMIV (talk) 16:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Roland class destroyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

All of these articles lack citations to reliable sources or assert -- let alone attempt to establish -- real-world notability. Also suffer from entirely in-universe-ismnessitude. See here and here for precedent for similar articles/discussion from another franchise. --EEMIV (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all. Non-notable fictional elements which have not received significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. Articles consist entirely of in-universe statistics and design specifications and plot summary. Doctorfluffy (fart in my face) 04:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, with grasers and missiles, with LACs and superdreadnoughts, in rain and sleet and dead of night, from the early early morning to the late late night. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - No assertion of notability through reliable sources=delete. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 03:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or merge all to a list as they are notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia and consistent with a specialized encyclopedia on Honorverse or fictional craft. Any issues can be addressed per Wikipedia:SOFIXIT. Also, precedents are irrelevant per WP:CCC. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 07:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all in-universe fancruft has no relevance in the real world, therefore no relevance to a serious encyclopedia. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update: Some of these articles should never be outright deleted as they actually have names of real world historical classes of vessels and therefore if nothing else need to be rewritten accordingly, please note for example Talk:Courageous-class. Others, such as Talk:Katana-class, have variations and appearances in other universes beyond Honorverse. Thus, despite the mass nominations, each of these articles under question have considerably different degrees of notability and in some instances even the article titles can be salvaged to write the articles on the World War I ship class of the same name. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Articles addressing the real ships or uses elsewhere can be created anew -- although preferably in articles that correctly use hyphenation. (Most of these are bass awkwards -- "X class" or "X-class ship" would be correct; "X-class" and "X class ship" are incorrect. But that's a tangent.) --EEMIV (talk) 17:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not as easy as you think once the article is deleted, because sometimes when an article using the same title as an old one even if covering a totally new/different topic winds up being speedied as an attempt recreate a deleted article. Thus, we're best off keeping the article title in some of these instances and just rewriting it. As for the hyphenation in titles, that's a Wikipedia:SOFIXIT concern, i.e. just moving the articles to a different name. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think we're talking past each other here. If someone wants to write about the real ships or these ships in other contexts, they should create the articles anew with the correct article title. That would have the benefit of generally avoiding overzealous speedy-deletion for those who keep track of deleted articles. Regardless, though, I don't find hypothetical "people might"s all that compelling. I'm addressing the current content, not content that isn't there but might at some point eventually appear. --EEMIV (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • An even more informative article would cover BOTH the historic ships and the new ships and would include research into publications on Honorverse to see if the fictional ships are named for the historic vessels, i.e. "Courageous class refers to a ship class from the World War I era as well as fictional ships in Honorverse" and so on. Moreover, some of these fictional classes apparently also are used in the Star Wars and Stark Trek fictional universes, which gives them notability beyond just one universe, and also would make them consistent per the First pillar with a specialized encyclopedia on either topic. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 17:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No assertion of notability through reliable sources, fails WP:N, WP:RS. --Captain-tucker (talk) 00:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, the Honoverse needs a wikia (if it doesn't already have one). Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it doesn't, then we provide a real service by having the information here, but even if it does have one, then that's not really a reason to delete, because technically every article we have likely appears or can appear in some other encyclopedia somewhere. An encyclopedia that combines general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and alamanacs is the compendium of all of those other wikis and encyclopedias. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 00:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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), notability has been confirmed. Namaste! Ecoleetage (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)"[reply]

Pitambar Deva Goswami[edit]

Pitambar Deva Goswami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hardly an entry and does not provide much of information that makes him notable. MBest-son (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here are a couple more reliable sources. Along with what's in the article I think we have enough for notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - In the context of which he operates, he is obviously notable, and there are enough reliable sources on the web to support this. He is one of the major religious leaders in an Indian state of nearly 30 million.Bakaman 02:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:28 2008 May 7 (UTC)

Manavala Mamunigal[edit]

Manavala Mamunigal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references or reliable sources found. It appears that there is no notability for this particular person. MBest-son (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. Wizardman 18:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayatirtha Dasa Adhikari[edit]

Jayatirtha Dasa Adhikari (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It was mark for general notability in February 2008 and hardly any links provided. MBest-son (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Being a former leader is just as notable as being a current leader. Notability does not expire. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - notability may not expire, but just being a leader in ISKCON does not mean one is notable. There were already 35 ISKCON GBC leaders gone at the time of Jayatirtha and since them there have been over 60 members of the same board. This year 3 added if you look at "Dandavats » Blog Archive » Zonal Assignments 2008". www.dandavats.com. Retrieved 2008-05-07. - most of the persons on the list are not notable, except because they are on the board. This year another GBC member was added and another one assistant and two candidates. In 5 years you will have another 20 or so new members etc., you can not find any references to their notability, can you? Do all 70 or so people who were on GBC over the year be called notable? Obviously its the commission that is notable, thus redirect is appropriate, with a possible merge or referenced data. Wikidās ॐ 20:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually I can find some references for notability of this subject, including one that confirms that he was the head of ISKCON in Europe: [9] [10] [11]. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per Phil's research; that's good enough for me.  RGTraynor  15:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Waggers (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ramesvara Swami[edit]

Ramesvara Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sources that are presented do not appear to be anything but self published works. Hard to imagine that he should be considered notable. MBest-son (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Srirupa Siddhanti[edit]

Srirupa Siddhanti (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This person is hardly notable and should not be on the wikipedia. No links whatsoever to any sources. MBest-son (talk) 22:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non notable individual. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unreferenced biography; AFD hasn't produced any positive change in that regard. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Stifle (talk) 19:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavananda Das[edit]

Bhavananda Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Was marked for general notability. Does not appear to be notable, most of the items are published by himself. Why is he on Wikipedia? MBest-son (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as one of the 11 top people (the initiating gurus) in ISKCON. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 05:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there is no requirement for each person who was a cleric leader and resigned to remain on wiki. Redirect seems to be the best solution that will also satisfy BLP requirements for unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material. Wikidās ॐ 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: and that's a bit generous; I really don't see notability here, and the sources are soft at best.  Ravenswing  15:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. John254 02:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Beckman[edit]

Howard Beckman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Its hard to see why this person should have an entry in Wikipedia. No links to sources and whatever there is seems to be published by him, MBest-son (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There is no requirement that references be available online. Nonetheless, I added two newspaper articles which are available online and which appeared in the New York Daily News and the Albuquerque Journal. --Eastmain (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep he's also referenced/cited in another book in addition to the sources linked in the article and that Eastmain found. It needs a re-write but he appears notable and that there's info to source a cleanup from TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A well sourced article on a notable subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every word of this article is 3rd party published referenced quotes. I stripped it down to bare bones, but I was deleting 3rd party published quotes in order to strip it down. That's a pity. I thought 3rd party published quotes was Wiki's requirement. Notable subject.--Rickbrown9 (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Multiple reliable sources provided.Bakaman 02:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 12:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mirkwood (MUD)[edit]

Mirkwood (MUD) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Independent sources for this video game are missing; it fails WP:N. Tagged with {{notability}} since July 07. Note: the article survived a mass nomination in May 07; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVATAR (MUD). B. Wolterding (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 23:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I was involved with this MUD in its early days and still have a strong personal opinion about the MUD's quality. That opinion interferes with my ability to objectively weigh the MUD's notability, so I don't want to weigh in to either keep or delete. I would just like to add:
the mass nomination apparently failed for the sole reason that it was a mass nomination, without any objections to relisting this article individually
this MUD's rank on mudconnect.com has risen to 334 out of 1341 listed since I last checked (though I don't know what that rank means)
Google USENET search on 'mirkwood mud' only turns up ads for the MUD and a few player anecdotes in the first several results pages
the MUD's claim to longevity (opened April 1995) may be a verifiable basis for notability: only 305 of the MUDs listed on mudconnect.com claim to be that age or older
the MUD's claim to two unique gameplay elements may be a (possibly verifiable) basis for notability: tribal champion based pvp, and original areas based on works of film and literature
Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as advertising, no independent sources establishing its significance. WillOakland (talk) 23:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-notable game. JuJube (talk) 10:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 well-reasoned argument and no opposition to it. Non-admin closure. Please leave me a message if you wish to review this decision. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jayananda Dasa[edit]

Jayananda Dasa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems like a bio article by some followers, but no sources to verify. MBest-son (talk) 22:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Jayananda Dasa is a saint within ISKCON and references comfirm this point. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Hare Krishna sainthood makes him notable. Lack of listed sources is not a good reason for deletion; in any case, article has some sources listed now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 03:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Urmila Devi Dasi[edit]

Urmila Devi Dasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This personal bio is not supported by links to verifiable sources. MBest-son (talk) 22:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • KeepI say that it should be here. Why? Because articles like this make me happy. Look at it- cited sources, a picture, everything! No external sources. But I still think it should be kept. David G Brault (talk) 23:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Clearly a notable ISKCON leader. Also, she is a contributor to ISKCON Communications Journal. Ism schism (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The journal's website states that, "Urmila Devi Dasi (Edith E. Best) joined ISKCON in 1973 in Chicago. Her primary work has been in the area of education. In 1982-83 in Detroit, Michigan, she and her husband started an ISKCON primary school, which gradually grew to include secondary students, where she served as Principal for eight years. She went on to found another primary and secondary school in North Carolina in 1990, where she continues to be the Principal. Urmila devi dasi has compiled Vaikuntha Children, a guidebook for education in ISKCON and is currently writing and coordinating the development of a Krsna conscious academic curriculum for primary and secondary students. She has for many years written on the education column for ISKCON's Back to Godhead magazine, where she is also associate editor." ISKCON Communications Journal Contributors Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note She is an initiating guru in a predominantly male dominated society. This is notable, and more references should be provided to support this alleged fact. Wikidās ॐ 11:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I can not see a need to distinguish the two - initiating guru who had disciples or one who is approved but does not have any. There was ones a guru of ISKCON named Sridhara Swami, (notable individual btw). He at one point lost all his disciples, as was guru without any (for a short while). That does not make one not guru. I think five year old approval is an indication of notablity, the biggest problem is reliable sources that prove the notability. Wikidās ॐ 08:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note She is currently only a potential guru. If you follow the link you will find that while she was nominated, she is not one yet. She is still in a state of possibly she will become one, possibly she will not. David G Brault (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Initiating gurus are the top people in ISKCON, so clearly notable. And I don't see any problem with verification here. Who better than ISKCON to tell us who their initiating gurus are? Independent sources are only needed for contentious statements. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article needs more reliable third-party published sources. The ICJ/VNN source material is not good enough to keep with WP:NOTE standards (especially for a five-years-ago nominated potential ISKCON guru). Either this article should be better sourced in supporting her notability (preferably independant sources, but from ICJ/VNN is ok, considering this is regarding internal ISKCON leadership) or deleted. RustDragon (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Three such references have been added to the article. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - One of the leaders in ISKCON isnt notable? Bakaman 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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). Clear consensus that the subject is notable. WilliamH (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pragosh Das[edit]

Pragosh Das (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hard to establish notability, no reliable or good links given MBest-son (talk) 22:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for my Strong Keep vote is that the above individual is the United Kingdom's Governing Body Commissioner and is a past chairman of ISKCON's Governing Body Commission (for 2005). Please see, [12]. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Member of ISKCON's governing body.Bakaman 02:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have changed my suggestion, as the individual is a Member of ISKCON's governing body and a leader, have found a few reliable references that are worth adding to the article, quoted below:
Yatra Carnival of Chariots on July 29.
  • The annual Hare Krishna festival will be a colourful display of Indian culture and spirituality in the city.
    • Hundreds of festival goers, pilgrims and faith...
Thousands participate in London Ratha Yatra
  • London, July 30 (PTI) Thousands of festival-goers, pilgrims and faith leaders from all over the world participated in the 39th 'Ratha-yatra Carnival of Chariots' at Trafalgar Square here.
    • They hand pulled three forty-foot high colourful wooden chariots carrying the sacred deities of Lord Jagannatha,...
Street parade to honour Krishna
  • Praghosa Das added: "The traditional Indian singing, dancing and free vegetarian food and the sheer exotic pageantry make it a fun day out for all the .

"Watched BBC video of Uddhava, the IRA man who became a Hare Krsna devotee. He looked as handsome as an actor. His wife was growing older, but she’s a real person. They showed an intimate moment with her as she applied tilaka and looking radiant said, “I’m sure if I aborted a child in my womb I would become a fetus in my next life to be aborted by someone else.” Praghosa said a Unionist would become a Republican next life" - Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. December 3, 1996.

Praghosa explained that to the many BBC TV viewers in the interview I saw on tape. He spoke with his hands, trying to illustrate his point. “Reincarnation,” he says, “it’s simply this: the soul is eternal, the body is temporary. When the body dies, the soul has to get a new body. That’s all.”- Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. December 5, 1996.

They bought some Vietnamese pigs for their farm in Wicklow. The female llamas are nervous, but the male likes people. Devotees tend to their services. Praghosa is struggling to rent a restaurant in Dublin, but another guy may out-bid him. Each devotee’s got his world. Satsvarupa dasa Goswami (1998). Every day, just write. Port Royal, Pa: GN Press. ISBN 0-911233-29-6. - December 5, 1996.

On the way to the island, Praghosa joined us and told me about the GBC meetings he attended in Mayapur. A seven-man group was elected to carry out most of the decisions for the GBC because the bigger group is so unwieldy. One man particularly has increased powers. This news ran through my mind as I was building the yajna fire and chanting the mangala-carana prayers. But why should I be concerned over what the GBC decided? Praghosa said most GBC men don’t want to hassle with all the smaller decisions. -ditto- - March 13, 1998.

Oh boy, encouragement! It keeps us going. May I always encourage others. For now, I will encourage Dṛruka to care for his family as his devotional service, and encourage Praghosa to open a Govinda’s restaurant. “Encourage them more and more,”Srila Prabhupada wrote me when I was on the GBC. -ditto- - March 15, 1998.

This morning I walked down to the little bridge with the stream running under it and remembered previous years when I would stay at Praghosa’s house on a writing retreat, walk to this bridge, and dictate a “Prabhupada Appreciation” piece. Who would have dreamt in those days that I would live next door to him? -ditto- - May 15,1998 Wikidās ॐ 19:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete both.--Kubigula (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Levi (monkey)[edit]

Levi (monkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Tara (monkey) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hey, hey, it's a monkey -- but does it meet WP notability standards? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as failing WP:MONKEYBIO. Seriously, two articles an article about the monkey in Pirates of the Carribbean? No reliable sources and no real notability. Bfigura (talk) 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

Law Firm Marketing[edit]

The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Law Firm Marketing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability in this article doesn't seem apparent, but perhaps the WP editors who work in law can weigh in? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Larceny and Old Lace[edit]

Larceny and Old Lace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable on its own terms, but perhaps it can be merged with the Arsenic and Old Lace entry? Ecoleetage (talk) 22:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austin Brown[edit]

I don't see that notability is established under WP:MUSIC. Also, the article appears to have been created by the subject, as tagged by yours truly. InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Withdrawn by nom: in light of the rewrite this is clearly keep-able. — iridescent 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Lightning Process[edit]

The Lightning Process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Procedural nom; I've declined a speedy-delete request on this as it's potentially salvageable, but at the moment it's a complete puff-piece. Bringing it over to see if anyone thinks it's clean-uppable. Procedural nom so I abstain. — iridescent 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The following was mistakenly posted by a user on the talk page for this AfD: I'm moving it here, as while I notified the user of their error, they don't seem to have logged in to fix it. - Bilby (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, This is my first attempt at adding something that is missing from the encylopedia, so please excuse any foolish newbie errors. The Lightning Process is a reasonable topic for inclusion in the wikipedia, as it's a subject of much interest to sufferers of m.e, reportedly achieving results that are simply unavailable using standard medical approaches. I feel the piece is unbiased, factually accurate, well referenced beginingBold text for a subject that is just not covered anywhere on wikipedia. I would suggest editing rather than removal, and welcome suggestions. Joanna2008 ``'
  • Keep - I've made a shot at rewriting it, and there was a lot of coverage of the process in the media, so I see it as being sufficiently notable to warrant keeping - even though I agree with the nom about the previous state. I've added a few references, but there were many others. I also suspect that having an NPOV article on this topic in Wikipedia would be useful, although that in itself isn't a defense for keeping it. My main concern is that it might be difficult to keep it NPOV (it could easily become a puff piece again, which worries me for an unproven treatment), although this isn't really an issue for AfD. - Bilby (talk) 04:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Properly sourced, when all is said and done.  RGTraynor  15:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Resolved (yeah, an unusual result, but neither keep, delete, redirect or merge are apt descriptions of the consensus built result you arrived at here :-) ). Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alph[edit]

Alph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Negolism - Wikipedia is not a dictionary Lemmey talk 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the articles you mentioned. Can't find Alph anywhere.--Lemmey talk 21:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What articles? --Loremaster (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The ones linked in your statement. - obviously --Lemmey talk 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you were refering to the ones in the Alph page itself. Regardless, those articles are not comprehensive enough. --Loremaster (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if Alph was an important theme in the thought and work of René d'Anjou it should be a sourced statement somewhere in his article. --Lemmey talk 21:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. I'll try to expand the article as well as provide more academic sources as soon as possible. --Loremaster (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good because when you replaced all the fact tags with a single book source it was fine. However when you replaced the fact tag to the Rush song with the same source it suggested you were bullshitting in an attempt to save something. Good thing you caught yourself and fixed your error. --Lemmey talk 22:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lemmey, please remember the following Wikipedia behavior guidelines: 1) Be polite, 2) Assume good faith, and 3) No personal attacks. --Loremaster (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article, without any source, suggests that Coleridge's poem refers to this estoteric metaphorical river theme. This analysis suggests that Coleridge was referencing the Alpheus river, and all the Google links I've followed seem to suggest that "Alph" is just a synonym for the river Alpheus, which we already have an article for. If you can find a source, perhaps this should just be a comment in that article? Given that the lines came to Coleridge in an opium dream it seems like a subject too uncertain for definite statements like the one in the article. I've also looked for linkages between René d'Anjou and "Alph", can you point to a source? Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if sources are found, otherwise redirect to the Alpeus River, as suggested by Ryan. Bfigura (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This needs to be expanded, but I think it's definitely worth an article. If the research shows that this is just another name for the Alpheus, a redirect would work. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected the Alph article to the Alph River article. Can someone close this this article deletion debate page? --Loremaster (talk) 02:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that's appropriate. If Alph is notable as a concept, it is separate from the real-life geographical feature that was named after it (via Coleridge). --Dhartung | Talk 06:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted those additions. None of the esotericism/Anjou material belongs in that article except that which is necessary to explain the naming. --Dhartung | Talk 06:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See my comments in bold at the bottom. --Loremaster (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A redirect to Alph River would definitely not be appropriate. The "Alph" esoteric concept, if it exists, may be related to Alpheus river. Alph River on the other hand is a much later and almost completely unrelated thing. Can we please have a reliable source showing the notability of "Alph" as an estoric concept? Ryan Paddy (talk) 08:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment René d'Anjou seems to have written two somewhat religiously-themed books, the "Mortifiement de vaine plaisance" and the "Livre de cuer l'armours espris". I still can't see anything about "Alph" in relation to them, but then a lot of the works on them are in French, and I couldn't read them even if I could get full text. Loremaster, where did you get your info? Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Make disambiguation page to Alph River, Alfeios/Alpheus, and Kubla Khan. If the Rene d'Anjou article is expanded with sourced material about the importance of Alph, then it could be mentioned here as well. There doesn't appear to be enough substantial material to treat this as a "river of consciousness". --Dhartung | Talk 06:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Disambiguation page I've done some hard yards on this "Alph" concept, and have failed to find anything beyond some web pages (probably not reliable sources) that mention it, and all they say is that the "Alph" in Coleridge's poem might be referring to the "Alpheus River". I now see that just before Loremaster redirected the article to three different articles in succession, he cited The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail as the source of the information. That book is psuedohistory, as noted and well-sourced on its Wikipedia page. It is not a reliable reference, it can be treated as an original source of WP:FICT as I see it. If a fictional concept of "Alph" originates from that book, then it should only have an article if it is notable (and the article should make clear its fictional/psuedohistorical origin). However, I can't find any independant source that covers "Alph" as a concept, so the topic fails WP:N and therefore should not have an article. The only thing that's absolutely sure about the word is that it's used in Coleridge's poem, and that does not warrant its own article. Also, "Alph" is not a well-referenced synonym for a river or anything else, so it should not be a redirect or included in disambiguation pages. It should be deleted. Disambiguate without reference to "Alph mystical concept", see below. Ryan Paddy (talk) 10:30, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At absolute minimum this should be a redirect to Kubla Khan (well-referenced). I think it would be appropriate to have a dab because Alph as an assumptive reference to Alpheus is also well-referenced in critical texts (I'm uncertain whether others have used it, but there is a similar reference in Finnegan's Wake, so that's one more artistic invocation). It would be appropriate to have a link to Alph River, because somebody could be looking for that. Finally, it is also an alternate spelling of Alf (name). --Dhartung | Talk 20:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Fair comment that someone could be looking for Alph River. Someone might also be trying to research what river Coleridge was talking about, so a dab could link to the article on the poem Kubla_Khan. The connection to Alfeios_River could be made there (on the Kubla_Khan page), with references. Following that reasoning I agree that it should be a disambiguation page, but the "Alph mystical concept" should not stay. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to me all articles could be listed in each others see also section with a one line description of each river--Lemmey talk 22:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That shouldn't be used for disambiguation purposes, but for related topics that don't have good way to be worked into the text. IMO see also is often overused, with things that are already linked prominently, such as in the article's lead section. Your argument could just as easily apply to any disambiguation page anywhere, and the whole point is to prevent multiplication of wikilinks and maintenance of parallel lists. --Dhartung | Talk 10:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I know The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail is not a reliable source (which is why I said I would try to provide more academic sources), I still recommend everyone reads pages 133 to 143 of this book to get a better handle on this topic: ccc-media.110mb.com/Docs/HolyBloodHolyGrail.pdf --Loremaster (talk) 17:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That looks pirated, but let's not be squeemish. I checked the pages you mention in this unreliable source and it never uses the word 'Alph'! It does talk about the Alpheus river, and does put forward a theory that it was used as a metaphor for something secret, but no "Alph". So my opinion is still turn it into a disambiguation page with "Alph River" and "A river mentioned in the poem Kubla Khan". If this concept belongs anywhere it's on the Alfeios River article, but it should be clearly noted as a psuedohistory theory from The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing all the comments, I have 1) turned Alph into a disambiguation page; 2) moved the content from the Alph article (which had been temporarily moved to the Alph River article) to the Alfeios River article. As I explained on the Talk:Alfeios River page, I am process of searching for reliable sources for that content. --Loremaster (talk) 22:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those seem like roughly the right places for the information. I don't agree with the specific editing of the pages, but I'll address that through the normal editing process. On a general note about this whole "Alph" business, it seems completely backwards to me to find information in an unreliable source (The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail), add it to Wikipedia without putting it in the context of its unreliable source, then go looking for more reliable sources to back it up. To top it off, the name "Alph" isn't even used in the unreliable source or anywhere else! Good editing practice for adding new information is to start with a reliable source in the first place. Or at worst, to have personal expertise on the material (e.g. having read Rene d'Anjou and formed your own opinion based on personal historical expertise) and then go looking for reliable sources. Using psuedohistorical sources but not making the unreliability of the sources clear is totally unacceptable. Ryan Paddy (talk) 23:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have read enough historical information regarding René of Anjou, the theme of Arcadia and the Alpheus/Alfeios River in several reliable sources over the years to I know that the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail were not simply making stuff up. I simply need the time to find those sources. That being said, to avoid wasting time with another dispute, I will simply cite the Holy Blood and the Holy Grail for the all disputed content in the Alfeios River article, and delete the mention of the Alfeios River in the Alph disambiguation page. --Loremaster (talk) 23:27, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yet in all your readings you never noticed that the word "Alph" is not actually used, except by Coleridge? Trying to equate a term "Alph" with this mystical concept appears to have involved a high degree of original research, which in my years of reading Wikipedia policies I have found to be frowned upon. As is using unreliable sources without making the source clear. No offense intended to you, you seem a nice person and I can see other articles on which you've contributed to NPOV (like the Priory of Sion article you linked me to), but you might want to take a step back to look at the whole picture here. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* In most of my readings, the term "Alph" and "Alpheus" are used interchangeably. The fact this isn't obvious to most people involved in this debate, despite not having read those sources, boogles my mind... That being said, I consider this dispute resolved. Can we close the article deletion process now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you manage to find those readings, and if they are reliable and demonstrate "Alph" as a mystical concept, then it could be looked at again. As it is I think the coverage in Alfeios River still gives undue weight to the "mystical concept" given that only one source is given, especially as the source is of such poor quality, so if you find some other sources that would be welcome. Ryan Paddy (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Can we close the article deletion process now? --Loremaster (talk) 00:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An admin will close it 5 days after nomination, we just leave it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was messy getting here (not unlike traversing an underground river ...), but I think we ended up at the right place. --Dhartung | Talk 08:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus. ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra de Bendición[edit]

Tierra de Bendición (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete parishcruft, nothing indicating that this church is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Keeper
  • Delete per nom unless someone can add information. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: no sources, no assertion of notability (shouldn't this have been speedied?), and created by an SPA as the editor's sole edit two weeks ago.  RGTraynor  16:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Republic Broadcasting Network[edit]

The result was Delete Chrislk02 Chris Kreider 20:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republic Broadcasting Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Webcasting radio network with no apparent notability. Delete. KleenupKrew (talk) 20:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 absence of delete preferences, apparent failure to pursue WP:BEFORE and per the addition of references that satisfy WP:BIO (non-admin closure). Skomorokh 15:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bernard[edit]

Bob Bernard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is just a memorial for an executive that led some dot-com companies. Damiens.rf 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people):
  • "has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject."
Search the Chicago Tribune archives for bob+bernard+whittman: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/chicagotribune/results.html?st=advanced&QryTxt=bob+bernard+whittman&type=current&sortby=REVERSE_CHRON&datetype=0&frommonth=01&fromday=01&fromyear=1985&tomonth=05&today=03&toyear=2008&By=&Title=&Sect=ALL
  • Notability is asserted in first sentence of article
  • Does not appear to me to violate Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, ergo article is not memorial or eulogy, IMHO
  • Looks to me like it just needs more research
-- DanielPenfield (talk) 14:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"...Notability is asserted in first sentence of article..." ... with no sources. --Damiens.rf 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was the page was merged into Iron Man's armor and made into a disambig page. Non-admin closure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 01:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arc reactor[edit]

Arc reactor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I am quite sure that a single invention of a fictional character neither deserves an article nor has any independent, reliable source (per WP:N). Goochelaar (talk) 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Borghuman) Look, my opinion is that pop culture has just as much relevance on here to describe fictitious things to let people know that they are fictitious and explain what in the world such well-known terms are as anything real. Wikipedia is about preserving humanity, in all its respects. Just as Klingons and Jedi are on Wikipedia, so should the Arc reactor be. HOWEVER, things like this should be linked to their master articles, and in this case "Iron Man," like this one is at the bottom of the article. I would propose that as a new Wikipedia policy, if it is not already encompassed by another.

Wow, that was fast. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also Merge/Redirect per Patar knight. --Kgaughan (talk) 21:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A Google search seems to indicate that there is something non-fictional called an "arc reactor." I can't wade through that many results and that much jargon, so I have no idea what it is; any engineers around? AnturiaethwrTalk 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)s[reply]
  • Comment Before merging, should this be the decision of the closing admin, some sources are in order (even primary ones, i.e. comics issues). I have seen the movie, and the reactors described are those seen in the movie. Are they the same for the comics? And if so, for which one(s) of the dozens of armors described in Iron Man's armor? Goochelaar (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per the reasoning given by other users. —Lowellian (reply) 06:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect If the arc reactor has it's own article, then we need one for Spider Man's web shooters, one for Wolverine's claws, one for the Green Arrow's bow... I'm all for having the arc reactor explained somewhere, but it just fits in with the Iron Man's armor page. And as noted earlier, you have the comic books to deal with, which don't use the term Arc Reactor to my knowledge (but we'll need an Iron Man fan to confirm that). It keeps him alive, so it's notable, but really, it simply doesn't need it's own page. Looking at the page for the armor, the pacemaker used there is already described for every version, but the live-action film one is scant on details. This article should be merged there, as it's a fairly big part of the final fight in the film. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 15:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect per above. Truly does not need a page of its own. VikÞor | Talk 22:17, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete. Thisis almost inevitable fancruft right after release. ThuranX (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the first section with a page related to the movie, and just delete the last section. The last section is either pure, baseless speculation or an unreferenced excerpt from a bad sci-fi script. Nomographer (talk) 04:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unverifiable fancruft. -Seidenstud (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The arc reactor was a major part of the plot of Iron Man. The article is also thorough in description. The article can be improved; let it. -- Voldemore (talk) 03:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It may have been an important part of the movie, but that means it's worth talking about in the movie article or armour article rather than having its own page. It only really become notable enough to justify an independent article if it's a critical part of the overarching mythos, just as the suits are. Regardless, it's been merged with the cruft taken out and the language improved and a disambiguation page put in its place. BTW, please take more care when you go reformatting an article. --Kgaughan (talk) 13:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Remember that the Arc Reactor in and of itself is nothing more than a simple plot device. I don't doubt that it's notable, as it does indeed drive a lot of events in the film (the scene where the main villain incapacitates Stark and steals it is a turning point), but a separate article is overkill when there is already a well-maintained page for Iron Man's armor. It is deserving of a sentence or two in the armor page, and all the necessary mentions in the page for the film itself. That covers what it is, and how it was used. -Skorpus McGee (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clear consensus. Non-admin closure despite one dissenter (WP:IAR). If you wish to review this decision, please leave me a message. I believe the suggestion to rename to Big Six Australian law firms is a good idea, to be discussed on the talk page. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Six law firms[edit]

Big Six law firms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism? This term has just 32 Ghits and not all of them refer to what the article is talking about. Damiens.rf 20:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - it's a well established term in the Australian legal profession. I trust Australian lawyers and law students will confirm that view. For googling purposes, hopefully [15] this search is a little more illuminative. About 4590 hits and most of them talking about the subject of the article. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 03:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but clean up, sources here are a good starting point. I think it's reasonably akin to what were the Big 4/5 accounting firms worldwide and able to be sourced and explained better TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 05:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known-term in Australian business circles and justified entry. Murtoa (talk) 07:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Palace. Five Years 11:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete* Highly subjective list. Will and has changed over the years. If it is to be kept the title needs to reflect Australian parochial nature (and please tidy up text!)Lentisco (talk) 02:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you say it's highly "subjective"? As far as I know there is no different version of this list, and the list is well recognised in Australia - as per posts above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Big Six Australian law firms. A better Google search yields better results which can verify the article, and it's widely used in the media and in the legal community. I see no evidence that the list is unstable or subjective, and anyway, if the list changes, then the article can be updated. The Big Four (auditing firms) has changed in both number and membership several times, but that's still an appropriate article and has been updated to reflect the changes. --Canley (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - but some qualification of when the temperature was taken - there would need to be a historical perspective as to whether there were previous orders or members - otherwise it is a worthless article, and reflects opinion but not as severe as Lentisco's perspective - but from a snapshot in time - they might be that order and size now - but some context please - historical if possible SatuSuro 09:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 redirect (already done) - Nabla (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maxwell Show[edit]

 Done Selective merge of material into the WMMS article, per WP:BOLD. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Maxwell Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - Page should be deleted due to lack of sources and notability. At the very least this page should be merged into its radio home page, WMMS (FM). Page also not written in an encyclopedic tone. GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This is notable. It was already recently nominated for deletion very recently and was kept.--Josh (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't brought up before. Look at page discussion. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't know that it is contrary to any policy per se, but it seems silly to come to AfD when there is a merger discussion underway on the talk page. Anyway, since it is here, Merge/Redirect to WMMS (FM). That it is not well written is a cleanup issue not relevant at AfD. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge discussion is underway, hardly. It has been stalled for months. I put the tag back up because a user who is very close to the subject matter keeps deleting it. And Beeb, there are two main reasons why its here. Notability and lack of sources. Being poorly written was another comment.-GoHuskies9904 (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Weak Keep- I think SportsMaster has put in quality time on this article and has greatly improved it from where it was a couple months ago. However, I think merging is the best option here because it isn't a show like Imus, Sean Hannity or something that deserves its own page. But if the option is here is to keep or delete, I would say it should stay, because it is a somewhat notable show in a fairly big market in Cleveland. But merging is the best option. -UWMSports (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Before anyone quotes WP:AGF to me, i'd ask them to check the contribs. I'm concerned about this nomination. Timeline. Nom is in a content dispite with SportsMaster.[16] Then not only does this article authored by SportsMaster get afd'd, but an attempt is made on another article authored by the same user (removed due to inability to get a 3rd nom to work) [17]. Maybe this article belongs, maybe it doesn't, but this just seems like a bad faith nom.--Cube lurker (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hardly a bad faith nomination. I'm concerned with SportsMaster adding new pages just for his contrib count. Maxwell and Yahoo! Fantasy Sports are two articles that have been made and not been upgraded to wiki standards. No effort to improve these pages have been made. Look at his user page User:SportsMaster. He clearly is only concerned with creating articles. He has a count. It is not about improving current articles he has made. Isn't improvement what wiki should be about. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, we are here at AfD to discuss the merits of this article, not the nominator or the article creator. Please everyone limit your comments to the topic under debate. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or SMerge to radio station article. There just isn't enough out there to support an article, but it certainly has a place within the context of the radio station. It's not as though the station's article is bursting with so much content that this can't be fitted in. Erechtheus (talk) 19:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also worth noting that Mike Trivisano has his own article. Maxwell does not, yet Maxwells show consistently gets higher ratings then his show, and Maxwell is number one in Cleveland afternoon drive.--Josh (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We aren't basing this on popularity of shows. We're basing it on Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, which would involve verifiable information from reliable neutral sources. Is there more to be said about Maxwell Show? If so, perhaps it should be written in the article and backed up with references before this closes. Erechtheus (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, direct me to Mike Trivisano... don't see a page for him. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to actually READ the article. He is linked in the article itself.--Josh (talk) 18:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize, his name was spelled wrong in your comment so it gave me a blank page. But that is still other crap exists. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are close to putting a bow-tie on this discussion and declaring merge the consensus. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 19:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you want to merge this then just go ahead and do it. There's no need to come to AfD first. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I am not an admin. Plus, everyone should be heard instead of me merging it then it being reverted back. That does no goof. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 20:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need to be an admin to merge, and if you get reverted back then the thing to do is to discuss it on the talk page. Again, AfD is not the forum for discussing merges. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Philly Boy, was brought here for deletion. Merging was the compromise. So don't patronize me by saying I shouldn't have brought it here. I've seen merge discussions stall for months. You want things to happen for the better good, sometimes you got to stir the pot a little. Jack Bauer didn't do things exactly by the book. Thanks! -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 02:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being civil, didn't curse or threaten. Just defending my AfD. The civility card should be pulled out when the discussion turns from whether you think the page should be kept or not to attacking my motives. Thanks. -GoHuskies9904 (talk) 14:19, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Incivility can take many forms, including a childish mockery of another users name. Beeblbrox (talk) 03:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death Disco Radio[edit]

Death Disco Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non-notable radio station neonwhite user page talk 20:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chip Wave) - Nabla (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Computer Disco[edit]

Computer Disco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Consists entirely of original research, no assertion of notability neonwhite user page talk 20:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the term may be a neologism used by Giorgio Moroder. --neonwhite user page talk 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think that its great people are making pages about little known genres i made the blues metal page. could be expanded a little bit though —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crasherisntmydogsname (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete (see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer Disco) - Nabla (talk) 19:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chip Wave[edit]

Chip Wave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems entirely original research, unverifiable, cannot find evidence that this exists so therefore non-notable neonwhite user page talk 20:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, very likely does exist, but please get some journalists or authors to cover it. WillOakland (talk) 00:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The term exists but not as the defintion given.[18] A google search for "chip wave" +music returns very few results, some wiki results and results sourced from this article, most of them not related to the description in the article and a handful of very unreliable sources hint at a genre. --neonwhite user page talk 00:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crimping from The Mighty Boosh[edit]

Crimping from The Mighty Boosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BAND, WP:FICT Non-notable music from TV show. Minor component of fictional work. No references. "Prod" was removed by article creator, so we have to do this the hard way. John Nagle (talk) 19:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Notability has not been established. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CSFBL[edit]

CSFBL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. This is an online game hosted by an individual in his basement. While at first glance the article appears well-referenced, a closer inspection reveals the article consists of nearly all original research using webarchives of the site, blogs, and even CSFBL's own forums as sources. This clearly makes this article fail the notability guideline. Quite simply, CSFBL has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Quartet 19:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no attribution of notability to independent and credible sources. --Dhartung | Talk 20:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it references several independent sources, if you'll notice. The blogs are not associated with the site in any way. And they assert its notability. Smartyllama (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. In addition is should be noted that a primary contributor to the article, User:Bdemarzo appears to be the individual who created this game (possible WP:COI). Also, the sources noted above (there is one blog not associated with the site in the references - AndrewKoch.com), is not a reliable source as it's a self published source - see WP:SPS.--Yankees76 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that it references SPS does not make it non-notable. The article explains its notability. Smartyllama (talk) 18:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Because the article explains why the individual who edited/created the article believes "CSFBL" to be notable does not make it notable. There are no reliable sources for any of the information in this article - only the main contributor's original research. Per Wikipedia's policy on Verifiability, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." As was noted above, blogs are not considered reliable sources. Sorry but in my opinion this article should still be deleted. --Yankees76 (talk) 18:55, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This is a slam dunk. Zero reliable sources, zero independent sources, only 67 unique G-hits [20]. I'm sure there are people who enjoy this game, but that doesn't make it notable.  Ravenswing  16:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (G1 - patent nonsense) by Gwalla. Nonadmin close. Xymmax (talk) 19:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chaaaaaa![edit]

Chaaaaaa! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Megapen (talk) 19:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shot Online[edit]

Shot Online (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about an online game lacks any kind of independent sources. It's rather an in-detail decription of gameplay (WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:NOT#HOWTO). While there are many Google hits, most are advertisements, download sites, forums and the like. Perhaps someone can supply some decent sources, so that the article can be kept (this has not happened in one year actually). But even then, removing all the unencyclopedic content would mean reducing the 30-kByte article to a one-paragraph stub, which is not terribly far from deletion; so I think it warrants a discussion here in any case. B. Wolterding (talk) 19:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Needs a knife running through it, badly. However, a quick search turned up a review on AceGamez and 1up, in fact there are several reviews listed here on GameSpot - it stinks of notability, yum. Despite appearances this one was actually sold retail (like World of Warcraft) which means the mainstream publications and sites picked it up, whereas games which can only be downloaded (say, RuneScape) aren't, and that's when sourcing becomes a problem. Someoneanother 18:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, just giving Someoneanother's debate-closing argument the numerical support it needs. User:Krator (t c) 22:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you wish to reduce to a one-paragraph stub per WP:NOT, go ahead. It's still notable enough for that one paragraph. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 05:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and shorten As per shalom. This is barely notable. But it's so badly written it's tempting to delete. Let's just summarize this down to its essential parts. Randomran (talk) 15:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 13:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Castle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jeremy Castle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to be non-notable, also huge COI. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A few claims here and there, still nothing that meets WP:MUSIC. Definite WP:COI as well. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:MUSIC. Comment: last nomination for deletion appears to have been decided on a strict vote basis, even though several of the entries were by editors who apparently joined Wiki simply for the purpose of commenting on this deletion. Many of the more recent edits to this article were also made by these Single Purpose Accounts. TheMindsEye (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article meets all guidelines and is factual in all aspects. There is no good reason to delete it. If those members would like to edit it, they should. There is no need for removal. There seems to be no reason to remove it. "Minds eye" seems to speculate on why members join wiki. Members have edited this article several times in order to get it where it stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mayflower18 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Mayflower18 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Those two accounts are single purpose accounts. There are also no sources for this guy. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 00:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not to admin: TenPoundHammer and Minds eye are single purpose accounts —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 01:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their single purpose is to spend all their time on wiki trying to delete articles without reason. If you dislike the article, edit it. There are indeed sources on this artist including original recordings of copywritten songs the artist has written and registered through BMI, videos of live performances, articles, music distributions, fansites, music sites, and mp3 availability of all tracks. The artist also receives airplay nation wide and in other countries. There artist is legit, respected, and noted. Articles can't be deleted because you personally don't like their music or musician for some reason. This seems to be the case. You haven't taken the time to listen. This is an actual famous country singer who is originally from Oklahoma. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 01:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not deletion for no reason if the article is not encyclopedic or meeting our standards of what wiki requires in an article. In that case (don't know if this is one as I've only really read your comment) that's deletion for very good reasons. As to improving an article, there's only so far this can be done if the article has few WP:RS or none. Plus, I'm sure they do some other stuff. And TPH is not that mad for deletion in all cases, IMHO (I don't know Mind's eye's work but imagine likewise.) Whenever I've asked on his talk page if an article I've seen should be deleted, TPH usually considers it fairly rather than harshly. Merkin's mum 01:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A look at the subject's official web site suggests that he has not yet achieved notability per WP:MUSIC. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Metropolitan90 has again given an opinion-based comment by stating one can determine notability by personal opinion of a website. Many figures with "notibility" don't have websites at all. Metro90 would really be confused to learn that and is not so wise or qualified enough to make such comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • His comment is not based on opinion; it's based on the notability guidelines as established by WP:N, which is a guideline that (at least 99.9% of the time) must be met for an article to stay on Wikipedia. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:32, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have looked at the website and looked up the artist. I have researched the artist found that he has achieved notibility through both his music as a country artist and Oklahoma songwriter/singer. He has music released that have received airplay. The article may need some revision, but should be kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 15:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — Sandyowen (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Guess what? Another single purpose account. How has he achieved notability? He hasn't had a chart single or major label albums, and no reliable third party sources have written about him. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now thirdgrade hammer is determinining what record labels are acceptable or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It appears that TenPoundHammer is incorrect on unreliable third party sources. Referenced is George Lang, Associated Press writer and respected critic in the field of music entertaiment. He is a very credible source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC) — 98.160.102.51 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Yes, I realize that. However, most of the sources aren't cited properly (see WP:CITE) and only one really seems to be substantial. Also, the coverage is highly locallized in nature (i.e., it indicates only a minor notability within his region and very little beyond that.) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't necessarily think it is so localized. I believe it focuses on the artist and his roots. All artist articles mention where they are from and how they got started. I know his music is popular all over the country. He is actually very talented and more well-known than what I believe you are aware of. Locality of Pearl Harber is localized to Hawaii, but it's influence it much broader than that. The same holds true of the music artist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandyowen (talk • contribs) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article doesn't prove that notability however. There are millions of artists who get nationwide play but never amount to anything really big. Also, the sources cited seem to fall under "Other publications where the musician/ensemble talks about themselves". If you can come up with something else to improve the article instead of merely defending it blindly, then please do so. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep People from New Zealand are even believing they experts on American music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.160.102.51 (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Keep This article has been discussed and was redone to include sources in the past. The references are fine. The sources are fine and all who are opposed are doing so on personal opinion and ignoring that the article is referenced. It meets wikipedia standards and is fine. This is a well-known singer and songwriter in the United States. This artist is appreciated also by college alma maters and hometown and state he grew up in. None of the people opposing this article have done research on this artists music. Deleting this would be a mistake. Improvement of the article is the only thing I see that might possibly be discussed, but since it has references that are fine, this is not even something one should debate. Leave the article alone and quit debating. BillyJones1947 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC) — Billyjones1947 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS default to KEEP. Although no sources have turned up as yet, the subject matter suggests they may be available on offline works which may require a visit to a library. Cleanup or advertorial wirting is no grounds for deletion per se, thus I recommend giving this article 3 months for sources to turn up before renomming. If nothing has been found then a delete result may be warranted. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grand River Academy[edit]

Grand River Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I see no indication that this is a notable private school. No substantial coverage by reliable third party sources is cited, and I can't immediately find any in the Google News archives. Sandstein (talk) 19:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The article claims that the school has notable alumni. Aren't all high schools notable by default? --Eastmain (talk) 20:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should they be? We have no guideline to that effect, and even the proposal WP:SCL says that schools need secondary coverage, a particular award or status to be notable, not just notable alumni. (Just about every kindergarten has notable "alumni", I guess.) Sandstein (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please provide references to these sources? Sandstein (talk) 20:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Check the references of the articles that link to it. Also note that the school has two names. I can confirm 3 Congressmen as alumni of Grand River Institute. Google and Google News may be incomplete for history going back over 150 years. • Gene93k (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I do not see how alumni, even if they were referenced, can confer notability to a school, if it has no (sourced) notability in itself. And a mile-long list of "College acceptances" does not seem similar to anything WP:N requires for notability. Goochelaar (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Pending a much-needed rewrite, this article looks more like a marketing piece than an encyclopedia entry. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I know it makes no headway against the all-high-schools-are-notable-whether-there-is-evidence-or-not crowd, but WP:V requires non-trivial, reliable sources about the subject. None appear. Notability is also not conferred by association, so why people keep claiming that prominent alumni confer notability to schools I do not know. The requirements of WP:V just can't be waved off with an airy "Oh, the place is old and pre-Internet." If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  RGTraynor  16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. There's pretty clear consensus that this article should not be on Wikipedia, but should at most be a part of another article. If anyone wants the deleted page content in order to add it somewhere else, drop me a line. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No-www[edit]

No-www (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have trouble classifying whether this is original research, original synthesis, or just non-notable, but in any case I don't think that it warrants an article; at best a brief mention in Domain name system. A number of sources are given, but these are basically blogs, private/minor websites, or pages that don't mention the main topic of the article (an initiative called "No-www"). The problem described here seems to be real, but it's just not a suitable encyclopedic topic. For those that believe in the Google test: The words/acronyms "no" and "WWW" are incredibly frequent, and counting alone doesn't show that the topic is notable. B. Wolterding (talk) 18:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to subdomain, of which this could be a section. All the no-www.org content should be removed as non-notable including the section on "compliance classes", something they themselves made up, using terminology that is inevitably confusable with e.g. "A record". There's definitely been an issue here since the beginning of the web -- I'm pretty sure if I checked USENET I'd find discussion ca. 1994 about companies using "non-standard" subdomains for web servers like "web" instead of "www". --Dhartung | Talk 20:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Dhartung. There's not very much here, but you could say something about it. I'll count it as an initiative when I see an Internet draft on the subject. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete under WP:NOT since it's essentially a mirror of the web site. WillOakland (talk) 00:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Links are not to reliable sources. Not enough there for a decent article. In addition, encyclopedia articles are never written in the second person. B.Wind (talk) 06:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: as above.  RGTraynor  16:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball Kept, Who let the snow ball? Woof, woof woof woof! Non-admin closure ViperSnake151 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I Like What I Like[edit]

I Like What I Like (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Doong Spank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2 Zero 0-0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Move It Like This (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Holla! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are non-notable albums, they fail to satisfy WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Reverend X (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep They're major label albums by a notable band, so I would imagine that there's at least some notability there. I'm turning up very few sources for I Like What I Like, however. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand These appear to be major-label releases by a very notable band, and per WP:MUSIC, albums by a notable band are almost always worthy of their own pages as well. Just because the pages are sub-stub-class doesn't mean that they're not notable subjects. I'm sure there are some sources somewhere to expand on each of these articles. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 19:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - They need expansion, yes, but not deletion. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Full albums by a major artist who passes WP:MUSIC. No problems that I can see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have cleaned up and categorized all of these pages. I even created a page for their Who Let the Dogs Out album (the song had a page but the album didn't). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who let the votes out? keep! keepkeepkeep! Notable band = notable albums. ViperSnake151 23:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Albums by a notable band warrant an article. I agree, though, that they need expansion. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone wanna snowball this? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ViperSnake151 00:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superbradyon[edit]

Superbradyon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable topic. All references are from single author, and all citations of these references are by the same author. No other mention in the literature that I could find. Mjamja (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tough call, but I'm gonna go with Keep. The article is poorly sourced, but a Google search turns up some interesting results. Hypothetical physics is pretty heady stuff, especially when you get into things like this that can't be proven or refuted with our current technology, but this doesn't look like fringe theory to me, and I'd hate to delete it only to find out this guy is the next Copernicus. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Every google link I saw was either a simple definition (most likely derived from wikipedia in the first place) or cited Gonzalez-Mestres. Did you find anything else? Mjamja (talk) 00:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the citations given in arXiv, none of this articles have been cited more than half a dozen times. We dont have to judgethe physics, just whether physicists think its notable or not, and they apparently do not. DGG (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to Lorentz covariance#Lorentz violation. Gonzalez-Mestres isn't a crackpot, he's notable (in the academic sense, perhaps not in the WP sense) in the field of cosmic-ray tests of spacetime symmetries. The basic idea is not new---in a Lorentz-violating theory, different particles might have different limiting speeds---but "superbradyon" looks like a neologism unique to this author. Note that none of the publications on it are peer-reviewed, but rather are a collection of uncited and unreviewed conference proceedings and e-prints. No prejudice against recreation if there's more general interest---maybe the Pierre Auger result will trigger some. Bm gub (talk) 21:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote to Merge per the above discussion. Beeblbrox (talk) 22:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: per BM.  RGTraynor  16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Delete due to lack of demonstrated notability according to WP:MUSIC and WP:N. Waggers (talk) 13:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lynn Alford[edit]

Lynn Alford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Makes a couple assertations to notability but not enough to pass WP:MUSIC. I see no reliable third party sources, just a bunch of false positives. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a note, we prefer that users log in when commenting here so that it's easier to keep track of who has made a comment and who hasn't. Since your IP doesn't show any edits outside this discussion, the closing administrator may not apply much weight to your opinion since that usually implies a lack of understanding of the deletion policy. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. He appears to be a borderline notable, but he doesn't clearly meet any of the criteria at WP:MUSIC and I'm having a really hard time finding sources. Many of these are unreliable or irrelevant. Hersfold (t/a/c) 20:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Website archive source: Archive 1

  1. 2 Archive 2
  2. 3 Archive 3

Website archive: Online Music Distributor of Country Music On Broadway Hillous Butrum/Mac Wiseman distribution video Mac Wiseman

I believe the information to be accurate and thank you for the above citations. I will be searching the internet for more sources as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Differentjewelry (talk • contribs) 22:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC) --Differentjewelry (talk) 22:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete per Hersfold. Not really passing WP:MUSIC here. Bfigura (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because the information is not in the Google Top 5 does not mean it should be deleted.

Differentjewelry (talk) 23:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please familiarize yourself with WP:N. It's not lack of Google sources, but rather lack of any sources whatsoever. Even a detailed biography from a book would work. And please quit adding headers to your comments here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep

Links: 1. Lynn Alford Producer 2. Lynn Alford 3. Link Reference 4. Listing 5. Third Party Reference 6. Verified Source Differentjewelry (talk) 14:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More comment: It seems no matter what is added, it is not enough. Do with what you will. I will not offer any other articles on any subject; a waste of time.....only to play this futile game of "keeper of the gate". BTW, you should research your "to do list" concerning Dixiana. Mark and Phil did not form a publishing company called Dixiana. Dixiana is a recording studio. You should spend much more time ensuring the accuracy of your "stubs".Differentjewelry (talk) 00:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You seem to act as if I'm going by my own scale of notability. I'm not, I'm going by what WP:MUSIC and WP:RS say. None of the sources you've provided me with meet "substantial third party coverage". I'm sorry if you're upset over the proposed deletion of this page, but that's just the way it goes sometimes. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Closed (non-admin closure). "If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." WilliamH (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inner City Posse[edit]

Inner City Posse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article does not contain any citations and is relatively small. The musical group being discussed existed only for a brief period of time before changing their name to Insane Clown Posse. Because the article otherwise has little relevance, I propose that what useful content lies in this article should be merged into the latter article. This is an opinion that is shared by four other Wikipedia users that have posted on the article's talk page. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 18:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]


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

The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny Weisgerber[edit]

Jenny Weisgerber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another non-notable "female-songwriter". The sole notability claim in the article is her winning the first prize in a pay-to-play scam festival. Damiens.rf 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

R.B.C.[edit]

R.B.C. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable recently formed (2008) band. They have a myspace page, but no non-trivial 3rd party coverage. Damiens.rf 17:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Robinson[edit]

Prince Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No 3rd party coverage for this artist. A good number of ghits, but mostly for trivial listings or publicity. Damiens.rf 17:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete. Waggers (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bayku[edit]

Bayku (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find anything to verify the information in this article (specifically, I checked to see if any mention of UGK and the song "Stop n' Go" includes Bayku as the writer). Just about everything available through Google about this guy appears to be self-published - mostly networking site profiles, MySpace, YouTube, etc. The subject of this BLP has marginal or no notability and without any references it will be impossible to verify and maintain this article at the high standard of WP:BLP. Avruch T 17:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above. I haven't been able to verify the claimed notability points either. The Stop-N-Go article says it was written by Bun B and Pimp C. The article could be wrong, sure, but no eliable sources that I could find say Bayku wrote it. Even if we really go all out and assume Bayku genuinely did write it as he claims, writing (or co-writing, or whatever) one semi-notable song wouldn't be article-worthy by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bandbox Records[edit]

Bandbox Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. It's neither notable nor encyclopedic and most certainly doesn't merit an article. Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. That's not an endorsement of some of the more thoughtless "keep" comments. Sandstein (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First Internet Backgammon Server[edit]

First Internet Backgammon Server (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable game server. No sources outside of the server's FAQ website. Fails all notability criteria at WP:WEB. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Absurd nomination. Everyone who plays backgammon seriously knows this is notable. 35,900 google hits at "FIBS backgammon". --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of those hits satisfies even one of the criteria at WP:WEB. The first hits are primary sources and this article. WP:NOT#INTERNET. Neapolitan Sixth (talk) 18:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does assert notability (of a sort) by being the first backgammon server, but neither this nor the rest of the article is backed by any reliable sources. Besides, even if true that wouldn't pass WP:WEB by itself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm going to give this the benefit of the doubt, because of Seven J. Anderson's statement above and a Google search that turns up several reliable sources that all treat this subject as a well-established thing while discussing something else. Because of the topic's age, and our biased search methods (Google, which finds new things), I think it is reasonable to assume there is reliable coverage we are missing. Does anyone have some '90s backgammon magazines lying around? User:Krator (t c) 20:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:WEB is a standard that applies to web content. FIBS is not web content or any other kind of content. It's a server located in San Francisco that's accessed through a TELNET connection. TELNET was created in 1969, twenty years before the introduction of the World Wide Web. It makes no more sense to apply a set of criteria to FIBS that were devised to evaluate the notability of web content than it would to apply the notability criteria used for books or movies. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Ha! Anderson makes the obvious point that all the rest of us had missed. Also, a lack of reliable sources is only grounds for deletion when the state of affairs has been investigated and found unfixable by reasonable present means, is it not? We're a work in progress, as much now as when the red links were in the majority. --Kizor 22:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may want to read the guideline. Here's what it says: Web content includes, but is not limited to, webcomics, podcasts, blogs, Internet forums, online magazines and other media, web portals and web hosts. Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content. Evidently someone did anticipate its application to material that is on "the internets" but not, technically, on the web. Additionally, the specialized guidelines such as WP:WEB or WP:BIO are intended to be merely implementations of the overall notability guideline; they should not be forks. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, sources in Google Books lend it notability. I'll add a few. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sufficient reliable sources exist to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notability guidelines do have the [[occasional exception[21]]]. If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. I have been a registered member of fibs since the early 90's and I am on FIBS many times every week (I have over 50,000 experience points). I have met and played with some of the best BG players in the world and have learned a lot. Many avid BG players know about it and frequent FIBS regularly. FIBS also has a community like atmosphere that does not exist on other gaming sites. Finally, it is a site for technical BG innovation, like the rating system, AI bots like snowie and JF, reputation bots etc.

Note also that FIBS is free and always has been free. No advertising. No play for money pitches.

To simply delete this reference because FIBS is a 'server' and the notability guidelines were written for web sites, would be an injustice to anyone who wants to learn and improve their game. We need to share information, not suppress it.averyk

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

  • Keep Though the article doesn't mention them, FIBS has had a tremendous impact on the backgammon world. It was the trial ground for Gerry Tesauro's TD Gammon, a research neural network created at IBM. Many of the leading backgammon bots have had their live trials on FIBS, and many world-class backgammon experts have played there over the years. The FIBS ratings formula, a modified version of chess's ELO formula, has influenced most of the backgammon ratings systems in existence-- "FIBS rating" is still the standard for measuring a player's skill. FIBS was instrumental in growing live tournament backgammon during the 90s-- many players discovered backgammon on FIBS and went on to play live tournaments. whipartist

— Whipartist (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. (It's true. However, I'm certainly a subject-matter expert.)

  • Keep. Pros: (1) I concur with whipartist. (2) It's of historical interest as the first backgammon server and of social interest as a central backgammon playground. (3) A plethora of pertinent websites refers to FIBS, meeting criteria 1 from WP:WEB. Cons: No sources outside the web I'm aware of (but otoh that's not too surprising). Web articles are often just trivial. Conclusion: Wide-spread interest in FIBS (even though often not in depth) and the historical importance indicate that keeping it provides relevant information to the general public.-- Peter Schneider (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is nuts. FIBS is a notorious site for flames, and I've seen users flame me here on WIKI in the FIBS article (review changes). As a perspective, when FIBS was created in 1992, there was also an attempt to set up an email backgammon server (and guess where that went!). FIBS was a platform for research into a breakthrough in Artificial Neural Networks. Perhaps WIKI needs protection from flamers and spammers who will corrupt individual entries, but what lunatic wants to remove a reference to a pioneering site on the Internet? (Don Hanlen) Don1andonly (talk) 04:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

— Don1andonly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


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

The result was キープ...er, keep. --jonny-mt 04:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of English words of Japanese origin[edit]

List of English words of Japanese origin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Patent nonsense. This is a list of words translated from Japanese into English and cannot be considered actual English language words. Globalscene (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable, or even complete (where's Kaiju?). Ecoleetage (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Dekkappai (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep They are English words, as the title says, and are in common usage by loads of people, they're nto japanese words translated into English. At that rate we could say words like bacteria, virus, exquisite, extremity, rectum, anus, biseps and annuity aren't English at all because they come from latin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.120.116.179 (talk) 13:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up to remove words which haven't actually made it into the common English lexicon. This kind of information is useful and obviously not patent nonsense. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 17:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful, interesting and encyclopedic-- if properly sourced (which should not be very difficult). I think there are some words on the list which are not in common English usage-- except for those with a close interest in Japan, but several words-- honcho for example, which have become so "Anglicized," many English-speakers do not know it's of Japanese origin. Again, if well-sourced and fleshed-out with some history, etc., this could be a valuable list. Dekkappai (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah Keep , "anime" seems to be what's offending the original proposer. Other than that, just needs some cleaning. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would respectfully point out that the article is called “List of English words of Japanese origin.” The vast majority of the words on this list are not part of the English language (does anyone use words like Makimono, Renga or Zori as part of the daily conversation?). And the better known words, such as Bonsai and Origami, refer specifically to Japanese culture; they are not English-language words. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Yes, and once it's sourced, those non-common-English words can be removed. I would point out that many of these words are very common English. Origami, for example-- it's used to mean "paper folding" and not necessarily for Japanese paper-folding. Same with Bonsai, or Zen. As someone with a strong connection to Korea, where all these concepts exist, I know that they take exception to the English-speakers using the Japanese term for what they consider "Korean" things. But whatever the history behind it, the fact remains, we do use the Japanese terms in everyday English. Dekkappai (talk) 18:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, the American Heritage College Dictionary, the closest thing I had at hand, lists bonsai and origami as fully naturalized English words. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely. See also. We should rely on secondary sources and not subjective determinations of whether an English term "refer[s] specifically to Japanese culture". If it makes it into an authoritative dictionary, it may be presumed to have entered the English language. --22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: Useful, interesting, encyclopedic, and discriminate -- passes WP:LIST easily. If there disputes regarding specific entries, that's an editorial/content issue. I note, tho', that scrolling through the Culinary terms, to take an example, about half of them, I know and use as an American (and at least a half-dozen are common English words), and of the others, I've heard of about a half, and suspect many of the rest are known by foodies. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I interpret the nomination to mean that not all terms on the list can be verified to have passed into use in English. Fine, as many have stated, cull out the bad ones, and keep the rest. Xymmax (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the article casts its net far too broadly, but certainly words like kimono, origami, and perhaps even karaoke are fully naturalized in English. -- BPMullins | Talk 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, karaoke is commonly used, but it's pronounced, "Carry-Okie." In fact maybe Anglo/American pronounciation adjustments should be mentioned in the article... Dekkappai (talk) 21:18, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That would be better handled in the karaoke article, which summarizes the pronounciation issues quite nicely in the lead. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep encyclopedic article that could definitely use some trimming. I don't think many people could seriously argue that "Tokonoma" (for example) is an english word of any sort. The article concept is just fine though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clarification Don't get me wrong - the concept is fine. It's just the list (as originally presented) left something to be desired. Ecoleetage (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's an argument for keeping and editing, not deleting. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The list is fine, as the nominator has just said. Editing disputes should be worked out on the talk page. AFD is not cleanup. Call for speedy close. --Dhartung | Talk 22:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the nominator said it was "patent nonsense" - that person never agreed the list was "fine." I said the "concept" of the list was fine, but as it stands (with far too many words that were never integrated into English and other words are used solely to describe Japanese culture), is not fine and is certainly not encyclopedic. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem I misread the top lines and pegged you as the nom. Sorry about that. --Dhartung | Talk 06:47, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think the "concept is fine," does that mean you are changing your "delete" vote above? —Quasirandom (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup, and this article is far from "patent nonsense." Maxamegalon2000 06:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep of course. As I replied to the nominator's question on the article's talk page, Oxford and Merriam-Webster agree that many of these are English words derived from Japanese. Fg2 (talk) 06:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is not patent nonsense. The words are not translated. They are Japanese words now used as English language words as well. Oda Mari (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the article is patent nonsense, as several others note above. In the absence of any other real reason to delete, then, the article should be kept. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lists of loanwards, especially if a very restricted list of words, are perfectly acceptable. WP:DICDEF only applies to individual articles with one definition, not an entire list of related words, most of which are linked to the relevant articles. There have been plenty of reasons given that do not qualify as just WP:INTERESTING and WP:ILIKEIT. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing any such reasons let alone plenty of them. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it seems a large number of people disagree with you. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 23:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It looks as if this will be a keep, but I have to agree for the most part with the nominator that this is patent nonsense. As someone else noted, the vast majority of these words are not considered to be English words, in the sense of making it into the English vocabulary. To reflect words that are commonly used by speakers of English (karaoke, tsunami, ramen noodles), you would have to cut this one by 90 percent. Nobody knows what "Hikikomori" is, or "keiretsu" or "umeboshi". It's a good subject... but it's executed by somebody who doesn't have a clue. Article needs to be written with common sense. Mandsford (talk) 23:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This isn't a list of words in an english dictionary, many are in the dictionary but explicitly say they are Japanese. Honcho for example isn't listed as an English word in the Merriam dictionary. Another example is "anime", which is short for animēshiyon according to Merriam, and animēshiyon is derived from the English word animation. This article has become extremely blurry in its definition of an actual English word, as oppose to cultural contributions from other countries. This article is also based purely upon opinion. Whether one word is accepted or not is vaguely defined by the general population as to whether its in a dictionary. This method is not a valid method and furthermore most of the crowd do not bother to carefully read or analyze why or whats in the dictionary. "Its in the dictionary so it must be".
In the end it is utterly impossible for this to be considered encyclopedic due to reasons stated above. This is more like a list of popular words said by English speaking folks. How does one word get in here? Its purely subjective and depends on opinion, and a common reason is "I use that word alot". Effectively almost any Japanese word can be on this list and I can claim any word on this planet regardless of language that it is indeed an English word because I use it maybe I sit around and repeat it to myself all day but regardless I'm using it. Some of the words people claim fit this article should not be here but in Culture of Japan.
Furthermore none of the people here have provided any useful defense for the article. Other than WP:USEFUL WP:INTERESTING,
Globalscene (talk) 00:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but this list definitely needs to be pared down. I don't agree with either the authors of the article, or the nominator, both of whom seem to be under the impression that these are all "popular words said by English speaking folks"; only 10 percent are commonly used, and fewer than that (kamikaze, tsunami, honcho, sayonara e.g.) aren't thought of as unique to Japan. A list of words derived from a particular language is an encyclopedic subject. The makers of this list seem to think that we don't have enough "Japanese words", hence additions like "umeboshi". I've half a mind to go in and edit this down to something reasonable, waiting to see if someone else wants to restore it. Of course, some would just say I've half a mind...Sayonara suckers! 21:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Merging and other activities can be discussed at the talk page. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Titanic alternative theories[edit]

Titanic alternative theories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ah yes, the mummy's curse. Now, in the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article, I wouldn't mind having a paragraph mentioning the three sourced theories (pack ice, coal fire, Olympic). However, as it stands now, this article is a hash of unreferenced absurdities (torpedo, mummy) and a long advertisement for the Olympic theory. No need for keeping this. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge - Sourced, relevant info should be merged into the Sinking of the RMS Titanic article. The rest (mummies?) should be deleted. Tnxman307 (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep my first thought was merge per above, but then there'd be an obvious argument for splitting it out for reasons of style/length. No opinion on the mummies. JJL (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see here for something we could easily sneak into the main "sinking" article. If it starts getting a lot longer, we can split again, but I think all the important notes are hit there. Biruitorul (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a highly trimmed version as above into the sinking article. These are for the most part theories promoted by single authors or small cadres and do not have the notability for exhaustive recounting, which is WP:POV as there is too little encyclopedic and balanced discussion, presumably due to lack of material in depth. --Dhartung | Talk 22:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Let's keep alternative theories separately from main article. This must be better sourced however.Biophys (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • But is the depth this goes into necessary? The really encyclopedic component of these theories can, as I believe I've showed, be neatly packaged into a couple of sentences - anything more would be giving undue weight to these ideas. They exist, they're sourced, we can mention them, but a separate article just isn't needed here. Biruitorul (talk) 02:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nominator. --Doug Weller (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep But merge? NO WAY!! I hate the idea that the theories of pseudoscience attention-grabbers would be merged into a serious encyclopedia article about the sinking of the Titanic. That would be a serious mistake, kind of like putting "It was a hoax" comments in an article about the man landing on the moon. There's no denying that people have published books and people have bought them about silly theories, and mention can be made in an article about such publications; the excellent article Sinking of the RMS Titanic could include a sentence that says "There are alternative theories about the cause of the sinking for people who want to hear from the lunatic fringe. Mandsford (talk) 23:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Everything substantial and relevant can be summarized. Dahn (talk) 08:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: per Mandsford. I'm sympathetic to the argument for keeping something around to serve as a catchment for the fringe loonies who, however offbeat, have here a wildly notable main subject with provable sourcing for the crackpots.  RGTraynor  17:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a sourced and relevant sentence or two into Sinking of the RMS Titanic. I seriously considered !voting to delete this as it's so bad. Hut 8.5 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Condense and merge into Sinking of the RMS Titanic. The POV forks need to be put into proper context, and there is plenty of room in the target article for a summary without giving it undue weight. This isn't the Kennedy assassination or the collapse of the World Trade Center here. B.Wind (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 19:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

We've got an article on the UFO incident already. Having an endless series of witness accounts is rather excessive for this encyclopedia, and should remain the domain of true believers. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Lacking any issue of notability or verifiability, this is a judgment call on whether these details represent an inappropriate POV or a useless collection of information. As far as POV, that can be dealt with by interested editors, and for that matter seems reasonably neutral as is (with a few exceptions in phrasing). So I'm left with whether it's a useless collection. I have to say it's not, simply because of the unique notability of the underlying subject and because essentially there's no difference between this article and, say, a list of episodes of a television show linked from the article on that show. It's a split off link of detail work for those who are interested in the subject, and it appears a well-cited bit of detail work at that. -Markeer 17:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is unencyclopedic. We're supposed to gather information from secondary sources. --Damiens.rf 17:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not attached to the article, but it has 13 secondary references and 85 footnotes to secondary sources. -Markeer 17:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The refereces are simply repeating the accounts, which are primary sources. --Damiens.rf 17:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have a rather long article on the Roswell UFO incident. Anything beyond that is unencyclopedic and gives undue weight to a marginal topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic, undue weight, no balanced rebuttals. If anything is eligible for Wikisource (doubtful), transwiki. --Dhartung | Talk 22:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for primary sources. And it's certainly not a place to give undue weight to fringe beliefs in a POV article. As Kleenup says, the proper place for this is the Roswell article. Bfigura (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Move after some review, I have to agree that there's probably not a POV problem here. I still have some issues with the fact that this seems to primarily be an aggregation of quotes from witnesses, but those could be settled by a move to List of Witness accounts of the Roswell UFO incident. --Bfigura (talk) 00:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-sourced, and connected to a notable topic. The fact some people are referring to this as a "marginal topic" is a POV judgement call. We aren't allowed to base our decisions on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Using that criteria it could be argued that there are too many articles about 911, too. I wouldn't be voting to keep if this wasn't very well sourced. And as people keep telling me, the sources are the key. However I would recommend a new title for the article. "UFO incident" is itself a POV violation as it's generally referred to as the Roswell Incident or the Roswell Crash. To state an opinion that it was a UFO goes a bit beyond our job here. Let the witnesses make that claim. 23skidoo (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, but where's the encyclopedic article? 98% of this is just quotes - no analysis, no thesis, no secondary content. Good for Wikisource, maybe, but just because something exists in a published source does not confer encyclopedic status on it. Biruitorul (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator, Bfigura, transwiki -- not encyclopediac, no way to make it NPOV either, so way undue weight. --Doug Weller (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep An article with 85 footnotes is a rare commodity on Wikipedia, and the article identifies persons who claim to have been witnesses. This is a legitimate subset of an already lenghty Roswell article. I agree with the persons who observe that this looks like a serious case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. As for criticism that there is "no analysis" and "no thesis", that's a good thing, see WP:OR. Mandsford (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per UNDUE. Dahn (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per just about every keep nom above (and some sadly mistaken deletes) flaminglawyerc 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge some of the salient points (if any especially salient points are indeed to be found) into the main Roswell incident article, delete the rest. As it is it's a bloated collection of marginally encyclopedic raw material. K. Lásztocskatalk 03:41, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well-sourced article, notable topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How exactly is this an article, though? It's just a series of quotes with no indication to the reader of what secondary sources have said about them. Biruitorul (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: I'm with Lastochka; this is just a reiteration of numerous sources that if they're deemed reliable, should be in the main article in the first place.  RGTraynor  17:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Useful page with NPOV. User:Anotherwikifan 09:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: If NPOV and well-sourced, it's a good article. Lawyer2b (talk) 13:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • First, it's quite arguably not NPOV - it gives undue weight to one side of the topic, and is not counterbalanced by more sceptical views. Second, per WP:N, "a subject that is presumed to be notable may still not be suitable for inclusion. For example, it may violate what Wikipedia is not" - not, for instance, an indiscriminate list of quotes. Third, again, how is this an article? It's a bunch of quotes lifted from some books. Biruitorul (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 05:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vatican Islam Conspiracy[edit]

Vatican Islam Conspiracy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This "theory" was published in a comic book. Given that it has no mainstream support and its proponents are on the outer lunatic fringe, we need not provide them with a forum for airing their beliefs here. Biruitorul (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not notable as an examination of theological concerns (I can't speak for the comic book sector). Ecoleetage (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at best merge to Alberto Rivera. Insufficient reliably sourced material for a balanced and encyclopedic treatment. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox for fringe beliefs. Also, this would seem to fail WP:V, as none of the claims made can really be backed up by reliable sources. Bfigura (talk) 22:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A mention of the "conspiracy" in Rivera's article might be worthwhile, but an entire article devoted to this is too much. GaryColemanFan (talk) 23:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we deleted this and applied the precedent rigorously, we'd also have to delete direct quotes from the Bible because the bible is not WP:RS and all sources about Abraham are based on one source that is not WP:RS, so we might as well delete Abraham since there is no WP:RS that he ever existed. Can we have an undocumented double standard for verifiability which considers the number of adherents of the belief system?
Response That's an interesting observation. Maybe someone should put Abraham up for an AfD and see what happens? Ecoleetage (talk) 11:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only verifiable part of Abraham is about the existence and properties of belief-systems about him, not about the actual subject of Abraham. So, perhaps that means we should rename it to Belief in Abraham and delete extraneous storytelling or present it as mythology-in-universe. If we don't mess with Abraham, then by that standard all we need to keep the article being proposed for deletion are reliable sources verifying the existence of the belief system. Jwray (talk) 12:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, which is essentially what this "conspiracy" is. By giving it an article, we're helping to promote it. By giving Abraham an article, we're merely repeating what well over 3,000 years of tradition have said, not to mention that half the world subscribes to the three faiths that share reverence for him. So, no comparison. Biruitorul (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole 3000 years of tradition about Abraham is also based on something that someone just made up, and the only verifiable material about Abraham is concerning people's beliefs about him, not the subject itself, which is the same situation as this article and most other religous articles. You're introducing a double-standard based solely on the age and popularity of the beliefs, not based on WP:V. Who are we to say what made-up bullshit is a small religion, and what made-up bullshit is a fringe theory? There is no fine line. Therefore inclusion should be based on whether we can find reliable sources that verify the existence of people who believe it. Jwray (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't a case of a fine line, the difference in notability here is more of a gaping chasm. WP:UNDUE actually insists that we discriminate between fringe and non-fringe beliefs. And this theory seems to have no backing from reliable sources. (As self-acknowledged conspiracy websites are, by definition, not reliable sources.) --Bfigura (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The question is not whether the theory itself is backed by reliable sources, but whether reliable sources acknowledge the existence of people who believe in the theory and document their beliefs. If we required that reliable sources backed the theory itself, we would have to delete most religion articles. Jwray (talk) 02:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree completely. I just don't see enough of those sources in the article to establish notability. (Aside from this, they seem to give a relatively passing mention of the theory). --Bfigura (talk) 02:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a soapbox, etc. --Doug Weller (talk) 18:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ITAQALLAH 18:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nominator... this fringe theory isn't really notable at all. ITAQALLAH 18:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep per above discussion. The existence of people who believe this is verifiable; Wikipedia should not be in the business of drawing a fine line between fledgling religions and made-up crackpot theories, because there is no difference. Either delete them all or keep them all.Jwray (talk) 22:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - usually conspiracy theorists like the above get much attention, and thus become notable. However, in this doesn't seem to be the case here. Delete per nom.Bless sins (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - interesting but incorrect. --Be happy!! (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If Wikipedia has a list of conspiracy theories (I can't even be bothered checking), then this article could be reduced to one paragraph and placed there. Otherwise just delete it. --RenniePet (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire and, if anything can be salvaged, make it a paragraph and merge it somewhere else (per Rennie above). Dahn (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, fringe, yes... but more notable than many of the flash-in-the-pan news stories we cover. Of course, it would need good references. gren グレン 23:53, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above comment strikes me as essentially flawed. Doesn't "need good references" presume that good references can actually be found? Is there yet any proof that there are good references? Because, if there isn't, it also means that there is no reason to keep it: not [just] for being fringe, but because wikipedia is not here to record each fantasy. Dahn (talk) 06:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning the opinions of prominent conspiracy theorists (I wish it were an oxymoron), there is an exception to the ban on self-published works under WP:RS when said self-published works are only used as a source for describing the opinions of the author.Jwray (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Good material for a blog, or indeed for a comic book :-) but not for Wikipedia. At least until some bored academic publishes something interesting about this crazy notion, thus providing us with a proper source for an article. - Ev (talk) 15:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alberto Rivera or week keep (I agree with Jwray that the existence of people who believe this is verifiable). --Dezidor (talk) 12:11, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was Speedy delete A7 by Starblind just as AfD opened. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSP Heaven[edit]

PSP Heaven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Website that does not state its notability, written by a user who may have a conflict of interest (has the same name as the article). FusionMix 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Delete all. Fram (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Catwoman[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bibliography of Catwoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)


Based on the outcome of this recent AfD test balloon, I'm nominating the remaining bibliographies of Batman Villains for deletion. These consist of the title bibliography and

While I grant these characters are more notable than the one in the previous AfD, notability was not a substantive factor in the decision. These articles are primary reference works that have been largely orphaned for approaching 2 years, and duplicate information available from DC Comics. Wikipedia is not a primary source and there is no reason that editors on the articles for these characters cannot provide footnotes or external links to DC Comics bibliography site.

In addition of course, none of these articles are either cited or maintained, making even their own internal (though non-wikipedia) value suspect. - Markeer 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all following the previous two comments. As I said in the Black Mask AfD this is the kind of thing we have databases for an all of that is covered in a more usable form elsewhere and if those links are missing from the relevant entries then they should be added (e.g. for Catwoman: IMDB, etc.). What I would also urge is that information like this is transwikied to the DC Database Project as this level of detail is exactly why such projects exist. If transwikied none of the hard work people have put into these entries goes to waste. So everyone wins in the end. (Emperor (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete all per nom and Hammer. No use for these directories on Wikipedia. Doctorfluffy (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Last I checked, a directory (as referenced in WP:NOT), is a list of names, not a list of references. (Anyone else tired of seeing that comment as a reason to delete a list someone doesn't want?) And I'm rather surprised that on an encyclopedia we have editors "voting" to delete such references. If these have no value, why do we list first appearances? If these have no value, why do we have articles on comics' characters at all? After all, as I've noted elsewhere, these are a listing of the information chronologically by publication. Not "in-universe". (It's about as non-"in universe" as one can get.) But perhaps I'm missing something, so please let me know how this is different than what I would read in: "general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs." - jc37 05:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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; whether to redirect/merge/etc. can be worked out on the talk page or by other normal editorial process. Stifle (talk) 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dexter and Computress Get Mandark[edit]

Dexter and Computress Get Mandark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I fail to see why this episode of a series is notable. Historically, children have been winning appearances on television programs for a good while, what makes this particular one stand out from any other? There is no episode list that I saw on the series' article entry, otherwise I would have suggested a merge onto there. ArcAngel (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (G3). -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Ramos Jr[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Albert Ramos Jr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    I agree with prod rationale as I was also unable to find sources. Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as hoax. Half empty sections, half crystal balling, all lies. Doesn't turn up through search engines, and is not mentioned at all on the New York Giants website. If he plays for them, I think the team would know. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as hoax. I PRODded both Albert Ramos Jr and his "rival" Markael James as NFL "veterans" with no record at either NFL.com or their team rosters. Their creation followed an identical pattern: an "autobiographical" user page moved into article space. • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • G3 Blatant hoax; no proof on the Giants' website that a Ramos, Jr. plays for them. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spartaz Humbug! 19:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nina Hunt[edit]

    Nina Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Completely unsourced bio of choreographer with dubious notability. Google searches for "nina hunt" were not helpful in establishing credibility. Declined speedy (I had it tagged as a hoax, but creator avers on talk page that they are a relative of Hunt). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete notability so far non-established and meaningful ghits are basically zero. -- Alexf42 17:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Alexf, I've left you a longish note on the articles talk page regarding this. 80.225.110.64 (talk) 18:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also made an article about Dimitri Petrides, Nina's husband, that is supported by links I have attactched. This may help to disporve the proposterous claims that I have lied in the article about Nina.80.225.97.80 (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Firstly, I think anyone offered to choreograph two Olypic Gold Medalists for the Olympics must fall into the category "noteable".In terms of published sources, I am pretty sure that Bill and Bobbie (Irvine), in their 1970 autobiography "The Dancing years" discussed Nina's role in their careers. Though it is not in print yet, we were recently asked by someone in Canada writng a book about dancing to send some photographs of Nina and Dimitri for the book. Hope this is helpful and sorry to have created an article that has caused so much dispute. It is just something that I have always felt something that I have always felt strongly about (them each having a wikipedia article) as many of their pupils appear on wikipedia, many having gone on to much greater things (Len is now a T.V. personality for example and Bill and Bobbie's MBE's - the first ever awarded for dancing at the time they were awarded them in 1967 as far as I am aware, this could be added to their article -being yet more proof of this). As in most sports, the coaches have the least to gain and they were never recognised beyond several awards for their contribution to Latin. As further evidence, I knew relatively little about them apart from a picture of them dancing with the band of Victor Silvester OBE hung above our piano. I discovered an article telling a biography of Dimitri from a newspaper cutout from before his death which sparked my interest. I spoke with my Dad and, at the party of one of Nina's pupils spoke to Bobbie and some other friends of Nina's though I had never heard of many of them! Watching Strictly Come Dancing, I discovered that Nina had taught Len Goodman at one point and doing some searching on the interenet found references to both Nina and Dimitri on Walter and Miriam Kaiser's tribute site and one site listing winners of a particular dance award (it may have been the Carl-Alan) over the years with Nina on. I found a particularly old copy of Dimitri's book and my Mother's wedding shoes which had been made by "Petrides". One other pair of "pupils" who I have not mentioned and you will find on google are Sammy Stopford and barbara McColl and whose party it was I met the popel at. Hope this all helps and sorry again . All I can do is ask you to not delete the article. Thanks. 80.225.110.64 (talk) 18:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

    Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nina_Hunt" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dleep (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as original research, per this in the article: "Sources: Conversations with many people involved with Nina including Bill and Bobbie, Ian (her son) family freinds and other dancers who are not menioned in the article. The writer also has acess to the trophies from her awards. Books such as "Ballroom Icons" (unpublished so far) and "The Dancing Years"." KleenupKrew (talk) 21:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, unable to corroborate anything in the article through reliable sources except the existence of a dance career. Not notable per WP:BIO. --Dhartung | Talk 22:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    AS proof of Nina's sucess, I have taken a photo of the Carl-Alan and Golden Dance-Shoe awards and of a picture of her and Dimitri dancing with top conductor, Victor Silvester OBE and am struggling to put them on the article. Dleep.

    The unpublished book by a Candian author I had to submit pictures for of Nina and her husband, Dimitri, is called "Ballroom Icons" if this can count as proof of third party Published (soon) evidence of this article not being a lie. As Nina's Grandson, I have easy access to all the facts. Dleep (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Go to google and type in "Carl-Alan award winners" and one hit will come up from idta listing all winners 1953-2004 on abode reader. If you scroll down, you will find awards being presneted by one of Nina's pupils, Len Goodman, and if you scroll down to 1968, you will find "Nina Hunt" written second on the list followed by Bill and Bobbie Irvine MBE, two of her pupils. I am holding the award right now and it says on the front "Carl-Alan Teachers Award 1968 Nina Hunt" and on the book give a long explanation of its History which, to prove that I have the trophy says "Carl-Alan 1968 Awarded Annually for outstanding contributions to Members of the Ballroom Dancing Industry First presented in 1953 and named after Carl L. Heimann and Alan B. Fairley" 80.225.217.27 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC) Dleep (talk) 07:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)Dleep (talk) 07:52, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nina clearly counts as noteable having read the criteria. AS I have mentioned in the above entry, there are independent sources proving that she won awards, Dimitri (her husband) appeared in Newspapers before his death and she is a part of several books on the subject of Dance including, as I have mentioned, Bill and Bobbie Irvines autiobiographies, and an unpublished book which we have been asked to provide photograps and Nina and Dimitri for. Pupils of hers all appear on Wikipedia such as Len Goodman, Bill and Bobbie Irvine MBE and people who asked for her to choreograph them such as Torville and Dean and people such as Victor Silvester OBE who accompanied her dancing on several occasions, as testimony to which I have a picture of her and Dimtri dancing to his band playing which I have so far not managed to place on the article and it is entirely true to say that they would not have got to where they did without her, indeed she and Bobbie often joked that it was really Nina's MBE. She was asked to choreograph Olympic Gold Medalists! If this does not all count as "noteable" then the system for deciding what is must have some fundemental flaw. Dleep (talk) 08:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Continuing to post justifications here will probably not help. I've tried pointing you toward the relevant guidelines, but you don't seem to be using them to improve the article. No one is accusing you of lying about your relative, by the way, just asking that the information is verifiable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If no one is accusing me of lying, then why is the page being deleted. The information is not verifiable unless you have access to editions of dance newspapers from the 1980's or access to the unpublished "Ballroom Icons" or have checked, as I suggested the website listing all Carl-Alan award winners since 1953. I am unsure how to load pictures I have taken of the awards and her and Dimitri (whose article has been deleted despite his nteability) dancing with renound musician Victor Silvester onto the site. There is nothing more I can do to prove it short of physically talking to you face to face or getting people who will back me up to talk to you face to face. If you are not accusing me of lying and have done research for the award website as I suggested, why is verification required. I understand the need for proof but have done my best to prove the truth of the article. Dleep (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page isn't being deleted - the page has been nominated for deletion (by me) and it is now being discussed by other editors and admins. Don't take the nomination as a personal attack against you or your relative. This is your chance to improve the page per WP guidelines (such as WP:BIO WP:PROVEIT and WP:NOTABILITY) and prevent it from being deleted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. One assertion of notability is that she won a Carl Alan Award, presented by the International Dance Teachers Association, in 1968. This was verified per the IDTA website. The CAA meets the criteria of notability: an international-level award by a widely-recognized body in the field. With the addition of the reference to the IDTA web site I just made [22] (PDF file, which might be why it wasn't searchable), the notability/verifiability hurdle is met. —C.Fred (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If this can be sourced to dance newspapers from the 1980s then that's fine by Wikipedia's notability standards. Dleep, can you provide the names and dates of the newspapers that reference the subject? That will clear up any doubt about this. There is no requirement that sources should be available online. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can check dates of paper articles with her over next few days and post them. Will have to do some searching around but should be possible. Thanks for posting "keeps" and thanks to whoever cleared up the article and organised it. Dleep (talk) 07:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • keep. Despite WP:COI issues, and lack of current sourcing, notability seems to be present, and sources are turning up. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 withdraw. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Syndics of the Drapers' Guild[edit]

    Syndics of the Drapers' Guild (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article contains only an infobox. – Ilse@ 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Created almost one month ago. No text. Probably fails numerous criteria, but I'll go with notability as my argument here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - as it stands now. However, it is (or claims to be) a Rembrandt painting. Surely there's something notable about it? Tnxman307 (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - If there is some sourced info for this painting, I'll change to keep. Tnxman307 (talk) 18:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep – Reason for nomination no longer applies. – Ilse@ 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the afd notice as nominator. – Ilse@ 20:15, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Super Diorama Theater[edit]

    Super Diorama Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Unreleased albums are not notable without substantial coverage in reliable, independant sources. None provided, none found. See also note on talk page, this might be simply an earlier name for another album, but I cannot confirm it. Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was keep, nomination withdrawn. Fabrictramp (talk) 16:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Bathsheba at Her Bath[edit]

    Bathsheba at Her Bath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Article contains only an infobox. – Ilse@ 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment this article could easily be speedied for no content, or virtually no content, but otherwise just delete. Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete A1. No context. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Commentary can be found. I added a reference pointing to some. --Eastmain (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - Are we joking? This is a picture by Rembrandt. Do you want sources? Any book about Rembrandt is such a source, there are hundreds of them. The subject of this article is hardly non-notable. The problem with the article is that it has to be fleshed out, but this is not solved by deleting it. Goochelaar (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The article we were discussing is not the article you see. Here is what most of us were discussing. Of the thousands of works by Rembrandt, there was nothing in the article to single it out. Yes, every known work is certainly referenced in stacks of books, but I seriously doubt wikipedia will have an article on each one in my lifetime. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, I see, thanks for the clarification. Nonetheless, I stand my opinion. It is not by deleting malformed, defective, incomplete, almost-non-existent articles about notable subjects that we shall improve them. Not really relevant to the AfD: to address you remarks, there are already several articles about Rembrandt's works, and if some WikiProject could and would concentrate on this, in a short time we could have at least stubs about tens, if not hundreds, of his works. Compare this to the articles about each single episode of beloved TV shows (and I am not saying that the latter have no space in WP). Goochelaar (talk) 22:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I was thinking the exact same thing... Perhaps if as much time were spent improving inferior articles on notable subjects as is spent trying to delete them.... Maybe we could have articles on thousands of Rembrandt works. And how would that be so terrible? Any worse than having an article on every episode of Family Guy? Dekkappai (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep - Per "Are we joking?" Rembrandt? What's next, Beethoven's 4th, because who's heard of anything but the 5th?... Sourcing available through dozens of books, journals, news articles, etc., Dekkappai (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Jeez. If anything belongs in an encyclopedia its articles about notable paintings. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep due to the fact that this has been improved and cleaned up enough so that the nominators initial objection no longer seems to apply. Bfigura (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This a pretty famous painting by Rembrandt (meeting WP:N), and can be expanded further. --Patar knight - chat/contributions 01:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Despite the earlier condition of the article, it is unquestionably a notable topic (major painting by a major painter in a major museum). This is what cleanup templates are for. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per earlier comments -- and someone needs to get Bathsheba a bathrobe! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Reason for nomination no longer applies. – Ilse@ 19:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • As nominator, I removed the afd notice. – Ilse@ 19:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

    The result was speedy deleted by Alison (A3: No meaningful, substantive content: Hoax / created by c/u confirmed socking team). Non-admin closure. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Markael James[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Markael James (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      I agree with prod rationale as I was also unable to find sources. Please also note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Albert Ramos Jr (Football Player). Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as hoax. See Albert Ramos Jr, another supposed NFL player who has a "rivalry" with James (and, like James, no mention on the internet of his existence). I have no doubt that both articles were created as hoaxes. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as hoax. I PRODded both Albert Ramos Jr and Markael James as NFL "veterans" with no record at either NFL.com or their team rosters. Their creation followed an identical pattern. • Gene93k (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I've speedy-deleted it based on the above, plus the fact that the creator and sole editor is part of a team, confirmed by checkuser, that are creating bogus articles - Alison ❤ 21:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Subject has received non-trivia coverage for more than one thing, so appears to meet WP:BIO. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Heather Arnet[edit]

      Heather Arnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      insufficient notability - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep because Arnet is notable, especially in Pittsubrgh. She is the head of a major foundation, has been the subject of dozens of published newspaper articles (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette), and has been given several awards. I wrote this article and firmly believe that people, espeically in Pittsburgh, will benefit from this biographical information about Arnet. Semsch (talk) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - Substantial coverage in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette, twice.[23][24]; 2004 Pittsburgh Magazine "40 under 40"[25][26] and the "girlcot" at Tolerance.org[27] with links to other coverage. Other coverage by CPL, Pittsburg City Paper, etc. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - She appears to have far more notability than one might see in a 'vanity' page. Rob Banzai (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. No notability or news coverage outside of Pittsburgh established. Being a local activist and school board member does not establish any notability on a national or international level, hence not an encyclopedic topic. The only reference cited outside of Pgh, tolerance.org, does not meet WP:RS. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep. Article reads like a resume and needs cleanup. Impact is largely local, but the "girlcott" in particular received national coverage; on the other hand, her part in it was as a figurehead/spokeswoman. An article on Women & Girls Foundation of Southwestern Pennsylvania might pass WP:ORG on the basis of the girlcott, but I'm not sure it is appropriate to credit her in the main. If we had an article on the foundation she could be mentioned. Very iffy all around, but I lean toward keeping this in some form. --Dhartung | Talk 22:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Speedy deleted as advertising. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Larry and Grog[edit]

      Larry and Grog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      future show violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. When I Googled "Larry and Grog" along with "Nickelodeon", the only page that came up did not list the two terms in the same context. Anthony Rupert (talk) 15:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, leaning slightly towards merge. But anyone can merge the articles without any AFDs. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Axel Hay[edit]

      Axel Hay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This nomination ALSO includes the following articles:

      Melody Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Jazz Curtis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Nicole Harris (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Jack Holden (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Tony Holden (Home and Away) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Martha MacKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      V. J. Patterson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      These articles do not meet WP:FICT. The guideline states "fictional concepts can be presumed notable if they have received significant real-world coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" this article does not meet this. For similar case see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brad Armstrong (Home and Away) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roman Harris and all the other fictonal character pages that were deleted as they wern't considered notable. Wikipedia is an encylopedia and not a home and away fan site. This should be an issue based on the relevant wikipedia policy and not a personal oppinon, keep this in mind. Unless it can be found that these characters recicved notable real world coveraged and this can be refrenced i believe that these articles should be deleted. If those other articles that have been deleted have been deemed not be 'real world notable' what makes these different?? I hope i have made my case clear. Printer222 (talk) 14:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment What about merging them all into a list of Home and Away characters?AquaHaute (talk) 16:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think if the articles should be deleted, then the entire Home and Away page should be deleted. If they do get deleted, then I will consider sueing this website for racial discrimination against Australians! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.88.43 (talk) 16:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Quite a few of the merge voters are Australians. Somehow I don't think self-discrimination is a huge problem. Orderinchaos 17:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Merge per Quasirandom, they're valid search terms and should be covered in a list CariMeSpeak! 20:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Suggest closing admin leave a note at WP:AWNB if they don't want to (or don't feel comfortable) performing the merge. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 08:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge except:
      • Orderinchaos 17:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, the nominator gives an invalid reason for deletion. WP:FICTION is not a guideline, it's a proposal. And WP:N is not a policy. The article could certainly be merged into a list of characters so deletion does not appear to be an option. --Pixelface (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If someone comes up with sources that meet WP:RS then I'm for merging into Recurring characters of Home and Away but if these more minor characters like Axel Hay have no verifiable reliable sources then they really ought to be deleted. Axel Hay is listed on IMDb for only one episode, is this correct? If it is then it needs to be deleted. One episode is not enough for notability, IMHO. Sarah 07:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Seen the article for Pippa Saunders? Completely unreferenced, largely speculation and really not very good writing. (Pippa even has a "foster bother".) Orderinchaos 11:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, If we delete the articles, then at the end of the day, we are only vandalising the Home and Away article, and it will eventually lead to the entire Home and Away article being deleted, which in my opinion will only cause controversy amongst Australian fans.--Scouser1961 (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment, this seems to be a rather exaggerated prediction. If anything, keeping these on one page ([[Home and Away]) will make it much easier to keep the vandalism down, thus leading to an increased quality overall on our coverage of the topic. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:24, 10 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]
      • CommentUgh, get rid of the Martha one and put us all out of our misery. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.105.31 (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment these pages have nothing to do with the actual home and away article. Basiclly, how is deleting them going to effect the main article in any way??? The vital information can still be present in another article after a merge. Printer222 (talk) 01:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy delete (A7) nancy (talk) 19:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Pondfiller[edit]

      Pondfiller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Doesn't satisfy WP:BIO. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete; I have (as suggested) added a sentence on this subject to 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay#Torch Security. Waggers (talk) 14:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Second right brother[edit]

      Second right brother (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable internet meme Relata refero (disp.) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fram (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Crutchfield[edit]

      Crutchfield (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      There seems to be no relevant 3rd part coverage about this company. Damiens.rf 14:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Strong keep and beef up. I know this company name immediately. Ghits over 2 million. A widely respected name. I will work on this now. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How many of these Ghits refer to non-trivial 3rd party coverage about the company? Also, let me respectfully suggest you reading WP:COI. --Damiens.rf 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I appreciate the respect, but WP:COI does not apply to me. I am not employed by, hold stock in, nor am in love with the company. I simply know that it is definitely notable enough for here. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      CobaltBlueTony is an editor of long standing. What is your evidence for your claim of conflict of interest? He doesn't seem to have edited the article until seeing this AFD, which doesn't make sense if he works for the company.--Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (Off-topic discussion removed.)
      • Keep One of the top mail-order electronics companies in America is definitely notable. References have been added and more can easily be added to flesh things out. Nate • (chatter) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, instantly recognizable to anyone who's ever shopped for car audio, and thus no valid argument posed. I have trouble assuming good faith here when Damiens pounces on the first "keep" vote by defaming the voter. Cburnett (talk) 02:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I DIDN'T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! --Damiens.rf 12:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Admin comment: I've removed some of the more strident off-topic discussions. I appreciate people defending me, but assumption of good faith goes both ways. I'm perfectly capable of defending myself. Pouncing on users, "justified" or not, is counterproductive, and evokes too much personal involvement. Please comment on content, not the users. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 01:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 16:55, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Obviously notable. Wikidemo (talk) 19:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - There are secondary source articles out there for this company. Article just needs more work. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. - Bobet 14:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      CORE Charge (acronym)[edit]

      CORE Charge (acronym) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      short and should be moved to wiktionary – ThatWikiGuy (talk | life | I'm watching you!) 14:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Delete. Character in a comic strip for which there is no article, and not notable because it has not received media coverage. Malinaccier (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Fisk Black[edit]

      Fisk Black (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Mainly because it is the main character in a strip for which we have no article. Hiding T 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - I agree with the nominator. If there were an article on the webcomic, this could be included as part of it, but until then, this appears to be non-notable. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete non-notable as per WP:FICT. All articles about fictonal characters are only considered notable if they recicve third party real world coverage, hence this article is not considered as notable Printer222 (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above.--Berig (talk) 16:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Hiding T 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Non-notable. If the comic doesn't warrant an article, a character in the comic doesn't either. I have been unable to find any reliable third-party sources that discuss this character. GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete The primary article about the webcomic itself has been speedied three times as non-notable web content. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 based only on the post-DRV discussion, and the sources provided there. Sandstein (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      James Wesley Rawles[edit]

      The result was Delete, "keep" votes either made by IPs and sockpuppets, and / or not accompanied by a valid rationale. Took a while to sift through this one, but as noted, "quoted" is not primary coverage. Deiz talk 09:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please document the alleged sockpuppetry. The ALLEGATION was made by an editor. Another editor demonstrated that most commenters have been members and editors for months or years.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      We put that one to bed in the DRV, no need to rehash it here now.--Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Very well. Got a link so I can review to be sure?Mzmadmike (talk) 00:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The link is one line below this one. --Dhartung | Talk 04:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      AfD relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_April_23#James_Wesley_Rawles_.28closed.29--PeaceNT (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      James Wesley Rawles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      There are all kinds of problems with this one, primarily with the sourcing. Almost all of the sources are self-generated blogs, which violates WP:RS. There are a few other sources, but the links are either dead or they don't in fact mention this person. The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago. I'm sorry, but that is not enough to establish notability. The article also fails WP:BK, because all of the claimed publications are from vanity presses, meaning that anyone who pays to have books printed can be "published" by those entities. Of the three presses cited here, Xlibris is a well-known vanity press, "CafePress.com" is nothing more than a sales portal through which vanity-press authors can sell their vanity-press books, and "Arbogast Publishing" took me to a porno site that gave me a virus I had to delete. In addition, there may turn out to be WP:AUTO and WP:COI problems here. So the notability just isn't in the cards for this article. Qworty (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      ---


      • Keep -- This PROD is unfounded. It is noteworthy that this article survived two previous attempts at deletion, by a clear majority of those Wikipedians that responded.

      Rawles is certainly noteworthy because he is considered one of the key figures in the modern survivalist movement.

      I must mention two glaring points of error in Qworty's deletion nomination narrative:

      1.) Rawles is NOT just self-published. His novel was the best-selling book for Huntington House Publishers for more than four years. Huntington House was NOT a vanity press. (See their back list.)

      2.) Qworty stated: "The only source offered that stands up is a quote from the NYTimes nine years ago." That is absurd! Rawles was quoted by The New York Times again just last week! See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html?_r=1&oref=slogin If Qworty had taken the time to read the wiki piece in detail, he would have seen that recent reference is included. (Rawles was quoted twice in that New York Times article, in both the print and online editions.)

      I can see that "Qworty" had a very busy weekend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Qworty Perhaps he was in such a hurry that he just skimmed though the wiki entry on Rawles.

      I note that Qworty is a self-proclaimed Humanist, and I suspect that his PROD was motivated by his anti-Christian disposition. (Rawles is an outspoken Christian.)

      Perhaps some others would care to chime in...


      Trasel (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment Please assume good faith. It is obvious from Qworty's recent contribution history that vanity publication is a prime editorial concern, with little relationship to religion. Unless you have compelling evidence such as a Talk page comment or an edit summary, I suggest you retract that charge. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Additionally, I can find no evidence this article was ever nominated for deletion under this or any other name (e.g. Jim Rawles, a redirect). It was previously proposed for deletion, which occurred after it was undisputed for five days, and after recreation, it was speedily deleted for failing to assert notability. Neither of those processes involves "a clear majority"; neither of them involves discussion at all. Please show where discussion occurred and a clear majority favored retention. --Dhartung | Talk 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak delete. The guy has a blog and some books, but doesn't seem to have received much coverage as a subject. --Dhartung | Talk 01:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. If the subject is notable enough to be quoted repeatedly in the New York Times, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Survivalism is predominantly an Internet phenomenon. Rawles has published extensively in the most appropriate media for the topics he covers and for the audience he wishes to reach. He is widely known and reasonably well respected among survivalists. 166.129.83.140 (talk) 02:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — 166.129.83.140 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Keep. Rawles was quoted again in The New York Times on April 6. This adequately establishes notability. If some links are not working then let them be repaired rather than throw the baby out with the bathwater by deleting the whole entry. --SRHamilton (talk) 02:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP. [29] well, here's a print article featuring him. So, we have multiple NYT quotes, a huge internet presence, a magazine article, a professionally published book that sold more copies than my first book. As to Dhartung's question, is the NYT in the habit of quoting NON-notable people multiple times over several years? Or are we now saying that being "noted" by a periodical is not notable, without notability? EDITED TO ADD he also apparently edited three military-technical print magazines. That info is even in his Wiki article. I gather Qworty was in some kind of hurry. So, it seems are the "oh, he's a blogger" critics above. Mzmadmike (talk) 05:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I disagree that being quoted, even several times, is being "featured" in an article. Neither the "huge internet presence" nor the "professionally published book" confer notability. The magazine article, if you're talking about the one he wrote, does not confer notability. Sources that mention someone incidentally do not confer notability. Notability is being written about in some depth, not pull quotes. --Dhartung | Talk 07:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment. No, that is not a print article featuring him. It is an article about military hardware, not an article about Rawles. And no, being quoted in the NYTimes, no matter how many times, does not confer notability by our standards. If the Times were to run an article about him, then you would have something. We recently deleted a guy who'd written an article for the Times [30]. Unfortunately, the article was not about him, so it did not count toward notability. So is Rawles "just another blogger"? I'm afraid so. And as is well-established, blogs, no matter how numerous, do not constitute WP:RS. DailyKos is notable not because it is a blog with a zillion hits, but because there are articles in the NYTimes (and many other print publications) about DailyKos. That is the notability that is missing in this instance. The fact remains that survivalism is not primarily an Internet phenomenon, and that Rawles is not notable within the survivalism movement. Here, indeed, are 830 different BOOKS that mention survivalism:[31]. Rawles' books are themselves not notable, both because they fail WP:BK for being vanity published and because they have not been notably and widely reviewed. Notable reviews appear in the historical archive of GoogleNews, and as you can see here [32], Rawles receives only 4 hits since the beginning of time. That is hardly the mark of a notable author. Again, let me emphasize: It doesn't matter how many blog hits Rawles has or how many times he has paid vanity presses for publications. It doesn't matter how many times he is quoted in print articles that are not about him. In order to establish notability through WP:RS, the only thing that matters is how many print articles exist ABOUT him. Qworty (talk) 05:38, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      By the logic you are demonstrating, I am not notable and my own entry should be recommended for deletion. Go ahead.

      One of the things I despise about Wikipedia is that know-nothing nobodies with sticks up their ass will shift goalposts as many times as necessary to try to eliminate useful content, but will write reams of pages no one reads about "notable" things like Pikachu.

      Frankly, it reeks of jealousy.

      10,500 GHits, including a variety of manufacturers who reference reviews and analysis he's done. It sure would be nice if someone reading said reviews could ask, "So, who's this guy comparing this stuff and what are his credentials? Maybe Wikipedia can tell me."

      Nah, the bandwidth could be better used for Expendable Crewman #3 in Episode 87.

      Incidentally, have you noticed that so far you're on a largely solo crusade here?

      And his book WAS professionally published in its first printing.

      Now, I missed a part here, Qworty: What are YOUR credentials on anything? Survivalism? Writing? Reporting? Is there any reason YOU are notable and we should care what you think?Mzmadmike (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • KEEP. He was quoted in a NYTimes article last week, he's a recognized figure in the preparedness community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) 11:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC) — Flight-ER-Doc (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • KEEP. Rawles is very well known in the survivalist community and I would certainly expect to find him in wikipedia. I feel that that the motion to delete is in good faith but is missing the forest for the trees. Is the goal of this discussion to have a technical discussion over the various acronyms involved in the wiki process or to ensure that only notable figures in a non-mainstream movement are covered. kcs2c (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.83.50.74 (talk) — 64.83.50.74 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      • Note. Previous two comments are by new users. Qworty (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP. While there's room for an honorable difference of opinion, I think he just makes it over the notability line. Ribonucleic (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP. He is well known enough in certain circles that I would expect to find a Wikipedia article on him. Bnp, 7:06, 14 April 2008.
      • KEEP. Rawles is a published author and proponent of preparedness and survivalism with an increasingly popular blog[33] on the same subject. He was recently quoted by the New York Times in an article[34] on the mainstreaming of preparedness/survivalist thinking. -- Rydra Wong (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • KEEP - Addenda. Wikipedian Qworty mentioned: "Of the three presses cited here, Xlibris is a well-known vanity press." Yes, XLibris does sell dozens of vanity titles, most of which typically sell only a few dozen copies each, per year. But this novel "Patriots" by Rawles has been in the XLIBRIS Top 10 sellers list for more than two years. The book is presently ranked #1,150 on Amazon. (Out of more than 2 million titles in their catalog.) That isn't bad for a novel that has been in print for nearly 10 years. There are 146 reviews of it posted on Amazon, where it holds a 4.5 star rating. So Qworty characterizing the book as just some marginal "vanity press" book is hardly fair. OBTW, just for comparison of how well other "older" novels continue to sell: Tom Clancy's novel "Debt of Honor" has been in print for 12 years, has 204 reviews, a 4 star rating, and is ranked #112,896 for sales on Amazon. Trasel (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note.. Yes that was my first edit of any wiki entry. Thanks for the welcome. I had read about "wiki-lawyering" recently and am quite amused to run into it so soon. Is the relevant factor a familiarity with the various policies of wiki or a general test for relevance? kcs2c (talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (talk) [reply]

      Keep - James Wesley Rawles is a well known and respected author and consultant in the emergency preparedness community. He has d wide verity of emergency preparedness publications to his credit and his blog is read worldwide. 3towedsloth, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.15.18.30 (talk) 22:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC) — 75.15.18.30 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

      • KEEP. I felt I had to sign up for an account just to post my 2 cents on this deletion. I will make this as short as possible.
      1) Quoting the "Insufficient Sources" section of the Wikipedia page for Notability: "If the article is about a specialized field, use the 'expert-subject' tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online." Survivalism is a specialized field. In my experience if you ask 10 "survivalists" who James Wesley Rawles is, 8 of them are likely to hand you a copy of his novel 'Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse'(2006).
      2) The validity of his work has been questioned as "self-publishing". I agree that someone who pays to publish his own work and then sells 5 copies to his grandmother is not automatically credible. That, however, is not the case with this individual. James Wesley Rawles was listed on the Wikipedia page for "Survivalism", his novel was listed along with 15 other published works of fiction noteworthy among the genre/field. I looked up the sales ranking on Amazon for all of the books listed: (for brevity I only listed those books at least in the top 10,000)
      Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse by James Wesley Rawles (2006)
      #1,252 in books - 146 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
      Lord of the Flies by William Golding (1954)
      #1,979 in books - 1,261 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
      Hatchet by Gary Paulsen (2006)
      #3,246 in books - 1,132 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
      Lucifers Hammer by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven (1985)
      #4,894 in books - 196 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
      Earth Abides by George R. Stewart (1949)
      #7,139 in books - 247 customer reviews - 4/5 stars
      Alas, Babylon by Pat Frank (1959)
      #7,908 in books - 255 customer reviews - 4.5/5 stars
      Now I think we can move past any misconceptions that this is just an author who self published a kook piece and sold a couple editions at a tent on the interstate.
      I at first thought that perhaps it was reasonable that JWR's page be merged with the page for his site, Survivalblog.com, but then I noticed that a Wiki search for survivalblog takes you to JWR's page. The only reasonable alternative to leaving his page as is, in my opinion, is to merge it into the 'Survivalism' page. I think that is a mistake. Rawles is due his place in survivalism every bit as much as Mel Tappan and Kurt Saxon - both of whom have their own page on Wikipedia. cynimaddict: 207.5.100.27 (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC) (on talk pages)[reply]


      Mr. Rawles is well known and well respected within the survivalist community, and Mr. Rawles books are available through many outlets, including Amazon.com and Barnes and Noble. No harm can come from keeping the entry. However, I do feel that harm may come from deleting the entry, as it would be seen by many as a political maneuver rather than one which calls into question the honesty of the article or its educational value. And after events such as Hurricane Katrina, we could all use a bit of his advice.

      As mentioned above, this Afd was closed as "delete" on April 28, then was relisted May 2 per the discussion at DRV linked at the top of the discussion. The !votes below the line were posted after the relisting. Xymmax (talk) 15:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

      • Keep Rawles is often used as a resource by major media outlets just because he keeps a blog does not make him any less notable. (and I really wish someone would actually run a checkuser instead of continually accusing people of being socks...see the deletion review for an analysis of account creation dates for the "socks") LegoTech·(t)·(c) 14:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep He is a published author who, in "survivalist/prepardness" circles, is well respected and who wields considerable influence. You don't have to agree with him, but his circle of influence is large in that niche. An article on him is worthwhile to keep in wikipedia for people researching the topic. Rearden9 (talk) 14:43, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Consensus in the DRV was there is more to be heard about this subject. Although the article is clearly written as an advert, I found book reviews for two of his books in the Sacramento Bee[35], Press Telegram[36], Wired (magazine)[37], and World Net Daily[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=751]. This is more then enough independent review by reliable publications to establish notability as an author in my mind. The survivalist stuff, and the blog, I cannot verify outside of primary sources, but should be included because the rest is verified, including recent 2008 New York Times quotations mentioned in the AfD. It should be rewritten, but its an obvious keep. MrPrada (talk) 15:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete VERY little in the article asserts notability independent of the subject. A good portion of the references in the article come from work that rawles produced himself. The article as it stands (other than the notability concerns, which are the primary reason for deletion) is a total mess. Whole sections are created largely from material Rawles has written. Facts are invented to make Rawles appear more visionary. I count 7 items in the reference section that aren't directly from Rawles or his blog. Of those 7, 5 are of dubious reliability. They are either blogs or are otherwise independent websites with no real editorial control. The main source of notability comes from the survivalist movement in general. 100% of the news coverage that exists about this guy is really about the survivalist movement. He is quoted as a figure in it. That, to me, is trivial coverage. Even if kept, the article needs to be trimmed down substantially. I would do it but I have no desire to get into an edit war over this guy. Protonk (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Deleting an article you find to be poorly written is bordering on vandalism. How about, here's a thought, improving it instead?Mzmadmike (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me rephrase that for you: "I think that deleting an article you find to be poorly written is bordering on vandalism." There, now it is more accurate. First, I'm not suggesting it be deleted because it is poorly worded. I'm suggesting it be deleted because the most reliable, non-trivial mention of Rawles is World net daily's review of his self published book. It's a notability problem, not an editorial problem. Protonk (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      • Keep Seems to have enough notability to survive. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Desperately feeble keep. Reasonable minds can differ, and candidly, I think that a rigorous application of our notability guidelines might well leave the subject out in the cold. However, given that he is, to my estimation, close to notability, and given a strong internet presence in sources that, while perhaps not reliable are independant of the subject, I'm willing to do a bit of bending the guidelines here. For policy purposes I guess you could say its a bit of ignoring the rules to reach a reasonable result, because I think there is enough verifiable information out there to write a decent article. Xymmax (talk) 16:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak keep Published author, quoted by NYTimes, with a not-unpopular website. It's weak notability, but I don't think it's sufficiently non-notable to be deleted. Most of the problems are cleanup issues, COI, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and to some extent WP:BLP, but most of it is resolvable; once the repairs are made, the weak notability becomes not so offensive. -Verdatum (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Weak notability, WP:BLP. Everything said by Verdatum really. Bulldog123 (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep The man is very well known within a specialized field. Blackeagle (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      • Keep for the following:
      • On-line Underground. The Spokesman-Review (Spokane). Dec. 3, 1995, page H7. (Included a profile of James W. Rawles, Orofino, Idaho.)

      Some store food, gold, guns in case Y2K brings chaos. The Sacramento Bee, December 29, 1998 (Front page.)

      Getting in Touch With Y2K and the Prophets of Doom. Press-Telegram (Long Beach, California), January 7, 1999

      "Do you live in fear of the millennium?", South China Morning Post, April 6, 1999

      How America Uses The Net (Subsection Profile: [James Rawles] The Y2K Survivalist) Yahoo! Internet Life Magazine, September, 1999, p. 108-109. <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/filters/bursts/0,3422,2298790,00.html>

      Thursday Offers a Mini-Y2K Situation, Experts Say. The Sacramento Bee, September 8, 1999 (Front page.)

      Some more recent print media interviews:

      Duck and Cover: It’s the New Survivalism. The New York Times, April 

      6, 2008 Online: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html*

      Survivalism Creeps Into the Mainstream. Chicago Tribune, April 24, 2008.

      Food Rationing Confronts Breadbasket of the World. New York Sun, 

      April 21, 2008 Online: http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

      http://www.foxbusiness.com/video/index.html "Load up the Pantry"

      And some that were electronic media only:

      The Official Vehicle of Y2K, by Declan McCullagh, Y2KCulture.com. March 24, 1999. http://web.archive.org/web/19990508031202/www.y2kculture.com/arts/19990324.ferret.html

      Five Novels of Freedom. World Net Daily Sept. 30, 1999. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=14119

      Survivalists get ready for meltdown. April 10, 2008 CNN.com http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/

      Now survivalism isn't just for eccentrics. SFGate.com. April 3, 2008. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/13/MNIL1008L2.DTL

      The Changing Situation of Survivalism. The Situationist. April 10, 2008 http://thesituationist.wordpress.com/2008/04/10/the-changing-situation-of-survivalism/

      Global Food Crisis Sparks US Survivalist Resurgence. Australian Broadcast Corp. April 28, 2008. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/28/2228908.htm

      James Wesley, Rawles on Survival Fire Arms. Y2KChaos. http://y2kchaos.entrewave.com/view/y2kchaos/s35p225.htm

      Derivatives the next (and probably last) financial bomb? Online Traders Forum. March 19, 2008. http://www.onlinetradersforum.com/showthread.php?p=98454

      An opponent: Why survivalists make me want to die. Gristmill. 23 April 2008.

      http://www2.nysun.com/article/74994

      http://arlingtoncardinal.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2008/4/21/3652291.html

      http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/04/20/survival.feat/index.html

      http://www.climateark.org/shared/reader/welcome.aspx?linkid=96250

      Here is the original source for same article, at the NY Times site, but they require registration to access some older articles: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/fashion/06survival.html

      http://www.timeswatch.org/articles/2008/20080408131354.aspx

      http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=LB&p_theme=lb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EAE929EEB312718&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

      http://derekclontz.wordpress.com/2007/09/10/second-great-depression-just-weeks-away-warns-expert/

      ABC News also contacted him to find people to interview on the subject of preparedness. http://www.survivalblog.com/2008/04/note_from_jwr_527.html

      Rawles worked as an Associate Editor with Defense Electronics magazine in the late 1980s clearwaterpress.112283261

      Managing editor of The C3I Handbook and The International Countermeasures Handbook. http://www.amazon.com/gp/pdp/profile/AUVJYOISOM0TT

      Patriots: Surviving the Coming Collapse from Huntington House Publishers, ISBN 978-1563841552 (November 1998)

      Interviewed by NYT, NYT, NY Sun, NYT, Fox News, Australian ABC, CNN Europe, sourced by ABC...Very successful professionally published novel, maintaining near-bestseller status in self-reprint. Apparently, SOMEONE thinks this guy is notable. They keep interviewing him.

      I think I'm going to propose that tagging "delete" on an entry to "improve" it should be considered vandalism and grounds for locking an account. It happens too often. There are a great many niche subjects, but a niche of 100K (and some are in the millions) is still enough for both notability and encyclopedic interest.

      And Qworty: I stated that you moved the goalposts--you did, but I welcome your attempt to do so this time, and that you were unqualified to comment on this subject, which was blatantly obvious. Both are verifiable facts, neither was a personal attack.

      Yes, the article needs improvement. There are tags for that. Use them first. Delete later. If you people were surgeons you'd be amputating for hangnails.Mzmadmike (talk) 05:50, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • OK. See you on the article. I'm removing every source that doesn't fit WP:RS (blogs, self published, vanity press material) and then deleting material that isn't sourced. Cheers! Protonk (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Additional query. How are you sourcing the paper publications? At least one person was deleting paper pubs he couldn't source online...isn't that an obvious no-no? Paper pubs are more reliable than online...BUT, we want those paper sources to be verifiable online...Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      • Comment The article is still very spammy and contains inflated rubbish such as describing him as an "economist" (if that's so then so is my bus driver; it is not enough to merely have an opinion about economics). Nevertheless, I wish to acknowledge the cleanup efforts of Protonk. --Dhartung | Talk 20:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I concur he has no credentials in economics. Perhaps "Commentator on economics" would be more accurate? Incidentally, I believe the Huntington House edition of his novel went through four or five printings.Mzmadmike (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not sure what to call it, but it shouldn't be in the lead. He's an author, a blogger, and a TV pundit, and that's about it. Even the "consultant" speaks of resume-padding. If he consulted with a Fortune 500 company on a mountain hidey-hole for their executives that would make him notable as a consultant. That's the kind of claim-inflation that has disposed me negatively toward this article. --Dhartung | Talk 10:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      By all means fix those parts. OTOH, I'm unable to find any paper publication called "Wikipedia." It seems to be largely a self-published blog full of opinion and unsourced comments. It's also not considered a valid source in most educational institutions.;-) If there's a "padded" resume out there, Wikipedia is it. Where am I going with this? Remove the padding, ignore it, sort and find the relevant stuff. Isn't that what an encyclopedist is supposed to do?Mzmadmike (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Fom what he has written, he has consulting clients, but they aren't Fortune 500 companies. I gather that it is mainly rich doctors and lawyers. According to his site, he charges $100 per hour. He mentions that he has clients, some common questions he gets from his clients, and only vague references to where they are. (He did mention one in eastern Oregon, IIRC.) For other mentions, See: http://www.survivalblog.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-search.cgi?IncludeBlogs=2&search=consulting+client

      It is pretty far-fetched to think that we will find someone that has written an article proclaiming that "Jim Rawles helped me design my secret lair in the Rocky Mountains..." That wouldn't be much of a secret then, would it? -- Trasel (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Please don't inject logic into a debate. They're busy trying to prove why online sources are invalid...for an online source.Mzmadmike (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Please don't treat this process as a joke. We insist on reliable sources for important reasons. --Dhartung | Talk 06:48, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, in that case, I'm a submarine consultant. Don't bother checking for references, because none of my clients would want people to know about their secret submarines. but just trust me on that. Seriously now. I don't actually doubt the truth of the claims, I doubt the verifiability. Because honestly, none of our **llshit detectors are good enough to vet every article for truth, that is why we rely on third party sources. Protonk (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      At this point, you'd actually have to read the blog for extensive threads on such shelters, strength of materials, ground assessments, volume, air filtration, etc. It's in there, though. I spent 23 years doing such work professionally for the military, and his scholarship and research on it was impressive. Of course, that's a combination of online and OR, but I'll bet it'll stand scrutiny by a SME. Where will you find such? In preparedness/survivalist/engineering fora. We seem to be coming back to (and this is criticism, but not intended as derogatory) to WP:IDONTKNOWIT therefore DELETE on the part of several editors.Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to weak delete If the sources listed here make their way into the article, then it is approaching notability. I'm still of the mind that being quoted isn't the intended threshold of that guideline, but there are a lot of publications that have quoted him. Protonk (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • References -- Editor Dhartung challenged some online references that I made to two hard copy magazines from the late 1980s. Per the WR:V guidelines, I have made a query to WP:WRE. Hopefully, someone can confirm that Rawles was on the mastheads of these magazines. Trasel (talk) 13:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I did not "challenge ... online references". I challenged the notability of being an associate editor. Unless our rules for journalists have changed, that is nto generally an indicator of notability. --Dhartung | Talk 18:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      How many "almost notables" equal a notable? It's looking more and more (see criticism above) that the people knowledgeable of the subject are being shouted down by WP:IDONTKNOWITs. There isn't a gun show I sell at where I don't have someone approach me, comment on my articles on the blog, ask about my books, and start talking about Rawles. Usually, multiple people. Again, it may be niche, but it's a LARGE niche. It's also, by definition, a rather discreet niche. In that niche, Rawles is very well known. Honest question: When does OR become SME?Mzmadmike (talk) 00:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Honest answer: I assume you mean Subject Matter Expert. This has been a longstanding issue with Wikipedia both internally and in the public reaction to the site. The short answer is that expertise is welcomed, but all contributions must still meet WP:V and WP:RS. For a longer answer, please take a look at expert retention. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      In an e-mail to me, Rawles mentioned that he wrote more than 30 bylined articles for the Defense Electronics magazine. But in my opinion only one of those is truly notable with regard to his expertise as survivalist--the piece that he wrote in 1990 on High Technology Terrorism. In it, he predicted that terrorists would use technology as a force multiplier. Looking at the 9/11 attacks and the now widespread use of radio-controlled bombs ("IEDs"), his prediction was accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasel (talk • contribs)
      But writing articles isn't by itself notable. And subjectively evaluating articles for their historical relevance isn't appropriate for notability purposes. --Dhartung | Talk 20:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Rawles is hardly the only person to have predicted the use for technology as a force multiplier by terrorists. I mean, tom clancy wrote a book about terrorists slamming a 747 into the capitol building. That seems to be a lucky (some, not me, would say prescient) guess, insofar as it is both precise and (largely) accurate. I would say his prediction of all-out societal destruction from Y2k is not exactly redeemed by predicting the use of technology by terrorists. Protonk (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Protonk, what we would need is a secondary source saying "Rawles predicted 9/11" or something a little less headlinese. An editor looking at his old article and making a connection to 9/11 would be synthesis of sources. Of course, that article could be used as a source in an article on terrorism, but drawing the conclusion that because he thought that up in 1984 or whenever he is now notable is not the way things work around here. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Not to beat this old horse to death, but Jim Rawles is probably the best-known living survivalist in America. (Currently, much more so that Kurt Saxon) I think that either his blog (by itself) and his novel (by itself) qualify him as notable. The fact that he is quoted so widely and so frequently is supportingly indicative. We are talking about a niche movement, but he is definitely at the top of the food chain in that niche. If when all is said and done you find him un-notable, then PLEASE go zap video blogger Chris Crocker's wiki bio page while you are at it, since he has whole lot less to qualify him for genuine notability than Rawles does. Thanks for everyone's efforts in the re-write of this article. -- Trasel (talk) 21:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not arguing that. I was never arguing that he should be deleted because I don't know/care about him. What I know or care about is irrelevant. In some sense, I originally voted to delete because the article, and the sources quoted by it, didn't establish notability. Flat out. The original article was not very promising. Lots of dead links, unverified cites, self-published material serving as authority on contentious subjects. Usually when this is all there is to support an article, it is not notable. In this case, I was wrong and I admitted it. the evidence you helped put in the article established that some secondary sources said he was notable. that is what matters. I didn't come around because you said he was so notable and central to the survivalist movement. I didn't come around for fear that other niche figures would be excised from wikipedia. I came around because the evidence supported a new viewpoint. Protonk (talk) 01:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Of course, he may be the best-known living survivalist (although there's an obvious gag in saying that). But it doesn't help for us to think that. It helps for secondary sources to say it. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Changed to weak keep thanks to Trasel's work on the article, I think notability has been marginally established (see Austrailian ABC interview, NY Times very short mention and CNN mentions). I think that the page needs to be kept NPOV and V, but notability has been marginally established. Protonk (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I will agree that Trasel's edits to the article have vastly improved it, even beyond the help you gave it. If this had been the state of the article at the beginning I would have voted as you just did. --Dhartung | Talk 00:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Okay, I'm a professional writer with 8 books in print and two pending, from major houses. Based on his sales, I regard him as pro. Just to be fair, I checked with the Executive Director of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America. Now, he doesn't meet the criteria for our market guidelines, but her comment was, "Clearly, if his books are selling then he is professional, in that sense of the word and probably in other senses of the word, too." I'm also going to check with a couple of specialist booksellers. There is, however, a line that gets crossed even in self-pub when one becomes a peer. We had this argument with the whole webcomic scandal last year. Any book in the top 10K on Amazon is a notable book. Breaking 2000 takes effort. Anything in the top 1000 is damned near bestseller. His book in question has maintained that sales status (above 10K, frequently above 2K) for close to 6 years now. You might compare to a Matt Bracken, who is entirely self published. If you don't know who he is, it's additional evidence that you're not familiar enough with the niche to comment.Mzmadmike (talk) 14:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I would hope by now you would understand both the difference between "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon" and "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon, according to secondary source", as well as between "he has maintained bestseller status on Amazon, according to secondary source" and "he has been quoted in secondary source". I am not disputing that he is a professional writer. There are many professional writers who do not meet notability standards. And anyone is capable of evaluating sources. If we just relied on what people knew about him in their gut, we'd never get WP:V for any article. --Dhartung | Talk 21:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      references[edit]

      In case people want to add some. :)


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

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Vertroleum[edit]

      Vertroleum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Advertising thrice deleted, Creator asserts significant brand name and encyclopedic content. . Dlohcierekim 13:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The information on Vertroleum is no more nonsense or blatant promotion than articles for Coca-Cola or Ipods. It IS information on a product that deserves looking at. If it is deleted again I will honor and not contest but I still do not understand the difference in this article and those posted by companies and individuals touting other products. I have read rules for posting and in MHO a good many product listed here also break those rules. Again just my 2 cents DMMc (talk) 13:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      delete Except those are well established products with a cultural significance and independent citations as such. Yours isn't.
      Comment Too clarify, Ipod and Coco Cola meet the "household name" test of WP:N. We forget sometimes that new users are not as knowledgeable about policies as we are. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 14:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - blatant advertising, no sources listed. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      You are correct...I am a new user and I do understand. I will endeavor to post better in the future. DMMc (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      My first article got deleted too. <<sigh>> Dlohcierekim 14:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete, WP:CSD A7 and G11: absolutely no indicia of notability, and obvious advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as advertisement for a non notable product.--Berig (talk) 16:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete - Spam. Yes, in theory the product could be notable. However, no independant sources confirm this: none provided, none found. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 17:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete via A7 or G11 for a promotional article on a non-notable product. And to the author: don't worry, writing an article from scratch has a rather steep learning curve. Bfigura (talk) 22:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete - this article has already been deleted three times and has not been improved at all. It's advertising. Rob Banzai (talk) 16:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus ---- Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:23, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Kalasol[edit]

      Kalasol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable rapper with minimal media coverage that is mostly—if not all—trivial. Fails WP:MUSIC. Pretty much all content has been added by a string of single-purpose accounts. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 12:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Mark Cadwallader[edit]

      Mark Cadwallader (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Player fails notability at WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a fully-pro league yet. --Jimbo[online] 12:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 14:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Fails WP:BIO#Athletes. пﮟოьεԻ 57 16:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment WP:ATHLETE provides for the highest level of amateur sport, there is no professional welsh league. Make of this what you will. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Mark Cadwallader is English, though, so has the opportunity to play in a fully pro league in his own country. If an otherwise unremarkable amateur player from England/Spain/Germany/Italy for some reason wound up playing in the top amateur league in a country like, I dunno, Fiji, would he gain notability by playing in the top amateur league in said completely random country....? Food for thought....... ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Note also that the clause you cite actually says "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)." - no secondary sources have yet come to light for this player ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 sourcing and improved verification of notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Shaun Bailey[edit]

      Shaun Bailey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Sorry. I nominated this article for deletion but have totally forgotten my password. This is a page about a candidate for elected office who has no other notability. There is clear precedent that candidates for office are not sufficiently notable unless there is some other claim to notability. I don't think any other claim is sufficiently asserted here - it really just seems to be a vanity page. 86.144.83.215 (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). It is clear that there is consensus to keep this article, not least from merging/moving proposals, and as such this is a content discussion best suited at the article's talk page. WilliamH (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Oxygen isotope ratio cycle[edit]

      Oxygen isotope ratio cycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Why? All the issues discussed in the previous comments and more. E.g.: it contains incorrect definitions and/or descriptions. like that a molecule contains the three isotopes. This article should be deleted and the article oxygen-18 corrected and expanded. That is, if you think that the this wiki should be regarded as a serious reference cource. Jclerman (talk) 01:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article's talk page. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep The article is more coherent than the nomination and has adequate sources to support it. Any detailed errors are just a matter for normal content editing and the issue about a molecule has already been addressed. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The article goes beyond what is approptriate for oxygen-18. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, suggest speedy keep. Seems to be an adequately referenced article about an interesting phenomenon in earth history. I do not understand why this is here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      "Seems" is in the eye of the beholder. The interesting and useful phenomena are the variations in the delta values, cyclical or not. I suggest: recast the text with proper emphasis in variations, then merge into O-18, delta O-18, and/or paleoclimatology. Jclerman (talk) 15:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Such editing actions do not require deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      It might be easier than eliminating the term cycle or cycles from the page title. Jclerman (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      No, changing an article title may be done by any registered editor by pressing the move tab for that article. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A rename, or a merge, may well be appropriate, but I don't see an obvious one. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was keep. John254 02:42, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Jay Reise[edit]

      Jay Reise (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      University based composer without great distinction. Should even be article? Recommended for deletion due to notability issues. 165.123.130.78 (talk · contribs) Nomination recreated from edit summaries. ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Anomalous oxygen[edit]

      Anomalous oxygen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This article is absolutely incorrect - DELETE IT, PLEASE

      The anomaly is the difference in density between a pure O-16 containing gas and a gas containing also heavier isotopes. No oxygen is anomalous. Jclerman (talk) 01:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page ➨ REDVEЯS is always ready to dynamically make tea 11:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep/merge The article seems coherent, factual and is supported by a good source. The issue just seems to be a matter of the language used but the objection seems to originate from someone who is not a native English speaker. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Transwiki to Wiktionary. A google search reveals that the term is actually used, but it seems to be little more than unusual terminology. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      study of the many scholarly sources indicate that analysis of such anomalies occurs in disparate fields such as geology and astronomy. There's too much science here for a dictionary entry. Dictionaries are for words, not complex phrases. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Two words are not a complex phrase. If you are right, then a rename is needed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      1. The article NRLMSISE-00 already discusses the new concept of anomalous oxygen, discussed in one or two of the slew of googled scholarly references:
      • "hot" atomic oxygen and ionospheric atomic oxygen ions (O+), which can be of primary importance during the summer at high latitudes and altitudes above 600 km. Since neither of these species is in thermal equilibrium with the thermosphere, the new NRLMSISE-00 model treats them as a new component to drag called "anomalous oxygen."
      2. All the other googled references refer not to isotope qualities of anomalous oxygen but to anomalous isotope-qualities of oxygen. Few of the slew of googled references follow the correct grammar usage by hyphenating, eg as follows: anomalous oxygen-isotope composition. Many authors omitt the hyphem because either they are not native speakers of English or they assume that the readers are native speakers of technical jargon and avoid the hyphen when the meaning of the chain of multiple adjectives is obvious to the reader. I think that the Chicago Manual of Style Online advocates some non-hyphenated uses. These anomalies are fully discussed in the articles oxygen-18, Isotope analysis, paleoclimate, and many other proxies.Jclerman (talk) 10:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The reference is one paper dealing with this anomaly, but that doesn't mean that the anomaly is a good topic for an article. I agree with Jclerman that this can be discussed better in broader articles. I would call this a merge except that the title is wrong (per the reasons given by Jclerman) and probably not worth the redirect. --Itub (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The name of the article is misleading - the oxygen is not anomalous, but the ratio of the percentages of the various isotopes is the actual focus of the article, which seems to border on trivia. One published article falls well short of the bar for WP:V and WP:RS. This is written as an abstract, rather than an encyclopedia article, that serves only as an introduction. The article ends with "deductions can be made" - Deductions of what? If it's to be saved (and I cannot see why), it could be merged into oxygen with one line summarizing the abstract. B.Wind (talk) 23:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure). Huon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Super Comet: After The Impact[edit]

      Super Comet: After The Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      No independent reliable sources, fails the primary notability criterion. Was prodded, the editor who removed the prod said that the show is "being discussed primarily on blogs", which do not confer notability. Huon (talk) 11:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have had a look at the 200-odd Google hits, and lo and behold, there were a few newspaper reviews, bestowing what I'd call borderline notability. I've added them to the article, and though I strongly disagree with 23skidoo's "blogs confer notability" approach, I withdraw my nomination, closing this AfD as there were no delete !votes. Huon (talk) 22:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, and as I indicated (I'm the editor referenced above) Wikipedia's policies need to be updated for 2008 with regards to blogs. That notwithstanding, this is a production of a major television network -- Discovery Channel -- and it has been broadcast internationally. It is also on DVD. Based upon precedent set many times before, nationally broadcast television programs by nationally available networks are inherently notable. If there was doubt that this production existed or if the article was a hoax, then I could see the logic in deleting it. But as it happened I removed the PROD and revised the article as best I could while the show was being broadcast, so I can attest that it exists. The fact it doesn't have a ton of websites associated with it is a case of Web Bias; I simply haven't had time to go hunting for newspaper articles and the like associated with it. The original version of the article that was PROD'ed had no categories, and was just a very rough one-line nothing. It's still a stub, but its one that can be expanded. 23skidoo (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep As per 23skidoo. Seems notable. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Awesomeball[edit]

      Awesomeball (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Non-notable, made-up-in-school-one-day game Booglamay (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment: No attempt at assertion of notability (or existance), only potentially relevant Google search results are from other Wikies or personal/non-credible websites. Booglamay (talk) 11:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Great name, no notability. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep i'm not sure if its a real sport or if its fake. Some references would be good. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Most definitely made up one day (just like all the other one-Ghit sports called "awesomeball"). AnturiaethwrTalk 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Definitely made up. Malinaccier (talk) 20:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete db-vandalism, obvious hoax (Ghits come up with several different people's "amazing" idiotic sports that they have also dubbed 'awesomeball'). JuJube (talk) 10:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Maxim Tokarev[edit]

      Maxim Tokarev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Firearms are not exempt from WP:N. Dorftrottel (bait) 11:14, May 2, 2008 11:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - per nom. Article makes no claims of notability and two of the sources go to pictures. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Real and verifiable, just needs citations (which is grounds for improvement, not deletion). Notable in that the Soviets' reliance on obsolete firearms such as the Maxim-Tokarev was an important factor in the Germans' success during the early stages of their invasion during WWII.[41] -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, if it's kept, it should probably be moved to Maxim-Tokarev, which seems to be the most common format of the name. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 17:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Uh-oh. Looks like my AfD nomination was indeed premature [42]. If it's ok with everyone, I'll just withdraw it right away. Dorftrottel (ask) 18:33, May 2, 2008
      I agree, let's withdraw and improve the article.Biophys (talk) 02:05, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • To appease my conscience, I've included what I consider the most relevant Google books hits, preformatted to be used as refs. Dorftrottel (bait) 11:11, May 3, 2008


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

      The result was Delete per consensus. No prejudice against recreation if/when reliable, verifiable sources are found that show the notability of this person, per WP:BIO. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Bob Horton[edit]

      Bob Horton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non notable person. Main notability claim in the article appears to be that he is a Parkinson's sufferer, and founder of the "Bob Horton Trust". The trust gets no google hits at all, apart from this page. Searching for "Bob Horton" journalist also gets no relevant results. Delete as lacking verifiability. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete Fails general WP:N guidelines as well as Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, if that is what the assertion of notability is, according to the author. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - this article has one link to it... and it comes from Prisoner Visitation and Support, an article for an organization co-founded by a different Bob Horton. Otherwise, this article is orphaned and dead end. It makes no significant attempt to demonstrate notability and has no cited references for WP:V or WP:BIO. As a member of a national medium, it is possible that Mr. Horton is indeed noteworthy of a Wikipedia article, but much more needs to be shown for it to be kept. B.Wind (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (Keep by default) Waggers (talk) 13:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Colder Than Hell[edit]

      Colder Than Hell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      non-notable book - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • delete Doesn't seem to have been a best-seller or otherwise significant, just a decently-reviewed war memoir. Brianyoumans (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep It seems to have had at least a couple of reviews: [43] [44] It's difficult to judge the depth of these from the previews, but they seem "non-trivial" to me. They're definitely "independent", and there's two of them, so they're "multiple". And the audiobook version was also given an award by Publishers Weekly. [45] I'd say that means it passes WP:BK. -- KittyRainbow (talk) 22:46, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Imraan Faruque[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Imraan Faruque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Biographical/Inappropriate user page.

      Append: Mr. Faruque is a graduate student at the University of Maryland. Not sure about his contributions to the field, however, a Google search doesn't reveal much beyond the Wikipedia page and copies of the same. I am sure Mr. Faruque has contributed to the UAV field, but at the present time that wouldn't be more than any other researcher-trainee in this field. Including this page in an encyclopedia justifies creating a page for every graduate student (say with more than three publications) working on UAVs. gnusbiz (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep: Sorry, I started this page as a class assignment about collaborative online works. We were supposed to add a brief about a regional landmark, celebrity, or icon to Wikipedia. I actually met Imraan once on his pogo stick back when he was a student, then I read about his training schedule in the CT (this is our local newspaper). I tried to add a link to that news article to the page, but I added other links instead. I'm sorry if a sentence was hard to read, but the article is neither a user page nor a prank. Thank you to all the editors after me that helped improve it, I thought they made it better. I would revise it to make it easier to read but it made sense to me when I wrote it. I don't know how to prove that he is no longer a student, perhaps VT graduation records?? I didn't want to add him to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Virginia_Tech_alumni. In any event, even if he was, I don't see how that disqualifies his contributions to the UAV field or prevents him from being in Wikepedia. Upon closer look, I hope you and other editors find it valuable, since it's not a prank but rather a serious article about a town icon. I would suggest that you revise the sentence you found confusing. (GoAirForce (talk) 04:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Delete. Importance not established, and all the unsourced material about eccentric personal habits has no place in an encyclopedia article in any case, unsourced or not. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep: Nom. suggested deletion as article appeared to be a prank. References are verifiable, a casual google search turns up several more third-party references (insert the usual caveat about the google test). Additionally, Mr (or is it Dr?) Faruque does appear in the FAA Airmen Directory http://www.ire.org/datalibrary/databases/viewdatabase.php?dbaseindex=29 as a pilot, a fact which could be included in the article. The article is a stub and needs expansion but WP:INSPECTOR. It is appropriately identified as a stub and well written as stub articles go, suggesting not a prank. Whether or not the individual is a student or not is irrelevant--a student may certainly be included in WP. Tag the eccentric personal habits for sources. (96.241.110.218 (talk) 21:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)) — 96.241.110.218 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
      No, the eccentric personal habits entries should be deleted on sight per WP:BLP, not tagged for sources. I'm going to do this right now. Nor does appearance in an FAA directory of licensed pilots establish any notability nor is it appropriate for a reference in any article. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Other than the nominator, there were no delete opinions. « D. Trebbien (talk) 01:39 2008 May 7 (UTC) (non-admin)

      Jim Falk[edit]

      Jim Falk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      does not satisfy WP:PROF, claim to have authored and co-authored over 100 papers, unverified Michellecrisp (talk) 05:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep. Don't forget that Falk has authored or co-authored five books, listed here. He is clearly more notable than your average professor. Johnfos (talk) 19:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Most professors have contributed to writing to five books. Remember co-authoring can be as a little as writing one chapter. There is a lack of evidence that Falk is a noted expert that is well reported from various sources. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:51, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. For goodness sake Michelle, writing a chapter in a book and co-authoring a book are not the same thing, and it is clear from the Falk book list that he has done more than write a chapter in each of the books concerned. Also, I would be surprised if "most professors" have authored or co-authored five or more books, so please provide a reference to support this statement if you have one. Johnfos (talk) 00:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment I still don't see how he satisfies any of the WP:PROF criteria, are these books widely reported academic sources? I think not. from that list the last book he authored or co-authored was 1992, how can you be considered an expert if you have had no published books for 16 years? One of those co-authored books was publised by a very left green group [46] , hardly a noted academic publisher. Another of his books is being sold as used copies for 2 canadian cents on Amazon [47] Michellecrisp (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Michelle, you are being hypercritical of Jim Falk...

      The book published by the "very left green group", titled Red Light for Yellow Cake is not included in Falk's list of five books. If we include this it makes a total of six books. But we shouldn't focus narrowly on Falk's books. It is clear that he has also devoted much time to consultancies and these include:[48]

      • The Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (ARPANSA)
      • Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
      • The Hon Lynne Kosky, Minister for Education and Training Victoria (Chair, Review of the Registered Schools Board)
      • Alligator Rivers Region Technical Advisory Committee (appointee, Commonwealth Minister for the Environment)
      • Australian Research Council
      • Climate Change Section, Commonwealth Department of Environment, Sport and Territories
      • Illawarra Regional Organisation of Councils
      • Commonwealth Environment Protection Agency
      • Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Commonwealth Department of Arts, Sport, the *Environment and Territories
      • Sydney Water, NSW
      • Water Board, NSW
      • Public Works, NSW
      • Environment Protection Agency, NSW
      • Council for the plaintiff, Dingwall v Commonwealth of Australia, Supreme Court of NSW
      • Princilla Fleming Q.C. in the matter of Daryl Richard Johnstone v The Commonwealth of Australia, Supreme Court of NSW
      • Hullensians Pty Ltd
      • Commission of Inquiry into Electricity Generation in NSW
      • Technology Directorate, Department of Technology, West Australian Government
      • Department of Minerals and Energy, Victorian Energy Plan, Victoria
      • Australian Council of Trade Unions

      If you are interested in Falk's recent work, please see these lists of publications for recent years: [49] and [50] Johnfos (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Comment number of consultancies is not an indication of notability as an academic, most academics especially in science, technology and engineering provide expert advice to government agencies and private sector. If you quote http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person35647.html then every academic at Melbourne uni I can find on this should have a Wikipedia article.can we have some more independent sources to establish his notability besides www.unimelb.edu.au ? I don't see how I'm being hypocritical but I do note he has similar views to what you're into.but please be objective here, yes he does have expertise but the question is he notable enough to have a Wikipedia article? Michellecrisp (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Michelle, it is clear that you are just not going to have it that Jim Falk satisfies WP notability, no matter what evidence you are given. I think DGG has summed up the situation nicely, so I won't bother writing again. Johnfos (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      John, you have not stated which criterion of WP:PROF he specifically meets, secondly, all the references to support his supposed notability are essentially self published sources of content he would approve himself on www.unimelb.edu.au . Specifically, the use of www.unimelb.edu.au to prove notability fails this Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources. I am looking for independent sources as prove notability including high respect from other noted academics, use of publications as a textbook or otherwise. If you can provide them here, I will happily support his article. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Like most senior people (he's an emeritus professor) he's been writing books for a while, which makes him more not less distinguished. One of the books is published by OUP, another by Heinemann. That would generally be considered to make them respected. And then there are the 100 academic papers... and the chairmanships or directorships at three major universities... and the government consultancies. the article needs some expansion to discuss his role in the political debates. DGG (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment but the last book was published 16 years ago. and look at the publications tab of http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/researcher/person35647.html it counts papers from 2001, I don't know when he started at Uni of Melbourne but it appears he's only produced 6 papers. If you are trying to use academic publications criterion of WP:PROF, I don't think he satisfies it.
      • An academic work may be significant or well known if, for example, it is widely used as a textbook; if it is itself the subject of multiple, independent works; or if it is widely cited by other authors in the academic literature[1]. The person's collective body of work is significant and well-known. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Per DGG above. Lots more notable than hundreds of one hit wonder recording artists and marginally notable video games that Wikiedia affords a page to. Cewvero (talk) 14:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Significant research record, including a highly cited (221 hits per GoogleScholar[51]) book. GoogleBooks gives 347 hits[52]. The director of a research center at a significant university (Melbourne). Passes WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Current director of institute at a major university, emeritus professor at another university, former deputy vice-chancellor and pro vice-chancellor at two other universities. 5 books, several with top-quality publishers, with high citations (per Nsk92). Much consultancy work. Meets my understanding of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:28, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. Per above, but I'd also like to point out that the repeated assertion that his last book being published 16 years ago counts against his notability is simply silly. When was William Shakespeare's last book published? Or Geoffrey Chaucer's? Phil Bridger (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      difference is Jim Falk is alive and still working. It's unusual that an active expert has not published for 16 years. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:46, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax, vandalism. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Luka Sijakovic[edit]

      Luka Sijakovic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Article is fictional, this person was not drafted by the Miami Heat, and there is no information available on him. Numerous slanderous edits have been made suggesting vandalism. Cribbie13 (talk) 10:20, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - cannot find listing on nba.com, appears fictional. Tnxman307 (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3 - this article is a hoax. He was born in 1991 and drafted in 2005? He was drafted at 14 years of age? NBA draft eligibilty stipulates that a player must be at least 19 years of age at the end of the calendar year of the draft. If this person even exists and was born in 1991, he wouldn't be eligible for the NBA draft until 2010. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • G3 The NBA doesn't draft 14 year olds. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Sandstein (talk) 06:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Softball and Baseball Voted out of 2012 Olympics[edit]

      Softball and Baseball Voted out of 2012 Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Attempted merge but target merge (Olympic sports) did not want this orphan. Delete because no content salvageable. Rifleman 82 (talk) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I think we could probably do that by copying a sentence or two from olympic sports into each article. I'm not really sure there's much to merge here that isn't already present at those articles except for the fact that it's been removed). --Bfigura (talk) 05:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I've added the relevant information to the two articles --Bfigura (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as above, it's just a redundant essay. Redrocket (talk) 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete the content of this page is either redundant or needs to be merged, title would make a useless redirect. Hut 8.5 06:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as redundant essay. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The relevant Olympic-related content is already discussed in the appropriate Olympics articles. The remainder doesn't belong in any of them and would have to be merged somewhere else. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete essentially per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Sandstein (talk) 06:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Christian mission trip opportunities in America[edit]

      Christian mission trip opportunities in America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Totally inappropriate. The page's founding assumption is NPOV; it's an essay; it will never be encyclopedic jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep, although the article needs cleanup it is actually quite informative. Also, except in really bad cases, articles should be given more than 20 minutes (especially if the author is still working on it) before they are nominated for deletion. --Reinoutr (talk) 08:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. My point is that the article's very assumptions are problematic. In other words, it doesn't matter whether or not they're working on it. NB I can't remember the last time I took an article to AfD--a long, long time ago. So it's not that I do this all the time. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 08:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and rewrite - The article is valid, but WP is not a travel guide. Keep to the encyclopedic aspects and move the rest to Wikibooks. Too much of the current info will change over the years. --Triwbe (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Delete - I'd have to say that there is a little too much POV implied in the title. If it were to be renamed to something more appropriate and relevant (I don't have any suggestions), I'd be happier about its staying.--THobern 09:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by THobern (talk • contribs)
      • Merge with the recently-redirected mission trip. I personally feel that a "mission trip" is distinct from mission (Christian), which is generally a long-term or even permanent thing, and that local mission trips are as common as overseas ones, but I don't have the time to fix that article. This one, with the POV removed, could complement the content there. (There is also a Short-term missions article that I find dubious but in the same general topic area.) --Dhartung | Talk 12:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge/move to mission trip (which I agree is different from Mission (Christian)). This doesn't really have any content specific to the United States. Mangostar (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete It's yet another essay from this class which is using Wikipedia as their personal webspace and as their publisher. Not only that but it's an advert for the subject as well Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 13:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete since the very premise of the article is not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Not exactly an essay, more of a bulleted list of unencylopedic material that reads something like a brochure ("If someone wants to do a short-term mission trip for dental work, one is available."). Fixing this would require both a 100% rewite and a different title, meaning that a fixed version would basically be a whole new article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Wikipedia is not a how to guide. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Andrew Lenahan and WP:NOT#HOWTO. JohnCD (talk) 17:29, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as above, wikipedia is not a how-to guide. Redrocket (talk) 22:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Just Bleed Guy[edit]

      Just Bleed Guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Lacks notability and reliable sources THobern 08:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

      • Delete as a poorly written article on a non notable subject.--Berig (talk) 08:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - per nom. Article lacks reliable sources and subject apparently appears in one online video. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was merge and redirect to Death_(personification)#In_Abrahamic_Mythology. Fabrictramp (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Memitim[edit]

      Memitim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      There is no accessible evidence that memitim is a class of angels in any context. The word is simply translated. Admittedly I don't have access to the references, but suspect that they also just mention the term. If kept we need a better context than "biblical lore". Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 07:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Delete there are sources, but notability is not established, and the author seems to admit feeling clueless. This information certainly would also belong somewhere else where it's relevant. We are here because of a procedural de-PROD. Potatoswatter (talk) 17:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Aleta Sing 18:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The first reference is available through Google Books - the subject is covered on pages 22-24 here. The second reference is available via JSTOR here if you have a subscription or want to pay $14 (neither applies to me). I don't think anyone should be calling for deleting any article which is sourced to academic books and papers without checking the sources first. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The linked source "Olyan" does in fact hint to the existence of Memitim as a class of angels, with: "What is very likely a minor textual error has given rise to destroying angels called mĕmītǐm, ..." I found no hint as to the context in which Memitim is used as a group of angels. As to "call for deletion without checking sources", I agree in principle. In this particular case I still think my proposal is merited, though. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 12:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge and redirect to Death (personification)#In Abrahamic Mythology (i.e., copy the references, as most text is already there) - Nabla (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, defaulting to keep (non-admin closure). Interested editors are invited to discuss a possible merge at the relevant talkpages. Skomorokh 15:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Arme-Shubria[edit]

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

      Never heard of it, and Google books brings up 0 hits. The only web hits are Wikipedia mirrors and blogs like this: [ http://www.armenianaryans.com/AryanCommunity/archive/index.php5?t-71.html] Sumerophile (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Merge to main article if not a hoax. Otherwise delete Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep - Apparently not a hoax. My google search turned up some RSS, this: [53] and this: [54] ff.

      Note, they do not use it as a hyphenated term, but they do seem to state that some scholars do think both terms refer to the same entity. Better refs are in order. Regards, Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:09, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I have moved it to Shubria now, on the basis of what I just learned from the above RSS. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Er, my vote was "keep" not "merge"... could you clarify? Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      (late reply) I think it would be best merged by the exact same reasons you think it should be kept: it does look an OK subject. But at the current standing / size it would be better merged, IMO. But keep is fine too. - Nabla (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein (talk) 07:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by D.M.N. (non admin closure by Roleplayer (talk) 19:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]

      Birmingham Council election, 2008[edit]

      Birmingham Council election, 2008 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Not-notable local election. Could easily be deleted, or merged into United Kingdom local elections, 2008, however it definitely does not warrant a full page on it. D.M.N. (talk) 06:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC) I withdraw nomination. D.M.N. (talk) 17:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      As this is WP:NOTAVOTE, so could you explain you reasoning for why this fails the WP:N notability guideline or any other policy or guideline? Davewild (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep has multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Wikipedia is an almanac, and therefore does keep details of notable election, where the information is sourcable. Notability has been established - deletion would be a retrograde step on the road to building an encyclopedia. I agree, it "could easily be deleted", (as can any page) but why? A verifiable, neutral article on a notable subject that does not resort to original research does not seem like a worthy candidate for deletion. EJF (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • How is it a notable election. I can understand why the London one is, but why Birmingham? D.M.N. (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      For wikipedia notability comes from having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (quote from the notability guideline), it does not come from subjective judgements like it looks important so it is notable, or Who cares about this stuff anyway. Davewild (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Agree with Davewild. Indeed if we were to decide that only "important" elections that have significant coverage should have articles on Wikipedia, Birmingham Council election would have an article, as it is the second largest city in the United Kingdom - and the election is of great public interest. To come back to policy reasons, it is a notable election because it has been covered by multiple, reliable, independent sources. EJF (talk) 17:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I see sources have been added. However, when the final results are in, I hope a bit of prose is added to the article apart from the bland tables. To avoid a pile on of Keeps, I withdraw the nomination. An administrator may now close this AFD. D.M.N. (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete (including images) as WP:OR and non-notable fringe theory. Sandstein (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Quark Shell[edit]

      Quark Shell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      As far as I can tell, this page contains a theory that was kicked out the nuclear structure article for being too fringey. It sure looks sketchy to me, but I'm no expert. FCSundae (talk) 06:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • This reads like a copyvio... at the very least, it's an essay and not an encyclopedia entry. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. There is such a thing as a "quark shell model," but the papers date to the late 1970's, so I can't read them until I go to work on Monday. I see no evidence of copyvio. However, the self-made plots and they style of the text lead me to believe that this is probably original research. I'll get back to this when I can; somebody remind me if I still haven't done so by Monday night. -- SCZenz (talk) 21:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the Nuclear Structure Talk page, I outlined my case for deletion (this article used to be a sub-section in nuclear structure). Basically the article seems to be describing in excruciating detail a theory for which I have only found two peer reviewed sources (both by the same author). This theory is fringe, not mainstream, and since (as far as I can tell) the scientific community at large has not picked up on it, I would not call it notable (maybe even original research?). But more importantly, the writeup itself is very confusing. I'm not an expert in QCD, but I am a scientist... and I can't decipher what the article is trying to say. This makes it unsuitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. In short, unless it undergoes major revision (to cite sources for all of its claims; and to make it clear and cogent), it should be deleted. --Kebes (talk) 14:51, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete The theory was published in 2004 (not clear if this was peer-reviewed; it's a conference proceedings, rather than a regular journal issue, which means that inclusion is up to the conference organizer rather than up to an editorial board.), and has recieved zero citations since then. Fringe theory, not notable by a long shot. Bm gub (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Let me strengthen my claim from "fringe" to "completely crackpot". I read the papers listed on the talk page, and there's no physics in there at all. The author showed that if you put masses in crystal lattice, you can imagine writing a harmonic oscillator potential for each mass; he then points out that harmonic oscillators occur sometimes in quantum mechanics and declares (with no calculations, equations , or data) that this explains all of nuclear physics. Ugh. Bm gub (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete in its current form. If it were rewritten completely and the claims cited, there might still be problems, but it's hard even to think that far ahead. Many aspects of this exposition to look like original research. -- SCZenz (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Delete both. Malinaccier (talk) 20:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Nicole Boyce[edit]

      Nicole Boyce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
      Jeph Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Relationship does not confer notability, so as thus she is non-notable as per WP:BIO. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 06:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Luvdart[edit]

      Luvdart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      It seems that the creator of this article may be the owner of mywaves.com, though I cannot be sure. I am also sure that this is against WP:NEO. Oore (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Obvious hoax, Deleted per WP:SNOW. Nakon 01:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Narcberry[edit]

      Narcberry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Unsourced. Possible hoax written by an editor with the same name as article. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 05:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I am the user, and have added citations to the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcberry (talk • contribs) 05:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. The "source" is theflatearthsociety.org/forum. I can find no sources anywhere. OR, not verifiable, and, if not hoax, COI. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Unless we find out who this person really is so that we can decipher if s/he is notable. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 06:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete - Even if you can prove something is true it does not make it notable automatically. asenine t/c\r (fc: f2abr04) 06:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as a hoax.--Berig (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as non-notable. From supplied sources, this appears to be just some guy who runs (or posts to) an online forum which happens to have the same name as a notable society. --McGeddon (talk) 10:34, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete as non-notable. He is not quoted or mentioned outside of a single Internet forum. There is no verification of his claim to be the successor of the founder of The Flat Earth Society outside of that forum. There is not even a way to verify that he is a flesh-and-bone person.Avillarrealpouw (talk) 16:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep* I know for a fact that these claims are true. Thought his beliefs are outlandish, all these things are his true beliefs and can be seen at the flat earth societies current website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.24.72 (talk) 19:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Not notable, with the distinctive piscine aroma of a hoax.Ecoleetage (talk) 21:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Not a notable person. 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekky0623 (talk • contribs)
      • Strong Keep - The Flat Earth Society does have an official site. On the official Site, Narcberry IS referenced as their current leader. That is the only reference that should matter. As far as not being referenced outside of those forums is due to the newness of his position and unpopularity of his church. The church still has a significant historical role since modern geography is based on these ancient ideas, although newly casted. This church, and it's leader, have a historical impact on today's world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narcberry (talk • contribs) 01:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Artist does indeed fail WP:MUSIC. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Pat Kinsella[edit]

      Pat Kinsella (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable bio.I feel like a tourist (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      User generated games[edit]

      User generated games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      An essay, not an article, about what is essentially a neologistic concept. Prod removed by anon. JuJube (talk) 05:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete per nom as well as WP:SOAP. Even though references are there, they do not prove enough verifiability for the entire article. Anthony Rupert (talk) 05:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom.--Berig (talk) 08:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as an essay with a soapy sauce and a side of recentism. It collides at least three different concepts; games generated by construction kits, indie game development and websites specializing in purchasing the rights to those games (creating a market). Games generated by construction kits are not a modern concept, not limited to RPGs, and not the result of the internet's widespread adoption - see 3D Construction Kit and Shoot'Em-Up Construction Kit. The subject of indie games and their commercialization (is that a word? I'm using it anyway) in some arenas is a complicated subject which will need good sourcing and a lot of research in order to produce a stable and verifiable article, assuming it isn't covered within existing articles already. Someoneanother 14:34, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Granted, this is "a complicated subject which will need good sourcing and a lot of research" but I think I've started that. I don't see any reason to delete this and build a new one from scratch when we can build off this Flashinpon (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Because no clear subject has been identified, and until one is it will continue to be one mess after another. What are user-generated games? 'Users' of what? That's the foundation of the article and until you have a clear answer you can back up with reliable sources there's no basis for a sentence, let alone an entire article. That's what makes this an essay as opposed to an encyclopedia article. Take a look at articles like Independent video game development and consider what it is you're trying to cover, and whether or not it's already covered elsewhere in multiple articles, or could be. Someoneanother 14:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Fram (talk) 14:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Edda Scheer[edit]

      Edda Scheer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      A non-notable concentration camp guard. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. Much of the article is taken word-for-word from here, but seeing as how it's apparently another freely-edited encyclopedia, I'm not sure which article was created first. Anthony Rupert (talk) 05:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment DBpedia bills itself as "a structured query interface for Wikipedia", so it would seem that's our text, just formatted differently. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless something more notable emerges. --Dhartung | Talk 08:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, as non notable. There were tens of thousands of people like her, both in Nazi Germany and in the Stalinist Soviet Union.--Berig (talk) 08:56, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per all of the above. Also, de.wiki has nothing that even mentions her (leave alone have an article on her), and thats saying something. -- Fullstop (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. No known notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 21:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Delete. Malinaccier (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Mess with MSN Messenger[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Mess with MSN Messenger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This article was tagged for speedy deletion. Considering that there has been an AfD a couple years back which was closed as "no consensus", I found in unsuitable for speedy deletion. However, doing a little bit of research on the subject and looking over that AfD, I have decided to relist it. I feel that the closing admin's decision on the previous AfD was a poor one, The only closing "keeps" did not do anything to demonstrate notability but only referred to it as a "popular website." As it appears to me, the site fails WP:N and WP:WEB. Trusilver 04:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Comment-How does this article fail Notability? I'm leaning towards delete, I just need further clarification from nom. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ Drop me a line§ 04:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite a reasonably good number of ghits, there is a remarkable lack of independent sources. It is prominently mentioned quite frequently among message boards and blogs, but that alone does not fulfill notability requirements. I feel that a blurb on the MSN Messenger article might be in order, but that's all. Trusilver 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy deleted as A1 by Discospinster (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. --Dhartung | Talk 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      ADMSQ[edit]

      ADMSQ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      The only hit on Google is this article in somone's userspace...appears to be a hoax. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 04:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • G3 Reads like a hoax to me. So tagged. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 04:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I suspect this is a obfuscated joke about the difficulty Indian-American men have finding ethnically compatible wives, but I may be giving it too much credit. --Dhartung | Talk 04:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete and please use WP:PROD for articles where any defense is unlikely. By the way, Desi refers to Cubans. Potatoswatter (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Delete this obvious nonsense. "Though the index was originally specific to a certain subset of the global population, it has, in recent times, been expanded to measure movements in other populations, including male and female demographics, and additional species outside of homo sapein. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy delete. Vandalism hoax. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Terrence Fleming[edit]

      Terrence Fleming (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      No significant secondary coverage at all. Individual does not appear to be encyclopedically notable, at least not yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Spellcast (talk) 10:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      REC Networks[edit]

      REC Networks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable organization. The article was created by a COI and has remained unsourced for two years. I could only find several passing mentions of REC Networks in reliable sources. BlueAzure (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - per nom. Sources are either personal sites or generic radio website. Does not meet WP:N. Tnxman307 (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Lacks notability, & citations; searching comes up empty of primary reporting sources for noteworthy coverage. - Michael J Swassing (talk) 06:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete COI is a serious problem, and the references are thoroughly unimpressive. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 06:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Canley (talk) 18:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Petri Widsten[edit]

      Petri Widsten (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Overhyped student record, a few student awards, but no sign of passing WP:PROF or accumulating some other real notability. Was listed as a WP:CSD#A7 speedy deletion, and I agree with the spirit of that listing, but I thought it would be more appropriate to take it to a full AfD: there are some claims of notability in the article, I just don't find them convincing. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete No independent sources. Tosqueira (talk) 03:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. An active junior academic but no significant accomplishments yet. Only sigle-digit citations for his papers per GoogleScholar[55] and WoS. Fails WP:PROF and WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 03:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Doesn't give the PhD date, but presumably around 2004, and there's no evidence of extraordinary achievement which would merit including someone so early in their academic career. A Google Scholar search uncovered only a handful of citations.[56] The Mensa stuff doesn't seem relevant. Doesn't yet seem to meet WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as a vanity article. WP is not for posting CVs.--Berig (talk) 08:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete No significant notability. Web of Science shows 14 papers, none cited more than 6 times. The IQ test material would need a very good source to show the importance. DGG (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Wiki is not a proper place for CVs... --Nice poa (talk) 07:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my honest opinion, all articles created by Omni Scientia seem to be created only to promote "Sigma Society" (which is a source included in all articles created by this user). In Portuguese Wikipedia, Hindemburg Melão Jr. (who seems do be Omni Scientia) was deleted pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Hindemburg Melão Jr.. I believe it's a kind of a spam. Tosqueira (talk) 08:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete; closed early per WP:SNOW. Far inferior article compared with subprime mortgage crisis. Inappropriate tone, original research/essay, not salvageable. --Rifleman 82 (talk) 04:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics[edit]

      The Effects That The Recent Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis has had on the US and Global Economics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      WP:OR Essay. Failed prod - author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 02:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete as Original Research essay. Reads like a school assignment. --DAJF (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete although the topic is perhaps notable for a separate entry, this particular article is not encyclopedic. It may be easier to write one from a scratch. In the meanwhile, we should not keep it in the current form. Unless someone volunteers to wikize it, I'm for removal. Pundit|utter 02:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete It reads like a school assignment because it IS a school assignment [[57]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legotech (talk • contribs) 03:04, 2 May 2008
      • Delete For the most part, I've been against the systematic AfD-ing of many of these school assignment articles, but this is one that I feel actually deserved it. While the subject itself might be noteworthy, I think it would be best to just scrap this article and start over from scratch than try to redeem what's here. At the very least the article would need a new name. —MearsMan talk 03:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - After a sanity check provided by MearsMan, I think it's just a tad bit unlikely that someone is going to type this title into a search window. --Bfigura (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I would say that the title of this article is unlikely to be searched for, so I don't know how much good a redirect would actually do in this particular situation. —MearsMan talk 03:53, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nominator. Oore (talk) 03:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - essay. KTC (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. An essay which describes time-sensitive information in a fragile manner ("recent sub-prime mortgage crisis") and does so using a completely inappropriate tone ("Oh yea, by the way..."). Zetawoof(ζ) 04:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Not only is it a poorly written essay, but it's even worse encyclopedia article. While we have kept school assignments in the past, and that shouldn't be considered a reason to delete it, we shouldn't keep it because it is a school assignment. At the moment, is nothing more than massive OR and SYNTH. Celarnor Talk to me 04:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      List of cities by population[edit]

      List of cities by population (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      There seems to be absolutely no consensus on what "city proper" means. Because of this, and because it'd probably be much better to simply list the largest urban areas and metropolitan areas, which is much less controversial, I nominate this page for deletion unless some consensus on what "city proper" really means. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment I don't see the reason to put this up for deletion just because theres disputes over whats considered a "city". This article should be exist on Wikipedia is some form. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cities by surface area about a month ago. The obvious answer is that there are international agencies and NGOs that compile this data and use certain sanity checks to keep it all reasonably comparable. We should go by sources, not instinct, and as much as possible use comparable information from sanity-checked sources. --Dhartung | Talk 04:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy keep this is exactly the kind of info we need and i have to stretch my mind to accept good faith. I have looked up this info myself, and will want to again, and with so much crap this is simply a terrible nomination. If its being done for WP:POINT a block would be appropriate. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep City proper is defined by each government. The city is usually the area governed by the mayor, whoever he is and whatever he does. But it's always defined, and if it isn't, it doesn't go on the list. Perhaps more expansion could clarify the differences in meaning of "municipality" between list entries. Article contains disclaimer to same effect as nom. Potatoswatter (talk) 05:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep. That kind of minutae is no reason to delete an article. Especially when there's already information about the fairly minor issue proposed by the nominator in the articles. The nom is really stretching at straws here. Celarnor Talk to me 06:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment Potatoswatter, if that were the case then we'd have to include the whole municipalities of cities like Beijing, Shanghai, and the rest. The mayors of those cities administer HUGE swaths of the land. To pick and choose which boroughs are used and which aren't is arbitrary. On Chongqings page it even says that there is a dispute concerning the boundaries of the urban area. Also, World Gazetter estimates should only be used when no other official source exists, yet World Gazetter remains the primary source for populations, and no one seems to want to do any work to find anything different. --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • China has more top-down administration than other societies. Not to overgeneralize, but that might be a factor in the countryside being seen as the extended domain of the city. I'm not so familiar. It's an ancient and universal conflict. But whatever the disputes, every country has some authority to define city limits. And if there's an exception I'm missing (which is likely), just leave it off the list! See List of country subdivisions by population. It's a totally arbitrary and relative measurement, but that's OK. Countries are subdivided along cultural boundaries. Finer political borders are drawn around cities. A city is the most unified unit of governance, where in democratic countries independence is a simple referendum away. I concede that this list cannot be maintained to particularly good quality, but it's good enough. Moreover, with a little more work, it could uniquely provide insight into the way those various cities/municipalities have figured out how to govern themselves. Potatoswatter (talk) 07:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Move to List of municipalities by population, and redirect List of cities by pop. to World's largest cities, which does a good job of defining terms and disambiguates for people who may be searching for urban areas or metropolitan areas using that term. After all, it isn't universal to associate the term "city" with "municipality". - Aucitypops (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep as an interesting list.--Berig (talk) 09:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The issue with using municipalities, as traditionally defined, is that Tokyo and all the Chinese cities would be excluded. Then, one could also decide to include whole municipalities such as Shanghai, but doing so necessitates inclusion of the entirety of Chongqing, a single "municipality" covering over 82,000 sq km. These areas contain huge swaths of rural territory, however. For that reason, most demographers that tabulate lists of administrative cities use a specific grouping of districts to define the "city proper". The current list mostly conforms to such a definition. My take is, let's find a list by a reasonably reliable source and just use their definitions. One possibility is the list compiled by Statistics Finland (in the external links section of the article). --Polaron | Talk 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Question, can someone on the pages talk page please list the administrative cities that make up places like Shanghai, Beijing, and Chongqing? --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:23, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • keep but it does need updating. For example its missed out Los Angeles population 12,000,000 and Paris population 9,700,00 and Berlin population 3,300,00 and that's just of the top of my head. Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The Los Angeles and Paris figure are urban area populations (not administrative city propers). The Berlin figure is too small to make it on the current list (it probably will show up ranked as fifty-something). But this does point out that the name of the article needs changing per User:Aucitypops above. --Polaron | Talk 14:59, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep The term city is far more likely to be used in a search than either municpalities or urban areas. So long as the proper qualifications have been observed, which in this case they appear to have been the page is of more use to users which is what the whole thing is supposed to be all about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildfire london (talk • contribs) 15:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep Basic information that is essential in this field, regardless of the complexity of the surrounding debate. Luwilt (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. disagreement over definition isn't a valid reason to delete article. — goethean ॐ 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was speedy deleted per CSD G10. Yes, upon a closer look this is pretty clearly just a hoax and an attack page. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Ed Ukatchi-Nwata[edit]

      Ed Ukatchi-Nwata (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Per WP:ATHLETE. I could not find any secondary sources. Oore (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Nominator withdrew nomination, no delete votes, consensus is to keep. Non-admin closure Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 16:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Quirky subject[edit]

      Quirky subject (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Neither notable nor quirky as an article - also lacking references and sources Ecoleetage (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment from nominating editor - In view of new additions to the article, I respectfully request the withdrawal of this article from AfD consideration. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:27, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Hmmm....not sure yet about this one. I'm searching for sources presently and will try to see if it might be a candidate to be expanded. Maybe not... Lazulilasher (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep/merge. A Google search (see also books and scholar) indicates that this is notable and there should be no problem referencing it. I'mh not sure whether this article can be expanded or whether there is a suitable article on the topic it can be merged into. I might do some digging if I get a chance, or someone more versed in linguistics than myself might show up and help out. Blair - Speak to me 04:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ya, I've been digging around and it appears that the topic *does* exist and appears to be, well, notable. However, to be honest, these linguistics folks are much more intelligent than I and thus the literature is a bit over my head....I think a merge might be perfect....Lazulilasher (talk) 04:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. We should cover the other languages in which this is present to lesser degrees including Old Swedish, Old French, and modern Spanish. But definitely notable and worthy of article-length attention, especially because it is rare and unusual. --Dhartung | Talk 04:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I found some sources for the topic and tried to expand a bit. Honestly, the source material is technical, so the only bits added where the general info which I was able to comprehend. However, there is a plethora of info around regarding this, so hopefully someone more knowledgeable about linguistics than I will be able to help. Lazulilasher (talk) 04:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per above. Ghits clearly establish notability. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —Potatoswatter (talk) 05:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep what is notable or not may be a matter of taste, but I agree with those above who say that it's notable.--Berig (talk) 09:09, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, the references that have been added are certainly enough to convince me. —Angr 10:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, I dont see why we need an article on just subject-morphological case mismatching. This phenomenon is found in several languages with subjects and objects. For example, Japanese has double ga marking which looks like there are double subjects. Also, Korean has these things like objects marked as obliques or double object marking. I think that all of this can be discussed in a single article in the wider context of morphological case-grammatical function mismatching. Case marking often does not strictly mark grammatical function: it's influenced by semantics and/or pragmatics. Jóhanna Barðdal is one person who has looked at quite a bit: www.hf.uib.no/i/lili/SLF/ans/barddal. – ishwar  (speak) 12:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and expand and suggest early close. There might be a place where this could be merged to. Some actual Icelandic examples would help explain the phenomenon, and explain how these quirky subjects differ from the use of disjunctive case in French and more recent English. (Me, I think the article is fine.) - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment to Ihcoyc and Ish_ishwar I think that sounds like a great idea! I would love to see the article expanded, I added what I could, but the material is difficult for an initiate such as myself to understand...let me know if you need any help. Lazulilasher (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (non-admin closure), Clear reason to merge w/ Race to the bottom. Protonk (talk) 03:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Race to the top[edit]

      Race to the top (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Notability is not immediately obvious. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Withdrawn by nominator. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 03:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Rabbi Alexander S. Gross Hebrew Academy[edit]

      Rabbi Alexander S. Gross Hebrew Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable organization, presented in an article that reads like an advertisement Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment from nominating editor - In view of new additions to the article, I respectfully request the withdrawal of this article from AfD consideration. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —brewcrewer (yada, yada) 05:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep and clean-up. I agree that there are POV sections and peacock terms and that should be expunged but there do seem to be some sources on GoogleNews and GoogleBooks. I suggest stripping it down to a sourced start; failing that, could be merged to Miami Beach, Florida#Education. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:39, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This is the oldest Jewish school in Florida established in 1947. There is no better way to track and report the development and history of Jews and Judaism than by examining its core educational and religious institutions. Sure, the article started out poorly not written by a Wikipedian but that does not mean it must go, see WP:INSPECTOR. The article has now been updated and NPOVd with additional information and reliable sources added and cited. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I agree with the withdrawal of the nomination now that the necessary sources to meet WP:N have been added. TerriersFan (talk) 20:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malinaccier (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Harrison "Skip" Pope, Jr.[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Harrison "Skip" Pope, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Notability appears borderline, no third-party sources. Wizardman 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Queen Street (TTC)[edit]

      Queen Street (TTC) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable location in an article that lacks references and sources Ecoleetage (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete. This is the tip of an iceberg. If you look at the category links for Toronto LRTs there is some conflation (if not confusion). There are two subway lines, one of which has a Queen [Street] Station (since 1953). There is a LRT line out in the east end (Scarborough). The Spadina line is only a street car line on a dedicated right-of-way down the middle of the street. No speicial vehicles are used -- they are the same vehicles that run on half-a-dozen other streets (without dedicated rights-of-way). And there is certainly no "station" at Spadina and Queen, just little open shelters for lined up passengers (who pay their fair in the streetcar and not in an fixed "station"). ###### There are probably twenty or so street-car "stops" that should be deleted. And since a new dedicated right-of-way is now being built on St. Clair Ave (west), we would also be forced to add another 50 or so non-existent "stations"(i.e., street-car stops) to Wikipedia. ##### If we delete this, then I would volunteer to clean out the rest of the stops and leave the real stations.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: The TTC (Toronto Transit Commission) itself does NOT show any stations along the Spadina street-car line, only real subway/LRT stations on the real subway/LRT lines. We should not be raising street-corners to the status of "stations". Ron B. Thomson (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - WP:CONSENSUS has long since found that rail stations/stops such as this are notable wherever they may happen to be in the world, and this one being in the center of a major Toronto business/retail district is particularly notable. Many of these articles that the above user is advocating deleting have been in existence for years with zero interest/consensus in deleting them. The above user's comments of not liking light rail stations/stops in general and his intent to delete all of them is just that, an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. --Oakshade (talk) 17:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC) (striking the last comment as it seems this was unfair--Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC))[reply]
      • Comment - sadly, cosensus on railroad stop does not apply here. As strictly speaking. This is a STREETCAR Stop. (A guy form Toronto) SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • My comments (as a Torontonian) is that these are NOT stations in any common meaning of the word. They are street-car stops with no real ediface being built. It's not that I don't like it, it just that there is no substance to the article. One can describe the important sights around any interesection of any two streets, but that has nothing to do with the bus or tram service to that intersection. This is not logical. #### There are light-rail stations on the Scarborough LRT, and perhaps they need descriptions, but not these. Most of these could be fitted into a description of "Toronto China Town" and "Toronto Harbour Front". Coming at the content by means of a street-car stop is not the way to organize valuable information (that is my personal opinion). There are far more logical ways in which users would search for the information, and that is why we need to organize it that way. I stand by my comment that these and others need to be deleted so that we can concentrate on real stations.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to the article about the line. To me, this isn't about how there may be tons of similar articles. It's about whether there is something verifiable through reliable sources that can be said about this subject. In this case, I see nothing that can be said that isn't already in the article about the line. Erechtheus (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Every public transit project, whether it be stops, subway stations or lines, are verifiable as government records, budgets, etc. are required by law. --Oakshade (talk) 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Then they should be verified. Until they are, they're not very useful. Really, what of any use do we get out of this article that we wouldn't get from a redirect to the line? If there were records and budgets linked, the purpose for a separate article would be obvious. Erechtheus (talk) 00:07, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Like the other residents of Toronto, I don't consider that particular stop to be any more noteworthy than any of the thousands of others. Tourists do not stop to gaze in awe. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:44, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:11, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete a streetcar stop without any reliable sources. DoubleBlue (Talk) 18:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or redirect to 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) Streetcar lines are notable enough for Wikipedia, certainly. But individual stops along the line, absolutely not. Bearcat (talk) 19:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Street-car or other public transport "stops" can be placed anywhere, and are thus different in essence to "stations" which are always significant physical constructions. Therefore I agree that individual "stops" do not merit an article, and I'm happy to go along with the existing consensus that "stations" are inherently notable. -- MightyWarrior (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per MightyWarrior. GreenJoe 21:07, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment -Rail systems have a reasonable desgree of permanence due to the fixed infrastructure, whereas bus routes do not, even if they have a dedicated carriageway. Accordingly railway (and subway) stations are notable. Bus stops for road vehicles are not. I do not know enough of the system at issue here to say more. If retained "TTC" in title and "LRT" in text should be expanded. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Keep : WARNING Voting delete may create an evil precedent which I do not wish to see. This example would support the deletion of at least 56 articles from Category:OC Transpo. I wish to see those article remain here on Wikipedia. However, again, if this article is deleted, I fear it will create a nasty model which should never be utilized as a precendent. I will be watching the turnout of this debate and expect a comment on this issue. Furthermore, if this is not addressed I will assume that the OC Transpo Articles, which are similar, should also be nominated for deletion or that this entire process should be appealed. --CyclePat (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      OC Transpo has a dedicated bus road with permanent brick-and-mortar stations; this is completely different than a streetcar stop. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      And LRT isn't considered permenant with it's rails? Isn't a bus stop even less permenant than LRT and how do we evaluate this? Take for example Jean-d'arc station which only has a little shelter.[61] Though it's only a shelter I believe it serves most of the people from Orleans? Should that article be delete to? There is no real infrastructure, and if the city wanted to they could probably move the stop tomorow without any real technical problems. b.t.w.: Isn't there a subway station that hooks up to this route? --CyclePat (talk) 19:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The stop is just a stop; rail or no rail. You may have a point about Jeanne d'Arc but a station is being built there in 2009. DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      A subway stop at Queen and Spadina? No. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still Delete. We need to figure out what level of permanence and notability is involved in this type of transport. The Ottawa system (the O-Train) is truly a Light Rail Transit system with specially designed vehicles. The same is true for the Scarborough LRT system in Toronto. The 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) page clearly shows in the picture the standard street-car vehicles used in Toronto as well as the open shelters for passengers. While the introduction calls it an "LRT", the text very quickly agrees that they are just street cars.
      I would draw the line below true LRT systems but above street cars lines. While it would be reasonable to keep the 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront (TTC) page, the sub-pages on each stop are what need to be deleted. Again several names of these "stops" are the same as the names of genuine stations on the Yonge Street subway (College, Dundas, Queen, King) and this leads to confusion. (When the system extended its subway parallel to the Yonge street line, new names where found for stations where the line crossed these main streets (Queen's Park, St. Patrick, Osgoode, St. Andrew).) Equipment should be listed with the TTC = Toronto Transit Commission; special routes could be preserved; but street car stops (about 30 are involved) on those routes should be deleted. Ron B. Thomson (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Merge: (2nd comment) Sounds like a WP:CFORK problem to me and not a deletion issue. In fact if we go back to my question and compared OC Transpo vs LRT here is a link to a google map of Queen and Spadina and here is Jean d'Arc and HWY 174.? And to be honest, I'm from Ottawa and I've heard of Queen and Spadina... was it a murder? Traffic report from Global News? I don't remember but it's notable. Work it out with the other article on Merge if need be. --CyclePat (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Summary: We have some facts and some questions.
      * We have surface transit routes, on dedicated rights-of-way, which uses normal street cars/trams, and which take on and let off passengers at major cross-streets at which there are open-sided shelters.
      * This is distinct from Light Rail Transit systems both in terms of vehicles used and the lack of real “stations”.
      * Question: do we distinguish between types of lines (is there a hierarchy of types of lines), as between Light Rail Transit and street-car lines?
      * Question: do we distinguish between types of equipment?
      * Question: do we distinguish between types of stops – permanent stations, open-air stops, high traffic volume stops, stops with additional non-station infrastructures, famous (or infamous) stops?
      * Question: If non-station stops are to be featured, should they simply be included in the description of the line itself, with no separate page-per-stop? (Stops are merged into descriptions of special lines.)
      * Question: Does it really matter that there are 10 to 30 almost-empty pages for each line?
      * Question: How are we really going to decide on this??? Ron B. Thomson (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: Another street car stop on the same line has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/College Street (TTC). Here we go again.Ron B. Thomson (talk) 17:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge As I understand, there are no notable structures or pavilions. These are simply streetcar stops at or near city corners. They do not merit individual articles but can be listed in articles on the streetcar lines, if desired. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge The individual stops on the 510 Spadina and 509 Harbourfront and the 512 St. Clair streetcar routes should be merged with their respective lines. If the Pokémon test can be applied to non-human characters in the respective animé, then it can also be applied to transit stops as well. Using that test, the only pure LRT stop/station in Toronto that would merit an article is Queen's Quay-Ferry Docks (TTC), as well as individual stops on the Scarborough RT. Johnny Au (talk) 05:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete There's nothing notable about a streetcar stop - it's just a plexiglass shelter with a back wall and a roof to keep the rain off you. Even a photograph of one would be better placed in the 509/510 article. GTD Aquitaine (talk) 07:49, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was Speedy Delete under G11, Blatant Advertising. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Quarto physical Theater[edit]

      Quarto physical Theater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable theater, presented in an article that reads like an advertisement. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:42, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

      The result was delete. Wizardman 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Baldwin County Fire Department[edit]

      Baldwin County Fire Department (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable fire department in an article that reads like an advertisement Ecoleetage (talk) 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). Clear consensus asserts that the article is not "future history" as WP:CRYSTAL says, but verifiable, notable scholarly commentary backed up by many reliable sources. WilliamH (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Potential superpowers[edit]

      Potential superpowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Article is in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I strongly disagree. You are right about Wikipedia, it is "not a crystal ball," but the sad truth is, Wikipedia is filled with articles like this and are never thought of as against wikipedia's rules. If the information is backed up with references, I find no problem with having articles like this. And besides, WP:What Wikipedia is not clearly states: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." All the information on this article are of high and wide interest for all. And every scrap of information on here is referenced to proper and reliable contacts and references. I do agree that some speculation on Wikipedia is not kosher, but I am on the defensive that some speculation makes Wikipedia a very interesting and fun website to read and use. — NuclearVacuum 01:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Well it doesn't matter if there are other pages like this one, they are against the rules and should be dealt with accordingly. Also wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a "Fun site". This articles clearly falls into the category of "Future History", and it has no place in an encyclopedia. Further more wikipedia policy states that "While scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we cannot anticipate that evolution but must wait for it to happen." (See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball section 3). On that note, I would like to point out that in the article's introduction there is a sentence that says "The record of such predictions has not been perfect. For example in the 1980s some commentators thought Japan would become a superpower, due to its large GDP and high economic growth at the time.", which clearly shows that such predictions are not reliable and are speculation and speculation is against the rules as they are not facts and encyclopedias present facts. Daniel Chiswick (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep. #3 in WP:CRYSTAL states: "Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and future history are original research and therefore inappropriate. (empphasis added). This "future history" isn't original research. The article is clearly referenced with multiple (410 to be exact) reliable sources that cover this issue. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. As the extensive referencing demonstrates, a lot of people have speculated on the subject, which means it is notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word. As a (more or less) concise summary of those speculations, it's encyclopedic. No violation of WP:CRYSTAL is involved, since the article is about the speculations. —Quasirandom (talk) 04:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. When a president, pope, or leader is to be replaced; we usually include cited speculation of who is likely to be the replacement. When Kosovo was about to declare independence, we included cited speculation of the fact that it was likely to happen and when. If Wikipedia had been around before Y2K, we would have had cited speculation about what was going to happen. All of these articles have potential for being wrong in the short or long term yet expert opinions make them reliable enough for foresight no matter how wrong they may be in hindsight. Are we going to stop writing about where forming hurricanes might hit because it is likely to be wrong? 128.227.69.238 (talk) 05:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - I agree with Brewcrewer's reading of WP:CRYSTAL. This isn't speculation as such, nor extrapolation, but a discussion of views from reliable sources about the topic. The speculation or extrapolation may be in the sources being discussed, but this is perfectly reasonable, and it is fair enough for the article to cover what those sources say. - Bilby (talk) 05:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep While we can't anticipate evolution of scientific and cultural norms, we can talk about notable anticipations of them. Maxamegalon2000 05:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong keep. I fear that the nominator misunderstands CRYSTAL as "Things not in the past or present are not to be on Wikipedia." This is not an article about some band's album that may or may not happen, or some movie that may or may not happen. This is scholarly, notable prediction, and should be included as such. Celarnor Talk to me 06:38, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per above.--Berig (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Superpower which will place this material in its proper context - as a projection of recent history. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:13, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong Keep as per Celarnor Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep; while we shouldn't contain original speculation, we can and do include the reported speculations of important people. I was hoping for an article on how to acquire super strength and speed, myself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:17, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - The people who've been continually trying to delete this, first from the main article, now from its own article, have been rather hostile, rude and unconvincing in their arguments. It's well sourced, and although speculation, the prospect of "future superpowers" is well publicized. I do however think we need to keep strict control on the information we include, and make sure we avoid sourced original research such as "Brazil might be a superpower because this person says their economy is growing this fast" etc.. Krawndawg (talk) 20:47, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. This satisfy "Not a crystal ball" policy because information is highly notable and verifiable. Do not merge with the currently existing Superpowers.Biophys (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Verifiable how? Waiting around in case the predictions turn out to be accurate?Zebulin (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete (for now). Spellcast (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      BBMMO[edit]

      BBMMO (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Uncommon and barely used term, not even used by the purported examples. No reliable third-party sources support its existence, only occasional use in forums. AnmaFinotera (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Jailhouse rock[edit]

      Jailhouse rock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Delete. Lone source comes from a tripod website message board (WP:NOBJ). A martial arts style that may or may not have originated in jail?? Delete and turn the page into a disambig page. Endless Dan 12:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment. I'd like some expert input on this. The article seems to reference far more than a single web site, and lists a variety of published sources. These may have been added after the nomination, I don't know. The references seem to refer more to the concept of 52 Blocks, which may be a better title for this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Very Weak Keep: Even weeding out references to the eponymous song, there are a lot of hits out there; I wouldn't call it a hoax, my personal observations about street fighting being a hell of a lot less about movie-driven forms and style than about beating the other guy down with a baseball bat. As it stands, though, the article is a mess, chockfull of speculation, original research and weasel wording.  RGTraynor  15:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. If this article is kept, it needs to be renamed Jailhouse rock (fighting style) or something like that, and "Jailhouse rock" itself become a dab page. There is no way this can be considered the primary use of the term, not when it's overwhelmingly associated with the movie and song. If deleted, the definitely make it a dab page. 23skidoo (talk) 18:07, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Agreed that if it's kept it should be renamed and then "Jailhouse" should be made into a dab. But I disagree about making a dab if it's deleted. There will only be two "Jailhouse" entries. A redirect and a hatnote will suffice. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:45, 2 May 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) 01:06, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • If kept rename because this is obviously not the primary topic, and should be a dab page. 70.51.9.170 (talk) 06:18, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such 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 consensus, and per excellent reasoning provided by User:Ihcoyc. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Cato Research[edit]

      Cato Research (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Tagged for speedy deletion as a non-notable company (CSD A7), but it seems at least plausible that it might in fact satisfy the notability guidelines for corporations. It sure does get quite a few Google hits, if nothing else. Nominating the obtain further opinions. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:00, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. I'd really like to see some Wikipedians familiar with the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry comment here, but I'm not sure where to best reach them. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. The comparison with Quintiles on the talk page is rather generous -- Quintiles has a huge international profile, Cato not one I'd noticed. That said, there are many companies in the CRO category that I've never heard of, and which seem likely to be smaller than Cato. This is obviously started by someone within the company so I think the onus is on them to prove that they are worthy of inclusion by giving concrete details, rather than PR speak, and adding independent sources. I have dropped the creator a line with a link to the relevant notability guidelines to give them the chance to improve it. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete: non consumer consultancy businesses need to show independent references and make a fairly strong case for notability at the start. This page itself seems to argue instead that it is notable because of its allegedly unique or innovative business model: This page is significant because Cato Research was the first CRO to establish a venture arm which exchanges development services for equity in early stage pharmaceutical companies ... Aside from the stylistic flaw of arguing notability in the article's text, this does not meet the criteria of independent, third-party notice that constitute the basic criterion for notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was delete. Wizardman 02:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Verda Dierzen Early Learning Center[edit]

      Verda Dierzen Early Learning Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Kindergarten schools not notable under WP:SCHOOL. Should be speedied? Camillus 00:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete. Fabrictramp (talk) 23:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Mark The Shark Show[edit]

      Mark The Shark Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      No references and not likely to be because the subject isn't notable enough for an independent source to write about. Article also lacks context, although that could be addressed. dramatic (talk) 00:10, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, no need for this page really the ZM article did mention what the show featured but it was taken off so I have now put it back. All there really needs to be on the ZM article is that the show features a Top 20 countdown and a request show thats it. If anyone wants more info on the show they can go to the ZM website. Bhowden (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:15, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


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

      The result was delete. Wizardman 18:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Istvan Koi[edit]

      Istvan Koi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      A poorly sourced footballer, amy be playnig in unknown lower league level. The creater of the article may be a pro-Hungarian one, to create all article for the region now with in Ukriane. Matthew_hk tc 00:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I also nominated:
      Matthew_hk tc 00:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete According to the Mukachivskyi Raion article, the club's hometown (Serne) has a population of 1,979. I don't see any mention of the club in the Ukrainian football league pyramid, so it must be amateur. I doubt the club is notable, and any player who only played at this level is certainly not notable. Jogurney (talk) 02:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment please hold off deleting Zoltán Baksa until we have a confirmation that the NB II is not fully professional. Jogurney (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's not likely, I reckon. But what about Tar who played for Karpaty Lviv? Punkmorten (talk) 07:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • I couldn't find a source for Tar playing at Karpaty. If he did, I think he's notable. Jogurney (talk) 13:24, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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: formal rules for disambig pages are now satisfied after user:Laudak's addition. `'Míkka>t 16:19, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      Jewish question (disambiguation)[edit]

      Jewish question (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      The user clearly fails to understand the purpose of disambiguation pages. There is nothing to disambiguate (besides a single article title) `'Míkka>t 00:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep an unconventional disam page, but the items listed have in fact all been widely referred to by this name. DGG (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since I'm in a bit of a snarky mood, I will come close to violating WP:CIVIL by stating that this nominater apparently fails to understand how to nominate a page for deletion. See:Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Jewish question (disambiguation). --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I will come even closes to violating WP:CIVIL and ask what's your grievance, colleague? In the page you mention I was pointed out that it is not "miscellany", because it is in the Wikipedia:article namespace. I double-checked the policy, and renominated the page here. So please stick to immediate business in question. `'Míkka>t 01:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A link to that page should have been provided for an easier determination of concensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • delete. Fails rules set in the wikipedia:Disambiguation page. Only two items from this list may be reasonably called "jewish question". Such cases are handled with the help of "{{for}}" tag. Mukadderat (talk) 01:28, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep. The page is all cleaned up, and there's four entries that it may refer to.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete without question per Mukadderat. Two legitimate items do not a dab page make. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep; current revision includes more than two items as likely search terms. No need to confuse users. Celarnor Talk to me 06:41, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Two items are false. Someone ignorant keeps restoring them confusing people not familiar with the topic. `'Míkka>t 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep for a very simple reason: There are three articles, Jewish question, The Jewish Question (essay) and On The Jewish Question that use the phrase "Jewish Question" in the heading so that having a disambiguation page for them is legitimate. I cleaned up the page and removed redirects. IZAK (talk) 10:01, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep Very important page Ijanderson977 (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not what disambig pages are for the information exists elsewhere. `'Míkka>t 15:46, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep I noticed this page already yesterday and my initial intention was to vote to delete it, because only two items are really disambiguated. But Then I remembered that I have seen other books named "the Jewish Question". Today I found one and added to the disambig page, so not is completely satisfies rules of WP:DAB, which was the major objection of the nominator. While keeping, I would urge participants not to play with the established rules and format of disambiguation pages. Laudak (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_May_2&oldid=1116722263"